Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 47 references

The Roper Resonance $N^*(1440)$ in Nucleon-Nucleon Collisions and the Issue of Dibaryons

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that the resonance-like bump in isoscalar single-pion production at 2310 MeV is a N*(1440)N dibaryon, reconciling the Roper's 1370 MeV effective mass with its canonical 1440 MeV.

desk verdict Re-presentation of an existing claim: the N*(1440)N dibaryon signature depends on unquantified background subtractions, so the case is plausible but not yet convincing. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01937 v1 pith:MSVSYKC6 submitted 2025-07-02 hep-ex nucl-exnucl-th

Heinz Clement This is my paper
classification hep-exnucl-exnucl-th
keywords RoperresonanceN*(1440)Ndibaryonisoscalarpionproductionnucleon-nucleoncollisionstotalcrosssectionpartial-waveanalysisBreit-Wignerfit
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 sets out to resolve a long-standing puzzle: the Roper resonance $N^*(1440)$ appears with different mass and width in nucleon-nucleon collisions than in pion- and photon-induced reactions. It argues that in $NN$ collisions the Roper does not show up as a free resonance. Instead, the isoscalar single-pion production data contain a resonance-like bump at $\sqrt{s} = 2310$ MeV, and the isoscalar $N\pi$ invariant-mass distribution peaks at 1370 MeV with width 150 MeV. Adding a nucleon mass to 1370 MeV reproduces 2310 MeV, which the paper interprets as the formation of a $N^*(1440)N$ dibaryonic system. A sympathetic reader would care because this interpretation removes the discrepancy between $NN$ and $\pi N/\gamma N$ results and adds a new dibaryon degree of freedom to the $NN$ interaction.

What carries the argument

The central object is the $N^*(1440)N$ dibaryonic system, a near-threshold state formed by a Roper resonance and a nucleon. The argument is carried by isospin decomposition: the relation $\sigma_{pn\to NN\pi(I=0)} = 3(\sigma_{pn\to pp\pi^-} - \frac{1}{2}\sigma_{pp\to pp\pi^0})$ eliminates the dominant $\Delta$ excitation, which is purely isovector, and isolates the isoscalar channel. In that channel a Breit-Wigner fit yields a bump at $m = 2310$ MeV, $\Gamma = 150$ MeV, while the isoscalar $N\pi$ invariant-mass distribution gives the Roper at 1370 MeV, $\Gamma = 150$ MeV. The arithmetic coincidence that 1370 MeV + nucleon mass $\approx 2310$ MeV is the key identity that turns the two bumps into evidence for a dibaryon. The paper also uses the partial-wave content (${}^3S_1-{}^3D_1$ and ${}^1P_1$ waves) to assign $I(J^P) = 0(1^+)$ and $0(1^-)$ to the two nearly degenerate isoscalar states.

What would settle it

A dedicated measurement of the energy dependence of the $pp \to pp\pi^0$ total cross section at the same $\sqrt{s}$ values, used to re-derive the isoscalar cross section with a different background model, could confirm or eliminate the 2310 MeV bump; if the bump vanishes, the dibaryon interpretation is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that the resonance-like structure seen in the isoscalar single-pion production total cross section of nucleon-nucleon collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 2310$ MeV ($\Gamma = 150$ MeV) is the signature of an $N^*(1440)N$ dibaryonic system, not a conventional Roper excitation. In the isoscalar $N\pi$ invariant-mass spectrum the Roper appears at $m = 1370$ MeV with $\Gamma = 150$ MeV, essentially at its pole position; adding one nucleon mass yields precisely the 2310 MeV bump. The paper concludes that the Roper resonance merges into a $N^*(1440)N$ configuration, with the Roper bound by about 70 MeV in the dibaryon, and that its reduced width follows from the momentum dependence of its p-wave decay. This resolves the puzzling discrepancy between the Roper parameters obtained from $NN$ collisions and those from $\pi N$ and $\gamma N$ analyses.

Load-bearing premise

The argument hinges on the accuracy of the background curve that is subtracted from the measured $pn \to pp\pi^-$ cross section; if that curve is mis-shaped or mis-scaled, the 2310 MeV bump could just be an artifact of the subtraction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, partial-wave analyses of $NN$ scattering must include $N^*(1440)N$ dibaryonic states to describe the $S$- and $P$-waves up to the GeV range.
  • The long-standing mismatch between the Roper parameters from $NN$ collisions (1370 MeV, 150 MeV) and from $\pi N/\gamma N$ analyses disappears, because the $NN$ values refer to the Roper inside the dibaryon, not to a free resonance.
  • The two isoscalar $N^*N$ states have very small elastic branchings (0.04 and 0.15), so they are nearly invisible in elastic $NN$ scattering; they must be studied through inelastic channels such as single-pion production.
  • In isoscalar two-pion production via $pn \to d\pi^0\pi^0$, an excess over the $d^*(2380)$ description near $\sqrt{s} \approx 2.3$ GeV is attributed to the $N^*N$ system, with a total isoscalar contribution of roughly 150 $\mu$b.
  • The dibaryon $NN$-interaction model that uses $N^*N$ and other dibaryons as $s$-channel exchanges can reproduce phase shifts up to the GeV range, showing that these states are crucial for the short-range $NN$ interaction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the Roper is really bound in a $N^*N$ state at threshold, then any calculation that treats the Roper as a free resonance in nuclear matter — for example in neutrino-nucleus scattering — may need to include the dibaryon modification.
  • Beyond the paper: the near-degeneracy of the $0(1^+)$ and $0(1^-)$ states mirrors the $\Delta N$ multiplet and suggests that the $N^*N$ interaction might be described by the same one-boson-exchange phenomenology, which could be tested in a coupled-channel analysis.
  • Beyond the paper: a direct search for the elastic branch of these dibaryons, though tiny, might be possible through polarization observables in $np$ scattering, where even a small pole signal can be amplified in spin correlations.
  • Beyond the paper: the fact that the isoscalar $N\pi$ mass spectrum shows the Roper practically background-free could make this channel a clean place to extract the Roper pole position, worth confirming with higher statistics.
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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript argues that the Roper resonance N*(1440) can be observed cleanly in nucleon-nucleon collisions, appearing as a 1370 MeV, 150 MeV-wide structure in the isoscalar Npi invariant mass distribution and as a bump at sqrt(s)=2310 MeV in the isoscalar single-pion production cross section. Using the isospin relation in Eq. (1), the author subtracts the isovector background and identifies the residual with N*(1440)N dibaryonic systems with quantum numbers 0(1+), 0(1-), and possibly 1(0+). The same systems are invoked to explain a two-pion signal in pn -> d pi0 pi0 after subtracting the d*(2380) contribution, and the resulting small elastic branchings are connected to the dibaryon-based NN interaction model of Kukulin, Platonova et al. The central conclusion is that the Roper resonance merges into an N*(1440)N configuration in NN collisions, resolving the apparent discrepancy between NN and piN/gammaN results.

Significance. If established, the claim would be significant: it would provide direct evidence for dibaryonic degrees of freedom involving the Roper resonance, connect the NN and piN/gammaN pictures of the Roper, and strengthen the case for dibaryon-mediated NN interactions. The paper builds on exclusive, kinematically complete WASA-at-COSY data, uses a standard isospin decomposition rather than a model-dependent partial-wave analysis, and confronts the extracted cross sections with previous data and partial-wave analyses. These are genuine strengths. However, the central identification rests on a small residual after subtracting an assumed background, and the manuscript does not quantify the uncertainties of that subtraction or of the fitted resonance parameters. The hypothesis is interesting and plausible, but the evidence as presented is not yet conclusive.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 2, Eq. (1) and Fig. 1] The isoscalar cross section is defined by Eq. (1), but the 'dash-dotted curve' representing the isovector background is a fit to pp -> pp pi0 data divided by 2; no uncertainties are quoted for this background curve, for the fitted Breit-Wigner parameters m=2310 MeV and Gamma=150 MeV, or for the residual bump. Since the central claim rests entirely on the residual after subtracting this curve, the manuscript should provide a chi-square per degree of freedom, parameter uncertainties, and tests of alternative smooth background shapes (including polynomial and threshold/cusp forms) to demonstrate that the 2310 MeV bump is not an artifact of the subtraction.
  2. [Sec. 2, Fig. 3] The isoscalar Npi invariant-mass distribution is presented as a 'pronounced bump above practically no background,' but no statistical significance is given and the Breit-Wigner parameters m=1370 MeV and Gamma=150 MeV are quoted without errors. The subsequent arithmetic 1370 MeV + 940 MeV = 2310 MeV is a consistency check on fitted numbers rather than an independent prediction; a quantitative significance for the bump and a description of how the phase-space background was subtracted are needed.
  3. [Sec. 3, Fig. 4] The two-pion evidence for the N*(1440)N system is obtained by subtracting the d*(2380) resonance curve from the pn -> d pi0 pi0 data; the text itself states that the high-energy side of the residual is 'highly dependent on the d*(2380) description,' and the low-energy excess is equally sensitive to the tail of the same curve. Without an uncertainty band for the d*(2380) curve or a test with alternative descriptions, the bell-shaped residual around sqrt(s) ≈ 2.3 GeV cannot be claimed as an independent confirmation of the N*(1440)N interpretation.
  4. [Sec. 2, Fig. 2] The labels '(renorm)' applied to several data sets in Fig. 2 are not explained anywhere in the text; if the data were renormalized to a common normalization or to the WASA results, the renormalization factors and their uncertainties must be documented because they directly affect the energy dependence of the extracted isoscalar cross section and therefore the fitted bump parameters.
  5. [Sec. 4, Branching Ratios] The elastic branchings of 0.04 and 0.15 are quoted from a 25%/75% decomposition of the peak cross section and unitarity, but neither the decomposition nor the unitarity calculation includes uncertainties; because the input peak cross section, widths, and partial-wave decomposition are themselves unquantified, the branchings and the conclusion that these states reside predominantly in the inelastic channels inherit those unquantified errors.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2, after Fig. 3] The word 'dibayonic' in the sentence 'Hence we see just the width of the Roper resonance in the dibayonic system' should be 'dibaryonic.'
  2. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption of Fig. 4 contains residual histogram text ('h41', 'h412', and repeated '/0/0/0' strings) that appears to be an artifact of a plotting routine and should be removed.
  3. [General and references] There are several typographical errors, including 'i .e.' in the description of Fig. 1, 'refrences' in Ref. [15], and 'refernces' in Ref. [21]; these should be corrected.
  4. [Sec. 2, near-threshold discussion] The comparison with tetra- and pentaquark near-threshold states is confusing because the cited argument concerns stable decay products, whereas the Roper is broad; the reasoning that the dibaryon therefore shows just the Roper width should be spelled out more explicitly, and the term 'effective Roper mass' used in the threshold discussion should be defined operationally.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The claimed N*(1440)N dibaryon mass is a consistency check between two Breit-Wigner fits to the same background-subtracted WASA data, and the 'crucial' phase-shift influence is supported by a self-cited model that already assumes the dibaryon.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 'Isoscalar Single-Pion Production in NN Collisions', paragraph after Fig. 3: 'Adding the mass of a nucleon...']
    "Adding the mass of a nucleon to the Roper mass extracted from Fig. 3, then we end up with 2310 MeV, which is just the mass of the bump structure seen in the isoscalar total cross section."

    The 2310 MeV bump mass is not an independent prediction; it is a Breit-Wigner fit parameter to the residual after subtracting the dash-dotted isovector background (itself a fit to pp->pp pi0 divided by two) from the pn->pp pi- total cross section (Fig. 1). The 1370 MeV Roper mass is likewise a Breit-Wigner fit to the isoscalar N pi invariant-mass distribution constructed from the same WASA reactions (Fig. 3). The equality 2310 = 940 + 1370 is therefore an arithmetic relation between two fit parameters of the same dataset. The paper then interprets this coincidence as 'formation of an N*(1440)N dibaryonic system,' so the dibaryon mass is defined in terms of the fitted Roper mass, making the claimed prediction a restatement of the fits rather than an independent derivation.

  2. self citation load bearing [Section 'Influence of the N*(1440)N Dibaryonic Systems on the NN Interaction', paragraph citing Ref. [43]]
    "Nevertheless, as demonstrated in Ref. [43] the influence of N ∗(1440)N resonances on the phase shifts turns out to be crucial over the full energy range – in particular for the S waves (Fig. 6), where the overlap of the two nucleons is at maximum."

    Ref. [43] (Kukulin, Rubtsova, Platonova, Pomerantsev, Clement, Skorodko, Eur. Phys. J. A 56, 229 (2020)) is by the present author and collaborators. It is the dibaryon NN interaction model in which, as the paper states, 'the intermediate and short range part of the NN interaction ... is described by s-channel exchange of intermediate dibaryons.' The N*(1440)N resonances are put into that model as an ansatz, not derived from it. Citing that model to conclude that these resonances are 'crucial' for NN phase shifts is therefore a self-citation that presupposes the existence of the very dibaryonic states the present paper claims to have observed experimentally.

full rationale

The paper's raw experimental input is external (WASA-at-COSY measurements), and the isospin decomposition of Eq. (1) is a standard relation, so the observation of a residual enhancement in the isoscalar single-pion cross section is not in itself circular. However, the central claim that this enhancement constitutes an N*(1440)N dibaryon rests on a mass arithmetic that links two Breit-Wigner fits performed on the same background-subtracted data: the 2310 MeV bump and the 1370 MeV Roper bump. The equality 2310 = 940 + 1370 is presented as evidence for a dibaryonic system, but it is a consistency check between fitted parameters, not a prediction from a first-principles model. The paper also acknowledges the two-pion channel evidence is 'highly dependent on the d*(2380) description,' further weakening an independent confirmation. The 'importance' of the N*(1440)N dibaryon for NN phase shifts is then supported by Ref. [43], a self-cited model that already assumes such dibaryons as s-channel exchanges, making that support load-bearing and self-referential. Taken together, the derivation chain reduces the dibaryon claim to fits of the same data plus a self-cited model assumption, justifying a partial-circularity score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on several Breit-Wigner parameters fitted to the same WASA data, on prior work by the same author and collaborators, and on the assumption that the bumps are resonances rather than threshold effects.

free parameters (7)
  • isoscalar total cross section Breit-Wigner mass = 2310 MeV
    Fit to the difference between pn→ppπ− data and the isovector background curve in Fig. 1/2; no uncertainty quoted.
  • isoscalar total cross section Breit-Wigner width = 150 MeV
    Same fit as above.
  • M_Nπ(I=0) Breit-Wigner mass = 1370 MeV
    Fit to the isoscalar Nπ invariant mass distribution in Fig. 3.
  • M_Nπ(I=0) Breit-Wigner width = 150 MeV
    Same fit as above.
  • elastic branchings of N*N states = 0.04 and 0.15
    Inferred 'by using unitarity' from the PWA peak cross sections of Ref. [23]; no detailed derivation in this paper.
  • N*N → NNπ and NNππ branchings = 0.8 and 0.2 roughly
    Same source; rough values.
  • d*(2380) resonance curve parameters = from Ref. [31]
    Used to subtract the dominant d*(2380) contribution in pn→dπ0π0; the residual bump at 2.3 GeV depends on this subtraction.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Isospin relation σ_pn→NNπ(I=0) = 3(σ_pn→ppπ− − 1/2 σ_pp→ppπ0)
    Eq. (1) assumes exact isospin symmetry and that the measured total cross sections give the isoscalar piece via this linear combination; inelastic channels and Coulomb effects are neglected.
  • ad hoc to paper The isovector background in pn→ppπ− is represented by a smooth curve fitted to pp→ppπ0 data divided by 2
    The dash-dotted curve in Fig. 1 is a fit; its shape determines whether a resonance-like residual exists.
  • domain assumption The bump in M_Nπ(I=0) at 1370 MeV is the Roper resonance
    The paper identifies the invariant mass bump with N*(1440) without a full partial-wave analysis; the mass is consistent with the PDG pole, but this consistency is used to claim threshold binding.
  • ad hoc to paper The 2310 MeV bump is a dibaryonic resonance rather than a kinematic threshold cusp
    No explicit test against a cusp/phase-space threshold explanation is provided.
  • domain assumption The Kukulin-Platonova dibaryon NN model correctly describes NN phase shifts
    Used to argue N*N dibaryons are crucial for S and P waves; this model is prior work by the same group.
invented entities (1)
  • N*(1440)N dibaryonic systems (I(J^P)=0(1+), 0(1−), 1(0+))
    purpose: Explain the bump at sqrt(s)=2310 MeV in isoscalar single-pion production, the Nπ invariant mass bump at 1370 MeV, and the low-energy excess in pn→dπ0π0.
    The states are inferred from the same bumps they are meant to explain, plus a prior model fit to NN phase shifts; no independent production mechanism or decay signature is predicted for external confirmation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Roper Resonance $N^*(1440)$ in Nucleon-Nucleon Collisions and the Issue of Dibaryons." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MSVSYKC6

@misc{pith2026250701937,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Roper Resonance $N^*(1440)$ in Nucleon-Nucleon Collisions and the Issue of Dibaryons},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MSVSYKC6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01937}
}
abstract

In many reactions leading to excitations of the nucleon the Roper resonance $N^*(1440)$ can be sensed only by complex partial-wave analyses. In nucleon-nucleon collisions the isoscalar single-pion production as well as specific two-pion production channels present the Roper excitation free of competing resonance processes at a mass of 1370 MeV and a width of 150 MeV. A detailed analysis points to the formation of $N^*(1440)N$ dibaryonic systems during the nucleon-nucleon collision process similar to what is known from the $\Delta(1232)N$ threshold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01937 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Energy dependence of the total cross section for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The pn-induced isoscalar single-pion production total cross section in de￾pendence of the total c.m. energy √ s. Shown are the results from WASA-at-COSY [12, 13] and Refs. [16, 17, 21, 22] as well as the results of the partial-wave analy￾ses of Ref. [23] (open crosses surrounded by a hatched band, which indicates the uncertainties). The solid line represents a Breit-Wigner with m = 2310 MeV and Γ = 150 MeV. The dash… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The isoscalar Nπ invariant mass distribution MNπ(I = 0) as obtained from the WASA measurements of the pp → ppπ0 and pn → ppπ− reactions. The yellow area represents a pure phase space distribution, the solid line a t-channel calculation for the Roper excitation with m = 1370 MeV and Γ = 150 MeV. From Ref. [12]. Adding the mass of a nucleon to the Roper mass extracted from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The energy dependence of the total cross section of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The energy dependence of the total cross section of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Phase shifts δ for the coupled NN partial waves 3S1 (a) and 3D1 (b) as well as the mixing angle ϵ. The solid dots display the single-energy solutions of the SAID partial-wave analyses [46], the solid curves show the results of the dibaryon NN interaction and the dash-d…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    L. D. Roper, Phys. Rev. Lett. 12, 340 (1964)

    work page 1964

  2. [2]

    Navas et al

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

    2024

  3. [3]

    R. A. Arndt, J. M. Ford, and L. D. Roper, Phys. Rev. D 32, 1085 (1985)

    work page 1985

  4. [4]

    R. E. Cutkosky and S. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 42, 235 (1990)

    work page 1990

  5. [5]

    R. A. Arndt, W. J. Briscoe, I. I. Strakovsky and R. L. Workman, Phys. Rev. C 74, 045205 (2006)

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    D¨ oringet al., Nucl

    M. D¨ oringet al., Nucl. Phys. A 829, 170 (2009)

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    Suzuki, B

    N. Suzuki, B. Julia-Diaz, H. Kamano, T.-S. H. Lee, A. Matsuyama and T. Sato, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 042302 (2010)

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    H. P. Morsch et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 1336 (1992)

    work page 1992

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    H. P. Morsch and P. Zupranski, Phys. Rev. C 61, 024002 (1999)

    1999

  2. [10]

    Hirenzaki, P

    S. Hirenzaki, P. Fernandez, de Cordoba and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. C 53, 277 (1996)

    1996

  3. [11]

    H. P. Morsch and P. Zupranski, Phys. Rev. C 71, 065203 (2005)

    2005

  4. [12]

    Adlarson et al., Phys

    P. Adlarson et al., Phys. Lett.B 774, 599 (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    Adlarson et al., Phys

    P. Adlarson et al., Phys. Lett.B 806, 135555 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    Clement, T

    H. Clement, T. Skorodko and E. Doroshkevich, Phys. Rev. C 106, 065204 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    Bystricki et al., J

    J. Bystricki et al., J. Phys. 48, 1901 (1987) and refrences therein

    1987

  8. [16]

    Tsuboyama, N

    T. Tsuboyama, N. Katayama, F. Sai and S. S. Yamamoto, Nucl. Phys. A 486, 669 (1988). 12

    1988

  9. [17]

    L. G. Dakhno et al., Phys. Lett. B 114, 409 (1982)

    1982

  10. [18]

    D. C. Brunt, M. J. Clayton and B. A. Westwood, Phys. Rev. 187, 1856 (1969)

    1969

  11. [19]

    Thomas et al., Phys

    W. Thomas et al., Phys. Rev. D 24, 1736 (1981)

    1981

  12. [20]

    Abdivaliev et al., unpublished

    A. Abdivaliev et al., unpublished

  13. [21]

    Rappenecker et al., Nucl

    G. Rappenecker et al., Nucl. Phys. A 590, 763 (1995) and refernces therein

    1995

  14. [22]

    V. V. Sarantsev et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 21, 303 (2004)

    2004

  15. [23]

    V. V. Sarantsev et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 43, 11 (2010)

    2010

  16. [24]

    I. I. Strakovsky, Sov. J. Part. Nucl. 22, 296 (1991)

    1991

  17. [25]

    Ch. H. Oh,R. A. Arndt, I. I. Strakovsky and R. L. Workman, Phys. Rev. C 56, 635 (1997) and refernces therein

    1997

  18. [26]

    Komarov et al., Phys

    V. Komarov et al., Phys. Rev. C 93, 065206 (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    Clement, Prog

    H. Clement, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 93, 195 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    Clement and T

    H. Clement and T. Skorodko, Chin. Phys. C 45, 022001 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    Adlarson et al., Phys

    P. Adlarson et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 242302 (2011)

    2011

  22. [30]

    Adlarson et al., Phys

    P. Adlarson et al., Phys. Lett. B 721, 229 (2013)

    2013

  23. [31]

    Bashkanov, H

    M. Bashkanov, H. Clement and T. Skorodko, Nucl. Phys. A 958, 129 (2017)

    2017

  24. [32]

    Ikeno, R

    N. Ikeno, R. Molina and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. C 104, 14614 (2021) and Chin. Phys. C 47, 041001 (2023)

    2021

  25. [33]

    Bashkanov and H

    M. Bashkanov and H. Clement, Nucl. Phys. A 1037, 122698 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Bashkanov, H

    M. Bashkanov, H. Clement and T. Skorodko, Eur. Phys. J. A 51, 87 (2015)

    2015

  27. [35]

    Skorodko et al., Eur

    T. Skorodko et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 35, 317 (2008)

    2008

  28. [36]

    Particle Data Group, J. Phys. G 33, 1 (2006)

    2006

  29. [37]

    Skorodko et al., Phys

    T. Skorodko et al., Phys. Lett. B 679, 30 (2009)

    2009

  30. [38]

    Johanson et al., Nucl

    J. Johanson et al., Nucl. Phys. A 712, 75 (2002)

    2002

  31. [39]

    Adlarson et al., Phys

    P. Adlarson et al., Phys. Lett. B 706, 256 (2012)

    2012

  32. [40]

    Shimizu et al., Nucl

    F. Shimizu et al., Nucl. Phys. A 386, 571 (1982)

    1982

  33. [41]

    Alvarez-Ruso, E

    L. Alvarez-Ruso, E. Oset, E. Hernandez, Nucl. Phys. A 633, 519 (1998) and priv. comm

    1998

  34. [42]

    V. I. Kukulin, V. N. Pomerantsev, O. A. Rubtsova, M. N. Platonova and I. T. Obukhovsky, Chin. Phys. C 46, 114106 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    V. I. Kukulin, O. A. Rubtsova, M. N. Platonova, V. N. Pomerantsev, H. Clement and T. Skorodko, Eur. Phys. J. A 56, 229 (2020)

    2020

  36. [44]

    V. I. Kukulin, I. T. Obukhovsky, V. N. Pomerantsev and A. Faessler, J. Phys. G 27, 1851 (2001)

    2001

  37. [45]

    V. I. Kukulin, I. T. Obukhovsky, V. N. Pomerantsev and A. Faessler, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 11, 1 (2002)

    2002

  38. [46]

    R. L. Workman, W. J. Briscoe and I. I. Strakovsky, Phys. Rev. C 94, 065203 (2016); all SAID PW A solutions can be accessed via the website: http://gwdac.phys.gwu.edu

    2016

  39. [47]

    Adlarson et al., Phys

    P. Adlarson et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 112,202301 (2014); Phys. Rev. C 90, 035204 (2014); ibid 102, 015204 (2020)

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.