Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Signatures of Odd-Parity $s$-wave $\Xi^*$ States in Femtoscopic Correlation Functions

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 This paper claims that two odd-parity Ξ* states—one near 1950 MeV and one near 2000 MeV—are dynamically generated as vector–baryon molecules, and that their femtoscopic correlation functions carry a characteristic near-threshold signature.

desk verdict The femtoscopic predictions are new and worth testing, but the spectroscopic identification of the two poles is weaker than the abstract suggests. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.10505 v1 pith:6UBSNVRE submitted 2025-07-14 hep-ph hep-exnucl-th

Jia-Xin Lin , Pablo Encarnación , Miguel Albaladejo , Albert Feijoo This is my paper
classification hep-phhep-exnucl-th
keywords Xi*resonancesvector-baryonmoleculeshiddengaugeformalismfemtoscopiccorrelationfunctionscoupled-channelunitarizationS=-2hyperonshadronfemtoscopydynamicallygeneratedpoles
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 paper tries to establish that two known but poorly understood doubly strange baryons, the Ξ(1950) and the Ξ(2120), are not ordinary three-quark states but molecules of a vector meson and a ground-state baryon, generated dynamically by their coupled-channel interaction. The argument is that a single cutoff parameter, fixed by the measured Ξ(1950) mass, produces two poles with spin-parity $J^P = 1/2^-$ and $3/2^-$ in the seven-channel $S=-2$, $Q=-1$ system, and that the same amplitudes predict how these states should appear in femtoscopic correlation functions. A sympathetic reader would care because femtoscopic measurements of vector–baryon pairs are becoming possible, and the predicted shapes give a testable, quantitative signature for a molecular interpretation of these states.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a coupled-channel unitarized amplitude from the hidden gauge formalism: a Weinberg–Tomozawa-type contact kernel (Eq. (2)) with channel coefficients $C_{ij}$; the Bethe–Salpeter equation $T = [1-VG]^{-1}V$; and a hybrid loop function (Eqs. (5)–(6)) that uses a cutoff at threshold and a dimensional-regularization difference away from threshold, so that the whole model has one parameter, Λ. The finite widths of K* and ρ are folded into the loop through spectral functions, and the correlation function (Eq. (13)) convolves the T-matrix with a Gaussian source through a modified loop $\tilde{G}_i(r,s)$, weighted by production weights for high-multiplicity events. The pole search uses the second Riemann sheet, with pole positions read from the real-axis amplitude once widths are included.

What would settle it

Measure the $K^{*-}\Lambda$ and $\bar{K}^{*0}\Sigma^-$ femtoscopic correlation functions in high-multiplicity collisions: the model predicts values below 1 at small relative momentum that climb back to 1, so a measured flat or peaked correlation function in either channel would falsify the predicted poles. A direct search for a narrow $S=-2$ resonance near 2000 MeV would also settle whether pole 2 is the Ξ(2120) or a previously unseen state.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the $S=-2$, $Q=-1$ vector–baryon interaction derived from the hidden gauge formalism and unitarized through a hybrid cutoff-plus-dimensional-regularization loop generates two narrow, odd-parity resonances: pole 1 sits at the Ξ(1950) mass and couples mainly to ρΞ, while pole 2 sits near 2000 MeV and couples mainly to K*Σ. The two are degenerate in $J^P = (1/2^-, 3/2^-)$, and the paper identifies pole 2 with the Ξ(2120) by elimination, since no other known state in the region can carry the required quantum numbers. Because the cutoff is the only free parameter and is fixed by pole 1, the femtoscopic correlation functions computed from Eqs. (13)–(14) are definite predictions: all six low-lying channels start below unity at zero relative momentum, the $\bar{K}^{*0}\Sigma^-$ and $K^{*-}\Lambda$ channels feel attraction from the nearby poles while the others appear repulsive, and the φΞ⁻ channel is too far above threshold to carry a signal. The paper argues that measuring these correlation functions would test the molecular scenario directly and distinguish it from alternative three-quark descriptions.

Load-bearing premise

The paper identifies the second generated state with the known Ξ(2120) even though the model places it near 2000 MeV, so everything rests on accepting that roughly 120 MeV discrepancy and assuming no undiscovered doubly strange baryon sits in between.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Six $Q=-1$ vector–baryon correlation functions ($K^{*-}\Lambda$, $K^{*-}\Sigma^0$, $\rho^-\Xi^0$, $\bar{K}^{*0}\Sigma^-$, $\rho^0\Xi^-$, $\omega\Xi^-$) are predicted to start below 1 at zero relative momentum and climb toward 1 as the source size grows, with especially pronounced near-threshold attraction in the $K^{*-}\Lambda$ and $\bar{K}^{*0}\Sigma^-$ channels.
  • The two generated poles are spin-parity degenerate, $J^P = 1/2^-$ and $3/2^-$; with vector-meson widths included their widths are about 7–9 MeV (pole 1) and 1–2 MeV (pole 2), so a measurement could resolve two narrow states rather than one broad bump.
  • Because the only free parameter, the cutoff Λ, is fixed by the Ξ(1950) mass, the correlation functions are parameter-free predictions of the model once that identification is accepted.
  • The predicted scattering lengths (for example $a_{K^{*-}\Lambda} \simeq 0.6$–$0.9$ fm) serve as benchmarks that femtoscopic data can check directly.
  • The φΞ⁻ correlation function is not a useful probe because its threshold lies too far above the poles; the signal lives in the six lower channels.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the predicted suppression patterns are measured, that would support the molecular hidden-gauge picture for Ξ(1950) and independently pin the second pole's mass near 2000 MeV, which would put pressure on the paper's Ξ(2120) assignment.
  • The same production-weight method and hybrid loop could be extended to the $Q=0$ sector, where Coulomb corrections would be needed and where the neutral partners of these states could be probed.
  • The narrow width predicted for pole 2 (about 1–2 MeV) suggests that high-statistics invariant-mass searches, not only femtoscopy, could look for a narrow Ξ* near 2000 MeV in the $\bar{K}^{*0}\Sigma^-$ channel.
  • Femtoscopic correlation functions can constrain the low-energy constants of the effective theory, so if these predictions are measured they could complement the $K^-\Lambda$ analysis already used for that purpose in the $S=-2$ sector.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the S = -2, Q = -1 vector-baryon system within the local hidden gauge formalism, unitarized through the Bethe-Salpeter equation with a hybrid loop function that uses a cutoff at threshold and dimensional regularization in the rest of the energy plane. The only free parameter, the cutoff Lambda, is tuned so that the real part of the lowest pole matches the PDG Xi(1950) mass; this yields two spin-degenerate (J^P = 1/2-, 3/2-) poles, which the authors identify with Xi(1950) and Xi(2120). The bulk of the paper computes femtoscopic correlation functions for the seven VB channels (K*-Lambda, K*-Sigma0, rho-Xi0, K*0Sigma-, rho0Xi-, omega Xi-, phi Xi-) for source sizes R = 1-1.5 fm, using production weights from the VLC method and Thermal-FIST. All shown CFs exhibit near-threshold suppression; K*-Lambda and K*0Sigma- are driven by nearby poles, and the phi Xi- CF is omitted because of its high threshold. The authors provide scattering lengths, effective ranges, couplings, and pole evolutions as benchmarks for future measurements.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper's main value is a set of falsifiable, essentially parameter-free femtoscopic predictions: once Lambda is fixed by the Xi(1950) mass, the CF shapes, scattering lengths, and effective ranges are outputs. The suppression patterns in Figs. 2-3 and the scattering parameters in Table V are concrete observables that ALICE-type measurements could test in the near term. The spectroscopy itself largely reproduces the two-pole structure already found by Oset and Ramos (Ref. [37]) with a different regulator, so the genuinely new content is the hybrid regularization and the CF computation with realistic production weights. The paper is transparent about its main caveats, including the by-elimination assignment of the second pole and the possibility of as-yet-unobserved states; this honesty is a strength. These strengths are offset by the circularity of the pole-1 mass match, the unaddressed width discrepancy for pole 1, and the incomplete uncertainty treatment of the CF predictions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, Table III; Conclusions] The identification of the second pole with the Xi(2120) is an elimination argument, not an output of the calculation. With the central cutoff (Lambda = 775 MeV, vector widths included), pole 2 sits at 2000.91 MeV (Table III), about 120 MeV below the PDG Xi(2120) mass, and varying Lambda over the range that keeps pole 1 within the PDG Xi(1950) mass uncertainty moves pole 2 only between 1985.97 and 2016.44 MeV (Table III). The same holds without vector widths, where pole 2 ranges from 1979.00 to 2009.34 MeV. No value of the single fitted parameter places pole 2 near 2120 MeV while preserving the pole-1 match. The body of the paper does hedge this point ('the only reasonable assignment of a physical state to the second generated Xi* pole is Xi(2120)', followed by the caveat that unknown states may exist and that the authors 'will often refer to this second pole as Xi(2120)' while keeping the caveats in mind). However, the Abstract and the Conclusions state unconditionally that 'the Xi(1950) and Xi(2120) states with J^P = 1/2- and 3/2- are dynamically generated.' Because this identification is load-bearing for the spectroscopic claim, the manuscript should either soften the abstract/conclusion wording so that the second pole is presented as a prediction near 2000 MeV whose experimental counterpart is currently unidentified, or provide an explicit quantitative justification for tolerating a ~120 MeV discrepancy for a one-star state.
  2. [Section III, Table III (widths case)] The width of pole 1 is a genuine prediction that is left unexamined. Because the mass of pole 1 is tuned to the PDG Xi(1950) mass by choosing Lambda, the mass agreement is circular and carries no independent evidential weight; the first non-circular property of pole 1 is its width. With the vector-meson widths included, Table III gives pole 1 = 1949.79 - i7.06 MeV, i.e., Gamma ~ 14.1 MeV, to be compared with the PDG value Gamma = 60 +/- 20 MeV. The text reports the generated width ('with widths of about 15 MeV and 2 MeV') but never comments on the ~46 MeV (about 2 sigma) discrepancy. Since the abstract claims the generated states are 'compatible with' the resonances listed in the Review of Particle Physics, this discrepancy should be discussed explicitly, including the possible role of decay channels outside the seven VB channels considered; without such discussion, the pole-1 identification is only a mass-matching exercise.
  3. [Section II.B, Eq. (13); Figs. 2 and 3] The 68% CL bands in Figs. 2 and 3 propagate only the production-weight uncertainties, which the text itself describes as negligible because the elastic channel's weight has no uncertainty. The dominant model uncertainty, the regularization cutoff Lambda, is varied over an 80 MeV range in Table III to span the PDG Xi(1950) mass uncertainty, but this variation is not propagated into any of the CF curves. Since the CF shapes are the paper's central falsifiable signatures, the bands as shown are not a 68% confidence interval of the prediction. The authors should either show the Lambda sensitivity explicitly (for example, as band boundaries or as overlaid curves for the Lambda = 733, 775, and 813 MeV cases) or state clearly in the captions and text that the bands exclude the model's parameter uncertainty.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III (after Table V)] The scattering-length interpretation is confusing: the text says the attractive effective interaction in the K*-Lambda and K*0Sigma- channels 'manifests in a positive scattering length' but then adds that the positive scattering lengths of the other channels are 'related to the repulsive character of the effective interaction.' The same sign of the scattering length is thus used to support both attraction and repulsion; please state the convention underlying Eq. (21) of Ref. [99] and clarify the sense in which the other channels are repulsive.
  2. [Section II.B, Eq. (13)] The step function theta(Lambda - p_i) in Eq. (13) is introduced without explanation; a sentence, or a reference to the derivation in Ref. [99], justifying this cutoff on the relative momentum is needed, especially since the same symbol Lambda is used for the regularization cutoff in Eq. (6).
  3. [Section III, first paragraph] There is a duplicated article in 'the available spectroscopic data in the the sector of S = -2'; please fix this typo.
  4. [Section IV (Conclusions)] The Conclusions state that CFs for all seven channels 'have been calculated', but the phi Xi- CF is not shown anywhere, and Section III explains that it was omitted because the threshold lies far above the poles; the wording should be adjusted to avoid the impression that all seven CFs are presented.
  5. [Table I] As typeset, Table I does not appear to be a complete symmetric 7 x 7 matrix: several rows contain fewer than seven entries, for example the K*-Sigma0 row, which shows only six entries. Please ensure the final typeset renders all entries so that the matrix manifestly satisfies C_ij = C_ji.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Pole-1 identification with Ξ(1950) is a fitted input: Λ is tuned to reproduce the PDG mass, so that part of the "dynamically generated" claim restates the fit; pole 2 and the CFs remain genuine outputs.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III (Results), Table III and text around Eq. (6)]
    "Given the current understanding of dynamically generated states from the HGS-based vector–baryon interaction [16, 37] ... our strategy consists of matching the real part of the lowest generated pole, extracted from the scattering amplitudes, to the experimental mass of the Ξ(1950) state (M = 1950±15 MeV) reported in the PDG compilation [1]. ... To accommodate this state in our amplitudes, we vary the cutoff value Λ of Eq. (6) appropriately. ... As expected from group theory, for each Λ value, we find the Ξ(1950) state (pole 1) and a second one, Ξ∗ (pole 2), around 2000 MeV."

    The only free parameter of the unitarized scheme, Λ in the hybrid loop function Eq. (6), is varied precisely until the real part of pole 1 equals the PDG Ξ(1950) mass. Table III selects Λ = 755/795/830 MeV (no widths) to give pole 1 at 1965.56/1950.05/1935.85 MeV, and Λ = 733/775/813 MeV (with widths) to give 1965.24/1949.79/1935.41 MeV, i.e. the central value and the ±15 MeV edges of the PDG mass. Therefore the sentence "we find the Ξ(1950) state (pole 1)" is not an independent dynamical prediction of the Ξ(1950) mass; it reports the imposed fit condition.

full rationale

One genuine circular step exists, localized to the pole-1 identification. In Section III the authors state that their strategy is to match the real part of the lowest generated pole to the PDG Ξ(1950) mass, and that they vary Λ to do so; Table III then lists Λ values chosen to place pole 1 at the central value and the ±15 MeV edges of that mass. Consequently, identifying pole 1 as Ξ(1950) is a restatement of the fitting condition rather than an independent prediction, matching the fitted_input_called_prediction pattern. This does not infect the remainder of the paper: the second pole at about 2000 MeV is not fitted to any known state, the couplings (Table IV) and scattering lengths (Table V) are outputs, and the CFs (Figs. 2-3) are computed from the unitarized amplitudes using production weights from Ref. [92] and assumed source sizes, not fitted to femtoscopic data in this sector. The pole-2 assignment to Ξ(2120) is an external elimination argument rather than a circular reduction; the paper itself acknowledges that "the currently limited knowledge of Ξ* spectroscopy may be obscuring potential assignments to other, as yet unobserved, states," so this is a robustness/correctness risk, not a circularity. The self-citations present (Refs. [92,93,99,108]) are methodological—production weights, scattering-length expressions, and loop-evaluation prescriptions—and are not load-bearing derivations of the central spectroscopy. Overall, partial circularity confined to the pole-1 identification warrants a score of 5.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

One free parameter controls the spectroscopic output: the cutoff Lambda, fitted to the Xi(1950) mass. The axioms are the standard HGS/BSE framework plus the specific hybrid regularization and the femtoscopic modeling assumptions. No new entities are introduced; the poles are mapped to existing PDG resonances.

free parameters (1)
  • Regularization cutoff Lambda = 775 MeV with vector widths, 795 MeV without; 733/755 and 813/830 MeV for PDG mass uncertainty edges
    Tuned in Sec. III so pole 1 reproduces the PDG mass of Xi(1950); not predicted by the model.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Vector meson exchanges in the t-channel reduce to contact Weinberg-Tomozawa interactions for |t| much smaller than M_V^2, with D-waves neglected.
    Used to derive Eq. (2) and restrict to s-wave; standard in HGS UChPT but is an approximation.
  • standard math The on-shell factorization of the Bethe-Salpeter equation gives T = (1 - V G)^-1 V.
    Standard unitarization; used in Eq. (3).
  • ad hoc to paper The hybrid loop function G_j(s) in Eq. (5) matches cutoff at threshold and dimensional regularization elsewhere, controlled by Lambda.
    This specific regularization is introduced here following Refs [101,102]; its cutoff becomes the fitted parameter.
  • domain assumption Finite K* and rho widths are included by convoluting loop functions over spectral functions with energy-dependent widths.
    Eqs. (8)-(10); needed to obtain finite pole widths, but it smears thresholds and complicates the pole definition.
  • standard math SU(3) decomposition (8+1)x8 = ... gives exactly two attractive octet channels with eigenvalue 3, so only two bound states are expected.
    Used in Sec. III to justify two states; group-theoretic, from Ref [37].
  • domain assumption Femtoscopic source is a Gaussian with radius R, and production weights come from Thermal-FIST and CBW models.
    Eqs. (12)-(13) and Table II; determines the CF magnitudes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Signatures of Odd-Parity $s$-wave $\Xi^*$ States in Femtoscopic Correlation Functions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6UBSNVRE

@misc{pith2026250710505,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Signatures of Odd-Parity $s$-wave $\Xi^*$ States in Femtoscopic Correlation Functions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6UBSNVRE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.10505}
}
abstract

We investigate the $\Xi^*$ resonances within the molecular picture, where these states are dynamically generated as poles in the unitarized scattering amplitudes arising from the coupled-channel interactions of $K^{*-} \Lambda$, $K^{*-} \Sigma^0$, $\rho^- \Xi^0$, $\overline{K}{}^{*0} \Sigma^-$, $\rho^0 \Xi^-$, $\omega \Xi^-$, and $\phi \Xi^-$. The interaction kernel is derived from the local hidden gauge formalism, while the unitarization procedure employs a hybrid method that combines cutoff and dimensional regularizations in the evaluation of the loop function. From a detailed spectroscopic analysis, we identify two $S = -2$ baryon states whose properties are compatible with some of the $\Xi^*$ resonances listed in the Review of Particle Physics. To explore their possible experimental signatures, we compute the femtoscopic correlation functions for all the vector-baryon pairs considered in the present study, using realistic estimates of production weights and varying source sizes $R = 1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.5$ fm.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.10505 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Evolution with the parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. shows the CFs for the case in which the widths of the 𝐾 ∗ and 𝜌 mesons are not considered, whereas in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in 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

  1. Signatures of the $\Omega(2012)^{-}$ state in $\Xi^*\bar K$ Correlation Functions

    hep-ph 2026-03 accept novelty 6.5 of 10

    Ω(2012) is dynamically generated as a Ξ*K–Ωη molecule; its pole produces pronounced near-threshold structures in the Ξ*0K− correlation function that can be measured at the LHC.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

112 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [37]

    Nagahiro, L

    H. Nagahiro, L. Roca, A. Hosaka, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev . D 79, 014015 (2009), arXiv:0809.0943 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2009

  2. [1]

    Navas et al

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

    2024

  3. [2]

    1 𝑚2−𝑚2 𝑗+𝑖𝑚𝑗Γ𝑗(𝑚) # ×𝐺𝑗 𝑠,𝑚 2,𝑀 2 𝑗 , (8) with the normalization factor 𝑁𝑗: 𝑁𝑗 = ∫ (𝑚𝑗+2Γ𝑗) 2 (𝑚𝑗−2Γ𝑗) 2 𝑑𝑚2 Im

    and(2, 3 2). We neglect the contribu- tion of𝐷-waves as a low-energy approximation. In the same way , the projection of interaction kernel arising from the 𝑡- channel diagram is obtained in the non-relativistic approxi- mation. Furthermore, we consider|𝑡|≪ 𝑀2 𝑉 in the𝑡–channel exchange diagrams, so that the amplitudes effectively reduce to contact interac...

    1950

  4. [3]

    Badier et al., Phys

    J. Badier et al., Phys. Lett. 16, 171 (1965)

    1965

  5. [4]

    S. F . Biagi et al., Z. Phys. C 9, 305 (1981)

    1981

  6. [5]

    S. F . Biagi et al., Z. Phys. C 34, 15 (1987)

    1987

  7. [6]

    M. I. Adamovich et al. (WA89), Eur. Phys. J. C 11, 271 (1999), arXiv:hep-ex/9907021

    arXiv 1999

  8. [7]

    J. B. Gay et al. (Amsterdam-CERN-Nijmegen-Oxford), Phys. Lett. B 62, 477 (1976)

    1976

Show all 112 references
  1. [8]

    A. P . Vorobev et al. (French-Soviet, CERN-Soviet), Nucl. Phys. B 158, 253 (1979)

    1979

  2. [9]

    R. J. Hemingway et al. (Amsterdam-CERN-Nijmegen-Oxford), Phys. Lett. B 68, 197 (1977)

    1977

  3. [10]

    Crede and J

    V . Crede and J. Yelton, Rept. Prog. Phys. 87, 106301 (2024)

    2024

  4. [11]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Sci. Bull.66, 1278 (2021), arXiv:2012.10380 [hep-ex]

    2021

  5. [12]

    Sumihama et al

    M. Sumihama et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev . Lett.122, 072501 (2019), arXiv:1810.06181 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (Belle), Phys. Lett. B 524, 33 (2002), arXiv:hep- ex/0111032

    2002

  7. [14]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev . D 109, 072008 (2024), arXiv:2308.15206 [hep-ex]

    2024

  8. [15]

    Ramos, E

    A. Ramos, E. Oset, and C. Bennhold, Phys. Rev . Lett. 89, 252001 (2002), arXiv:nucl-th/0204044

    2002 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Garcia-Recio, M

    C. Garcia-Recio, M. F . M. Lutz, and J. Nieves, Phys. Lett. B 582, 49 (2004), arXiv:nucl-th/0305100

    2004 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Gamermann, C

    D. Gamermann, C. Garcia-Recio, J. Nieves, and L. L. Salcedo, Phys. Rev . D84, 056017 (2011), arXiv:1104.2737 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Sekihara, PTEP 2015, 091D01 (2015), arXiv:1505.02849 [hep- ph]

    T. Sekihara, PTEP 2015, 091D01 (2015), arXiv:1505.02849 [hep- ph]

    2015 arXiv

  12. [19]

    K. P . Khemchandani, A. Martínez Torres, A. Hosaka, H. Na- gahiro, F . S. Navarra, and M. Nielsen, Phys. Rev . D 97, 034005 (2018), arXiv:1608.07086 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Nishibuchi and T

    T. Nishibuchi and T. Hyodo, Phys. Rev . C 109, 015203 (2024), arXiv:2305.10753 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Feijoo, V

    A. Feijoo, V . Valcarce Cadenas, and V . K. Magas, Phys. Lett. B 841, 137927 (2023), [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 853, 138660 (2024)], 10 arXiv:2303.01323 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Sarkar, E

    S. Sarkar, E. Oset, and M. J. Vicente Vacas, Nucl. Phys. A 750, 294 (2005), [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.A 780, 90–90 (2006)], arXiv:nucl-th/0407025

    2005 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Oset and A

    E. Oset and A. Ramos, Nucl. Phys. A 635, 99 (1998), arXiv:nucl- th/9711022

    1998

  17. [24]

    J. A. Oller and U. G. Meissner, Phys. Lett. B 500, 263 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0011146

    2001 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Garcia-Recio, J

    C. Garcia-Recio, J. Nieves, E. Ruiz Arriola, and M. J. Vicente Va- cas, Phys. Rev . D67, 076009 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0210311

    2003 arXiv

  19. [26]

    D. Jido, J. A. Oller, E. Oset, A. Ramos, and U. G. Meissner, Nucl. Phys. A 725, 181 (2003), arXiv:nucl-th/0303062

    2003 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Albaladejo, P

    M. Albaladejo, P . Fernandez-Soler, F .-K. Guo, and J. Nieves, Phys. Lett. B 767, 465 (2017), arXiv:1610.06727 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  21. [28]

    M.-L. Du, M. Albaladejo, P . Fernández-Soler, F .-K. Guo, C. Han- hart, U.-G. Meißner, J. Nieves, and D.-L. Yao, Phys. Rev . D 98, 094018 (2018), arXiv:1712.07957 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  22. [29]

    L. Roca, E. Oset, and J. Singh, Phys. Rev . D 72, 014002 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0503273

    2005 arXiv

  23. [30]

    L. S. Geng, E. Oset, L. Roca, and J. A. Oller, Phys. Rev . D 75, 014017 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0610217

    2007 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Garcia-Recio, L

    C. Garcia-Recio, L. S. Geng, J. Nieves, and L. L. Salcedo, Phys. Rev . D83, 016007 (2011), arXiv:1005.0956 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Meißner, Symmetry 12, 981 (2020), arXiv:2005.06909 [hep-ph]

    U.-G. Meißner, Symmetry 12, 981 (2020), arXiv:2005.06909 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Xie, J.-X

    J.-M. Xie, J.-X. Lu, L.-S. Geng, and B.-S. Zou, Phys. Rev . D 108, L111502 (2023), arXiv:2307.11631 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Ji, X.-K

    T. Ji, X.-K. Dong, and U.-G. Meißner, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 408 (2024), arXiv:2401.14188 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Bando, T

    M. Bando, T. Kugo, S. Uehara, K. Yamawaki, and T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev . Lett.54, 1215 (1985)

    1985

  29. [36]

    Bando, T

    M. Bando, T. Kugo, and K. Yamawaki, Phys. Rept. 164, 217 (1988)

    1988

  30. [38]

    Oset and A

    E. Oset and A. Ramos, Eur. Phys. J. A 44, 445 (2010), arXiv:0905.0973 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  31. [39]

    E. J. Garzon and E. Oset, Eur. Phys. J. A 48, 5 (2012), arXiv:1201.3756 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Hei and Y

    H. Hei and Y . Huang, Phys. Rev . D 109, 016029 (2024), arXiv:2310.12492 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Chen, L.-S

    H.-X. Chen, L.-S. Geng, W .-H. Liang, E. Oset, E. Wang, and J.-J. Xie, Phys. Rev . C93, 065203 (2016), arXiv:1510.01803 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Feijoo, V

    A. Feijoo, V . M. Sarti, J. Nieves, A. Ramos, and I. Vidaña, Phys. Rev . D111, 014022 (2025), arXiv:2411.10245 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Li, G.-J

    H.-P . Li, G.-J. Zhang, W .-H. Liang, and E. Oset, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 954 (2023), arXiv:2308.11879 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Miyahara, T

    K. Miyahara, T. Hyodo, M. Oka, J. Nieves, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev . C95, 035212 (2017), arXiv:1609.00895 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  37. [45]

    V . K. Magas, V . V . Cadenas, and A. Feijoo, Nuovo Cim. C47, 177 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    Molina, W .-H

    R. Molina, W .-H. Liang, C.-W . Xiao, Z.-F . Sun, and E. Oset, Phys. Lett. B 856, 138872 (2024), arXiv:2309.03618 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    K.-T. Chao, N. Isgur, and G. Karl, Phys. Rev . D 23, 155 (1981)

    1981

  40. [48]

    Capstick and N

    S. Capstick and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev . D 34, 2809 (1986)

    1986

  41. [49]

    L. Y . Glozman and D. O. Riska, Phys. Rept. 268, 263 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9505422

    1996 arXiv

  42. [50]

    L. Y . Glozman, W . Plessas, K. Varga, and R. F . Wagenbrunn, Phys. Rev . D58, 094030 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9706507

    1998 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Bijker, F

    R. Bijker, F . Iachello, and A. Leviatan, Annals Phys. 284, 89 (2000), arXiv:nucl-th/0004034

    2000 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Valcarce, H

    A. Valcarce, H. Garcilazo, and J. Vijande, Phys. Rev . C 72, 025206 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0507297

    2005 arXiv

  45. [53]

    A. J. Arifi, D. Suenaga, A. Hosaka, and Y . Oh, Phys. Rev . D 105, 094006 (2022), arXiv:2201.10427 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Pervin and W

    M. Pervin and W . Roberts, Phys. Rev . C 77, 025202 (2008), arXiv:0709.4000 [nucl-th]

    2008 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Xiao and X.-H

    L.-Y . Xiao and X.-H. Zhong, Phys. Rev . D 87, 094002 (2013), arXiv:1302.0079 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Menapara and A

    C. Menapara and A. K. Rai, Chin. Phys. C 45, 063108 (2021), arXiv:2104.00439 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  49. [57]

    C. L. Schat, J. L. Goity , and N. N. Scoccola, Phys. Rev . Lett. 88, 102002 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0111082

    2002 arXiv

  50. [58]

    J. L. Goity , C. Schat, and N. N. Scoccola, Phys. Lett. B 564, 83 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0304167

    2003 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Matagne and F

    N. Matagne and F . Stancu, Phys. Rev . D 71, 014010 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0409261

    2005 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Matagne and F

    N. Matagne and F . Stancu, Phys. Rev . D 74, 034014 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0604122

    2006 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Semay , F

    C. Semay , F . Buisseret, N. Matagne, and F . Stancu, Phys. Rev . D 75, 096001 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0702075

    2007 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Jido and M

    D. Jido and M. Oka, (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9611322

    1996 arXiv

  55. [63]

    F . X. Lee and X.-y . Liu, Phys. Rev . D 66, 014014 (2002), arXiv:nucl-th/0203051

    2002 arXiv

  56. [64]

    T. M. Aliev , K. Azizi, and H. Sundu, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 396 (2018), arXiv:1804.02656 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  57. [65]

    G. P . Engel, C. B. Lang, D. Mohler, and A. Schäfer (BGR), Phys. Rev . D87, 074504 (2013), arXiv:1301.4318 [hep-lat]

    2013 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Oh, Phys

    Y . Oh, Phys. Rev . D75, 074002 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0702126

    2007 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Pavon Valderrama, J.-J

    M. Pavon Valderrama, J.-J. Xie, and J. Nieves, Phys. Rev . D 85, 017502 (2012), arXiv:1111.2218 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Y . Yan, Q. Huang, X. Zhu, H. Huang, and J. Ping, Phys. Rev . D 110, 014021 (2024), arXiv:2404.14753 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Adamczyk et al

    L. Adamczyk et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev . Lett.114, 022301 (2015), arXiv:1408.4360 [nucl-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Lett. B 774, 64 (2017), arXiv:1705.04929 [nucl-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Rev . Lett. 124, 092301 (2020), arXiv:1905.13470 [nucl-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. (STAR), Phys. Lett. B 790, 490 (2019), arXiv:1808.02511 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Rev . C 99, 024001 (2019), arXiv:1805.12455 [nucl-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Rev . Lett. 123, 112002 (2019), arXiv:1904.12198 [nucl-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Rev . C 103, 055201 (2021), arXiv:2005.11124 [nucl-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Rev . Lett. 127, 172301 (2021), arXiv:2105.05578 [nucl-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Lett. B 822, 136708 (2021), arXiv:2105.05683 [nucl-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Lett. B 833, 137272 (2022), arXiv:2104.04427 [nucl-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 340 (2023), arXiv:2205.15176 [nucl-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Lett. B 856, 138915 (2024), arXiv:2312.12830 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Morita, T

    K. Morita, T. Furumoto, and A. Ohnishi, Phys. Rev . C91, 024916 (2015), arXiv:1408.6682 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Morita, A

    K. Morita, A. Ohnishi, F . Etminan, and T. Hatsuda, Phys. Rev . C 94, 031901 (2016), [Erratum: Phys.Rev .C 100, 069902 (2019)], arXiv:1605.06765 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Ohnishi, K

    A. Ohnishi, K. Morita, K. Miyahara, and T. Hyodo, Nucl. Phys. A 954, 294 (2016), arXiv:1603.05761 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Hatsuda, K

    T. Hatsuda, K. Morita, A. Ohnishi, and K. Sasaki, Nucl. Phys. A 967, 856 (2017), arXiv:1704.05225 [nucl-th]. 11

    2017 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Haidenbauer, Nucl

    J. Haidenbauer, Nucl. Phys. A 981, 1 (2019), arXiv:1808.05049 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  78. [86]

    D. L. Mihaylov , V . Mantovani Sarti, O. W . Arnold, L. Fabbietti, B. Hohlweger, and A. M. Mathis, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 394 (2018), arXiv:1802.08481 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Kamiya, K

    Y . Kamiya, K. Sasaki, T. Fukui, T. Hyodo, K. Morita, K. Ogata, A. Ohnishi, and T. Hatsuda, Phys. Rev . C 105, 014915 (2022), arXiv:2108.09644 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Liu, J.-X

    Z.-W . Liu, J.-X. Lu, and L.-S. Geng, Phys. Rev . D 107, 074019 (2023), arXiv:2302.01046 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  81. [89]

    H.-P . Li, J. Song, W .-H. Liang, R. Molina, and E. Oset, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 656 (2024), arXiv:2311.14365 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Li, C.-W

    H.-P . Li, C.-W . Xiao, W .-H. Liang, J.-J. Wu, E. Wang, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev . D110, 114018 (2024), arXiv:2409.05787 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Molina, C.-W

    R. Molina, C.-W . Xiao, W .-H. Liang, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev . D 109, 054002 (2024), arXiv:2310.12593 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Ikeno, G

    N. Ikeno, G. Toledo, and E. Oset, Phys. Lett. B 847, 138281 (2023), arXiv:2305.16431 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Encarnación, A

    P . Encarnación, A. Feijoo, V . M. Sarti, and A. Ramos, Phys. Rev . D 111, 114013 (2025), arXiv:2412.20880 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Feijoo, M

    A. Feijoo, M. Korwieser, and L. Fabbietti, Phys. Rev . D 111, 014009 (2025), arXiv:2407.01128 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Albaladejo, A

    M. Albaladejo, A. Canoa, J. Nieves, J. R. Peláez, E. Ruiz- Arriola, and J. R. de Elvira, Phys. Lett. B 866, 139552 (2025), arXiv:2503.19746 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Albaladejo, A

    M. Albaladejo, A. Garcia-Lorenzo, and J. Nieves, (2025), arXiv:2503.18710 [hep-ph]

    2025

  89. [97]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Lett. B 845, 138145 (2023), arXiv:2305.19093 [nucl-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  90. [98]

    V . M. Sarti, A. Feijoo, I. Vidaña, A. Ramos, F . Giacosa, T. Hy- odo, and Y . Kamiya, Phys. Rev . D 110, L011505 (2024), arXiv:2309.08756 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  91. [99]

    L. M. Abreu, P . Gubler, K. P . Khemchandani, A. Martinez Tor- res, and A. Hosaka, Phys. Lett. B 860, 139175 (2025), arXiv:2409.05170 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Encarnación, M

    P . Encarnación, M. Albaladejo, A. Feijoo, and J. Nieves, (2025), arXiv:2507.08466 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  93. [101]

    J. A. Oller and E. Oset, Nucl. Phys. A 620, 438 (1997), [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.A 652, 407–409 (1999)], arXiv:hep-ph/9702314

    1997 arXiv

  94. [102]

    J. A. Oller, E. Oset, and J. R. Pelaez, Phys. Rev . D 59, 074001 (1999), [Erratum: Phys.Rev .D 60, 099906 (1999), Erra- tum: Phys.Rev .D 75, 099903 (2007)], arXiv:hep-ph/9804209

    1999 arXiv

  95. [103]

    J. A. Oller and E. Oset, Phys. Rev . D 60, 074023 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9809337

    1999 arXiv

  96. [104]

    M. A. Lisa, S. Pratt, R. Soltz, and U. Wiedemann, Ann. Rev . Nucl. Part. Sci. 55, 357 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0505014

    2005 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Vidana, A

    I. Vidana, A. Feijoo, M. Albaladejo, J. Nieves, and E. Oset, Phys. Lett. B 846, 138201 (2023), arXiv:2303.06079 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Albaladejo, A

    M. Albaladejo, A. Feijoo, J. Nieves, E. Oset, and I. Vidaña, Phys. Rev . D110, 114052 (2024), arXiv:2410.08880 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  99. [107]

    Vovchenko and H

    V . Vovchenko and H. Stoecker, Comput. Phys. Commun. 244, 295 (2019), arXiv:1901.05249 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Schnedermann, J

    E. Schnedermann, J. Sollfrank, and U. W . Heinz, Phys. Rev . C 48, 2462 (1993), arXiv:nucl-th/9307020

    1993 arXiv

  101. [109]

    Albaladejo, A

    M. Albaladejo, A. Feijoo, I. Vidaña, J. Nieves, and E. Oset, (2023), arXiv:2307.09873 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  102. [110]

    J. J. de Swart, Rev . Mod. Phys. 35, 916 (1963), [Erratum: Rev .Mod.Phys. 37, 326–326 (1965)]

    1963

  103. [111]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Lett. B 811, 135849 (2020), arXiv:2004.08018 [nucl-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  104. [112]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 198 (2025), arXiv:2311.14527 [hep-ph]

    2025

Pith tools

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