Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 110 references

Symmetrizing relativistic three-body partial wave amplitudes

T0 review · 3 major / 3 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 shows that spectator-asymmetric three-body partial wave amplitudes can be symmetrized exactly, for arbitrary angular momentum and isospin, using a single set of recoupling coefficients.

desk verdict A serious methods paper that likely completes the spectator-independent amplitude workflow, but the load-bearing derivation in Sec. III was outside the text I could check and is the make-or-break part for refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.14098 v1 pith:KZZ4EP5Z submitted 2025-07-18 hep-ph hep-lathep-thnucl-th

Andrew W. Jackura , Nicholas C. Chambers , Raúl A. Briceño This is my paper
classification hep-phhep-lathep-thnucl-th
keywords three-bodyscatteringpartialwaveamplitudesspectatorasymmetryrecouplingcoefficientsisospinSU(2)DalitzplotlatticeQCDthreepionsystem
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

Three-particle scattering amplitudes produced by integral equations come with a spectator: one particle is singled out in the initial and final states, and every angular momentum is measured relative to it. This paper claims that such asymmetric amplitudes can be turned into a genuine spectator-independent partial wave amplitude of definite spin-parity and isospin by multiplying them on both sides with recoupling coefficients, and that the coefficients can be derived for arbitrary angular momentum and isospin for spinless particles with SU(2) flavor symmetry. If correct, the existing asymmetric amplitudes from the authors' integral equations are enough input: no new dynamical equations, K matrices, or one-particle-exchange inputs are required. The payoff is an intensity observable designed for Dalitz plots, with numerical demonstrations for $3\pi$ systems relevant to lattice QCD.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is Eq. (1), $M^{JP} = \sum_{j',j} R_{j'} M^{JP}_{(j',j)} R_j$, together with the recoupling coefficients $R$. Each $R$ converts a state in which one particle is the spectator and the other two form an angular-momentum projected pair into a linear combination over spectators, combining ordinary angular-momentum recoupling in the spin-orbit basis with isospin recoupling for SU(2). The work these coefficients do is to undo the asymmetry introduced when the integral equations of Ref. [91] were solved: the symmetrized amplitude no longer depends on which particle was called the spectator, while retaining definite $J^P$ and total isospin.

What would settle it

In a model of three equal-mass spinless particles with a known exact symmetric amplitude, compute the asymmetric amplitude by solving the integral equations for all three spectator choices, apply Eq. (1), and compare the three symmetrized results to the exact amplitude; any disagreement means the recoupling is not exact, and the Dalitz symmetry check alone could not distinguish this.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the symmetrized amplitude $M^{JP}$ is obtained from the asymmetric spectator-labeled amplitudes $M^{JP}_{(j',j)}$ by $M^{JP} = \sum_{j',j} R_{j'} M^{JP}_{(j',j)} R_j$, where the $R$'s are recoupling coefficients. The paper derives these coefficients for arbitrary orbital angular momentum and total spin, then extends them to total isospin when the hadrons obey SU(2) flavor symmetry, so the result applies to any system of spinless particles. It also defines an intensity $I^{JP}$ built from the symmetrized amplitude and verifies numerically, in $3\pi$ systems, that the Dalitz distributions produced this way have the symmetries expected of three-body Dalitz plots. The conclusion is that the spectator choice used in defining the asymmetric amplitudes can be removed by kinematics alone, leaving the physical content of the amplitude unchanged.

Load-bearing premise

The construction assumes the spectator-labeled partial wave amplitudes produced by the integral equations form a complete, unambiguous basis, so that the recoupling in Eq. (1) is exact and no dependence on which particle was chosen as the spectator survives.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The symmetric amplitude $M^{JP}$ can be computed from the asymmetric amplitudes already produced by the existing integral equations, without solving any new integral equations or supplying new K-matrix input.
  • For spinless systems with SU(2) flavor symmetry, the construction works for arbitrary angular momentum, total spin, and total isospin, so it covers the channels relevant to lattice QCD calculations of three pions.
  • The proposed intensity $I^{JP}$ gives a direct way to visualize three-body enhancements in Dalitz plots and to compare future lattice results with the expected symmetry properties of the Dalitz region.
  • Because the symmetrization is performed before forming observables, poles and couplings extracted from $M^{JP}$ should not depend on spectator conventions, a consistency condition that the earlier asymmetric spectral studies did not impose.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural test the paper leaves implicit is to apply the same recoupling to a system of three distinguishable particles with unequal masses; the construction is stated for arbitrary species, and a successful numerical check there would show the spectator cancellation is not an artifact of identical-particle symmetry.
  • The symmetrized amplitude could serve as a diagnostic for truncation errors in three-body integral equations: if two different partial-wave truncations produce asymmetric inputs whose symmetrized intensities disagree, that disagreement would expose the truncation rather than physics.
  • The intensity observable may be adaptable beyond the lattice context, for example to Dalitz-plot analyses of three-body decays where only a subset of partial waves is measured, although the paper itself develops it for scattering amplitudes.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a method to construct spectator-independent partial wave amplitudes M^{JP} for relativistic three-body scattering by applying recoupling coefficients R to the asymmetric, spectator-labeled amplitudes M^{JP}_{(j',j)} obtained from the integral equations of Ref. [91]. The construction is given in Eq. (1) as a double sum over initial and final spectator labels. The authors claim to derive these coefficients for arbitrary angular momentum and isospin in systems of spinless particles with SU(2) flavor symmetry, propose an intensity observable for visualizing three-body dynamics in Dalitz distributions, and provide numerical examples for 3π systems that, they argue, show consistency with expected Dalitz plot symmetries. The paper is positioned as the final component in a workflow connecting lattice QCD K-matrices to physical observables.

Significance. If the recoupling construction is exact, the paper provides a useful bridge between existing asymmetric-basis integral equation solutions and the spectator-independent amplitudes needed for physical observables, without requiring new dynamical input. The explicit derivation of recoupling coefficients for arbitrary angular momentum and isospin, if correct, would be a technical achievement of general applicability to three-body systems with SU(2) flavor symmetry. The proposed intensity observable and the numerical Dalitz plots for 3π systems would be directly relevant to ongoing and future lattice QCD calculations. The paper is clearly motivated and builds on the authors' own published work (Refs. [22, 91]), which provides a solid foundation. However, the central derivation and the numerical checks are not present in the text available for review, so the significance is conditional on those missing components being sound.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. I, Eq. (1)] The central claim of the paper is that the recoupling sum in Eq. (1) produces the physical, spectator-independent amplitude M^{JP}. In Sec. I this is introduced with the words 'Heuristically, one can do this by introducing recoupling coefficients', and the derivation of R is assigned to Sec. III, which is not present in the text available for review. The load-bearing point is that a change of spectator changes not only the angular momentum coupling but also the Jacobi momentum variables; the paper must demonstrate that the partial-wave projected amplitudes M^{JP}_{(j',j)} satisfy a spectator-recombination identity that makes the sum exact and momentum-independent, rather than a spectator average. The Dalitz symmetry check in Sec. V cannot settle this, because summing over all spectators enforces the symmetry by construction. The authors should state and prove the recombination identity, or explicitly characterize the approximation if the sum is not exact.
  2. [Sec. II, identical particle symmetry] The construction treats the spectator labels j and j' as independent indices in Eq. (1). For identical particles, such as the 3π systems used in the numerical examples, the asymmetric amplitudes M^{JP}_{(j',j)} for different spectator choices are not independent; they are related by permutation symmetry. The manuscript should explain how Eq. (1) accounts for this symmetry and avoids overcounting, and it should specify the normalization of M^{JP}_{(j',j)} consistently with the partial wave projection defined in Sec. II. Without this clarification, the numerical Dalitz plots may include redundant contributions.
  3. [Sec. V, numerical checks] The abstract and Sec. I state that the paper provides 'numerical evidence that the symmetrization procedure is consistent with expected symmetries of Dalitz plots', but the actual numerical section is not included in the text available for review. To assess the claim, the authors should provide quantitative criteria for the comparison, including the specific symmetry transformations tested, the tolerances used, and, ideally, a comparison of the symmetrized amplitude against an independent construction or against known three-body constraints. As written, the Dalitz symmetry test appears to be a necessary but not sufficient check of the construction's correctness.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. I, Fig. 1] The workflow described in Fig. 1 would benefit from a more detailed textual description, since the figure itself is not included in the text provided.
  2. [Sec. II, notation] The notation M^{JP}_{(j',j)} is introduced but the explicit dependence on the Jacobi momenta and the partial wave projection is not fully spelled out in the available text; a concise symbolic definition would improve readability.
  3. [Sec. I, observable definition] The intensity observable I^{JP} is described as a 'helicity/channel-average modulus squared' of the symmetrized amplitude; the phrase is vague and should be clarified by a precise formula and a statement of which channels are averaged.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Eq. (1) is a stated construction, not a fitted prediction, and the cited prior works are published foundations.

full rationale

The paper's central object is the symmetrized partial-wave amplitude defined by the recoupling sum in Eq. (1), M^{JP} = sum_{j',j} R_{j'} M_{(j',j)}^{JP} R_j. The text presents this as a construction ('Heuristically, one can do this by introducing recoupling coefficients... defined such that...') and states that the recoupling coefficients are derived, not fitted, for arbitrary angular momentum and isospin. No parameter is fitted to data, and the Dalitz-plot comparisons are described as numerical evidence of consistency of the symmetrization procedure, i.e., a self-consistency check of the numerical implementation rather than an independent prediction. The paper relies on the authors' earlier derivations for the one-particle-exchange projection and the asymmetric integral equations (Refs. [22, 91]), but those are published results with stated assumptions and do not assume the symmetrized amplitude constructed here. The definitional nature of Eq. (1) means spectator-permutation symmetry of the intensity is partly inherited from summing over spectators, but this is a limitation on the strength of the consistency check, not a circular derivation of the paper's claimed algebraic result.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The construction inherits its dynamics from the K matrix and from prior published work by the same group (Refs. [22, 91]), plus standard recoupling mathematics. No free parameters are fitted in the visible text; the Sec. V examples presumably import a K-matrix model from Ref. [61], which was not available for review. No new physical entities are introduced. The main load-bearing premise beyond standard math is the completeness and scheme-independence of the Ref. [91] asymmetric amplitudes.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption S-matrix unitarity imposes linear integral equations on the three-body amplitude, with a real-meromorphic K matrix as the unspecified input.
    Sec. I states this as the established framework (Refs. [17-27]) and as the basis for the asymmetric amplitudes M_{(j',j)}^{JP} of Ref. [91] used as input here.
  • domain assumption The asymmetric spectator-labeled amplitudes M_{(j',j)}^{JP} from Ref. [91] form a complete, unambiguous basis from which the symmetrized amplitude can be composed.
    This is the key structural premise behind Eq. (1) and the workflow of Fig. 1. If these amplitudes were scheme-dependent on the K matrix or incomplete over spectator choices, the recoupling would not produce a unique physical amplitude. The completeness argument belongs to Sec. III, which is not in the reviewed text.
  • standard math Standard angular momentum addition and SU(2) recoupling technology (Clebsch-Gordan, 6j, 9j coefficients) are valid for arbitrary pair angular momentum S and spectator orbital angular momentum L.
    Sec. I: amplitudes of definite J^P are formed by the usual rules of angular momentum addition; Sec. III B extends this to isospin. This is textbook mathematics, assumed throughout.
  • domain assumption Finite-volume quantization relations connect lattice QCD spectra to the K matrices.
    Sec. I cites Refs. [18, 23, 28, 30-57] as established. This motivates the workflow but does not enter the symmetrization derivation itself.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Symmetrizing relativistic three-body partial wave amplitudes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KZZ4EP5Z

@misc{pith2026250714098,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Symmetrizing relativistic three-body partial wave amplitudes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KZZ4EP5Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.14098}
}
abstract

S matrix principles and symmetries impose constraints on three-particle scattering amplitudes, which can be formulated as a class of integral equations for their partial wave projections. However, these amplitudes are typically expressed in an asymmetric basis, where one of the initial and final state particles is singled out, and all quantum numbers are defined relative to this spectator. In this work, we show how to construct symmetric partial wave amplitudes, which have been symmetrized over all possible spectator combinations, using their asymmetric counterparts and sets of recoupling coefficients. We derive these recoupling coefficients for arbitrary angular momentum and isospin for arbitrary systems of spinless particles with SU(2) flavor symmetry. We propose a simple intensity observable suitable for visualizing the structure of three-body dynamics in Dalitz distributions. Finally, we provide some numerical examples of Dalitz distributions relevant for future lattice QCD calculations of $3\pi$ systems and provide numerical evidence that the symmetrization procedure is consistent with expected symmetries of Dalitz plots.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.14098 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Shown is the workflow for computing physical observables from the key inputs ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Three-particle plane formed by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Euler angles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Kinematics in the pair CM frame. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Three standard configurations for the three-particle plane. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Illustration of the momentum configurations in the fixed-target frame of particle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Input phase shifts for the elastic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Dalitz distributions for the OPE amplitude in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Dalitz distributions for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Real and imaginary parts for the asymmetric spin-orbit amplitudes as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Real and imaginary parts for the asymmetric spin-orbit amplitudes as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p043_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Real and imaginary parts for the asymmetric spin-orbit amplitudes as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p044_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Real and imaginary parts for the asymmetric spin-orbit amplitudes as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p045_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p046_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p046_18.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

110 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [91]

    R. A. Brice˜ no, C. S. R. Costa, and A. W. Jackura, Phys. Rev. D 111, 036029 (2025), arXiv:2409.15577 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    Navas et al

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

    2024

  3. [2]

    Acciarri et al

    R. Acciarri et al. (DUNE), (2016), arXiv:1601.05471 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2016

  4. [3]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 231802 (2019), arXiv:1905.09244 [hep-ex]. 47

    arXiv 2019

  5. [4]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. D 108, 012008 (2023), arXiv:2206.07622 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2023

  6. [5]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. D 90, 112004 (2014), arXiv:1408.5373 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2014

  7. [6]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 031801 (2020), arXiv:1909.05211 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2020

  8. [7]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 011801 (2014), arXiv:1310.4740 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2014

Show all 110 references
  1. [8]

    Suzuki and L

    M. Suzuki and L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. D 60, 074019 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9903477

    1999 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Wolfenstein, Phys

    L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. D 43, 151 (1991)

    1991

  3. [10]

    Suzuki, Phys

    M. Suzuki, Phys. Rev. D 77, 054021 (2008), arXiv:0710.5534 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  4. [11]

    J. H. Alvarenga Nogueira, I. Bediaga, A. B. R. Cavalcante, T. Frederico, and O. Louren¸ co, Phys. Rev. D 92, 054010 (2015), arXiv:1506.08332 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Bediaga, T

    I. Bediaga, T. Frederico, and O. Louren¸ co, Phys. Rev. D89, 094013 (2014), arXiv:1307.8164 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  6. [13]

    R. A. Garrote, J. Cuervo, P. C. Magalh˜ aes, and J. R. Pel´ aez, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 201901 (2023), arXiv:2210.08354 [hep-ph]

    2023

  7. [14]

    R. A. Briceno, J. J. Dudek, and R. D. Young, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 025001 (2018), arXiv:1706.06223 [hep-lat]

    2018 arXiv

  8. [15]

    M. T. Hansen and S. R. Sharpe, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 69, null (2019), arXiv:1901.00483 [hep-lat]

    2019 arXiv

  9. [16]

    M. Mai, M. D¨ oring, and A. Rusetsky, Eur. Phys. J. ST 230, 1623 (2021), arXiv:2103.00577 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Jackura, C

    A. Jackura, C. Fern´ andez-Ram ´ ırez, V. Mathieu, M. Mikhasenko, J. Nys, A. Pilloni, K. Salda˜ na, N. Sherrill, and A. Szczepaniak (JPAC), Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 56 (2019), arXiv:1809.10523 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  11. [18]

    M. T. Hansen and S. R. Sharpe, Phys. Rev. D92, 114509 (2015), arXiv:1504.04248 [hep-lat]

    2015 arXiv

  12. [19]

    S. M. Dawid, M. H. E. Islam, and R. A. Brice˜ no, Phys. Rev. D 108, 034016 (2023), arXiv:2303.04394 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  13. [20]

    S. M. Dawid, M. H. E. Islam, R. A. Brice˜ no, and A. W. Jackura, (2023), arXiv:2309.01732 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  14. [21]

    A. W. Jackura, R. A. Brice˜ no, S. M. Dawid, M. H. E. Islam, and C. McCarty, Phys. Rev. D 104, 014507 (2021), arXiv:2010.09820 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  15. [22]

    A. W. Jackura and R. A. Brice˜ no, Phys. Rev. D109, 096030 (2024), arXiv:2312.00625 [hep- ph]. 48

    2024 arXiv

  16. [23]

    A. W. Jackura, Phys. Rev. D 108, 034505 (2023), arXiv:2208.10587 [hep-lat]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [24]

    M. Mai, B. Hu, M. Doring, A. Pilloni, and A. Szczepaniak, Eur. Phys. J. A 53, 177 (2017), arXiv:1706.06118 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Mikhasenko, Y

    M. Mikhasenko, Y. Wunderlich, A. Jackura, V. Mathieu, A. Pilloni, B. Ketzer, and A. Szczepaniak, JHEP 08, 080 (2019), arXiv:1904.11894 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  19. [26]

    S. M. Dawid and A. P. Szczepaniak, Phys. Rev. D 103, 014009 (2021), arXiv:2010.08084 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Y. Feng, F. Gil, M. D¨ oring, R. Molina, M. Mai, V. Shastry, and A. Szczepaniak, Phys. Rev. D 110, 094002 (2024), arXiv:2407.08721 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Polejaeva and A

    K. Polejaeva and A. Rusetsky, Eur. Phys. J. A48, 67 (2012), arXiv:1203.1241 [hep-lat]

    2012 arXiv

  22. [29]

    R. A. Brice˜ no and Z. Davoudi, Phys. Rev. D87, 094507 (2013), arXiv:1212.3398 [hep-lat]

    2013 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Luscher, Commun

    M. Luscher, Commun. Math. Phys. 104, 177 (1986)

    1986

  24. [31]

    Luscher, Commun.Math.Phys

    M. Luscher, Commun.Math.Phys. 105, 153 (1986)

    1986

  25. [32]

    Luscher, Nucl

    M. Luscher, Nucl. Phys. B354, 531 (1991)

    1991

  26. [33]

    Rummukainen and S

    K. Rummukainen and S. A. Gottlieb, Nucl. Phys. B450, 397 (1995), arXiv:hep-lat/9503028 [hep-lat]

    1995 arXiv

  27. [34]

    C. h. Kim, C. T. Sachrajda, and S. R. Sharpe, Nucl. Phys. B727, 218 (2005), arXiv:hep- lat/0507006 [hep-lat]

    2005

  28. [35]

    S. He, X. Feng, and C. Liu, JHEP 07, 011 (2005), arXiv:hep-lat/0504019 [hep-lat]

    2005 arXiv

  29. [36]

    M. T. Hansen and S. R. Sharpe, Phys. Rev. D86, 016007 (2012), arXiv:1204.0826 [hep-lat]

    2012 arXiv

  30. [37]

    R. A. Brice˜ no and Z. Davoudi, Phys. Rev. D88, 094507 (2013), arXiv:1204.1110 [hep-lat]

    2013 arXiv

  31. [38]

    R. A. Brice˜ no, Z. Davoudi, and T. C. Luu, Phys. Rev. D88, 034502 (2013), arXiv:1305.4903 [hep-lat]

    2013 arXiv

  32. [39]

    R. A. Brice˜ no, Phys. Rev.D89, 074507 (2014), arXiv:1401.3312 [hep-lat]

    2014 arXiv

  33. [40]

    M. T. Hansen and S. R. Sharpe, Phys. Rev. D90, 116003 (2014), arXiv:1408.5933 [hep-lat]

    2014 arXiv

  34. [41]

    R. A. Briceno, M. T. Hansen, and S. R. Sharpe, Phys. Rev. D95, 074510 (2017), arXiv:1701.07465 [hep-lat]

    2017 arXiv

  35. [42]

    R. A. Brice˜ no, M. T. Hansen, and S. R. Sharpe, Phys. Rev. D98, 014506 (2018), arXiv:1803.04169 [hep-lat]

    2018 arXiv

  36. [43]

    R. A. Briceno, M. T. Hansen, and S. R. Sharpe, Phys. Rev. D99, 014516 (2019), arXiv:1810.01429 [hep-lat]. 49

    2019 arXiv

  37. [44]

    R. A. Brice˜ no, M. T. Hansen, S. R. Sharpe, and A. P. Szczepaniak, Phys. Rev. D 100, 054508 (2019), arXiv:1905.11188 [hep-lat]

    2019 arXiv

  38. [45]

    T. D. Blanton, F. Romero-L´ opez, and S. R. Sharpe, JHEP 03, 106 (2019), arXiv:1901.07095 [hep-lat]

    2019 arXiv

  39. [46]

    M. T. Hansen, F. Romero-L´ opez, and S. R. Sharpe, JHEP 07, 047 (2020), [Erratum: JHEP 02, 014 (2021)], arXiv:2003.10974 [hep-lat]

    2020 arXiv

  40. [47]

    T. D. Blanton and S. R. Sharpe, Phys. Rev. D102, 054520 (2020), arXiv:2007.16188 [hep-lat]

    2020 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Hammer, J.-Y

    H.-W. Hammer, J.-Y. Pang, and A. Rusetsky, JHEP 09, 109 (2017), arXiv:1706.07700 [hep-lat]

    2017 arXiv

  42. [49]

    H. W. Hammer, J. Y. Pang, and A. Rusetsky, JHEP 10, 115 (2017), arXiv:1707.02176 [hep-lat]

    2017 arXiv

  43. [50]

    Y. Meng, C. Liu, U.-G. Meißner, and A. Rusetsky, Phys. Rev. D 98, 014508 (2018), arXiv:1712.08464 [hep-lat]

    2018 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Pang, J.-J

    J.-Y. Pang, J.-J. Wu, H. W. Hammer, U.-G. Meißner, and A. Rusetsky, Phys. Rev. D 99, 074513 (2019), arXiv:1902.01111 [hep-lat]

    2019 arXiv

  45. [52]

    M¨ uller, J.-Y

    F. M¨ uller, J.-Y. Pang, A. Rusetsky, and J.-J. Wu, JHEP 02, 158 (2022), arXiv:2110.09351 [hep-lat]

    2022 arXiv

  46. [53]

    T. D. Blanton and S. R. Sharpe, Phys. Rev. D103, 054503 (2021), arXiv:2011.05520 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  47. [54]

    T. D. Blanton and S. R. Sharpe, Phys. Rev. D104, 034509 (2021), arXiv:2105.12094 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  48. [55]

    M. T. Hansen, F. Romero-L´ opez, and S. R. Sharpe, JHEP 06, 051 (2024), arXiv:2401.06609 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  49. [56]

    A. B. Raposo and M. T. Hansen, JHEP 08, 075 (2024), arXiv:2311.18793 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  50. [57]

    A. B. Raposo, R. A. Brice˜ no, M. T. Hansen, and A. W. Jackura, JHEP 06, 186 (2025), arXiv:2502.19375 [hep-lat]

    2025 arXiv

  51. [58]

    Detmold, M

    W. Detmold, M. J. Savage, A. Torok, S. R. Beane, T. C. Luu, K. Orginos, and A. Parreno, Phys. Rev. D 78, 014507 (2008), arXiv:0803.2728 [hep-lat]

    2008 arXiv

  52. [59]

    Culver, M

    C. Culver, M. Mai, R. Brett, A. Alexandru, and M. D¨ oring, Phys. Rev. D 101, 114507 (2020), arXiv:1911.09047 [hep-lat]

    2020 arXiv

  53. [60]

    Alexandru, R

    A. Alexandru, R. Brett, C. Culver, M. D¨ oring, D. Guo, F. X. Lee, and M. Mai, Phys. Rev. D 102, 114523 (2020), arXiv:2009.12358 [hep-lat]

    2020 arXiv

  54. [61]

    M. T. Hansen, R. A. Brice˜ no, R. G. Edwards, C. E. Thomas, and D. J. Wilson (Hadron 50 Spectrum), Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 012001 (2021), arXiv:2009.04931 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  55. [62]

    Z. T. Draper, A. D. Hanlon, B. H¨ orz, C. Morningstar, F. Romero-L´ opez, and S. R. Sharpe, JHEP 05, 137 (2023), arXiv:2302.13587 [hep-lat]

    2023 arXiv

  56. [63]

    J. J. Dudek, R. G. Edwards, M. J. Peardon, D. G. Richards, and C. E. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D83, 071504 (2011), arXiv:1011.6352 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  57. [64]

    Pelissier and A

    C. Pelissier and A. Alexandru, Phys. Rev. D87, 014503 (2013), arXiv:1211.0092 [hep-lat]

    2013 arXiv

  58. [65]

    J. J. Dudek, R. G. Edwards, and C. E. Thomas (Hadron Spectrum), Phys. Rev. D87, 034505 (2013), [Erratum: Phys. Rev.D90,no.9,099902(2014)], arXiv:1212.0830 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  59. [66]

    L. Liu, K. Orginos, F.-K. Guo, C. Hanhart, and U.-G. Meissner, Phys. Rev. D87, 014508 (2013), arXiv:1208.4535 [hep-lat]

    2013 arXiv

  60. [67]

    D. J. Wilson, J. J. Dudek, R. G. Edwards, and C. E. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D91, 054008 (2015), arXiv:1411.2004 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  61. [68]

    J. J. Dudek, R. G. Edwards, C. E. Thomas, and D. J. Wilson (Hadron Spectrum), Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 182001 (2014), arXiv:1406.4158 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  62. [69]

    C. B. Lang, D. Mohler, S. Prelovsek, and R. M. Woloshyn, Phys. Lett. B750, 17 (2015), arXiv:1501.01646 [hep-lat]

    2015 arXiv

  63. [70]

    D. J. Wilson, R. A. Brice˜ no, J. J. Dudek, R. G. Edwards, and C. E. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D92, 094502 (2015), arXiv:1507.02599 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  64. [71]

    J. J. Dudek, R. G. Edwards, and D. J. Wilson (Hadron Spectrum), Phys. Rev. D93, 094506 (2016), arXiv:1602.05122 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  65. [72]

    R. A. Brice˜ no, J. J. Dudek, R. G. Edwards, and D. J. Wilson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 022002 (2017), arXiv:1607.05900 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  66. [73]

    G. Moir, M. Peardon, S. M. Ryan, C. E. Thomas, and D. J. Wilson, JHEP 10, 011 (2016), arXiv:1607.07093 [hep-lat]

    2016 arXiv

  67. [74]

    Bulava, B

    J. Bulava, B. Fahy, B. Horz, K. J. Juge, C. Morningstar, and C. H. Wong, Nucl. Phys. B910, 842 (2016), arXiv:1604.05593 [hep-lat]

    2016 arXiv

  68. [75]

    B. Hu, R. Molina, M. Doring, and A. Alexandru, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 122001 (2016), arXiv:1605.04823 [hep-lat]

    2016 arXiv

  69. [76]

    Alexandrou, L

    C. Alexandrou, L. Leskovec, S. Meinel, J. Negele, S. Paul, M. Petschlies, A. Pochinsky, G. Rendon, and S. Syritsyn, Phys. Rev. D96, 034525 (2017), arXiv:1704.05439 [hep-lat]

    2017 arXiv

  70. [77]

    G. S. Bali, S. Collins, A. Cox, and A. Sch¨ afer, Phys. Rev. D96, 074501 (2017), 51 arXiv:1706.01247 [hep-lat]

    2017 arXiv

  71. [78]

    M. L. Wagman, F. Winter, E. Chang, Z. Davoudi, W. Detmold, K. Orginos, M. J. Savage, and P. E. Shanahan, Phys. Rev. D96, 114510 (2017), arXiv:1706.06550 [hep-lat]

    2017 arXiv

  72. [79]

    C. W. Andersen, J. Bulava, B. Horz, and C. Morningstar, Phys. Rev. D97, 014506 (2018), arXiv:1710.01557 [hep-lat]

    2018 arXiv

  73. [80]

    R. A. Briceno, J. J. Dudek, R. G. Edwards, and D. J. Wilson, Phys. Rev. D97, 054513 (2018), arXiv:1708.06667 [hep-lat]

    2018 arXiv

  74. [81]

    A. Woss, C. E. Thomas, J. J. Dudek, R. G. Edwards, and D. J. Wilson, JHEP 07, 043 (2018), arXiv:1802.05580 [hep-lat]

    2018 arXiv

  75. [82]

    Brett, J

    R. Brett, J. Bulava, J. Fallica, A. Hanlon, B. Horz, and C. Morningstar, Nucl. Phys. B932, 29 (2018), arXiv:1802.03100 [hep-lat]

    2018 arXiv

  76. [83]

    M. Mai, C. Culver, A. Alexandru, M. D¨ oring, and F. X. Lee, Phys. Rev. D 100, 114514 (2019), arXiv:1908.01847 [hep-lat]

    2019 arXiv

  77. [84]

    A. J. Woss, C. E. Thomas, J. J. Dudek, R. G. Edwards, and D. J. Wilson, Phys. Rev. D 100, 054506 (2019), arXiv:1904.04136 [hep-lat]

    2019 arXiv

  78. [85]

    D. J. Wilson, R. A. Briceno, J. J. Dudek, R. G. Edwards, and C. E. Thomas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 042002 (2019), arXiv:1904.03188 [hep-lat]

    2019 arXiv

  79. [86]

    G. K. C. Cheung, C. E. Thomas, D. J. Wilson, G. Moir, M. Peardon, and S. M. Ryan (Hadron Spectrum), JHEP 02, 100 (2021), arXiv:2008.06432 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  80. [87]

    Rendon, L

    G. Rendon, L. Leskovec, S. Meinel, J. Negele, S. Paul, M. Petschlies, A. Pochinsky, G. Silvi, and S. Syritsyn, Phys. Rev. D 102, 114520 (2020), arXiv:2006.14035 [hep-lat]

    2020 arXiv

  81. [88]

    A. J. Woss, J. J. Dudek, R. G. Edwards, C. E. Thomas, and D. J. Wilson (Hadron Spectrum), Phys. Rev. D 103, 054502 (2021), arXiv:2009.10034 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  82. [89]

    H¨ orzet al., Phys

    B. H¨ orzet al., Phys. Rev. C 103, 014003 (2021), arXiv:2009.11825 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  83. [90]

    S. M. Dawid, Z. T. Draper, A. D. Hanlon, B. H¨ orz, C. Morningstar, F. Romero-L´ opez, S. R. Sharpe, and S. Skinner, (2025), arXiv:2502.17976 [hep-lat]

    2025 arXiv

  84. [92]

    D. A. Varshalovich, A. N. Moskalev, and V. K. Khersonskii, Quantum Theory of Angular Momentum (World Scientific, Singapore, 1988)

    1988

  85. [93]

    Byckling and K

    E. Byckling and K. Kajantie, Particle Kinematics, A Wiley-Interscience publication (Wiley, 52 1973)

    1973

  86. [94]

    T. W. B. Kibble, Phys. Rev. 117, 1159 (1960)

    1960

  87. [95]

    S. M. Berman and M. Jacob, Phys. Rev. 139, B1023 (1965)

    1965

  88. [96]

    Mikhasenko et al

    M. Mikhasenko et al. (JPAC), Phys. Rev. D 101, 034033 (2020), arXiv:1910.04566 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Jacob and G

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

    1959

  90. [98]

    R. A. Brice˜ no, A. W. Jackura, D. A. Pefkou, and F. Romero-L´ opez, JHEP05, 279 (2024), arXiv:2402.12167 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields

    S. Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields. Vol. 1: Foundations(Cambridge University Press, 2005)

    2005

  92. [101]

    V. S. Potapov and J. R. Taylor, (1977)

    1977

  93. [102]

    A. D. Martin and T. D. Spearman, Elementary-particle theory(North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1970)

    1970

  94. [103]

    Von Hippel and C

    F. Von Hippel and C. Quigg, Phys. Rev. D 5, 624 (1972)

    1972

  95. [104]

    Estabrooks and A

    P. Estabrooks and A. D. Martin, Nucl. Phys. B 95, 322 (1975)

    1975

  96. [105]

    S. D. Protopopescu, M. Alston-Garnjost, A. Barbaro-Galtieri, S. M. Flatte, J. H. Friedman, T. A. Lasinski, G. R. Lynch, M. S. Rabin, and F. T. Solmitz, Phys. Rev. D 7, 1279 (1973)

    1973

  97. [106]

    J. R. Pelaez and F. J. Yndurain, Phys. Rev. D 71, 074016 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0411334

    2005 arXiv

  98. [107]

    J. J. Dudek, R. G. Edwards, and C. E. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D86, 034031 (2012), arXiv:1203.6041 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  99. [108]

    Zemach, Phys

    C. Zemach, Phys. Rev. 133, B1201 (1964)

    1964

  100. [109]

    Z. T. Draper, M. T. Hansen, F. Romero-L´ opez, and S. R. Sharpe, JHEP 07, 226 (2023), arXiv:2303.10219 [hep-lat]

    2023 arXiv

  101. [110]

    Adolph et al

    C. Adolph et al. (COMPASS), Phys. Rev. D 95, 032004 (2017), arXiv:1509.00992 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  102. [111]

    Aghasyan et al.(COMPASS), Phys

    M. Aghasyan et al.(COMPASS), Phys. Rev. D98, 092003 (2018), arXiv:1802.05913 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

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