pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2510.26890 · v2 · submitted 2025-10-30 · ✦ hep-ex · nucl-ex· nucl-th

Baryon-antibaryon photoproduction cross sections off the proton

GlueX Collaboration: F. Afzal , M. Albrecht , M. Amaryan , S. Arrigo , V. Arroyave , A. Asaturyan , A. Austregesilo , Z. Baldwin
show 131 more authors
F. Barbosa J. Barlow E. Barriga R. Barsotti D. Barton V. Baturin V. V. Berdnikov A. Berger W. Boeglin M. Boer W. J. Briscoe T. Britton R. Brunner S. Cao C. Chen E. Chudakov G. Chung P. L. Cole O. Cortes V. Crede M. M. Dalton D. Darulis A. Deur L. Dietrich S. Dobbs A. Dolgolenko M. Dugger R. Dzhygadlo D. Ebersole M. Edo H. Egiyan P. Eugenio A. Fabrizi C. Fanelli S. Fang M. Fritsch S. Furletov L. Gan H. Gao A. Gardner A. Gasparian D. I. Glazier C. Gleason B. Grube J. Guo J. Hernandez K. Hernandez N. Herrmann N. D. Hoffman D. Hornidge G. M. Huber P. Hurck W. Imoehl D. G. Ireland M. M. Ito I. Jaegle N. S. Jarvis T. Jeske M. Jing R. T. Jones V. Kakoyan G. Kalicy X. Kang V. Khachatryan C. Kourkoumelis A. LaDuke I. Larin D. Lawrence D. I. Lersch H. Li B. Liu K. Livingston L. Lorenti V. Lyubovitskij H. Marukyan V. Matveev M. McCaughan M. McCracken C. A. Meyer R. Miskimen R. E. Mitchell P. Moran L. Ng E. Nissen S. Ore\v{s}i\'c A. I. Ostrovidov Z. Papandreou L. Pentchev K. J. Peters L. Puthiya Veetil S. Rakshit J. Reinhold A. Remington J. Ritman G. Rodriguez K. Saldana S. Schadmand A. M. Schertz K. Scheuer A. Schmidt R. A. Schumacher J. Schwiening M. Scott N. Septian P. Sharp V. J. Shen X. Shen M. R. Shepherd J. Sikes H. Singh A. Smith E. S. Smith A. Somov S. Somov J. R. Stevens I. I. Strakovsky B. Sumner K. Suresh V. V. Tarasov S. Taylor A. Teymurazyan A. Thiel M. Thomson T. Viducic T. Whitlatch Y. Wunderlich B. Yu J. Zarling Z. Zhang X. Zhou B. Zihlmann
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 03:18 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ex nucl-exnucl-th
keywords photoproductionbaryon antibaryont-channel exchangeReggecross sectionsno resonanceshyperon channels
0
0 comments X

The pith

GlueX data show baryon-antibaryon photoproduction explained by double t-channel exchange

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The GlueX experiment measured cross sections for producing proton-antiproton, lambda-antilambda, and proton-antilambda pairs using photons up to 11.6 GeV on a proton target. Angular distributions for all pairs are peaked forward, pointing to a Regge-like t-channel exchange process. A simple phenomenological model using double t-channel exchange, with anti-baryons formed only at the central vertex, reproduces the data across all channels with just a few adjustable parameters. No narrow peaks appear in the mass spectra that would signal resonances. The results also indicate similar suppression of strange quark pairs as seen in other reactions, and note distinctions between the hyperon channels.

Core claim

The GlueX experiment has observed p p-bar and, for the first time, Lambda Lambda-bar and p Lambda-bar photoproduction from a proton target at photon energies up to 11.6 GeV. The angular distributions are forward peaked for all produced pairs, consistent with Regge-like t-channel exchange. Asymmetric wide-angle anti-baryon distributions show the presence of additional processes. In a phenomenological model, consistency is found with a double t-channel exchange process where anti-baryons are created only at the middle vertex. The model matches all observed distributions with a small number of free parameters. No narrow resonant structures were found in these reaction channels.

What carries the argument

double t-channel exchange process where anti-baryons are created only at the middle vertex

Load-bearing premise

That a double t-channel exchange process alone, with anti-baryons only at the middle vertex, accounts for the observed distributions without needing resonances or other mechanisms.

What would settle it

Detection of a narrow peak in the invariant mass distribution of any produced pair or significant deviation from the model's predictions in angular distributions at different photon energies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.26890 by A. Asaturyan, A. Austregesilo, A. Berger, A. Deur, A. Dolgolenko, A. Fabrizi, A. Gardner, A. Gasparian, A. I. Ostrovidov, A. LaDuke, A. M. Schertz, A. Remington, A. Schmidt, A. Smith, A. Somov, A. Teymurazyan, A. Thiel, B. Grube, B. Liu, B. Sumner, B. Yu, B. Zihlmann, C. A. Meyer, C. Chen, C. Fanelli, C. Gleason, C. Kourkoumelis, D. Barton, D. Darulis, D. Ebersole, D. G. Ireland, D. Hornidge, D. I. Glazier, D. I. Lersch, D. Lawrence, E. Barriga, E. Chudakov, E. Nissen, E. S. Smith, F. Barbosa, G. Chung, G. Kalicy, GlueX Collaboration: F. Afzal, G. M. Huber, G. Rodriguez, H. Egiyan, H. Gao, H. Li, H. Marukyan, H. Singh, I. I. Strakovsky, I. Jaegle, I. Larin, J. Barlow, J. Guo, J. Hernandez, J. Reinhold, J. Ritman, J. R. Stevens, J. Schwiening, J. Sikes, J. Zarling, K. Hernandez, K. J. Peters, K. Livingston, K. Saldana, K. Scheuer, K. Suresh, L. Dietrich, L. Gan, L. Lorenti, L. Ng, L. Pentchev, L. Puthiya Veetil, M. Albrecht, M. Amaryan, M. Boer, M. Dugger, M. Edo, M. Fritsch, M. Jing, M. McCaughan, M. McCracken, M. M. Dalton, M. M. Ito, M. R. Shepherd, M. Scott, M. Thomson, N. D. Hoffman, N. Herrmann, N. Septian, N. S. Jarvis, O. Cortes, P. Eugenio, P. Hurck, P. L. Cole, P. Moran, P. Sharp, R. A. Schumacher, R. Barsotti, R. Brunner, R. Dzhygadlo, R. E. Mitchell, R. Miskimen, R. T. Jones, S. Arrigo, S. Cao, S. Dobbs, S. Fang, S. Furletov, S. Ore\v{s}i\'c, S. Rakshit, S. Schadmand, S. Somov, S. Taylor, T. Britton, T. Jeske, T. Viducic, T. Whitlatch, V. Arroyave, V. Baturin, V. Crede, V. J. Shen, V. Kakoyan, V. Khachatryan, V. Lyubovitskij, V. Matveev, V. V. Berdnikov, V. V. Tarasov, W. Boeglin, W. Imoehl, W. J. Briscoe, X. Kang, X. Shen, X. Zhou, Y. Wunderlich, Z. Baldwin, Z. Papandreou, Z. Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Possible production mechanisms for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Missing-mass squared for kinematic fits to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: The correlation between the hyperon decay [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Top row: data (blue) is compared to signal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a), we factorize the three-body phase space Φ into a sequence of two-body processes. The first pro￾cess is described in the overall CM frame defined by the incident γ and the target proton: γ(pi) + p(−pi) → M12(pf ) + 3(−pf ), where pi and pf are the initial and final state momenta in the CM frame. The secondary two-body decay is described in the rest frame of the M12 system, M12 → 1(q ∗ ) + 2(−q ∗ ), whe… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Intensities (in arbitrary units) of components [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: The angular distributions of the two protons (a), (c), and the anti-proton (b) in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: The angular distributions of the three particles in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: The angular distributions of the three particles in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: The six sectors on a Van Hove diagram that [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Van Hove distributions of the three-particle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Van Hove plots of the three-body final states: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: shows the invariant mass distribution of the anti-proton in both possible pairings: (a) with the more forward proton that is likely the created proton, and (b) with the more backward proton that is much more likely to be the recoil proton. The shaded regions are the result of the fitted model, in which the data in panel (a) were included in the fitting procedure, while the data in panel (b) was not. 2 2.5… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: We parameterize this as an attractive interac￾tion independent of t between the created baryons and anti-baryons in the model introduced in Sec. III. The asymmetric band in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16: (a) Invariant mass of Λ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17: (a) Invariant mass of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18: Comparison between data and model distributions of the reduced 4-momentum transfer, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19: The proportions of the reaction mechanism [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20: Beam energy dependence of the nine [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_20.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: FIG. 21: Events per 5 MeV mass bin versus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_21.png] view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: FIG. 22: Total photoproduction cross sections off the proton, as a function of beam energy, for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_22.png] view at source ↗
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: FIG. 23: Comparison of the total cross section [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_23.png] view at source ↗
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: FIG. 24: The differential cross section with respect to reduced four-momentum transfer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_24.png] view at source ↗
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: FIG. 25: The differential cross section for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_25.png] view at source ↗
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: FIG. 26: The measured differential cross section with respect to the invariant mass of the baryon-anti-baryon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_26.png] view at source ↗
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: FIG. 27: Components of the beam-energy dependent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_27.png] view at source ↗
Figure 29
Figure 29. Figure 29: FIG. 29: The differential cross section in reduced four-momentum transfer, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_29.png] view at source ↗
Figure 30
Figure 30. Figure 30: FIG. 30: The differential cross sections with respect to the invariant mass of the baryon-anti-baryon systems for: (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_30.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The GlueX experiment at Jefferson Lab has observed $p\bar{p}$ and, for the first time, $\Lambda\bar{\Lambda}$ and $p\bar{\Lambda}$ photoproduction from a proton target at photon energies up to 11.6 GeV. The angular distributions are forward peaked for all produced pairs, consistent with Regge-like $t$-channel exchange. Asymmetric wide-angle anti-baryon distributions show the presence of additional processes. In a phenomenological model, we find consistency with a double $t$-channel exchange process where anti-baryons are created only at the middle vertex. The model matches all observed distributions with a small number of free parameters. In the hyperon channels, we observe a clear distinction between photoproduction of the $\Lambda\bar{\Lambda}$ and $p\bar{\Lambda}$ systems but general similarity to the $p\bar{p}$ system. We report both total cross sections and cross sections differential with respect to momentum transfer and the invariant masses of the created particle pairs. No narrow resonant structures were found in these reaction channels. The suppression of $s\bar{s}$ quark pairs relative to $d\bar{d}$ quark pairs is similar to what has been seen in other reactions.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports measurements from the GlueX experiment of p p-bar, Lambda Lambda-bar, and p Lambda-bar photoproduction off the proton at photon energies up to 11.6 GeV. Angular distributions are forward-peaked for all channels, consistent with Regge-like t-channel exchange, while asymmetric wide-angle anti-baryon distributions indicate additional processes. A phenomenological double t-channel exchange model (anti-baryons created only at the middle vertex) is shown to describe all observed angular and invariant-mass distributions with a small number of free parameters. Total and differential cross sections (w.r.t. momentum transfer and pair invariant masses) are presented, with no narrow resonant structures observed and s s-bar suppression similar to other reactions.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work supplies the first data on Lambda Lambda-bar and p Lambda-bar photoproduction in this energy range, extending the experimental record of baryon-pair production. The parsimonious double t-channel model provides a concrete, testable description of the forward peaking and asymmetries, strengthening the case for t-channel dominance in the Regge regime. The reported absence of narrow structures and the quark-pair suppression pattern add quantitative constraints useful for future amplitude analyses and Regge phenomenology.

major comments (1)
  1. [Phenomenological model and results sections] The central interpretation that the double t-channel exchange process fully accounts for the forward-peaked distributions, asymmetric wide-angle anti-baryon distributions, and absence of narrow structures rests on the phenomenological model matching the data with few free parameters. However, no chi-squared per degree of freedom, parameter uncertainties, or direct comparisons to single t-channel Regge models or models including s-channel terms are reported for the differential distributions. This quantitative gap directly affects the load-bearing claim of model adequacy and uniqueness.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the model matches distributions but provides no information on systematic uncertainties, background subtraction procedures, or the statistical criteria used to conclude the absence of narrow resonances; adding these would improve clarity for readers.
  2. [Cross-section results] Cross-section tables or figures should explicitly list both statistical and systematic uncertainties for each bin to allow independent assessment of the reported values.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive evaluation of the significance of our measurements and for the constructive comment on the phenomenological model. We address the major comment below and will revise the manuscript to strengthen the quantitative support for our interpretation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central interpretation that the double t-channel exchange process fully accounts for the forward-peaked distributions, asymmetric wide-angle anti-baryon distributions, and absence of narrow structures rests on the phenomenological model matching the data with few free parameters. However, no chi-squared per degree of freedom, parameter uncertainties, or direct comparisons to single t-channel Regge models or models including s-channel terms are reported for the differential distributions. This quantitative gap directly affects the load-bearing claim of model adequacy and uniqueness.

    Authors: We agree that including chi-squared per degree of freedom, parameter uncertainties, and explicit comparisons to alternative models would improve the rigor of the model section. In the revised manuscript we will add the chi-squared per degree of freedom values for the fits to the angular and invariant-mass distributions, together with the uncertainties on the fitted parameters. We will also include a direct comparison to a simple single t-channel Regge model, which we find fails to reproduce the observed forward-backward asymmetry in the anti-baryon angular distributions; this comparison will be shown in a new figure or table. A full s-channel resonance model is beyond the scope of the present phenomenological approach, but the absence of narrow structures already limits resonant contributions, and we will add a short discussion clarifying this point. These additions directly address the quantitative gap noted by the referee. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: experimental measurements and phenomenological consistency check are self-contained

full rationale

The paper's central results are direct experimental observations of cross sections, angular distributions, and invariant-mass spectra from the GlueX detector. The phenomenological model of double t-channel exchange is introduced only as a consistency check that reproduces the data shapes using a small number of adjustable parameters; it is not presented as a first-principles derivation, prediction, or uniqueness theorem. No equations or claims reduce the reported measurements to the model parameters by construction, and no self-citation chains or imported ansätze carry the load-bearing interpretation. The analysis therefore remains independent of its own fitted inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The report rests on experimental data collection and a phenomenological model whose parameters are adjusted to fit the observed angular and mass distributions.

free parameters (1)
  • Phenomenological model parameters
    Small number of free parameters in the double t-channel exchange model tuned to match all observed distributions.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Forward peaking of angular distributions arises from Regge-like t-channel exchange
    Invoked to interpret the observed angular distributions as consistent with this mechanism.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 6484 in / 1188 out tokens · 36798 ms · 2026-05-18T03:18:01.922795+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    40±.20 .40±.20 .40±.20 θ5 (GeV−2) lower vertex slope (α ′ 3 ind 2σdouble/t′ 1u′

    work page

  2. [2]

    14±.03 .10±.03 .40±.03 θ6 (GeV2) cutoff oft ′ 1 (t1 cutoff ind 2σdouble/t′ 1u′

    work page

  3. [3]

    15) θ7 (GeV−2) upper vertex slope (α ′ 1 ind 2σdouble/t′ 1u′

    49±.20 .00±.20 .50±.20 Double Exchange-II (k= 3) (Eq. 15) θ7 (GeV−2) upper vertex slope (α ′ 1 ind 2σdouble/t′ 1u′

    work page

  4. [4]

    80±.40 - - θ8 (GeV−2) lower vertex slope (α ′ 3 ind 2σdouble/t′ 1u′

    work page

  5. [5]

    1.60±.40 - - θ9 (GeV2) cutoff oft ′ 1 (t1 cutoff ind 2σdouble/t′ 1u′

    work page

  6. [6]

    Online Convex Optimization

    49±.20 - - histogram bin: LX (x;w,θ) = Y j e−Mj(x;w,θ)[Mj(x;w,θ)] Oj Oj! ,(17) whereO j is the observed or measured number of events at bin-jforXin the data without acceptance correction. Mj represents the expected number of events in binj, generated from the combined model with parameter set θand fractionsw(see Eq. 18), reconstructed using the reconstruc...

    work page 1977

  7. [7]

    21, is a quantitative measure of the extent to which the data can be approximated by the reconstructed Monte Carlo simulations

    Modeling with embedded reconstruction efficiency The global negative-log-likelihood function, defined in Eq. 21, is a quantitative measure of the extent to which the data can be approximated by the reconstructed Monte Carlo simulations. The likelihood incorporates an efficiency factor,ϵ(x;θ), embedded in the binned his- togram representation of the observ...

    work page

  8. [8]

    offline optimization

    Online optimization focusing on local efficiency mapping Instead of attempting to map the entire global effi- ciencyg(x ′) as a fixed function and optimize the likeli- hood function across the entire parameter space (which is referred to as “offline optimization” in this context), we reformulate the problem as an “Online Optimiza- tion” [39]: minimizing a...

    work page

  9. [9]

    However, since the global negative-log-likelihood defined in Eq

    Stochastic Gradient Descent Conventional gradient-based optimization techniques can be very effective with direct access to the gradient value. However, since the global negative-log-likelihood defined in Eq. 21 does not have any analytic form, di- rect computation of its gradient is infeasible. Instead, we use a stochastic approximation to the gradient [...

    work page

  10. [10]

    H. H. Binghamet al., Phys. Rev. D8, 1277 (1973)

    work page 1973

  11. [11]

    Barber, J

    D. Barber, J. Dainton, L. Lee, R. Marshall, J. Thomp- son, D. Williams, T. Brodbeck, G. Frost, D. Newton, G. Patrick, G. Pearce, T. Sloan, G. Brookes, W. Haynes, and P. Wilkes, Physics Letters B90, 470 (1980)

    work page 1980

  12. [12]

    Astonet al., Phys

    D. Astonet al., Phys. Lett. B93, 517 (1980)

    work page 1980

  13. [13]

    Bodenkamp, D

    J. Bodenkamp, D. Fries, A. Markou, E. Seitz, H. Behrend, W. Hesse, T. Miyachi, W. McNeely, and V. Schr¨ oder, Nuclear Physics B255, 717 (1985)

    work page 1985

  14. [14]

    Stokes,Search for Resonances in the Photoproduction of Proton-Antiproton Pairs, Ph.D

    B. Stokes,Search for Resonances in the Photoproduction of Proton-Antiproton Pairs, Ph.D. thesis, Florida State Univ. (2006)

    work page 2006

  15. [15]

    Phelps,Antibaryon Photoproduction using CLAS at Jefferson Lab, Ph.D

    W. Phelps,Antibaryon Photoproduction using CLAS at Jefferson Lab, Ph.D. thesis, Florida International Univ. (2017)

    work page 2017

  16. [16]

    Phelps and L

    W. Phelps and L. Guo (CLAS), AIP Conf. Proc.1735, 030021 (2016)

    work page 2016

  17. [17]

    Benkheiriet al., Physics Letters B68, 483 (1977)

    P. Benkheiriet al., Physics Letters B68, 483 (1977). 33

    work page 1977

  18. [18]

    B. G. Gibbard, L. A. Ahrens, K. Berkelman, D. G. Cas- sel, C. T. Day, D. J. Harding,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.42, 1593 (1979)

    work page 1979

  19. [19]

    Klempt, F

    E. Klempt, F. Bradamante, A. Martin, and J. M. Richard, Phys. Rept.368, 119 (2002)

    work page 2002

  20. [20]

    Amsler and F

    C. Amsler and F. Myhrer, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science41, 219 (1991)

    work page 1991

  21. [21]

    Dover, T

    C. Dover, T. Gutsche, M. Maruyama, and A. Faessler, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics29, 87 (1992)

    work page 1992

  22. [22]

    B. S. Zou and H. C. Chiang, Phys. Rev. D69, 034004 (2004)

    work page 2004

  23. [23]

    Sibirtsev, J

    A. Sibirtsev, J. Haidenbauer, S. Krewald, U.-G. Meißner, and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D71, 054010 (2005)

    work page 2005

  24. [24]

    X.-W. Kang, J. Haidenbauer, and U.-G. Meißner, Phys. Rev. D91, 074003 (2015)

    work page 2015

  25. [25]

    Haidenbauer and U.-G

    J. Haidenbauer and U.-G. Meißner, EPJ Web Conf.258, 06002 (2022)

    work page 2022

  26. [26]

    L.-Y. Dai, J. Haidenbauer, and U.-G. Meißner, Journal of High Energy Physics07, 078 (2017)

    work page 2017

  27. [27]

    P. D. Barneset al., Phys. Rev. C62, 055203 (2000)

    work page 2000

  28. [28]

    Haidenbauer, K

    J. Haidenbauer, K. Holinde, and J. Speth, Nucl. Phys. A 562, 317 (1993)

    work page 1993

  29. [29]

    Haidenbauer and U.-G

    J. Haidenbauer and U.-G. Meißner, Eur. Phys. J. A59, 136 (2023)

    work page 2023

  30. [30]

    Haidenbauer and U

    J. Haidenbauer and U. G. Meißner, Eur. Phys. J. A60, 119 (2024)

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    Acharya, D

    S. Acharya, D. Adamova, A. Adler, J. Adolfsson, G. A. Rinella, M. Agnello, N. Agrawal, Z. Ahammed, S. Ah- mad, S. U. Ahn,et al., Physics Letters B829, 137060 (2022)

    work page 2022

  32. [32]

    V. M. Sarti, The European Physical Journal C85, 1068 (2025)

    work page 2025

  33. [33]

    Gutsche, S

    T. Gutsche, S. Kuleshov, V. E. Lyubovitskij, and I. T. Obukhovsky, Phys. Rev. D94, 034010 (2016)

    work page 2016

  34. [34]

    Gutsche, S

    T. Gutsche, S. Kuleshov, V. E. Lyubovitskij, and I. T. Obukhovsky, Phys. Rev. D96, 054024 (2017)

    work page 2017

  35. [35]

    Schumacher and H

    R. Schumacher and H. Li (GlueX), AIP Conf. Proc. 2130, 020007 (2019)

    work page 2019

  36. [36]

    Li and R

    H. Li and R. A. Schumacher (GlueX), AIP Conf. Proc. 2249, 030037 (2020)

    work page 2020

  37. [37]

    Li,Baryon-Antibaryon Photoproduction off the Pro- ton, Ph.D

    H. Li,Baryon-Antibaryon Photoproduction off the Pro- ton, Ph.D. thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, Depart- ment of Physics (2023)

    work page 2023

  38. [38]

    Adhikariet al.(GlueX), Nucl

    S. Adhikariet al.(GlueX), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A987, 164807 (2021)

    work page 2021

  39. [39]

    Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys

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

    work page 2024

  40. [40]

    P. D. B. Collins,An Introduction to Regge Theory and High Energy Physics, Cambridge Monographs on Math- ematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 1977)

    work page 1977

  41. [41]

    Byckling and K

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

    work page 1973

  42. [42]

    and Danilkin, I

    Shi, M. and Danilkin, I. V. and Fern´ andez-Ram´ ırez, C. and Mathieu, V. and Pennington, M. R. and Schott, D. and Szczepaniak, A. P., Phys. Rev. D91, 034007 (2015)

    work page 2015

  43. [43]

    S. U. Chung,Spin formalisms, Tech. Rep. (Brookhaven Nat. Lab., 2008)

    work page 2008

  44. [44]

    Donnachie and P

    A. Donnachie and P. V. Landshoff, Physics Letters B 478, 146 (2000)

    work page 2000

  45. [45]

    J. Nys, A. N. H. Blin, V. Mathieu, C. Fern´ andez- Ram´ ırez, A. Jackura, A. Pilloni, J. Ryckebusch, A. P. Szczepaniak, and G. Fox (Joint Physics Analysis Cen- ter), Phys. Rev. D98, 034020 (2018)

    work page 2018

  46. [46]

    Van Hove, Nucl

    L. Van Hove, Nucl. Phys. B9, 331 (1969)

    work page 1969

  47. [47]

    Barlow and C

    R. Barlow and C. Beeston, Computer Physics Commu- nications77, 219 (1993)

    work page 1993

  48. [48]

    A. D. Flaxman, A. T. Kalai, and H. B. McMahan, (2004), arXiv:cs/0408007 [cs.LG]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  49. [49]

    Bodenkamp, D

    J. Bodenkamp, D. C. Fries, A. Markou, E. Seitz, H. J. Behrend, H. Fenner, W. P. Hesse, T. Miyachi, W. A. McNeely, and V. Schr¨ oder, Phys. Lett. B133, 275 (1983)

    work page 1983

  50. [50]

    Ballamet al., Phys

    J. Ballamet al., Phys. Rev. D5, 545 (1972)

    work page 1972

  51. [51]

    Mestayeret al.(CLAS), Phys

    M. Mestayeret al.(CLAS), Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 152004 (2014)

    work page 2014

  52. [52]

    Bocquetet al., Physics Letters B366, 447 (1996)

    G. Bocquetet al., Physics Letters B366, 447 (1996)

    work page 1996

  53. [53]

    Wroblewski, Acta Physica Polonica

    A. Wroblewski, Acta Physica Polonica. Series B16, 379 (1985)

    work page 1985

  54. [54]

    Malhotra and R

    P. Malhotra and R. Orava, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik C Par- ticles and Fields17, 85 (1983)

    work page 1983

  55. [55]

    K. Abe, K. Abe, T. Abe,et al.(SLD Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D59, 052001 (1999)

    work page 1999

  56. [56]

    Aaron, C

    F. Aaron, C. Alexa, V. Andreev, B. Antunovic, S. Aplin, A. Asmone, A. Astvatsatourov, A. Bacchetta, S. Back- ovic,et al.(H1 Collab.), The European Physical Journal C61, 185 (2009)

    work page 2009

  57. [57]

    Accardiet al., The European Physical Journal A60, 173 (2024)

    A. Accardiet al., The European Physical Journal A60, 173 (2024)

    work page 2024

  58. [58]

    Baiet al.(BES Collaboration), Phys

    J. Baiet al.(BES Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 022001 (2003)

    work page 2003

  59. [59]

    Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Chin

    M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Chin. Phys. C34, 421 (2010)

    work page 2010

  60. [60]

    Smith, L

    A. Smith, L. Meritet, M. Reyrolle, F. Vazeille, R. Bonino, A. Castellina, S. Erhan, G. Ingelman, M. Medinnis, P. Schlein, P. Sherwood, S. Vernetto, J. Zweizig, J. Alitti, B. Bloch-Devaux, J. Cheze, A. Montag, and J. Zsembery, Physics Letters B163, 267 (1985)

    work page 1985

  61. [61]

    GlueX data access via Durham HEP Database (2025)

    work page 2025

  62. [62]

    Boyd and L

    S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe,Convex optimization (Cambridge University Press, 2004)

    work page 2004