Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

The Ξ*0 K− femtoscopic correlation function is predicted to show a clear near-threshold valley that fingerprints the Ω(2012) as a molecular state.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-13 22:29 UTC pith:X7ZBN7OS

load-bearing objection First solid CF predictions for Ξ* K-bar that flag the Ω(2012) pole as a clean near-threshold probe, ready for ALICE. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2603.18610 v2 pith:X7ZBN7OS submitted 2026-03-19 hep-ph

Signatures of the Ω(2012)⁻ state in Xi^*bar K Correlation Functions

Jia-Xin Lin , Pablo Encarnaci\'on , Albert Feijoo , Miguel Albaladejo This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords Ω(2012)femtoscopycorrelation functionsmolecular stateschiral unitary approachΞ* K-barstrangeness S=-3
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper claims that the Ω(2012) resonance is a dynamically generated quasi-bound state of Ξ* K-bar and Ω η, and that its presence leaves a sharp, measurable imprint on the two-particle correlation function of Ξ*0 K− pairs produced in high-energy collisions. By fitting a coupled-channel chiral model to the measured mass, width and branching fraction of the resonance, the authors obtain quantitative predictions for the correlation functions of Ξ*0 K−, Ξ*− K-bar0 and Ω− η systems. The Ξ*0 K− correlation function develops a pronounced valley-like structure right at threshold because the resonance pole sits only about 10 MeV below that threshold; that structure is highly sensitive both to the precise pole position and to the molecular composition of the state. The calculation therefore supplies the first concrete theoretical benchmark that experimental groups can use to test the molecular picture of the Ω(2012) with femtoscopy rather than with conventional invariant-mass spectra alone.

Core claim

Within a coupled-channel chiral unitary framework constrained by the experimental mass, width and branching fraction of the Ω(2012), the Ξ*0 K− correlation function exhibits a pronounced near-threshold valley that is a direct signature of the nearby resonance pole and of the state’s Ξ* K-bar–Ω η molecular composition; this correlation function is therefore a clean and highly selective experimental probe of the resonance.

What carries the argument

The unitarized coupled-channel T-matrix generated from the Weinberg–Tomozawa s-wave potentials plus phenomenological d-wave couplings α and β, inserted into the Koonin–Pratt formula for the two-particle correlation function; the resonance pole of that T-matrix produces the near-threshold structure in C(p).

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes that all isospin-one d-wave transitions and the pure isospin-one π0 Ω channel can be neglected, so that only the isospin-zero dynamics that generate the Ω(2012) matter.

What would settle it

A high-statistics measurement of the Ξ*0 K− correlation function at source sizes around 1 fm that shows no near-threshold valley structure (or a structure incompatible with the predicted shape once production weights and source-size uncertainties are accounted for).

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the Ω(2012)− in the S=−3 sector within a coupled-channel chiral unitary approach. The resonance is generated as a quasi-bound Ξ∗K̄–Ωη molecular state, with d-wave couplings to ΞK̄. Three free parameters (Λ, α, β) are fixed to the experimental mass, width, and Belle branching fraction RΞKπ/ΞK, yielding M=(2012.53±0.73) MeV and Γ=(4.05±0.13) MeV. From the resulting T-matrix the authors compute the first quantitative femtoscopic correlation functions for Ξ∗0K−, Ξ∗−K̄0 and Ω−η (Koonin–Pratt formula, Gaussian source R=1.2 fm). The Ξ∗K̄ CFs display clear near-threshold valleys linked to the nearby Ω(2012) pole; the Ξ∗0K− CF is singled out as the cleanest experimental probe. Couplings, compositeness (~78 %), and scattering lengths are also reported.

Significance. If the predicted CF structures are confirmed, the work supplies a concrete, falsifiable benchmark for ALICE (and similar) femtoscopy programs and a direct test of the molecular interpretation of the Ω(2012). The calculation is the first quantitative CF prediction in this sector that is fully constrained by the measured mass, width and branching ratio; production-weight and source-size uncertainties are propagated into 68 % CL bands. The results therefore go beyond conventional invariant-mass analyses and offer a practical route to extract resonance properties and channel composition from two-particle correlations.

major comments (2)
  1. Section II.A (after Eq. (1) and the following paragraph): the I=1 d-wave Ξ∗K̄ ↔ ΞK̄ transitions and the pure I=1 π°Ω channel are set to zero, and the d-wave ΞK̄ ↔ ΞK̄ interaction is neglected. While these choices are standard and the resonance is an I=0 state, a short quantitative estimate of their residual effect on the near-threshold CF shape (e.g., by varying the corresponding couplings within a plausible range) would strengthen the claim that the Ξ∗0K− valley is a robust, selective probe.
  2. Section III and Fig. 1: the CF predictions are shown only for a single source size R=1.2 fm (with a 10 % uncertainty band). Because the depth and width of the near-threshold structure depend on R, a brief scan over a realistic range (e.g., 0.8–1.5 fm) would make the experimental benchmark more useful and would clarify how sensitive the claimed selectivity remains under source-size variation.
minor comments (5)
  1. Table II: the compositeness entries for the open ΞK̄ channels are left blank; a short remark on why they are omitted (or an alternative measure such as |g_i G_i|) would improve clarity.
  2. Eq. (15) and Table I: the production weights ω_j are taken from the VLC method of Ref. [58]. A one-sentence reminder of the main assumptions of that method would help non-specialist readers.
  3. Figure 1 caption: the phrase “with and without the Ξ∗” is slightly ambiguous; rephrase as “with and without the finite width of the Ξ∗” for precision.
  4. Section II.A: the statement that the d-wave ΞK̄ ↔ ΞK̄ matrix elements would carry a q^4 factor is correct, but a brief note that their omission is an approximation (rather than a symmetry requirement) would avoid possible misreading.
  5. References: a few recent experimental papers on Ω(2012) production (ALICE, BESIII) are cited; ensuring that the most recent PDG averages are used for the input mass and width would keep the fit fully up to date.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: parameters are fitted to mass/width/BR, after which the CFs are genuine post-fit predictions from the T-matrix.

full rationale

The derivation chain is standard and non-circular. The potential (Eq. 1) and unitarized T-matrix (Eq. 4) are constructed from chiral WT terms plus two phenomenological d-wave couplings; the three free parameters (Λ, α, β) are then fitted to the experimental mass, width and Belle branching fraction R (Eqs. 18–20). Once the T-matrix is fixed, the femtoscopic correlation functions are obtained from the Koonin–Pratt formula (Eq. 15) that uses those T-matrix elements together with independently estimated production weights. The resulting near-threshold structures in the Ξ* K-bar CFs are therefore predictions for a new observable class, not quantities forced by construction to reproduce the fitted inputs. Self-citations supply the underlying chiral-unitary framework and the VLC production-weight method, but they are not load-bearing for the claim that the CFs exhibit pole-driven structures; those structures follow directly from the fitted T-matrix evaluated in the KP integral. Modeling choices (neglect of I=1 d-wave transitions, vanishing d-wave ΞK↔ΞK, etc.) are explicit assumptions, not circular reductions. The paper is therefore self-contained against external experimental benchmarks and contains no equation that equates a claimed prediction to a fitted input.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on three fitted parameters (Λ, α, β), the standard chiral unitary and Koonin-Pratt formalisms, and a handful of domain assumptions about neglected channels and equal cut-offs. No new particles or forces are invented; the molecular interpretation is taken from earlier work and only re-fitted.

free parameters (3)
  • Λ (UV cutoff) = 814 ± 1 MeV
    Regularization scale for the loop functions; fitted to Ω(2012) mass, width and branching ratio.
  • α (d-wave Ξ*K ↔ ΞK coupling) = (3.62 ± 0.17)×10^{-8} MeV^{-3}
    Phenomenological strength of the d-wave transition; fitted.
  • β (d-wave Ωη ↔ ΞK coupling) = (1.07 ± 0.10)×10^{-8} MeV^{-3}
    Phenomenological strength of the second d-wave transition; fitted.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Leading-order Weinberg-Tomozawa s-wave potential plus phenomenological d-wave terms generate the Ω(2012) as a quasi-bound state.
    Stated in §II.A and used throughout the unitarization; taken from the earlier molecular literature.
  • ad hoc to paper I=1 d-wave Ξ*K ↔ ΞK transitions and the π0Ω channel can be neglected.
    Explicitly assumed after Eq. (1) because no experimental constraint exists and the resonance is pure I=0.
  • ad hoc to paper d-wave ΞK ↔ ΞK interaction is set to zero.
    Stated in §II.A; simplifies the potential matrix.
  • domain assumption Source function is a Gaussian of radius R = 1.2 fm (with 10 % uncertainty).
    Standard femtoscopy assumption used in Eq. (16) and Fig. 1.
  • domain assumption Production weights ω_j are those obtained by the VLC method of Encarnación et al.
    Table I and Appendix reference; external input to the KP formula.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 20520 in / 2723 out tokens · 26759 ms · 2026-07-13T22:29:23.681851+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate the $\Omega(2012)$ resonance in the strangeness $S=-3$ sector within a coupled-channel chiral unitary approach and present the first quantitative predictions for femtoscopic correlation functions directly sensitive to its dynamics. The $\Omega(2012)$ is dynamically generated as a quasi-bound $\Xi^{\ast}\bar K$-$\Omega\eta$ molecular state, with its coupling to the $\Xi\bar{K}$ channel driven by $d$-wave transitions. Model parameters are constrained by the measured mass, width, and the Belle determination of the branching fraction $\mathcal R^{\Xi\bar K\pi}_{\Xi\bar K}$, yielding $M_{\Omega(2012)}=(2012.53\pm0.73)$ MeV and $\Gamma_{\Omega(2012)}=(4.05\pm0.13)$ MeV. Within this framework, we compute the femtoscopic correlation functions of the $\Xi^{\ast0}K^-$, $\Xi^{\ast-}\bar K^0$, and $\Omega^-\eta$ systems. The $\Xi^{\ast}\bar K$ correlation functions exhibit pronounced near-threshold structures that arise from the proximity of the $\Omega(2012)$ pole, demonstrating an exceptional sensitivity to its position and coupled-channel composition. In particular, the $\Xi^{\ast0}K^-$ correlation function is identified as a clean and highly selective probe of the $\Omega(2012)$ resonance. These results establish femtoscopic correlation measurements as powerful tools for extracting resonance properties beyond conventional invariant-mass analyses and provide concrete theoretical benchmarks for upcoming experimental studies aimed at elucidating the molecular nature of the $\Omega(2012)$.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Probing the hadronic molecular nature of the $\Omega(2012)$, $\Omega(2380)$, and $\Omega_c(3120)$ via femtoscopy correlation functions

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Correlation function calculations with coupled-channel potentials produce low-momentum enhancements that the authors interpret as signatures of the molecular structure of Ω(2012), Ω(2380), and Ωc(3120).

  2. Probing the hadronic molecular nature of the $\Omega(2012)$, $\Omega(2380)$, and $\Omega_c(3120)$ via femtoscopy correlation functions

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Numerical correlation functions computed from effective potentials exhibit enhancements that indicate the hadronic molecular nature of the Ω(2012), Ω(2380), and Ωc(3120) resonances.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 50 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), (2025), arXiv:2502.18063 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Ablikimet al

    M. Ablikimet al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 131903 (2025), arXiv:2411.11648 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Jiaet al

    S. Jiaet al. (Belle), Phys. Lett. B860, 139224 (2025), arXiv:2207.03090 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Jia et al

    S. Jia et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. D100, 032006 (2019), arXiv:1906.00194 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    Yelton et al

    J. Yelton et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 052003 (2018), arXiv:1805.09384 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  7. [7]

    Capstick and N

    S. Capstick and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. D34, 2809 (1986)

    1986

  8. [8]

    Loring, B

    U. Loring, B. C. Metsch, and H. R. Petry, Eur. Phys. J. A10, 447 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0103290

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  9. [9]

    Oh, Phys

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

    arXiv 2007

  10. [10]

    Pervin and W

    M. Pervin and W. Roberts, Phys. Rev. C77, 025202 (2008), arXiv:0709.4000 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  11. [11]

    R. N. Faustov and V. O. Galkin, Phys. Rev. D92, 054005 (2015), arXiv:1507.04530 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  12. [12]

    Tanabashiet al

    M. Tanabashiet al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D98, 030001 (2018)

    2018

  13. [13]

    K.-T. Chao, N. Isgur, and G. Karl, Phys. Rev. D23, 155 (1981)

    1981

  14. [14]

    C. S. Kalman, Phys. Rev. D26, 2326 (1982)

    1982

  15. [15]

    C. S. An, B. C. Metsch, and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. C 87, 065207 (2013), arXiv:1304.6046 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  16. [16]

    C. S. An and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. C89, 055209 (2014), arXiv:1403.7897 [hep-ph]. 8

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  17. [17]

    Liang, W

    J. Liang, W. Sun, Y. Chen, W.-F. Qiu, M. Gong, C. Liu, Y.-B. Liu, Z. Liu, J.-P. Ma, and J.-B. Zhang (CLQCD), Chin. Phys. C40, 041001 (2016), arXiv:1511.04294 [hep- lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  18. [18]

    Xiao and X.-H

    L.-Y. Xiao and X.-H. Zhong, Phys. Rev. D98, 034004 (2018), arXiv:1805.11285 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  19. [19]

    T. M. Aliev, K. Azizi, Y. Sarac, and H. Sundu, Phys. Rev. D98, 014031 (2018), arXiv:1806.01626 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  20. [20]

    T. M. Aliev, K. Azizi, Y. Sarac, and H. Sundu, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 894 (2018), arXiv:1807.02145 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  21. [21]

    Wang, L.-C

    Z.-Y. Wang, L.-C. Gui, Q.-F. Lü, L.-Y. Xiao, and X.-H. Zhong, Phys. Rev. D98, 114023 (2018), arXiv:1810.08318 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  22. [22]

    M.V.Polyakov,H.-D.Son,B.-D.Sun, andA.Tandogan, Phys. Lett. B792, 315 (2019), arXiv:1806.04427 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  23. [23]

    M.-S.Liu,K.-L.Wang,Q.-F.Lü, andX.-H.Zhong,Phys. Rev. D101, 016002 (2020), arXiv:1910.10322 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  24. [24]

    X. Liu, H. Huang, J. Ping, and D. Chen, Phys. Rev. C 103, 025202 (2021), arXiv:2010.15398 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  25. [25]

    A. J. Arifi, D. Suenaga, A. Hosaka, and Y. Oh, Phys. Rev. D105, 094006 (2022), arXiv:2201.10427 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  26. [26]

    Zhong, R.-H

    H.-H. Zhong, R.-H. Ni, M.-Y. Chen, X.-H. Zhong, and J.-J. Xie, Chin. Phys. C47, 063104 (2023), arXiv:2209.09398 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  27. [27]

    Wang, Q.-F

    K.-L. Wang, Q.-F. Lü, J.-J. Xie, and X.-H. Zhong, Phys. Rev. D107, 034015 (2023), arXiv:2203.04458 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

    Luo and X

    S.-Q. Luo and X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D112, 014047 (2025), arXiv:2504.14648 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    M. P. Valderrama, Phys. Rev. D98, 054009 (2018), arXiv:1807.00718 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  30. [30]

    Lin and B.-S

    Y.-H. Lin and B.-S. Zou, Phys. Rev. D98, 056013 (2018), arXiv:1807.00997 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  31. [31]

    Pavao and E

    R. Pavao and E. Oset, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 857 (2018), arXiv:1808.01950 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  32. [32]

    Huang, M.-Z

    Y. Huang, M.-Z. Liu, J.-X. Lu, J.-J. Xie, and L.-S. Geng, Phys. Rev. D98, 076012 (2018), arXiv:1807.06485 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  33. [33]

    T.GutscheandV.E.Lyubovitskij,J.Phys.G48,025001 (2020), arXiv:1912.10894 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  34. [34]

    J.-X.Lu,C.-H.Zeng,E.Wang,J.-J.Xie, andL.-S.Geng, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 361 (2020), arXiv:2003.07588 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  35. [35]

    Ikeno, G

    N. Ikeno, G. Toledo, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D101, 094016 (2020), arXiv:2003.07580 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  36. [36]

    Lin, Y.-H

    Y. Lin, Y.-H. Lin, F. Wang, B. Zou, and B.-S. Zou, Phys. Rev. D102, 074025 (2020), arXiv:1910.13919 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  37. [37]

    Ikeno, W.-H

    N. Ikeno, W.-H. Liang, G. Toledo, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D106, 034022 (2022), arXiv:2204.13396 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  38. [38]

    Q.-F. Lü, H. Nagahiro, and A. Hosaka, Phys. Rev. D 107, 014025 (2023), arXiv:2212.02783 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  39. [39]

    Han, Z.-W

    F.-C. Han, Z.-W. Liu, D. B. Leinweber, and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D112, L051503 (2025), arXiv:2507.06682 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    Shen, J.-X

    Q.-H. Shen, J.-X. Lu, L.-S. Geng, X. Liu, and J.-J. Xie, (2025), arXiv:2510.13623 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Sarkar, E

    S. Sarkar, E. Oset, and M. J. Vicente Vacas, Nucl. Phys. A750, 294 (2005), [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.A 780, 90–90 (2006)], arXiv:nucl-th/0407025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  42. [42]

    Hofmann and M

    J. Hofmann and M. F. M. Lutz, Nucl. Phys. A776, 17 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0601249

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  43. [43]

    Y.-Y. Li, A. Feijoo, and E. Oset, (2026), arXiv:2601.21536 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  44. [44]

    I. J. Abualrobet al. (ALICE), (2025), arXiv:2509.24519 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    Ikeno, G

    N. Ikeno, G. Toledo, and E. Oset, Phys. Lett. B847, 138281 (2023), arXiv:2305.16431 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  46. [46]

    Feijoo, L

    A. Feijoo, L. R. Dai, L. M. Abreu, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D109, 016014 (2024), arXiv:2309.00444 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    Albaladejo, A

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  48. [48]

    S. E. Koonin, Phys. Lett. B70, 43 (1977)

    1977

  49. [49]

    Pratt, T

    S. Pratt, T. Csorgo, and J. Zimanyi, Phys. Rev. C42, 2646 (1990)

    1990

  50. [50]

    Bauer, C

    W. Bauer, C. K. Gelbke, and S. Pratt, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.42, 77 (1992)

    1992

  51. [51]

    J.-X. Lin, P. Encarnación, M. Albaladejo, and A. Feijoo, (2025), arXiv:2507.10505 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    Encarnación, M

    P. Encarnación, M. Albaladejo, A. Feijoo, and J. Nieves, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1347 (2025), arXiv:2507.08466 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    Nieves, A

    J. Nieves, A. Feijoo, M. Albaladejo, and M.-L. Du, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.137, 104118 (2024), arXiv:2402.12726 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  54. [54]

    Haidenbauer, Nucl

    J. Haidenbauer, Nucl. Phys. A981, 1 (2019), arXiv:1808.05049 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  55. [55]

    Vidana, A

    I. Vidana, A. Feijoo, M. Albaladejo, J. Nieves, and E. Oset, Phys. Lett. B846, 138201 (2023), arXiv:2303.06079 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  56. [56]

    Albaladejo, A

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  57. [57]

    Feijoo, M

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    Encarnación, A

    P. Encarnación, A. Feijoo, V. M. Sarti, and A. Ramos, Phys. Rev. D111, 114013 (2025), arXiv:2412.20880 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

    Navaset al

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

    2024

  60. [60]

    Gamermann, J

    D. Gamermann, J. Nieves, E. Oset, and E. Ruiz Arriola, Phys. Rev. D81, 014029 (2010), arXiv:0911.4407 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  61. [61]

    Sekihara, T

    T. Sekihara, T. Hyodo, and D. Jido, PTEP2015, 063D04 (2015), arXiv:1411.2308 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  62. [62]

    Kamiya and T

    Y. Kamiya and T. Hyodo, Phys. Rev. C93, 035203 (2016), arXiv:1509.00146 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  63. [63]

    Albaladejo and J

    M. Albaladejo and J. Nieves, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 724 (2022), arXiv:2203.04864 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  64. [64]

    Aceti and E

    F. Aceti and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D86, 014012 (2012), arXiv:1202.4607 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  65. [65]

    Liu, J.-X

    Z.-W. Liu, J.-X. Lu, and L.-S. Geng, Phys. Rev. D107, 074019 (2023), arXiv:2302.01046 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023