arxiv: 2605.03586 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-05 · ✦ hep-ph

Recognition: unknown

Role of a₀(1710) in the J/psitorho^+rho^-ω and J/psitoγrho⁰ω reactions

Wen-Tao Lyu , Luis Roca , Eulogio Oset

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 15:35 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph

keywords a0(1710)J/psi decayfinal-state interactionsrho omegascalar resonanceinvariant mass distributionBESIII

0 comments

The pith

S-wave interactions generate an a0(1710) peak near 1.8 GeV in J/psi to rho omega decays.

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

The paper studies the strong decay J/psi to rho+ rho- omega and the radiative decay J/psi to gamma rho0 omega while including final-state interactions. These S-wave interactions between K* Kbar*, rho omega and rho phi pairs are taken to produce the a0(1710) resonance dynamically. Calculations then yield a distinct peak around 1.8 GeV in the rho omega invariant-mass spectra for both channels. The authors conclude that these peaks should be visible in data from BESIII, Belle II and the future STCF, allowing sharper extraction of the resonance mass and width.

Core claim

Our results demonstrate that a clear peak structure emerges around 1.8 GeV in the rho+ omega (rho- omega) invariant mass distribution of the strong decay, which can be associated with the a0(1710) resonance. Similarly, a distinct peak is predicted in the rho0 omega invariant mass distribution of the radiative decay. Our results show that clear peaks for the a0(1710) production should be observed in future experimental measurements of these processes, helping to get more precise values of mass and width than presently available.

What carries the argument

The S-wave K* Kbar*, rho omega and rho phi final-state interactions that dynamically generate the a0(1710) resonance.

If this is right

A clear peak appears near 1.8 GeV in the rho+ omega mass spectrum of the strong decay.
A distinct peak appears near 1.8 GeV in the rho0 omega mass spectrum of the radiative decay.
Both peaks are directly linked to the a0(1710) resonance.
Future runs at BESIII, Belle II and STCF should observe these structures and improve the resonance parameters.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Confirmation would strengthen the dynamical-generation picture for the a0(1710) from meson-meson scattering.
The same final-state-interaction framework could be applied to other charmonium decays involving vector-meson pairs.
Non-observation in related channels would constrain the coupling strengths of the generated resonance.

Load-bearing premise

The a0(1710) is assumed to be generated dynamically by the same S-wave interactions used in earlier chiral unitary models, with no fresh verification supplied here.

What would settle it

Absence of any peak structure near 1.8 GeV in the measured rho omega invariant-mass distributions from BESIII or Belle II data would falsify the prediction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.03586 by Eulogio Oset, Luis Roca, Wen-Tao Lyu.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. Topological structures of the polarization vectors. view at source ↗

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: FIG. 1. Mechanisms for tree level view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. Diagrammatic representation of the Vector Meson view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Mechanisms for tree level view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5 view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6 view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We investigate the strong decay $J/\psi\to\rho^+\rho^-\omega$ and the radiative decay $J/\psi\to\gamma\rho^0\omega$, taking into account the $S$-wave $K^*\bar{K}^*$, $\rho \omega$ and $\rho \phi$ final-state interactions that dynamically generate the scalar meson $a_0(1710)$. Our results demonstrate that a clear peak structure emerges around 1.8~GeV in the $\rho^+\omega$~($\rho^-\omega$) invariant mass distribution of the strong decay, which can be associated with the $a_0(1710)$ resonance. Similarly, a distinct peak is predicted in the $\rho^0\omega$ invariant mass distribution of the radiative decay. Our results show that clear peaks for the $a_0(1710)$ production should be observed in future experimental measurements of these processes by the BESIII and Belle II Collaborations, as well as the planned Super Tau-Charm Facility (STCF), helping to get more precise values of mass and width than presently available.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This paper re-applies an existing chiral unitary model for the a0(1710) to predict visible peaks near 1.8 GeV in the rho omega mass spectra of two J/psi decays, without re-deriving the resonance.

read the letter

This paper takes the S-wave final-state interactions that were previously shown to generate the a0(1710) pole and uses them to compute the rho omega invariant mass distributions in J/psi to rho+ rho- omega and in the radiative J/psi to gamma rho0 omega. The result is a clear peak near 1.8 GeV in both cases that the authors tie directly to the resonance. What is new is the concrete prediction for these particular decay modes. The authors work out the amplitudes including the production of the intermediate states and the subsequent rescattering, and they show that the resonance structure survives and should be visible. They also give guidance on which facilities could measure it with enough statistics to pin down the mass and width better. The calculation follows the established chiral unitary framework without introducing new parameters or mechanisms, which keeps it consistent with the group's earlier results. The abstract and the work indicate that the peaks emerge naturally from the dynamics. The main limitation is the dependence on the imported resonance properties. The pole position, width, and couplings come from fits in previous papers, and this manuscript does not re-solve the Bethe-Salpeter equation or test variations in the cutoff. That means the predictions inherit whatever uncertainties or model choices were made before. A small shift in the rho omega coupling strength could reduce the visibility of the peak, but no such study is presented here. This work is aimed at people studying scalar mesons in the 1.7 GeV region and those analyzing J/psi decays at electron-positron colliders. It provides a specific, falsifiable expectation that can be confronted with data. The logic is internally consistent and the citations to the foundational papers are appropriate. I would send it to peer review. Referees can check the technical details of the amplitude construction and suggest adding sensitivity plots if they are missing.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates the strong decay J/ψ → ρ⁺ρ⁻ω and the radiative decay J/ψ → γρ⁰ω by incorporating S-wave final-state interactions in the K*K-bar*, ρω and ρφ channels that dynamically generate the a0(1710) resonance within a chiral unitary framework. It reports that a clear peak structure emerges around 1.8 GeV in the ρ±ω invariant-mass distributions of the strong decay and in the ρ⁰ω distribution of the radiative decay, associating these features with the a0(1710) and predicting that they should be observable in future data from BESIII, Belle II and STCF.

Significance. If the predictions are robust, the work supplies concrete, channel-specific invariant-mass spectra that could serve as falsifiable tests for the a0(1710) resonance and help refine its mass and width. The calculation extends established chiral-unitary FSI techniques to new J/ψ decay modes, and the provision of explicit experimental signatures is a positive feature.

major comments (1)

[Formalism / amplitude construction] The S-wave FSI amplitudes (and the a0(1710) pole position and couplings) are imported without re-derivation from earlier chiral-unitary studies; no new Lippmann-Schwinger solution, pole search, or refit to fresh data is performed. Consequently the location and visibility of the ~1.8 GeV peak in the ρ±ω and ρ⁰ω spectra are fixed by the subtraction constants and cutoff chosen in those prior works. A quantitative sensitivity study to variations in the regularization cutoff (the only free parameter listed) is required to demonstrate that the reported peak structures survive reasonable changes in the input.

minor comments (2)

Explicitly cite the exact references and numerical values (subtraction constants, cutoff) used for each FSI channel when the amplitudes are first introduced.
[Results] Add uncertainty bands or a brief discussion of cutoff dependence to the invariant-mass plots so that the prominence of the peaks can be assessed quantitatively.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and the constructive comment. We address the point raised below.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The S-wave FSI amplitudes (and the a0(1710) pole position and couplings) are imported without re-derivation from earlier chiral-unitary studies; no new Lippmann-Schwinger solution, pole search, or refit to fresh data is performed. Consequently the location and visibility of the ~1.8 GeV peak in the ρ±ω and ρ⁰ω spectra are fixed by the subtraction constants and cutoff chosen in those prior works. A quantitative sensitivity study to variations in the regularization cutoff (the only free parameter listed) is required to demonstrate that the reported peak structures survive reasonable changes in the input.

Authors: We agree that the S-wave FSI amplitudes, pole position, and couplings of the a0(1710) are taken directly from our earlier chiral-unitary studies, where they were obtained by solving the Bethe-Salpeter equation with the appropriate kernel and regularization. The present work applies these established amplitudes to the new J/ψ decay modes without re-deriving them, as the focus is on the resulting invariant-mass distributions. The cutoff (and subtraction constants) were fixed in the prior works by fitting to available data on related channels. To address the referee's concern, we will add a quantitative sensitivity study in the revised manuscript by varying the cutoff within a physically motivated range around the nominal value used previously. The results will be shown explicitly to confirm that the ~1.8 GeV peak structures in both the strong and radiative decays remain visible and are not artifacts of the specific regularization choice. revision: yes

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Prediction of 1.8 GeV peaks in ρ+ω and ρ0ω spectra imports a0(1710) pole and couplings from prior chiral unitary FSI without re-derivation here

specific steps

self citation load bearing [Abstract]
"taking into account the S-wave K* K-bar*, ρ ω and ρ φ final-state interactions that dynamically generate the scalar meson a0(1710)"

The dynamical generation of the a0(1710) pole (mass, width, couplings to ρω) is not recomputed or refitted in the present work; the amplitudes are imported from earlier chiral unitary papers by the same group. The subsequent 'prediction' of a peak at ~1.8 GeV in the invariant-mass distributions is therefore the direct output of those pre-fitted inputs rather than an independent derivation.
fitted input called prediction [Abstract (results paragraph)]
"Our results demonstrate that a clear peak structure emerges around 1.8 GeV in the ρ+ω (ρ−ω) invariant mass distribution of the strong decay, which can be associated with the a0(1710) resonance. Similarly, a distinct peak is predicted in the ρ0ω invariant mass distribution of the radiative decay."

The peak position and visibility are fixed once the imported FSI amplitudes (with their already-determined pole) are inserted into the production diagrams; the 'prediction' is the kinematic projection of a pre-existing resonance rather than a new first-principles outcome.

full rationale

The paper's central results (clear peaks associated with a0(1710)) are obtained by inserting the S-wave K*K-bar*, ρω, ρφ amplitudes that were previously shown to generate the resonance pole. No new Lippmann-Schwinger solution, pole search, or refit to data is performed; the structures therefore follow by direct use of the imported T-matrix elements and subtraction constants. This matches the fitted-input-called-prediction pattern with load-bearing self-citation. The remainder of the calculation (production vertices, phase space) is independent and non-circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the dynamical generation of a0(1710) via meson-meson interactions in the chiral unitary approach; no new free parameters are introduced in the abstract but the framework inherits cutoffs and couplings from earlier fits.

free parameters (1)

regularization cutoff
Standard loop regulator in the chiral unitary model, previously fitted to data in cited works.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Final-state interactions in S-wave K* K-bar*, rho omega and rho phi channels dynamically generate the a0(1710) pole.
Invoked to produce the resonance structure in the invariant-mass distributions.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5521 in / 1257 out tokens · 38447 ms · 2026-05-07T15:35:45.383881+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

real-world

2±4 1)γρρ 4.5±0.8 22 3.19 2.73 4.00 2)γωω 16.1±3.3 19 0.09 0.05 0.13 3)γϕϕ 4.0±1.2 1.37 0.79 0.63 1.03 4)γK ∗ ¯K ∗ 40.0±13 52.9 7.88 6.50 9.51 5)γρϕ <0.88 81.2 0.83 0.82 0.97 6)γρω <5.4 13.7 7.93 6.29 10.3 A −0.20 −0.076 −0.070 −0.085 B 0.40 0.040 0.040 0.043 TABLE IV. The branching ratio for theJ/ψ→ρ +ρ−ωreaction. Fit 1 Fit 2 Fit 3 Fit 4 Br(J/ψ→ρ +ρ−ω) (...

work page doi:10.13039/501100011033 1900
[2]

F. E. Close and N. A. Tornqvist, J. Phys. G28, R249- R267 (2002)

2002
[3]

Amsler and N

C. Amsler and N. A. Tornqvist, Phys. Rept.389, 61-117 (2004)

2004
[4]

D. V. Bugg, Phys. Rept.397, 257-358 (2004)

2004
[5]

Klempt and A

E. Klempt and A. Zaitsev, Phys. Rept.454, 1-202 (2007)

2007
[6]

J. R. Pelaez, Phys. Rept.658, 1 (2016)

2016
[7]

Nieves and E

J. Nieves and E. Ruiz Arriola, Phys. Lett. B455, 30-38 (1999)

1999
[8]

Janssen, B

G. Janssen, B. C. Pearce, K. Holinde and J. Speth, Phys. Rev. D52, 2690-2700 (1995)

1995
[9]

Wolkanowski, F

T. Wolkanowski, F. Giacosa and D. H. Rischke, Phys. Rev. D93, no.1, 014002 (2016)

2016
[10]

R. L. Jaffe, Phys. Rev. D15, 267 (1977)

1977
[11]

R. L. Jaffe, AIP Conf. Proc.964, no.1, 1-13 (2007)

2007
[12]

Esposito, A

A. Esposito, A. Pilloni and A. D. Polosa, Phys. Rept. 668, 1-97 (2017)

2017
[13]

F. K. Guo, C. Hanhart, U. G. Meißner, Q. Wang, Q. Zhao and B. S. Zou, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, no.1, 015004 (2018) [erratum: Rev. Mod. Phys.94, no.2, 029901 (2022)]

2018
[14]

S. L. Olsen, T. Skwarnicki and D. Zieminska, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, no.1, 015003 (2018)

2018
[15]

R. F. Lebed, R. E. Mitchell and E. S. Swanson, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.93, 143-194 (2017)

2017
[16]

H. X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rept. 639, 1-121 (2016)

2016
[17]

Y. R. Liu, H. X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.107, 237-320 (2019)

2019
[18]

Brambilla, S

N. Brambilla, S. Eidelman, C. Hanhart, A. Nefediev, C. P. Shen, C. E. Thomas, A. Vairo and C. Z. Yuan, Phys. Rept.873, 1-154 (2020)

2020
[19]

A. Ali, J. S. Lange and S. Stone, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 97, 123-198 (2017)

2017
[20]

Karliner, J

M. Karliner, J. L. Rosner and T. Skwarnicki, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.68, 17-44 (2018)

2018
[21]

F. K. Guo, C. Hidalgo-Duque, J. Nieves and M. P. Valderrama, Phys. Rev. D88, 054007 (2013)

2013
[22]

T. W. Wu, Y. W. Pan, M. Z. Liu and L. S. Geng, Sci. Bull.67, 1735-1738 (2022)

2022
[23]

J. P. Leeset al.[BaBar], Phys. Rev. D104, no.7, 072002 (2021)

2021
[24]

Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys

M. Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys. Rev. D105, no.5, L051103 (2022)

2022
[25]

Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys

M. Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys. Rev. Lett.129, no.18, 182001 (2022)

2022
[26]

Aaijet al.[LHCb], Phys

R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], Phys. Rev. D108, no.3, 032010 (2023)

2023
[27]

L. S. Geng and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D79, 074009 (2009)

2009
[28]

Bando, T

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

1985
[29]

Bando, T

M. Bando, T. Kugo and K. Yamawaki, Phys. Rept.164, 217-314 (1988)

1988
[30]

U. G. Meissner, Phys. Rept.161, 213 (1988)

1988
[31]

Nagahiro, L

H. Nagahiro, L. Roca, A. Hosaka and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D79, 014015 (2009)

2009
[32]

Molina, D

R. Molina, D. Nicmorus and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D78, 114018 (2008)

2008
[33]

M. L. Du, D. G¨ ulmez, F. K. Guo, U. G. Meißner and Q. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C78, no.12, 988 (2018)

2018
[34]

Z. L. Wang and B. S. Zou, Eur. Phys. J. C82, no.6, 509 (2022)

2022
[35]

Garcia-Recio, L

C. Garcia-Recio, L. S. Geng, J. Nieves and L. L. Salcedo, Phys. Rev. D83, 016007 (2011)

2011
[36]

L. M. Abreu, W. F. Wang and E. Oset, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, no.3, 243 (2023) 10

2023
[37]

G. Y. Wang, S. C. Xue, G. N. Li, E. Wang and D. M. Li, Phys. Rev. D97, no.3, 034030 (2018)

2018
[38]

D. Guo, W. Chen, H. X. Chen, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D105, no.11, 114014 (2022)

2022
[39]

X. Zhu, D. M. Li, E. Wang, L. S. Geng and J. J. Xie, Phys. Rev. D105, no.11, 116010 (2022)

2022
[40]

X. Zhu, H. N. Wang, D. M. Li, E. Wang, L. S. Geng and J. J. Xie, Phys. Rev. D107, no.3, 034001 (2023)

2023
[41]

L. R. Dai, E. Oset and L. S. Geng, Eur. Phys. J. C82, no.3, 225 (2022)

2022
[42]

Z. Y. Wang, Y. W. Peng, J. Y. Yi, W. C. Luo and C. W. Xiao, Phys. Rev. D107, no.11, 116018 (2023)

2023
[43]

Y. Ding, X. H. Zhang, M. Y. Dai, E. Wang, D. M. Li, L. S. Geng and J. J. Xie, Phys. Rev. D108, no.11, 114004 (2023)

2023
[44]

E. Oset, L. R. Dai and L. S. Geng, Sci. Bull.68, 243-246 (2023)

2023
[45]

Y. Ding, E. Wang, D. M. Li, L. S. Geng and J. J. Xie, Phys. Rev. D110, no.1, 014032 (2024)

2024
[46]

L. R. Dai, W. T. Lyu and E. Oset, [arXiv:2602.09136 [hep-ph]]

work page arXiv
[47]

W. T. Lyu, L. R. Dai and E. Oset, [arXiv:2603.16640 [hep-ph]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[48]

W. H. Liang, H. X. Chen, E. Oset and E. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C79, no.5, 411 (2019)

2019
[49]

B. C. Ke, private communication
[50]

A. V. Manohar, [arXiv:hep-ph/9802419 [hep-ph]]

work page Pith review arXiv
[51]

L. M. Abreu, L. Dai and E. Oset, Phys. Lett. B843, 137999 (2023)

2023
[52]

W. H. Liang, J. J. Xie and E. Oset, Eur. Phys. J. C76 (2016) no.12, 700

2016
[53]

V. R. Debastiani, W. H. Liang, J. J. Xie and E. Oset, Phys. Lett. B766(2017), 59-64

2017
[54]

S. J. Jiang, S. Sakai, W. H. Liang and E. Oset, Phys. Lett. B797(2019), 134831

2019
[55]

Sakai, W

S. Sakai, W. H. Liang, G. Toledo and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D101(2020) no.1, 014005

2020
[56]

Molina, L

R. Molina, L. R. Dai, L. S. Geng and E. Oset, Eur. Phys. J. A56(2020) no.6, 173

2020
[57]

QUANTUM FIELD THE- ORY,

F. Mandl and G. Shaw, “QUANTUM FIELD THE- ORY,”
[58]

P. S. Su, W. T. Lyu, W. H. Liang and E. Oset, Eur. Phys. J. C86, no.3, 242 (2026)

2026
[59]

Navaset al.[Particle Data Group], Phys

S. Navaset al.[Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D110, no.3, 030001 (2024)

2024
[60]

Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Nucl

M. Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A614, 345-399 (2010)

2010
[61]

[Belle II], https://www.belle2.org/
[62]

A. A. Petrov and Y. Zheng, [arXiv:2603.26879 [hep-ph]]

work page arXiv