Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 124 references

A Khuri-Treiman model seeded by contact plus pion-exchange terms describes the exotic π1→3π signal and determines the relative strength and phase of the two production mechanisms.

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 02:30 UTC pith:SSAO3UPI

load-bearing objection First global KT fit to π1→3π with production Born terms; the Deck/contact separation is provisional because the single-channel elastic Omnes input is not under control at the top of the fitted range. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.14300 v1 pith:SSAO3UPI submitted 2026-07-15 hep-ph hep-exnucl-th

Production Effects and Final-state Interactions in π₁ to 3π

D. Winney , S. Gonz\`alez-Sol\'is , M. Mikhasenko , {\L}. Bibrzycki , C. Fern\'andez-Ram\'irez , V. Mathieu , G. Monta\~na , A. Pilloni
show 3 more authors
L. Qiu A. Rodas A. P. Szczepaniak
This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-exnucl-th
keywords π1(1600)exotic mesonKhuri-Treiman equationsDeck mechanismfreed-isobar analysisfinal-state interactionsOmnes functionhadron spectroscopy
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.

The paper aims to show that the π1(1600) exotic meson signal seen in the 3π final state carries a fingerprint of how the three pions are produced and rescatter, not just a bump to be fitted. The authors build a Khuri-Treiman amplitude for the 1^-+ [ππ] P-wave, seeded by two production terms: a short-range contact term and a one-pion-exchange (Deck) term. They then fit this amplitude to the full four-dimensional freed-isobar data set. The fit determines the relative strength and complex phase of the two mechanisms, and yields a smoothly rising-then-falling 3π-mass dependence peaking near 1.6 GeV, which they interpret as a step toward locating the π1 pole.

Core claim

The central claim is that the precise shape of the ρ meson peak inside the π1→3π decay is diagnostic of the production mechanism. In the proposed formalism, the isobar amplitude is the solution of a Khuri-Treiman integral equation whose driving term is a coherent sum of a constant short-range term and the pion-exchange Deck term, with no arbitrary subtraction polynomial. A global fit of this two-term amplitude to the freed-isobar data describes the Dalitz plots and extracts the bin-dependent complex normalizations; these turn out to be smooth functions of the 3π invariant mass with a pronounced peak at 1.6 GeV, and the relative phase between contact and Deck terms is nearly -π for most of th

What carries the argument

The Khuri-Treiman (KT) formalism, a dispersive framework that enforces two-body unitarity, analyticity, and crossing symmetry in three-body decays by iterating pairwise ππ rescattering to all orders. The core object is the unitarized isobar F(t, m²₃π; σ) expressed as a sum of two basis functions, F₁ (from a contact driving term) and F_Δ (from the P-wave projected one-pion-exchange Deck term), multiplied by complex normalizations N_c, N_d and exponential t-slopes. The basis functions are precomputed on a grid and the normalizations are fitted bin-by-bin, so that the only free parameters carry direct physical meaning as the strengths and phases of the two production mechanisms.

Load-bearing premise

The entire analysis rests on the assumption that the 3π dynamics in the 1 to 2.5 GeV region are governed by elastic two-body ππ rescattering, with a phase shift extrapolated to δ(∞)=π, and that genuine three-body forces and inelastic channels can be neglected.

What would settle it

Compute the same π1→3π amplitude with an independent method (e.g., a full three-body unitary coupled-channel calculation) and check whether the resulting ρ lineshape deformations match the KT predictions; if the data require a substantial three-body force, the extracted N_c and N_d curves would shift and the identification of the two production mechanisms would change.

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

If this is right

  • The relative phase and strengths of the two production terms are fixed by data, showing almost-total destructive interference that persists over a wide mass range.
  • The extracted m3π-dependent normalizations provide a model-based amplitude that can be analytically continued to search for the π1 pole, moving beyond simple bump-hunting.
  • The method can be exported to other partial waves and processes, such as photoproduction, where the same production mechanisms are expected to appear.
  • The fit indicates that once production effects are included, the residual data-model discrepancies are uniform across the Dalitz plot, so the large χ² is likely dominated by underestimated experimental uncertainties rather than a missing dynamical feature.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: If the 1.6 GeV peak in the normalizations indeed corresponds to a resonance, the near-constant -π phase difference between the two mechanisms means that the π1 couples to both contact and Deck production with opposite relative signs; this pattern could serve as a cross-check when pole parameters are extracted.
  • Inference: The smooth extraction without any explicit continuity constraint is a strong consistency check; a more stringent test would be to extend the fit to the two lowest-mass bins (m3π ≈ 1.0 GeV) with an energy-dependent ρ mass, since the present model fails there with χ²/dof > 15.
  • Inference: The formalism's reliance on elastic ππ rescattering could be tested by introducing an explicit three-body force term and observing whether the extracted N_c and N_d distributions change shape; a substantial shift would signal that genuine three-body dynamics are non-negligible.

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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper extends the Khuri-Treiman formalism for the π1 → 3π amplitude in the J^PC = 1^-+ [ππ]_{1--} π P-wave to include two physically motivated production mechanisms: a short-range contact term and a one-pion-exchange Deck term. The KT equations are solved with these Born terms as driving terms, producing two precomputable basis functions F1 and FΔ, and the full amplitude is written as Eq. (30) with per-m3π bin normalizations and two common t-slopes. The model is fitted to COMPASS freed-isobar data on the 4-dimensional intensity (m3π, t, σa, σb), yielding smooth bin-wise normalizations that peak near 1.6 GeV, a relative phase close to -π, and t-slopes consistent with diffractive production. The authors interpret the extraction as evidence for a coherent superposition of contact and Deck production and as a stepping stone toward a future π1 pole extraction.

Significance. If the extraction is robust, this is a significant step: it provides the first production-aware, unitarized amplitude for the π1 → 3π channel that is directly comparable to the freed-isobar data, and it identifies the Deck mechanism as an essential ingredient beyond the standard subtraction-polynomial KT approach. Strengths of the paper include the transparent linear decomposition into parameter-free basis functions, the careful discussion of the isobar ambiguity and its resolution through the σ-dependent Deck term, and the use of a bootstrap procedure to estimate parameter uncertainties. The numerical convergence of the KT iteration and the public COMPASS data comparison make the analysis reproducible in principle. However, the quantitative claims rest on a fit with χ²/dof ≈ 3–4 and on an elastic single-channel Omnes function whose high-energy phase is acknowledged to be arbitrary; these issues must be addressed before the production-mechanism identification can be considered established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV B, Fig. 11 and Tables I–II] The global fit yields χ²/dof ≈ 3.91 and bin-wise χ²/nσ values ranging from ~2 to above 10. The paper argues that the pull distributions show no systematic structure, but a χ²/dof of 4 with no systematics means the quoted parameter values (N_c, N_d, phase) are not statistically meaningful as a quantitative extraction. The bootstrap rescaling in Appendix E uses the local distance to the best-fit model as a proxy for systematics; this is not a substitute for an actual estimate of the freed-isobar analysis systematics. I recommend either obtaining systematic uncertainties from COMPASS or demonstrating that the extracted N_c,N_d distributions are stable under alternative weighting or under removal of the worst-fitting bins. Without this, the central identification of contact vs Deck production is not established at the claimed precision.
  2. [Section III, Eq. (29), and Appendix D] The KT equation is solved with a single-channel Omnes function built from the elastic ππ P-wave phase shift of Ref. [124], extrapolated to δ(∞)=π. The data extend to m3π = 2.48 GeV, well into the region of strong ππ inelasticity (KKbar, ρ(1450), etc.). Appendix D explicitly states that the asymptotic phase choice is 'largely arbitrary'. Since the Deck basis function FΔ is generated by iterating this Omnes kernel, any inelastic contribution or a different δ∞ will modify the σ-dependence of both basis functions and can be partially absorbed into the fitted N_c and N_d. The near-π relative phase and the 1.6 GeV peak in Fig. 10 are therefore contingent on this unchecked assumption. Please provide a concrete test of the sensitivity to δ∞ and to inelastic effects, for example by repeating the fit with a coupled-channel or inelasticity-modified Omnes function, and quantify the resulting shifts
  3. [Section IV B, bin exclusions] The two lowest m3π bins (0.96 and 1 GeV) are excluded because the nominal ρ mass appears shifted by ~30 MeV in these bins and the fits to them have χ²/dof > 15. This post-hoc exclusion is concerning because the low-mass region is precisely where the extracted |N_d| shows an apparent zero around 1.3 GeV and where the contact term is small. The paper should justify this exclusion more rigorously: for example, show that including these bins with an additional parameter (e.g., a small mass shift or a third production term) does not alter the main conclusions about the 1.6 GeV peak and the phase. As it stands, the reported smoothness of the normalizations is partly a consequence of the data selection.
  4. [Section II C and Eq. (32)] The conversion of the freed-isobar bin coefficients into 2D amplitudes relies on the zero-mode function Z(σ) being known with negligible uncertainty. The paper states this assumption but does not quantify it. If Z(σ) has non-negligible uncertainties, the reconstructed intensities and hence all fit parameters would shift. Please either provide a quantitative statement of the Z(σ) uncertainties from Ref. [36] or propagate them through the bootstrap. This is a load-bearing step in the data comparison.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Title and abstract] The title has a typographical issue: 'Production Effects and Final-state Interactions inπ 1 →3π' should have spaces around 'π'. Also, the abstract uses 'freed-isobar' but Section V uses 'free-isobar'; please unify.
  2. [Eq. (38)] The summation limits are unclear: '4n3π X k=0' presumably should be k=1 to 4n3π. Please clarify the indexing convention.
  3. [Section IV versus Appendix E] The main text says 10^3 pseudo-data sets are used for the 1D uncertainty estimates, while Appendix E says 10^4 bootstrap samples. Please make the numbers consistent and specify which number applies to Fig. 10.
  4. [Appendix references] In the text, references to 'Section B', 'Section C', and 'Section D' point to appendices. Use 'Appendix B' etc. for clarity.
  5. [Fig. 10] The error bars are too small to be visible. Please state explicitly that the uncertainties are smaller than the symbol size, or plot them on a log scale or with insets to make them visible.
  6. [Eq. (22) and surrounding text] The definition of ζ after Eq. (22) is written in a somewhat compressed way; expanding the relation between ζ, τ(0), |q|, and |k| would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the KT basis functions are parameter-free inputs from external ππ phase shifts and a fixed Deck projection; the fitted normalizations are honest fit outputs, not predictions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The production Born terms are fixed functions: the contact term B_Contact in Eq. (15) and the Deck term B_Deck in Eq. (24), with Δ defined by the projected one-pion-exchange loop in Eq. (22). These Born terms enter the KT equation (29), whose kernel and Omnès function are constructed from the external ππ P-wave phase shift [124]. The basis functions F1 and FΔ are then precomputed with no free parameters, as stated in Sec. III A: “the basis functions contain no free parameters, they can be precomputed on an arbitrary grid of kinematic variables.” The only fitted quantities are the complex normalizations N_c, N_d and the t-slopes c, d in Eq. (30), which are compared with the COMPASS freed-isobar Dalitz data. The conclusion that the coherent CD model describes the data better than contact-only or Deck-only models is an empirical fit comparison, not a prediction derived from the same fitted parameters. The extracted smooth m3π dependence of |N_c| and |N_d| in Fig. 10 is explicitly a fit output, and the paper does not claim it as a parameter-free prediction; it even emphasizes that pole identification is left for future work. Appendix D acknowledges the elastic-unitarity extrapolation δ(∞)=π is “largely arbitrary,” and Sec. III A flags that the diagnostic statement holds “to the extent that we the isobar approximation holds and we can ignore inelastic effects.” These are stated assumptions or correctness risks, not circularity, because altering them changes inputs rather than revealing that an output was an input by construction. The self-citations (e.g., JPAC formalism, Refs. [52,59]) supply the general KT machinery and are not used to define or forbid the production strengths; under the review rules they do not raise the circularity score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 9 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim is not derived from first principles: the unitarized basis functions are fixed by external ππ phase shifts, the choice of production mechanisms is a model assumption, and essentially all m3π dependence of the signal is carried by 110 fitted parameters (36 bins × 3 + 2 slopes).

free parameters (5)
  • Per-bin contact normalizations |N_{c,k}|, k=1..36 = Not tabulated; plotted in Fig. 10, peak near 1.6 GeV
    Fitted to COMPASS 4D intensity; absorbs unknown coupling and lineshape; one real modulus per m3π bin.
  • Per-bin Deck normalizations |N_{d,k}|, k=1..36 = Not tabulated; plotted in Fig. 10, apparent zero near 1.3 GeV
    Fitted to COMPASS 4D intensity; one real modulus per m3π bin.
  • Per-bin relative phase φ_d − φ_c, k=1..36 = Near −π for most bins; monotonic increase at low m3π (Fig. 10)
    Fitted after fixing the unobservable overall phase; one real parameter per bin.
  • Contact t-slope c = 2.860 ± 0.004 GeV^-2 (c0 = 1.39 after subtracting α'_P log s)
    Universal exponential slope fitted to all t-bins; includes absorbed Regge factor.
  • Deck t-slope d = 2.741 ± 0.005 GeV^-2 (d0 = 1.27 after subtracting α'_P log s)
    Universal exponential slope for the Deck term, fitted globally.
axioms (9)
  • domain assumption Isobar approximation: 3π amplitude dominated by pairwise ππ P-wave interactions, giving the crossing-symmetric form of Eq. (5).
    Central to KT and to the COMPASS freed-isobar analysis; assumes no genuine three-body force beyond iterated pair interactions.
  • domain assumption Elastic two-body unitarity of the ππ P-wave with a single-channel Omnes function; inelastic channels ignored.
    Used in Eqs. (27)–(29); three-body unitarity is only realized to the extent the isobar approximation holds (Refs. [48,49]).
  • ad hoc to paper External ππ phase shift input from Ref. [124], with extrapolation δ(∞)=π.
    The phase shift is external data, but its high-energy tail is not constrained by data; Appendix D calls the choice 'largely arbitrary'.
  • ad hoc to paper Double-Regge upper bound fixes the number of subtractions m=1.
    Appendix D chooses m=1 to satisfy an assumed σ^{-1} asymptotic bound; different asymptotic choices would change the basis functions.
  • domain assumption Production is saturated by a Pomeron-mediated contact term plus a one-pion-exchange Deck term; ρ, f2, spin-flip, and other exchanges are negligible or absorbable.
    Appendix C argues heavier exchanges are effectively constant or absorbable, but this is a modeling choice that affects the interpretation of N_c and N_d.
  • domain assumption s-channel helicity conservation at the nucleon vertex and sπp≈s in the single-Regge regime.
    Used to derive Eq. (14) and the t-dependence of the production terms in Section II.
  • domain assumption The COMPASS freed-isobar coefficients are related to the true intensity through the zero-mode function Z(σ) with negligible uncertainty.
    Eq. (32) reconstructs the 2D amplitude using Z from the experimental analysis; the paper assumes Z uncertainties are negligible.
  • domain assumption Isospin limit and neglect of isospin breaking.
    Stated at the start of Section II; reasonable for the COMPASS kinematics but still an approximation.
  • domain assumption The left-hand-cut branch point of Δ is sufficiently far from the physical region and integration contour.
    Appendix B notes the pinch singularity must be treated with care but is avoided in the kinematics considered.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 31288 in / 16131 out tokens · 168452 ms · 2026-08-02T02:30:00.021581+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate the $\pi_1(1600)$ signal channel of $3\pi$ in the $J^{PC} = 1^{-+} \,[\pi\pi]_{1^{--}}\pi~P$-wave. This channel has recently been analyzed by the COMPASS collaboration using the ``freed-isobar" technique which provides direct experimental access to the lineshape modifications of the $P$-wave $\pi\pi$ sub-channel arising from both final state interactions and production processes such as the Deck mechanism. We motivate a unified formalism combining production effects and final state interactions using the Khuri-Treiman formalism, which is consistent with low-energy unitarity, analyticity, and crossing symmetry, seeded by an initial production amplitude. We demonstrate that the precise lineshape of the $\pi\pi$ mass spectrum can be used to determine the relative strength and complex phase of different production mechanisms contributing to the $3\pi$ final state. We conduct a global fit of the $\pi_1$ freed-isobar data set, yielding a multi-dimensional parameterization of the $\pi_1\to3\pi$ decay amplitude at COMPASS as a function of both decay and production variables. We identify the contributions from short-range production and the Deck mechanism and extract the total $3\pi$ invariant mass dependence which will be important for a future extraction of the $\pi_1$ pole position in the $\rho\pi$ channel.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.14300 by A. Pilloni, A. P. Szczepaniak, A. Rodas, C. Fern\'andez-Ram\'irez, D. Winney, G. Monta\~na, {\L}. Bibrzycki, L. Qiu, M. Mikhasenko, S. Gonz\`alez-Sol\'is, V. Mathieu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Diagrammatic representation of the Deck production [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Diagrammatic representation of contact, resonance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The Feynman loop whose discontinuity corresponds [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Dependence of ∆ on the various production variables. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Diagrammatic representation of the solution to the KT integral equation Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Real (solid) and imaginary (dashed) parts of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Analogous to Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Dalitz plot intensity using the CD isobar at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. 2D (left) and 1D (right) pull distributions corresponding to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Extracted distributions of the moduli, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Distribution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Integrated width as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Integrated intensity as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Bubble diagram emerging from heavier Deck-like [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. The “fast- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Bootstrapped distributions of the fit function ¯χ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. Bootstrapped distributions of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. Bootstrapped distributions of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_18.png] view at source ↗

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

124 extracted references · 79 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    D. R. Thompsonet al.(E852), Phys. Rev. Lett.79, 1630 (1997), arXiv:hep-ex/9705011

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  2. [2]

    S. U. Chunget al.(E852), Phys. Rev. D60, 092001 (1999), arXiv:hep-ex/9902003

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  3. [3]

    G. S. Adamset al.(E862), Phys. Lett. B657, 27 (2007), arXiv:hep-ex/0612062

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  4. [4]

    Abeleet al.(Crystal Barrel), Phys

    A. Abeleet al.(Crystal Barrel), Phys. Lett. B423, 175 (1998)

    1998

  5. [5]

    E. I. Ivanovet al.(E852), Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 3977 (2001), arXiv:hep-ex/0101058

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  6. [6]

    Y. A. Khokhlov (VES), Nucl. Phys. A663, 596 (2000)

    2000

  7. [7]

    Horn and J

    D. Horn and J. Mandula, Phys. Rev. D17, 898 (1978)

    1978

  8. [8]

    Isgur and J

    N. Isgur and J. E. Paton, Phys. Rev. D31, 2910 (1985)

    1985

  9. [9]

    M. S. Chanowitz and S. R. Sharpe, Nucl. Phys. B 222, 211 (1983), [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 228, 588–588 (1983)]

    1983

  10. [10]

    Barnes, F

    T. Barnes, F. E. Close, and F. de Viron, Nucl. Phys. B 224, 241 (1983)

    1983

  11. [11]

    J. J. Dudek, R. G. Edwards, P. Guo, and C. E. Thomas (Hadron Spectrum), Phys. Rev. D88, 094505 (2013), arXiv:1309.2608 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  12. [12]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  13. [13]

    C. A. Meyer and Y. Van Haarlem, Phys. Rev. C82, 025208 (2010), arXiv:1004.5516 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  14. [14]

    C. A. Meyer and E. S. Swanson, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 82, 21 (2015), arXiv:1502.07276 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  15. [15]

    Adolphet al.(COMPASS), Phys

    C. Adolphet al.(COMPASS), Phys. Lett. B740, 303 (2015), [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 811, 135913 (2020)], arXiv:1408.4286 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  16. [16]

    Rodaset al.(JPAC), Phys

    A. Rodaset al.(JPAC), Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 042002 (2019), arXiv:1810.04171 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  17. [17]

    Albrechtet al.(Crystal Barrel), Eur

    M. Albrechtet al.(Crystal Barrel), Eur. Phys. J. C80, 453 (2020), arXiv:1909.07091 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  18. [18]

    B. Kopf, M. Albrecht, H. Koch, M. K¨ ußner, J. Py- chy, X. Qin, and U. Wiedner, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 1056 (2021), arXiv:2008.11566 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    Afzalet al.(GlueX), Phys

    F. Afzalet al.(GlueX), Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 261903 (2024), arXiv:2407.03316 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    Mai and M

    M. Mai and M. Doring, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 062503 (2019), arXiv:1807.04746 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  21. [21]

    R. A. Brice˜ no, M. T. Hansen, A. W. Jackura, R. G. Edwards, and C. E. Thomas, (2025), arXiv:2510.24894 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    M. T. Hansen, R. A. Brice˜ no, R. G. Edwards, C. E. Thomas, and D. J. Wilson (Hadron Spectrum), Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 012001 (2021), arXiv:2009.04931 [hep- 22 600 650 700 | cN|0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3 10×Entries 3.04 −3.02 −3 −2.98 −2.96 −c φ − dφ0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3 10×Entries FIG. 17. Bootstrapped distributions of the|N c|(left) and the phase difference (r...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  23. [23]

    T. D. Blanton, F. Romero-L´ opez, and S. R. Sharpe, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 032001 (2020), arXiv:1909.02973 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  24. [24]

    Fischer, B

    M. Fischer, B. Kostrzewa, L. Liu, F. Romero-L´ opez, M. Ueding, and C. Urbach, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 436 (2021), arXiv:2008.03035 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  25. [25]

    S. M. Dawid, Z. T. Draper, A. D. Hanlon, B. H¨ orz, C. Morningstar, F. Romero-L´ opez, S. R. Sharpe, and S. Skinner, Phys. Rev. D112, 014505 (2025), arXiv:2502.17976 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    H. Yan, M. Mai, M. Garofalo, U.-G. Meißner, C. Liu, L. Liu, and C. Urbach, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 211906 (2024), arXiv:2407.16659 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    H. Yan, M. Mai, M. Garofalo, Y. Feng, M. D¨ oring, C. Liu, L. Liu, U.-G. Meißner, and C. Urbach, (2025), arXiv:2510.09476 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    M. Mai, A. Alexandru, R. Brett, C. Culver, M. D¨ oring, F. X. Lee, and D. Sadasivan (GWQCD), Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 222001 (2021), arXiv:2107.03973 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  29. [29]

    Culver, M

    C. Culver, M. Mai, R. Brett, A. Alexandru, and M. D¨ oring, Phys. Rev. D101, 114507 (2020), arXiv:1911.09047 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  30. [30]

    A. W. Jackura, Phys. Rev. D108, 034505 (2023), arXiv:2208.10587 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  31. [31]

    A. W. Jackura, S. M. Dawid, C. Fern´ andez-Ram ´ ırez, V. Mathieu, M. Mikhasenko, A. Pilloni, S. R. Sharpe, and A. P. Szczepaniak, Phys. Rev. D100, 034508 (2019), arXiv:1905.12007 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  32. [32]

    Ketzer, B

    B. Ketzer, B. Grube, and D. Ryabchikov, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.113, 103755 (2020), [Erra- tum: Prog.Part.Nucl.Phys. 128, 104000 (2023)], arXiv:1909.06366 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  33. [33]

    Adolphet al.(COMPASS), Phys

    C. Adolphet al.(COMPASS), Phys. Rev. D95, 032004 (2017), arXiv:1509.00992 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  34. [34]

    Krinner, D

    F. Krinner, D. Greenwald, D. Ryabchikov, B. Grube, and S. Paul, Phys. Rev. D97, 114008 (2018), arXiv:1710.09849 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  35. [35]

    Krinner,Freed-Isobar Partial-Wave Analysis, Ph.D

    F. Krinner,Freed-Isobar Partial-Wave Analysis, Ph.D. thesis, Munich, Tech. U. (2018)

    2018

  36. [36]

    M. G. Alexeevet al.(COMPASS), Phys. Rev. D105, 012005 (2022), arXiv:2108.01744 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  37. [37]

    N. N. Khuri and S. B. Treiman, Phys. Rev.119, 1115 23 (1960)

    1960

  38. [38]

    P. Guo, I. V. Danilkin, C. Fern´ andez-Ram ´ ırez, V. Math- ieu, and A. P. Szczepaniak, Phys. Lett. B771, 497 (2017), arXiv:1608.01447 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  39. [39]

    I. V. Danilkin, C. Fern´ andez-Ram ´ ırez, P. Guo, V. Math- ieu, D. Schott, M. Shi, and A. P. Szczepaniak, Phys. Rev. D91, 094029 (2015), arXiv:1409.7708 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  40. [40]

    Niecknig, B

    F. Niecknig, B. Kubis, and S. P. Schneider, Eur. Phys. J. C72, 2014 (2012), arXiv:1203.2501 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  41. [41]

    Garcia-Lorenzo, M

    A. Garcia-Lorenzo, M. Albaladejo, S. Gonzlez-Solis, N. Hammoud, V. Mathieu, G. Montana, A. Pilloni, D. Winney, and A. P. Szczepaniak (JPAC), (2025), arXiv:2505.15309 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Bernard, S

    V. Bernard, S. Descotes-Genon, M. Knecht, and B. Moussallam, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 744 (2024), arXiv:2403.17570 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  43. [43]

    Albaladejoet al.(JPAC), Phys

    M. Albaladejoet al.(JPAC), Phys. Rev. D108, 014035 (2023), arXiv:2304.09736 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  44. [44]

    Albaladejo, I

    M. Albaladejo, I. Danilkin, S. Gonzalez-Solis, D. Win- ney, C. Fernandez-Ramirez, A. N. H. Blin, V. Mathieu, M. Mikhasenko, A. Pilloni, and A. Szczepaniak (JPAC), Eur. Phys. J. C80, 1107 (2020), arXiv:2006.01058 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  45. [45]

    Colangelo, S

    G. Colangelo, S. Lanz, H. Leutwyler, and E. Passemar, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 947 (2018), arXiv:1807.11937 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  46. [46]

    Cao, F.-K

    X.-H. Cao, F.-K. Guo, C. Hanhart, and B. Kubis, (2025), arXiv:2512.00501 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    Akdag, B

    H. Akdag, B. Kubis, and A. Wirzba, JHEP03, 059, arXiv:2307.02533 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  48. [48]

    I. J. R. Aitchison and R. Pasquier, Phys. Rev.152, 1274 (1966)

    1966

  49. [49]

    I. J. R. Aitchison, J. Phys. G3, 121 (1977)

    1977

  50. [50]

    Pasquier and J

    R. Pasquier and J. Y. Pasquier, Phys. Rev.170, 1294 (1968)

    1968

  51. [51]

    Pasquier and J

    R. Pasquier and J. Y. Pasquier, Phys. Rev.177, 2482 (1969)

    1969

  52. [52]

    Mikhasenko, Y

    M. Mikhasenko, Y. Wunderlich, A. Jackura, V. Math- ieu, A. Pilloni, B. Ketzer, and A. P. Szczepaniak, JHEP 08, 080, arXiv:1904.11894 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1904

  53. [53]

    Stamen, T

    D. Stamen, T. Isken, B. Kubis, M. Mikhasenko, and M. Niehus, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 510 (2023), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 83, 586 (2023)], arXiv:2212.11767 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  54. [54]

    R. T. Deck, Phys. Rev. Lett.13, 169 (1964)

    1964

  55. [55]

    Ascoli, L

    G. Ascoli, L. M. Jones, B. Weinstein, and H. W. Wyld, Phys. Rev. D8, 3894 (1973)

    1973

  56. [56]

    Ascoli, R

    G. Ascoli, R. Cutler, L. M. Jones, U. Kruse, T. Roberts, B. Weinstein, and H. W. Wyld, Phys. Rev. D9, 1963 (1974)

    1963

  57. [57]

    Aaron, R

    R. Aaron, R. S. Longacre, and J. E. Sacco, Annals Phys. 117, 56 (1979)

    1979

  58. [58]

    J. L. Basdevant and E. L. Berger, Phys. Rev. D16, 657 (1977)

    1977

  59. [59]

    Albaladejo, D

    M. Albaladejo, D. Winney, I. V. Danilkin, C. Fern´ andez- Ram ´ ırez, V. Mathieu, M. Mikhasenko, A. Pilloni, J. A. Silva-Castro, and A. P. Szczepaniak (JPAC), Phys. Rev. D101, 054018 (2020), arXiv:1910.03107 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  60. [60]

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

    1960

  61. [61]

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

    1977

  62. [62]

    V. N. Gribov,The theory of complex angular momenta: Gribov lectures on theoretical physics, Cambridge Mono- graphs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2007)

    2007

  63. [63]

    Stamen, D

    D. Stamen, D. Winney, A. Rodas, C. Fern´ andez- Ram ´ ırez, V. Mathieu, G. Monta˜ na, A. Pilloni, and A. P. Szczepaniak, Phys. Rev. D110, 114023 (2024), arXiv:2409.09172 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  64. [64]

    Hoferichter, B

    M. Hoferichter, B. Kubis, S. Leupold, F. Niecknig, and S. P. Schneider, Eur. Phys. J. C74, 3180 (2014), arXiv:1410.4691 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  65. [65]

    Jackura, C

    A. Jackura, C. Fern´ andez-Ram ´ ırez, V. Mathieu, M. Mikhasenko, J. Nys, A. Pilloni, K. Salda˜ na, N. Sher- rill, and A. P. Szczepaniak (JPAC), Eur. Phys. J. C79, 56 (2019), arXiv:1809.10523 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  66. [66]

    S. M. Dawid, M. H. E. Islam, and R. A. Brice˜ no, Phys. Rev. D108, 034016 (2023), arXiv:2303.04394 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  67. [67]

    Omnes, Nuovo Cim.8, 316 (1958)

    R. Omnes, Nuovo Cim.8, 316 (1958)

    1958

  68. [68]

    N. I. Muskhelishvili,Singular Integral Equations (Wolters-Noordhoff Publishing, 1958)

    1958

  69. [69]

    Stern, H

    J. Stern, H. Sazdjian, and N. H. Fuchs, Phys. Rev. D 47, 3814 (1993), arXiv:hep-ph/9301244

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  70. [70]

    Albaladejo and B

    M. Albaladejo and B. Moussallam, Eur. Phys. J. C77, 508 (2017), arXiv:1702.04931 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  71. [71]

    F. E. Close and G. A. Schuler, Phys. Lett. B464, 279 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9905305

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  72. [72]

    Lesniak and A

    L. Lesniak and A. P. Szczepaniak, Acta Phys. Polon. B 34, 3389 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0304007

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  73. [73]

    Jackuraet al.(JPAC, COMPASS), Phys

    A. Jackuraet al.(JPAC, COMPASS), Phys. Lett. B 779, 464 (2018), arXiv:1707.02848 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  74. [74]

    Winney and A

    D. Winney and A. P. Szczepaniak, (2025), arXiv:2512.21805 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  75. [75]

    Mathieu, J

    V. Mathieu, J. Nys, C. Fern´ andez-Ram ´ ırez, A. Jackura, A. Pilloni, N. Sherrill, A. P. Szczepaniak, and G. Fox (JPAC), Phys. Rev. D97, 094003 (2018), arXiv:1802.09403 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  76. [76]

    Aktaset al.(H1), Eur

    A. Aktaset al.(H1), Eur. Phys. J. C46, 585 (2006), arXiv:hep-ex/0510016

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  77. [77]

    Derricket al.(ZEUS), Z

    M. Derricket al.(ZEUS), Z. Phys. C69, 39 (1995), arXiv:hep-ex/9507011

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  78. [78]

    Aghasyanet al.(COMPASS), Phys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  79. [79]

    Passarino and M

    G. Passarino and M. J. G. Veltman, Nucl. Phys. B160, 151 (1979)

    1979

  80. [80]

    Hahn and M

    T. Hahn and M. Perez-Victoria, Comput. Phys. Com- mun.118, 153 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9807565

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

Showing first 80 references.