REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 70 references
This paper reports the first measurement of the Born cross section for e+e−→KS0 Ξ̄+Σ− + c.c. at 56 center-of-mass energies, finds no significant charmonium-like resonance decaying into this channel, and measures the ratio to the isospin par
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 →
T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash
2026-08-01 04:32 UTC pith:6YV4QPTG
load-bearing objection First cross-section measurement for this three-baryon final state, with a null resonance search and a clean isospin ratio—solid, standard BESIII work that deserves a referee, with the usual PHSP-efficiency caveat. the 2 major comments →
Measurement of Born Cross Section for e^+e^-to K_S⁰bar{Xi}^+Sigma^-+rm{c.c.} at sqrt{s} = 3.51-4.95 GeV
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
Core claim
On the paper’s own terms, the central discovery is that the reaction e+e− → KS0 Ξ̄+Σ− + c.c. has a Born cross section of a few hundred to a few thousand attobarns that falls roughly as a power law with energy, with no statistically significant contribution from any of the nine assumed charmonium or charmonium-like resonances. The signal is extracted by fully reconstructing only the KS0 and Ξ̄+ and inferring the Σ− from the recoil mass spectrum. The ratio of the Born cross sections to the previously measured isospin-symmetric process K− Ξ̄+Σ0 is found to be R = 0.8 ± 0.2, consistent with the expected value of about 1 after accounting for the KS0 CP eigenstate composition.
What carries the argument
The central mechanism is the partial-reconstruction technique: only the KS0 (via π+π−) and Ξ̄+ (via Λ̄π+ → p̄π+π+) are reconstructed, and the Σ− is inferred from the recoil mass M_recoil(KS0 Ξ̄+) computed from the total c.m. energy. The cross sections are extracted by fits to the recoil-mass spectrum, with detection efficiencies from phase-space Monte Carlo. The isospin test uses the identity R_KS0/K− = R_K̄0/K− × P ≈ 2 × 1/2 = 1, where P is the probability of finding a K0S in the K̄0 state, so the measured ratio directly probes isospin conservation.
Load-bearing premise
The detection efficiency is computed from phase-space Monte Carlo at every energy point and cross-checked against a partial-wave model only at 3.773 GeV; if the real production angular distribution differs from phase space anywhere else in the scanned range, the extracted cross sections and the ratio would be biased beyond the quoted 2.5% systematic.
What would settle it
Recompute the Born cross section at a high-statistics energy point such as 4.178 GeV using a Monte Carlo generator that implements an angular distribution from a partial-wave analysis instead of phase space; if the extracted cross section shifts by more than the 2.5% systematic assigned from the 3.773 GeV check, the claimed model-independence of the efficiencies is falsified.
If this is right
- The 56 measured Born cross sections become the reference data set for this baryonic final state in the 3.51–4.95 GeV region, against which future QCD-based predictions can be compared.
- The 90% C.L. upper limits on Γee×B for ψ(3770), ψ(4040), ψ(4160), Y(4230), Y(4360), ψ(4415), Y(4500), Y(4660), and Y(4710) constrain how strongly these states couple to baryon-antibaryon-plus-kaon channels.
- The measured ratio R = 0.8 ± 0.2 supports isospin conservation in e+e− annihilation into three-body baryon final states; a deviation far from 1 would have indicated isospin-violating dynamics.
- The observed smooth power-law energy dependence provides a continuum baseline that sharpens the interpretation of possible future resonance signals in the same final state.
Where Pith is reading between the lines
- The efficiency model dependence is the softest spot; if a partial-wave-based generator were applied at other high-statistics energies, the resulting efficiency shifts could convert the 0.8 ± 0.2 ratio into a precision test of isospin with smaller systematic uncertainty.
- The same partial-reconstruction recoil technique can be applied to the companion channels with Λ or Σ0, providing a full isospin multiplet and a more stringent consistency check than the single ratio.
- The large data sets at 4.178–4.226 GeV may hide a broad resonance whose signal is diluted by the continuum; an energy-scan fit with an energy-dependent phase, rather than fixed resonance parameters, could be more sensitive.
- If pure-charmonium interpretations of the Y states are correct, the new upper limits imply that their baryonic branching fractions are small, which would rule out models predicting sizable decays of these states into Ξ/Σ final states.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper reports the first measurement of the Born cross section for e+e− → K_S^0 Ξbar^+ Σ^- + c.c. at 56 c.m. energies between 3.510 and 4.951 GeV, using 44 fb^-1 of BESIII data. Events are selected via partial reconstruction of K_S^0 and Ξbar^+, with the Σ^- inferred from the recoil mass against the K_S^0 Ξbar^+ system. Signal yields are extracted from extended maximum-likelihood fits to the recoil-mass spectrum; Born cross sections are obtained with ISR and vacuum-polarization corrections. The measured dressed cross sections are fitted with a power-law continuum plus a Breit-Wigner for each of nine charmonium(-like) states; no significant signal is found, and 90% C.L. upper limits on ΓeeB are reported for the two fit solutions. Combining with the previous BESIII measurement of e+e− → K^- Ξbar^+ Σ^0, the ratio R = σB(K_S^0 Ξbar^+ Σ^-)/σB(K^- Ξbar^+ Σ^0) is 0.8±0.2, consistent with an isospin expectation of about 1. The paper includes a detailed systematic budget and a full 56-point cross-section table in the appendix.
Significance. If the result holds, this is a new exclusive baryonic cross-section measurement in the charmonium region, useful for testing quark-pair-creation and hadronization models and for constraining charmonium(-like) decays to baryon final states. The ratio test of isospin conservation is a clean, independent cross-check. The paper provides a complete numerical table and a careful breakdown of correlated versus uncorrelated systematic uncertainties. The main caveats are the single-energy calibration of the efficiency-model systematic and the two-solution ambiguity in the Breit-Wigner fits, but both are addressable. The measurement appears to be genuinely the first for this final state and should be valuable for future global analyses.
major comments (2)
- [Systematic uncertainties (model dependence paragraph)] The 2.5% model-dependence systematic is derived from a comparison of PHSP efficiencies with a partial-wave analysis at √s = 3.773 GeV only, yet it is applied to all 56 energy points. The Born cross sections, the ratio R, and the resonance limits all depend on the PHSP-based efficiencies. If the production angular/mass distributions deviate from phase space at other energies (e.g., through intermediate Ξ*/Σ* resonances or threshold effects), the efficiencies and the recoil-mass signal shape could be biased beyond 2.5%, producing energy-dependent distortions that could mimic or hide resonances. Please validate the efficiency model at a few additional high-statistics energies (e.g., 4.178, 4.600, 4.682 GeV), or justify energy independence, or assign a larger energy-dependent model uncertainty.
- [Tables I and III; resonance fit description] For each resonance, the fit returns two solutions with essentially identical χ2/ndf but very different ΓeeB values (e.g., ψ(3770) I: 6.6+4.8−3.2 vs II: 159.6+8.8−8.4 ×10^-3 eV). However, bracketed 90% C.L. upper limits are quoted only for solution II. The text does not state which solution is used for the final upper limit, whether the quoted limit is the conservative (larger) one, or how the two-minimum degeneracy is treated in the Bayesian/Δχ² procedure. Without this information, the resonance-search claim and the upper-limit table are not reproducible. Please define the handling of the two solutions and report the upper limits for both solutions, or justify the choice.
minor comments (7)
- [Table III] The Y(4710) row is missing from Table III, although the abstract, Table I, and the text list it among the nine searched resonances. Please add the corresponding fit parameters and upper limits.
- [Figure 2 caption] The caption says 'The red dashed line with error bars stands the theoretical calculated value' but does not explain what the theoretical value is or where its uncertainty comes from. Please clarify.
- [Ratio uncertainty] The paper quotes R = 0.8±0.2 but does not describe how correlated systematic uncertainties between the present measurement and the previous Ref. [29] measurement are handled. Since both are BESIII measurements at the same energies, the luminosity uncertainty presumably cancels; please state whether this cancellation was applied.
- [Isospin derivation, Eq. (5)] The derivation of R = 1 via K0_S ≈ K_CP=1 and P = 1/2 is concise. It may be helpful to spell out that the production flavor is Kbar^0 (or K^0) for each charge conjugate, and that the factor 1/2 accounts for the K0_S detection probability. This would prevent confusion.
- [Table II formatting] Several entries in Table II are difficult to parse, e.g., the 3.510 GeV row reads '12.0337.1 +7.0 −6.3 2312+436−393±1355.6'. Please reformat the table to clearly separate ε, N_obs, σB, and S(σ).
- [Signal-shape treatment] The text states that for energy points with fewer than 20 events the pure MC shape is used without the Gaussian resolution smearing. Please comment on the potential bias this introduces at low-statistics points and justify the threshold.
- [Naming conventions] The resonance names are inconsistent: the text uses Y(4230), Y(4660), Y(4710), while Table III uses ψ(4230), ψ(4660), and omits Y(4710). Please standardize the names.
Circularity Check
No significant circularity: the cross-section extraction, resonance search, and isospin-ratio comparison are data-driven with inputs independent of the claims being made.
full rationale
The paper's derivation chain is a standard experimental measurement. Signal yields are obtained from unbinned fits to the K_S^0 anti-Xi^+ recoil-mass spectrum; Born cross sections follow from Eq. (2) using independently measured luminosity, MC-computed efficiencies, QED ISR/VP corrections, and PDG branching fractions. The resonance search fits these measured dressed cross sections with a power-law-plus-Breit-Wigner ansatz whose masses and widths are fixed to PDG values; the free parameters (Gamma_ee*B, phase, continuum normalization) are fit outputs, and the resulting upper limits are limits on the same data, not predictions derived from the data in a circular way. The claimed ratio R uses the previous BESIII measurement of the isospin-symmetric channel as input and compares it with the theoretical isospin expectation of about 1; the theoretical expectation does not depend on the measured values. The model-dependence systematic for the PHSP efficiency is assessed at one energy via an alternative PWA, which is a robustness check rather than a circular reduction; extending it to all 56 energies is a legitimate systematic-coverage concern, but it does not make any equation reduce to its own input. Self-citations in the luminosity evaluation and reconstruction-efficiency control samples are standard calibration inputs, not load-bearing circular arguments. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work to force the result. Therefore the paper exhibits no significant circularity.
Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger
free parameters (5)
- Continuum normalization c0 =
Values in Table III (e.g., ~199.6 for ψ(3770) solution I)
- Power-law index n =
~7.9 (Table III)
- Relative phase Φ for each resonance =
Two solutions per resonance (e.g., -0.6±0.1 and -1.4±0.1 rad for ψ(3770))
- ΓeeB product for each resonance =
e.g., 6.6 +4.8/−3.2 (solution I) and 159.6 +8.8/−8.4 ×10^-3 eV (solution II) for ψ(3770)
- Mass-resolution smearing parameters =
Not reported
axioms (6)
- domain assumption The dressed cross section is described by a coherent sum of a power-law continuum and a single Breit-Wigner resonance (Eq. 3).
- domain assumption Detection efficiency is modeled by phase-space MC at each energy point.
- domain assumption Background in the K_S^0 \barΞ^+ recoil-mass distribution is smooth and described by low-order polynomials.
- domain assumption Isospin conservation and quark flavor assignment give R_{K^0/K^-}=2.
- domain assumption PDG values for masses, widths, and branching fractions of intermediate states.
- standard math K^0-\bar K^0 mixing and CP-eigenstate decomposition (K_S^0 ≈ K_CP=1 and P=1/2).
read the original abstract
Using $e^+e^-$ collision data collected with the BESIII detector at the BEPCII collider corresponding to a total integrated luminosity of 44~fb$^{-1}$, we present the first measurement of the Born cross sections for the process $e^+e^-\to K_S^0\bar{\Xi}^+\Sigma^-+\rm{c.c.}$ at 56 center-of-mass energies from 3.510 to 4.951~GeV. By fitting the dressed cross sections of $e^+e^-\to K_S^0\bar{\Xi}^+\Sigma^-+\rm{c.c.}$ with the assumption of a power-law function plus a charmonium(-like) resonance, i.e. $\psi(3770)$, $\psi(4040)$, $\psi(4160)$, $Y(4230)$, $Y(4360)$, $\psi(4415)$, {\it Y}(4500), $Y(4660)$, and {\it Y}(4710), no significant signal of any charmonium(-like) state decaying into the $K_S^0\bar{\Xi}^+\Sigma^-+\rm{c.c.}$ is observed. Upper limits on the product of the electronic width and branching fraction at the 90\% confidence level are given for each resonance. Combining this result with the previous measurement of the isospin-symmetric process $e^+e^-\to K^{-} \bar{\Xi}^{+} \Sigma^{0} + \rm{c.c.}$, the ratio of the Born cross sections, $R=\sigma^{B}(e^+e^-\to K_S^0\bar{\Xi}^+\Sigma^-+\rm{c.c.})/$$\sigma^{B}(e^+e^-\to K^-\bar{\Xi}^+\Sigma^0+\rm{c.c.})$, is found to be approximately 1.
Figures
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
Brambillaet al., Eur
N. Brambillaet al., Eur. Phys. J. C71, 1534 (2011)
2011
-
[2]
R. A. Bricenoet al., Chin. Phys. C40, 042001 (2016)
2016
-
[3]
X. Wang, X. Liu, and Y . Gao, Rev. Mod. Phys.98, 021001 (2026)
2026
-
[4]
Z.-Y . Bai, D.-Y . Chen, Qi-Huang, X. Liu, S.-Q. Luo, and J.-Z. Wang, (2026), arXiv:2602.19887
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
-
[5]
Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys
S. Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)
2024
-
[6]
Aubertet al.(BABARCollaboration), Phys
B. Aubertet al.(BABARCollaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 142001 (2005)
2005
-
[7]
Aubertet al.(BABARCollaboration), Phys
B. Aubertet al.(BABARCollaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 212001 (2007)
2007
-
[8]
X. L. Wanget al.(Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 142002 (2007)
2007
-
[9]
C. Z. Yuanet al.(Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 182004 (2007). 5
2007
-
[10]
Pakhlovaet al.(Belle Collaboration), Phys
G. Pakhlovaet al.(Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 172001 (2008), 0807.4458
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008
-
[11]
J. P. Leeset al.(BABARCollaboration), Phys. Rev. D86, 051102 (2012), 1204.2158
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012
-
[12]
Z. Q. Liuet al.(Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 252002 (2013)
2013
-
[13]
J. P. Leeset al.(BABARCollaboration), Phys. Rev. D89, 111103 (2014)
2014
-
[14]
X. L. Wanget al.(Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D91, 112007 (2015)
2015
-
[15]
T. E. Coanet al.(CLEO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 162003 (2006)
2006
-
[16]
Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), Phys
M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 092003 (2015)
2015
-
[17]
Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Phys
M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 081901 (2024)
2024
-
[18]
Wang, D.-Y
J.-Z. Wang, D.-Y . Chen, X. Liu, and T. Matsuki, Phys. Rev. D 99, 114003 (2019)
2019
-
[19]
R.-Q. Qian, Q. Huang, and X. Liu, Phys. Lett. B833, 137292 (2022)
2022
-
[20]
Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), Phys
M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D87, 112011 (2013)
2013
-
[21]
Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), Phys
M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 132001 (2018)
2018
-
[22]
Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), Phys
M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 032002 (2020)
2020
-
[23]
Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), Phys
M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B820, 136557 (2021)
2021
-
[24]
Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), Phys
M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D105, L011101 (2022)
2022
-
[25]
Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), Phys
M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D104, L091104 (2021)
2021
-
[26]
Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), JHEP11, 228 (2023)
M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), JHEP11, 228 (2023)
2023
-
[27]
Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), Phys
M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 191901 (2023)
2023
-
[28]
Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), JHEP05, 022 (2024)
M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), JHEP05, 022 (2024)
2024
-
[29]
Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), JHEP07, 258 (2024)
M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), JHEP07, 258 (2024)
2024
-
[30]
Ablikimet al.(BESIII), JHEP11, 062 (2024)
M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII), JHEP11, 062 (2024)
2024
-
[31]
Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), Phys
M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D111, L051502 (2025)
2025
-
[32]
Ablikimet al.(BESIII), JHEP11, 111 (2025)
M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII), JHEP11, 111 (2025)
2025
-
[33]
Zhang and X
R. Zhang and X. Wang, Nucl. Phys. B1025, 117388 (2026)
2026
-
[34]
Ablikimet al.(BESIII), (2026), arXiv:2602.23835
M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII), (2026), arXiv:2602.23835
arXiv 2026
-
[35]
Zhang and X
R. Zhang and X. Wang, Symmetry18, 200 (2026)
2026
-
[36]
Ablikimet al.(BESIII), (2026), arXiv:2605.19780
M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII), (2026), arXiv:2605.19780
arXiv 2026
-
[37]
Ablikimet al.(BESIII), (2026), arXiv:2606.22762
M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII), (2026), arXiv:2606.22762
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
-
[38]
Ablikimet al.(BESIII), (2026), arXiv:2606.22759
M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII), (2026), arXiv:2606.22759
Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
-
[39]
Ablikim (BESIII Collaboration), Chin
M. Ablikim (BESIII Collaboration), Chin. Phys. C37, 123001 (2013)
2013
-
[40]
Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), Chin
M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), Chin. Phys. C39, 093001 (2015)
2015
-
[41]
Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), Chin
M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), Chin. Phys. C46, 113002 (2022)
2022
-
[42]
Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), Chin
M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), Chin. Phys. C46, 113003 (2022)
2022
-
[43]
Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), Chin
M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), Chin. Phys. C48, 093001 (2024)
2024
-
[44]
Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), Chin
M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), Chin. Phys. C48, 123001 (2024)
2024
-
[45]
Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), Nucl
M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A614, 345 (2010)
2010
-
[46]
Yuet al., in7th International Particle Accelerator Confer- ence(2016) p
C. Yuet al., in7th International Particle Accelerator Confer- ence(2016) p. TUY A01
2016
-
[47]
Agostinelliet al.(GEANT4 Collaboration), Nucl
S. Agostinelliet al.(GEANT4 Collaboration), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A506, 250 (2003)
2003
-
[48]
Jadach, B
S. Jadach, B. F. L. Ward, and Z. Was, Comput. Phys. Commun. 130, 260 (2000)
2000
-
[49]
Jadach, B
S. Jadach, B. F. L. Ward, and Z. Was, Phys. Rev. D63, 113009 (2001)
2001
-
[50]
Ping, Chin
R.-G. Ping, Chin. Phys. C32, 599 (2008)
2008
-
[51]
D. J. Lange, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A462, 152 (2001)
2001
-
[52]
J. C. Chen, G. S. Huang, X. R. Qi, D. H. Zhang, and Y . S. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D62, 034003 (2000)
2000
-
[53]
Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), JHEP11, 217 (2021)
M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), JHEP11, 217 (2021)
2021
-
[54]
W. Sun, T. Liu, M. Jing, L. Wang, B. Zhong, and W. Song, Front. Phys. (Beijing)16, 64501 (2021)
2021
-
[55]
Jegerlehner and R
F. Jegerlehner and R. Szafron, Eur. Phys. J. C71, 1632 (2011)
2011
-
[56]
Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), Phys
M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B820, 136576 (2021)
2021
-
[57]
Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), Phys
M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D93, 072003 (2016)
2016
-
[58]
Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), Phys
M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D106, L091101 (2022)
2022
-
[59]
Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), JHEP12, 016 (2022)
M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), JHEP12, 016 (2022)
2022
-
[60]
Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), JHEP12, 027 (2023)
M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), JHEP12, 027 (2023)
2023
-
[61]
Mo and Y .-S
X.-H. Mo and Y .-S. Zhu, Chin. Phys. C27, 371 (2003)
2003
-
[62]
Mo, Chin
X.-H. Mo, Chin. Phys. C30, 140 (2006)
2006
-
[63]
Mo, Chin
X.-H. Mo, Chin. Phys. C31, 745 (2007)
2007
-
[64]
Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), Chin
M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), Chin. Phys. C46, 111002 (2022)
2022
-
[65]
Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), Phys
M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 211902 (2023)
2023
-
[66]
Zhu, Chin
Y .-S. Zhu, Chin. Phys. C32, 363 (2008)
2008
-
[67]
F. E. Close and P. R. Page, Phys. Lett. B628, 215 (2005)
2005
-
[68]
Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), Chin
M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), Chin. Phys. C40, 063001 (2016)
2016
-
[69]
Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), Chin
M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), Chin. Phys. C45, 103001 (2021)
2021
-
[70]
Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), Phys
M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B753, 629 (2016). 6 Appendix A: End Matter This End Matter provides detailed information on the measured Born cross sections for the processe +e− →K 0 S ¯Ξ+Σ−. Table II. Thee +e− →K 0 S ¯Ξ+Σ− Born cross sectionsσ B for 56 energy points between 3.510 and 4.951 GeV . The values in the brackets are the corr...
2016
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.