Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Virtual state and two-pole structure: $\Xi(1690)$ and $\Xi(1820)$ from BESIII data on $\psi(3686)\to K^-\Lambda\bar{\Xi}^+$

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An analysis of BESIII data argues that the Ξ(1690) is a virtual state just below the ¯KΣ threshold, while the Ξ(1820) is formed from two poles.

desk verdict First combined rescattering fit to the BESIII Xi spectra, with a real BW-failure control, but the virtual-state claim for Xi(1690) is not nailed down because the stability test does not refit the production strength. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.25606 v1 pith:FRN4GNCL submitted 2026-07-28 hep-ph

Jun He This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords Ξ(1690)Ξ(1820)virtualstatetwo-polestructurecoupled-channelrescatteringBethe-SalpeterequationBESIIIcharmoniumdecay
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Using the recent high-statistics BESIII measurement of ψ(3686) → K−Λ ¯Ξ+, this paper argues that two strange baryon resonances have non-conventional origins. It claims the very sharp Ξ(1690) peak in the K−Λ spectrum is the signature of a virtual state: an attractive but too-weak interaction in the S-wave ¯KΣ channel produces a pole on the unphysical sheet about 1.7 MeV below threshold, rather than a genuine resonance. It further claims that the unexpectedly broad Ξ(1820) is best described by two poles in the 3/2− partial wave, generated from the KΣ* and πΞ* channels, echoing the known Λ(1405) two-pole pattern. A coupled-channel rescattering fit to all three invariant mass spectra achieves a total reduced χ² of about 1.67, noticeably better than the Breit-Wigner description of the sharp peak. If correct, this means the BESIII data provide direct evidence for a virtual-state baryon and for dynamical generation of hyperon resonances.

What carries the argument

The central object is the analytic structure of the coupled-channel T-matrix obtained from the quasipotential Bethe-Salpeter equation with vector-meson-exchange potentials and an exponential regulator. The paper tracks the poles of this T-matrix on the second (unphysical) Riemann sheet of each channel: a pole just below threshold with no width is a virtual state, while paired poles in the same partial wave form a two-pole structure. The mechanism that carries the argument is the competition between attraction and threshold position in the S-wave ¯KΣ interaction—attractive but too weak to bind, it still moves the pole onto the unphysical sheet close enough to threshold to create a sharp cusp

What would settle it

A high-precision measurement of the K−Λ invariant mass spectrum with finer binning centered on the ¯KΣ threshold (≈1687 MeV) would settle the claim: a virtual state produces a sharp asymmetric cusp whose height changes rapidly with the pole's distance from threshold, while a bound state below threshold gives a different, flatter line shape. Equivalently, a lattice QCD calculation of the S-wave ¯KΣ scattering length near threshold would determine whether the pole sits on the physical or unphysical sheet.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that a direct fit to the BESIII invariant mass spectra within a coupled-channel rescattering model shows that Ξ(1690) is a virtual state located at 1687.1 MeV, about 1.7 MeV below the ¯KΣ threshold, on the second Riemann sheet of that channel; the sharp near-threshold peak is the cusp produced by this virtual state, which a Breit-Wigner resonance cannot reproduce. For Ξ(1820), the same calculation yields two poles in the 3/2− wave: 1846−34i MeV, originating from a KΣ* bound state that acquires width through coupling to other channels, and 1724−80i MeV, a broader resonance generated mainly by πΞ*. The coexistence of these poles, similar to the Λ(1405) case, accounts for the b

Load-bearing premise

The identification of Ξ(1690) as a virtual state rests on the choice of the cutoff (0.5 GeV) for the ¯KΣ channel: with a slightly larger cutoff the same model produces a bound state whose peak would be far too high, so the whole conclusion hangs on that regulator value.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Ξ(1690) should be regarded as a dynamically generated virtual state rather than a conventional three-quark resonance; future hadron listings would classify it by its pole position on the unphysical sheet rather than by a Breit-Wigner mass and width.
  • The broad BESIII width of the Ξ(1820) (around 73–100 MeV) is naturally explained by the overlap of a narrow higher pole and a broad lower pole; the world-average width of about 24 MeV may reflect only one of the two poles.
  • The same two-pole pattern predicted for Λ(1405) is now extended to the strangeness S=−2 sector, suggesting that two-pole structures are a generic feature of dynamically generated baryon resonances.
  • Future higher-statistics data on ψ(3686)→K−Λ¯Ξ+ and other charmonium decays can discriminate between the virtual-state and bound-state interpretations by the peak height just below threshold.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension: measure the K−Λ spectrum with finer binning just below the ¯KΣ threshold; the virtual-state interpretation predicts a characteristic cusp shape whose peak height scales sensitively with the pole distance, whereas a bound state would give a more symmetric, lower peak. This could be checked with the next BESIII data release.
  • If the virtual-state interpretation survives, the same mechanism should produce analogous near-threshold virtual states in other strangeness sectors, e.g., in Σ or Ω systems with the corresponding meson-baryon thresholds; searches in future experiments could look for similarly sharp, non-Breit-Wigner peaks.
  • The paper's reliance on a single adjusted cutoff (Λ=0.5 GeV for ¯KΣ) to separate virtual from bound state implies that independent constraints on the ¯KΣ interaction—from lattice QCD or from other processes such as ¯KΣ scattering—could either confirm or overturn the virtual-state claim; a lattice calculation of the S-wave scattering length near threshold would be decisive.
  • The two-pole pattern for Ξ(1820) suggests that, like Λ(1405), the resonance may appear differently in different production processes: some experiments may see the narrow higher pole, others the broad lower pole. Predictions for the line shape in decays such as Ξc→π(η)πΞ* could be compared with future data.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes BESIII data on ψ(3686)→K−ΛΞ¯+ using a coupled-channel quasipotential Bethe-Salpeter framework with channels K¯Λ, K¯Σ(∗), πΞ(∗), ηΞ(∗), and KΩ. It first shows that a conventional Breit-Wigner fit cannot reproduce the sharp near-threshold peak assigned to Ξ(1690), then fits the same spectra with rescattering amplitudes in which Ξ(1690) and Ξ(1820) are generated by meson-baryon dynamics. The authors conclude that Ξ(1690) is a virtual state located about 1.7 MeV below the K¯Σ threshold, and that Ξ(1820) has a two-pole structure in the 3/2− partial wave, with poles at 1846−34i and 1724−80i MeV. The best rescattering fit achieves χ²/ndf ≈ 1.667 with a ΛΞ¯+ (0−) background, comparable to or better than the Breit-Wigner baseline.

Significance. If the virtual-state identification for Ξ(1690) were established, this would be a valuable result: it would add a concrete strangeness-sector example of a near-threshold virtual state and show that high-precision charmonium-decay spectra can discriminate pole structures beyond Breit-Wigner fits. The paper has real strengths: it uses the full three-spectrum BESIII data, it provides a conventional Breit-Wigner control that fails on the sharp peak, it makes the code available, and it reports a pole analysis in addition to line-shape fits. However, the central claim is currently weaker than the abstract suggests because the virtual-state conclusion depends on a fitted cutoff and on excluding the MB production channels without a quantitative demonstration, and the success of the rescattering fit is obtained only after moving the background to the channel disfavored by the Breit-Wigner baseline and by the experimental analysis.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. S6, Fig. 6] The key discriminator between a virtual state and a bound state is not established. In S6 the curves for Λ=0.60 and 0.65 GeV are computed with the strength g_Ξ(1690) fixed at the value obtained for Λ=0.50 GeV. But Table I lists g_Ξ(1690) as a fitted parameter, and Eq. (14) shows that the whole 1/2− contribution is multiplied by this strength. A bound-state pole with a smaller, refitted g would produce a lower peak, so the statement that "any bound-state interpretation would produce a peak much higher than observed" is only true at fixed normalization. The authors must repeat the full fit (including g_Ξ(1690), g_Ξ(1820), g_bk and the phases) for Λ=0.40, 0.55, 0.60 and 0.65 GeV and report the resulting χ² values. Without that, the data have not been shown to discriminate a virtual pole from a bound pole.
  2. [Sec. III, S6] The virtual-state conclusion is partly circular. In Sec. III the cutoff for the K¯Σ channel is adjusted to reproduce the sharp peak: "To find the best description of the data, we adjust the cutoff for the K¯Σ channel and set it to 0.5 GeV." Sec. S6 then shows that the pole character (virtual vs bound) and the peak height are controlled by that cutoff. Thus the data feature used as evidence for the virtual state is the same feature used to fix the cutoff. A more convincing test would set the cutoff by a criterion independent of the near-threshold peak (e.g., a global fit with a common cutoff or a prior on the regularization scale) and then check whether the data still select the virtual-state side. At minimum the pole trajectory with all parameters refitted should be shown.
  3. [Sec. II and Sec. III] The omission of the MB production channels is asserted but not demonstrated. The text states that "the fit results show that the contributions from the MB channels are numerically very small," but no quantitative comparison or fit statistics are provided. The effective amplitudes in Eqs. (11)–(12) contain fitted strengths that could absorb part of these contributions. Since the omitted MB channels can modify the energy dependence and normalization of the 1/2− amplitude near the K¯Σ threshold, this omission is not an innocent detail for the virtual-state claim. The authors should either include the MB channels in a stability run or quantify their contribution with actual fitted weights.
  4. [Table I, Sec. III] The claimed success of the rescattering scenario is conditional on a background assignment that the paper's own baseline disfavors. In the Breit-Wigner fits the K−Λ (1/2+) background is preferred (χ²/ndf = 1.706 vs 2.010), matching the experimental analysis. In the rescattering scenario the K−Λ background gives χ²/ndf = 2.413, and the excellent value 1.667 is obtained only after moving the background to the ΛΞ¯+ (0−) channel. The paper should either justify this switch dynamically, show that the rescattering fit with the experimentally preferred K−Λ background is still competitive, or refrain from presenting the ΛΞ¯+ choice as the unqualified best description.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Captions, Figs. 2,3,5] Several captions have corrupted text: "Binn d", "E+en)(/(16 MeV)", "E( nts/(16 M V)", "( )" instead of (c). These should be corrected.
  2. [Sec. S3, Table II] "wave fucntion" is a typo; also the text says coefficients for MB→MB* can be obtained analogously, but these coefficients are not tabulated, making the potential specification incomplete.
  3. [References] There are duplicate/overlapping references: [23]=[55], [24]=[56], [40]=[58], [41]=[59], [43]/[44] and [60]/[61] are also duplicated. This should be cleaned.
  4. [Eq. (10)] The notation p′j in Eq. (10) and the subsequent text is not defined. The projection measure and the argument of the T-matrix should be spelled out.
  5. [Fig. 6 caption] The caption says curves correspond to Λ = 0.50, 0.55, 0.60 and 0.65 GeV, but Λ=0.55 is not shown in the figure as reproduced; the text also discusses Λ=0.40. The caption and figure should be aligned.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The Ξ(1690) virtual-state claim is controlled by the cutoff fitted to the same sharp peak; the S6 bound-state comparison is made without refitting, so the central prediction partially reduces to the fitted input.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. III (Numerical Results); Sec. S6 (Cutoff dependence of the results near Ξ(1690))]
    "To find the best description of the data, we adjust the cutoff for the \bar KΣ channel and set it to 0.5 GeV. ... If we increase the cutoff to Λ = 0.60 GeV, the pole moves very close to the threshold, at about 0.004 MeV below, behaving effectively as a bound state. In this case, the peak becomes significantly higher than the data ... The data strongly favor the virtual-state scenario, since any bound-state interpretation would produce a peak much higher than observed."

    Sec. III fixes Λ_\bar KΣ = 0.5 GeV specifically to reproduce the sharp BESIII peak. The virtual-vs-bound classification is a direct function of this same cutoff: S6 shows Λ = 0.60/0.65 GeV converts the pole to a bound state and makes the peak 'significantly higher than the data'. The paper then concludes the data 'strongly favor the virtual-state scenario', but that comparison is made at the Λ = 0.5 normalization without refitting the strength gΞ(1690) for the bound-state cutoffs. The central claim (Ξ(1690) is a virtual state) therefore restates the fitted cutoff choice as a datum-determined discovery, rather than being an independent prediction. The model retains partial independent content from the other spectra and the failure of the Breit-Wigner fit.

full rationale

The derivation is not entirely circular: the rescattering model is specified by independent effective Lagrangians and literature couplings, the coupled-channel T-matrix is solved from the qBSE, and the fit to all three BESIII spectra (χ2/ndf = 1.667) plus the failure of a Breit-Wigner description of the sharp peak give the model real empirical content. The Ξ(1820) two-pole pattern also emerges without directly fitting pole positions. However, the central virtual-state claim for Ξ(1690) is tied to the Λ_\bar KΣ = 0.5 GeV cutoff, which is manually adjusted to reproduce the same sharp K−Λ peak that is then attributed to the virtual state. Sec. S6 shows that moderate increases of this cutoff convert the pole to a bound state and produce a peak 'significantly higher than the data'; the paper takes this as evidence favoring the virtual state, but the comparison keeps the strength parameters fixed at the Λ = 0.5 best fit and does not refit g for the bound-state solution. Thus the virtual-vs-bound conclusion is not uniquely established by the data; within this model it is determined by the fitted cutoff. This is a fitted-input-called-prediction pattern: the sharp peak fixes Λ, and the pole type follows from Λ. The claim is therefore partially circular, though not a pure definitional tautology because other spectra and the BW contrast provide separate constraints.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central dynamical claim (virtual state and two-pole structure) is not a parameter-free derivation: it rests on a standard SU(3) vector-meson-exchange model with two cutoffs, one of which is tuned to the data. The pole positions are functions of these cutoffs, and the virtual-state vs bound-state distinction is controlled by the fitted Λ. No genuinely new particle or force is introduced; the 'virtual state' and 'second pole' are mathematical features of the fitted amplitude.

free parameters (5)
  • Cutoff Λ for \bar KΣ channel = 0.5 GeV
    Adjusted by hand to reproduce the sharp peak near 1690 MeV; Sec. S6 shows the pole position and peak height vary strongly with this value.
  • Cutoff Λ for other channels = 1.15 GeV
    Chosen to generate the peak near 1800 MeV; not varied in the sensitivity study.
  • Strengths g_Ξ(1690), g_Ξ(1820), g_bk = 0.338, 1.062, 0.603 (RS with K−Λ bg) or 0.822, 0.565, 11.39 (RS with Λ\barΞ+ bg)
    Overall normalization and relative phases are fitted; absorb QCD coupling constants.
  • Phases φ_Ξ(1690), φ_Ξ(1820) = 0.338/0.822 and 1.062/0.565 in the two RS fits
    Relative phases of the resonance amplitudes are free fit parameters.
  • Background mass and width m_bk, Γ_bk = 1911.4 MeV, 1394.4 MeV (RS K−Λ) or 2885.4 MeV, 1106.1 MeV (RS Λ\barΞ+)
    The wide background is modeled as a Breit-Wigner with fitted mass and width.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption SU(3) flavor symmetry with α=1 and ideal vector-meson mixing (θ_V ≈ 35.3°) for all vertices and flavor factors.
    Used to construct the one-boson-exchange potential and the relative weights of the MB* channels (1:-1:-1:√2). Standard in chiral-unitary approaches.
  • domain assumption The quasipotential Bethe-Salpeter equation (qBSE) with spectator approximation and an exponential regulator.
    The scattering amplitudes T are obtained by solving this equation, following the author's previous works [47-51].
  • domain assumption One-boson-exchange potential built from vector-meson exchanges (ρ, ω, φ, K*), with tensor couplings neglected.
    The interaction kernel derives from Lagrangians (1)-(4) and reduces to the chiral-unitary contact interaction in the q²≪m_V² limit (Sec. S3).
  • domain assumption ψ(3686), a c\bar c state, is an SU(3) singlet for u,d,s, so the production amplitudes into MB and MB* channels are related by symmetry; no relation between the two sectors.
    Used to justify keeping only MB* channels as intermediate states; the relative weights 1:-1:-1:√2 come from this symmetry.
  • ad hoc to paper The background can be described by a single wide Breit-Wigner resonance, either 1/2+ in KΛ or 0− in Λ\barΞ+.
    This is an empirical ansatz following the experimental analysis; the two options are compared and the best one chosen.
  • ad hoc to paper Form factor F(s12)=Λ⁴/(Λ⁴+(s12−m_thr²)²) with Λ=1 GeV at the production vertices.
    Introduced in Sec. II to regularize the production vertex; the value 1 GeV is chosen by hand.
  • ad hoc to paper The MB production channels are neglected because 'the fit results show that the contributions from the MB channels are numerically very small'.
    A post-hoc model reduction; the paper does not show quantitative evidence that dropping these channels is stable across the parameter space.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Virtual state and two-pole structure: $\Xi(1690)$ and $\Xi(1820)$ from BESIII data on $\psi(3686)\to K^-\Lambda\bar{\Xi}^+$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FRN4GNCL

@misc{pith2026260725606,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Virtual state and two-pole structure: $\Xi(1690)$ and $\Xi(1820)$ from BESIII data on $\psi(3686)\to K^-\Lambda\bar\Xi^+$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FRN4GNCL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.25606}
}
abstract

We investigate the nature of the $\Xi(1690)$ and $\Xi(1820)$ resonances by analyzing the recent BESIII data on $\psi(3686) \to K^-\Lambda\bar{\Xi}^+$ within a coupled-channel rescattering framework. The calculation includes the channels $\bar{K}\Lambda$, $\bar{K}\Sigma^{(*)}$, $\pi\Xi^{(*)}$, $\eta\Xi^{(*)}$, and $K\Omega$. A direct fit to the data reveals that the $\Xi(1690)$ is best described as a virtual state located right below the $\bar{K}\Sigma$ threshold, a feature that naturally explains its very sharp peak observed in the $K^-\Lambda$ invariant mass spectrum. In contrast, the $\Xi(1820)$ exhibits a two-pole structure originating mainly from the coupled contributions of the $K\Sigma^*$ and $\pi\Xi^*$ channels, showing a two-pole pattern similar to that of the well-known $\Lambda(1405)$ and accounting for the unexpectedly broad width measured by BESIII. These findings provide new insights into the dynamical generation of hyperon resonances and highlight the importance of high-precision data from charmonium decays.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.25606 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Feynman diagrams for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Invariant mass spectra in the rescattering scenario [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Poles with spin-parities 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Invariant mass spectra in the Breit-Wigner scenario [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Invariant mass spectra of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Roles of $a_0(980)^+ f_0(500,980)$ and $a_1(1260)^+\eta$ production mechanisms in decay $D_s^+ \to \pi^+ \pi^0 \pi^0 \eta$

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Using SU(3)-constrained chiral-unitary amplitudes, the D_s+ -> π+ π0 π0 η spectra are reproduced by a0(980)+ (as a K-bar-K cusp), f0(500/980), and a1(1260)+ rescattering mechanisms.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. [Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  2. [2]

    Aλ′ 1,λ′ 2;λ3;λ +η′DJ M,−λ′ 21 (Ω′

  3. [3]

    The experimental analysis suggests that the data can be described by two resonances plus a background contribution

    A−λ′ 1,−λ′ 2;λ3;λ(Ω′ 2) ] , (13) where λ′ 21 = λ′ 2 − λ′ 1 is the helicity di fference of the two intermediate particles, andη′ = PP1P2(−1)J−J1−J2 is the parity factor, with P the intrinsic parity of the system, P1, P2 the parities of the two constituents, and J, J1, J2 the total and individual spins. The experimental analysis suggests that the data can be...

  4. [4]

    R. H. Dalitz and S. F. Tuan, Annals Phys. 10, 307-351 (1960) 7

    1960

  5. [5]

    Hyodo and D

    T. Hyodo and D. Jido, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 67, 55-98 (2012)

    2012

  6. [6]

    Oset and A

    E. Oset and A. Ramos, Nucl. Phys. A 635, 99-120 (1998)

    1998

  7. [7]

    J. M. M. Hall, W. Kamleh, D. B. Leinweber, B. J. Menadue, B. J. Owen, A. W. Thomas and R. D. Y oung, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, no.13, 132002 (2015)

    2015

  8. [8]

    Nakano et al

    T. Nakano et al. [LEPS], Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 012002 (2003)

    2003

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    J. J. Wu, R. Molina, E. Oset and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 232001 (2010)

    2010

  2. [10]

    Z. C. Yang, Z. F. Sun, J. He, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, Chin. Phys. C 36, 6-13 (2012)

    2012

  3. [11]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 072001 (2015)

    2015

  4. [12]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, no.22, 222001 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    J. J. Wu, S. Dulat and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. D 80, 017503 (2009)

    2009

  6. [14]

    E. Wang, L. S. Geng, J. J. Wu, J. J. Xie and B. S. Zou, Chin. Phys. Lett. 41, no.10, 101401 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    He, Phys

    J. He, Phys. Rev. C 112, no.1, 015205 (2025)

    2025

  8. [16]

    J. B. Gay et al. [Amsterdam-CERN-Nijmegen-Oxford], Phys. Lett. B 62, 477-480 (1976)

    1976

  9. [17]

    Teodoro, J

    D. Teodoro, J. Diaz, C. Dionisi, J. B. Gay, R. J. Hemingwa y, M. J. Losty, M. Mazzucato, R. Blokzijl, G. G. G. Massaro and H. V oorthuis,et al. Phys. Lett. B 77, 451-453 (1978)

    1978

  10. [18]

    S. F. Biagi, M. Bourquin, R. M. Brown, H. J. Burckhart, P . Ex- termann, M. Gailloud, C. N. P . Gee, W. M. Gibson, P . Jacot- Guillarmod and J. Perrier, et al. Z. Phys. C 34, 175 (1987)

    1987

  11. [19]

    Aubert et al

    B. Aubert et al. [BaBar], Phys. Rev. D 78, 034008 (2008)

    2008

  12. [20]

    Sumihama et al

    M. Sumihama et al. [Belle], Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, no.7, 072501 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII], Phys. Rev. D 91, no.9, 092006 (2015)

    2015

  14. [22]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII], Phys. Rev. D 109, no.7, 072008 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    Capstick and N

    S. Capstick and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. D 34, no.9, 2809-2835 (1986)

    1986

  16. [24]

    L. Y . Glozman and D. O. Riska, Phys. Rept. 268, 263-303 (1996)

    1996

  17. [27]

    K. P . Khemchandani, A. Mart´ ınez Torres, A. Hosaka, H. N a- gahiro, F. S. Navarra and M. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. D 97, no.3, 034005 (2018)

    2018

  18. [28]

    Sekihara, PTEP 2015, no.9, 091D01 (2015)

    T. Sekihara, PTEP 2015, no.9, 091D01 (2015)

    2015

  19. [29]

    Feijoo, V

    A. Feijoo, V . V alcarce Cadenas and V . K. Magas, Phys. Let t. B 841, 137927 (2023) [erratum: Phys. Lett. B 853, 138660 (2024)]

    2023

  20. [30]

    E. E. Kolomeitsev and M. F. M. Lutz, Phys. Lett. B 585, 243- 252 (2004)

    2004

  21. [31]

    Molina, W

    R. Molina, W. H. Liang, C. W. Xiao, Z. F. Sun and E. Oset, Phys. Lett. B 856, 138872 (2024)

    2024

  22. [32]

    W. H. Liang, R. Molina and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 110, no.3, 036005 (2024)

    2024

  23. [33]

    J. A. Oller and U. G. Meissner, Phys. Lett. B 500, 263-272 (2001)

    2001

  24. [34]

    D. Jido, J. A. Oller, E. Oset, A. Ramos and U. G. Meissner, Nucl. Phys. A 725, 181-200 (2003)

    2003

  25. [35]

    Albaladejo, P

    M. Albaladejo, P . Fernandez-Soler, F. K. Guo and J. Niev es, Phys. Lett. B 767, 465-469 (2017)

    2017

  26. [36]

    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

  27. [37]

    L. Roca, E. Oset and J. Singh, Phys. Rev. D 72, 014002 (2005)

    2005

  28. [38]

    L. S. Geng, E. Oset, L. Roca and J. A. Oller, Phys. Rev. D 75, 014017 (2007)

    2007

  29. [39]

    He and P

    J. He and P . L. Lu, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 24, no.11, 1550088 (2015)

    2015

  30. [40]

    Bando, T

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

    1985

  31. [41]

    M. C. Birse, Z. Phys. A 355, 231-246 (1996)

    1996

  32. [44]

    Janssen, K

    G. Janssen, K. Holinde and J. Speth, Phys. Rev. C 54, 2218- 2234 (1996)

    1996

  33. [46]

    Matsuyama, T

    A. Matsuyama, T. Sato and T. S. H. Lee, Phys. Rept. 439, 193- 253 (2007)

    2007

  34. [47]

    Lenske, M

    H. Lenske, M. Dhar and T. Gaitanos, [arXiv:1602.08917 [ nucl- th]]

    arXiv

  35. [48]

    He and D

    J. He and D. Y . Chen, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, no.11, 887 (2019)

    2019

  36. [49]

    He, Phys

    J. He, Phys. Rev. D 90, no.7, 076008 (2014)

    2014

  37. [50]

    He, Phys

    J. He, Phys. Rev. D 92, no.3, 034004 (2015)

    2015

  38. [51]

    He and D

    J. He and D. Y . Chen, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, no.2, 94 (2018)

    2018

  39. [52]

    He, Phys

    J. He, Phys. Rev. C 91, no.1, 018201 (2015)

    2015

  40. [53]

    He, Phys

    J. He, Phys. Lett. B 753, 547-551 (2016)

    2016

  41. [54]

    M. Y . Duan, J. Song, W. H. Liang and E. Oset, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, no.9, 947 (2024)

    2024

  42. [55]

    Monte-Carlo phase space,

    F. James, “Monte-Carlo phase space,” CERN-68-15 (1968 )

    1968

  43. [56]

    Ablikim et al

    https: //github.com/junhe1979/DalitzPlot.jl M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII], Phys. Rev. D 109, no.7, 072008 (2024)

    2024

  44. [57]

    Ramos, E

    A. Ramos, E. Oset and C. Bennhold, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 252001 (2002)

    2002

  45. [58]

    Sarkar, E

    S. Sarkar, E. Oset and M. J. Vicente V acas, Nucl. Phys. A 750, 294-323 (2005) [erratum: Nucl. Phys. A 780, 90-90 (2006)]

    2005

  46. [59]

    Aceti, M

    F. Aceti, M. Bayar, E. Oset, A. Martinez Torres, K. P . Khe m- chandani, J. M. Dias, F. S. Navarra and M. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. D 90, no.1, 016003 (2014)

    2014

  47. [60]

    J. J. de Swart, Rev. Mod. Phys. 35, 916-939 (1963) [erratum: Rev. Mod. Phys. 37, no.2, 326-326 (1965)]

    1963

  48. [61]

    Ronchen, M

    D. Ronchen, M. Doring, F. Huang, H. Haberzettl, J. Haide n- bauer, C. Hanhart, S. Krewald, U. G. Meissner and K. Nakayama, Eur. Phys. J. A 49, 44 (2013)

    2013

  49. [62]

    Y . Oh, K. Nakayama and T. S. H. Lee, Phys. Rept. 423, 49-89 (2006)

    2006

  50. [63]

    Matsuyama, T

    A. Matsuyama, T. Sato and T. S. H. Lee, Phys. Rept. 439, 193- 253 (2007) 8 V . S1. LAGRANGIANS FOR BREIT-WIGNER SCENARIO The amplitudes for Fig. 1(b) are derived from e ffective Lagrangians, with Ξ(1690) and Ξ(1820) treated as 1 /2− and 3/2− resonances, respectively. The backgr...

    2007

  51. [64]

    The momenta p1/p′ 1 and p2/p′ 2 correspond to the final K−, Λ (intermediate particles), respectively, while p3 is the momentum of the Ξ+

    Aλ3;λ(p′ 1, p′ 2, p3), (46) whereλ andλi denote the helicities of the initial ψ(3686) and the final K−, Λ, and Ξ+, respectively. The momenta p1/p′ 1 and p2/p′ 2 correspond to the final K−, Λ (intermediate particles), respectively, while p3 is the momentum of the Ξ+. G(p′

  52. [65]

    Since the rescattering amplitude is obtained in a partial- wave-decomposed form, a partial wave decomposition of the decay amplitude is also performed

    is the propagator of the intermediate particle. Since the rescattering amplitude is obtained in a partial- wave-decomposed form, a partial wave decomposition of the decay amplitude is also performed. Including parity, the decay amplitude can be rewritten as iMλ1,λ2,λ3;λ(p1, p2...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.