Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 37 references

Dynamical generation of resonances in the P33 partial wave

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that Delta(1600) is predominantly a dynamically generated quasi-bound pi-Delta/pi-N state, not a simple (1s)^2 2s quark excitation, and predicts a distinctive pion-cloud electroproduction signature.

desk verdict A well-worked-out but not-yet-conclusive case that the Delta(1600) is dynamically generated, with a testable Q^2 prediction that deserves a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.11750 v1 pith:3AIKSWLM submitted 2019-08-30 hep-ph nucl-th

B. Golli , H. Osmanović , S. Širca This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phnucl-th PACS 14.20.Gk13.75.Gx13.40.Gp
keywords P33partialwaveDelta(1600)dynamicallygeneratedresonancescoupledchannelspion-baryoninteractionLaurent-PietarinenexpansionhelicityamplitudesCloudyBagModel
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

The paper claims that the $\Delta$(1600) resonance is born mostly from pion-baryon dynamics rather than from an excited quark configuration. In a model with only pion-nucleon and pion-$\Delta$ channels and attractive p-wave pion interactions, two resonance poles appear spontaneously, at about 1200 MeV and 1400 MeV. Coupling in a genuine three-quark (1s)^3 state reproduces $\Delta$(1232) and pushes the second pole to roughly 1500 MeV, where it can be identified with the $\Delta$(1600). The resulting helicity amplitudes carry a strong pion-cloud E2 piece that makes A_{1/2} and A_{3/2} comparable at low $Q^{2}$, a signature the authors propose as a decisive test.

What carries the argument

The analysis is carried by the Laurent-Pietarinen expansion, a method for continuing the scattering T-matrix into the complex energy plane and tracking S-matrix poles as the interaction strength changes. The interaction strength is varied through the bag radius R of the Cloudy Bag Model, which sets the momentum cutoff; a singular-value decomposition of the coupled-channel kernel's A matrix locates where poles emerge. A separable approximation to the u-channel exchange kernel makes the Lippmann-Schwinger equations exactly solvable algebraically, while genuine three-quark states are introduced as dressed s-channel resonant states that mix with the dynamically generated poles.

What would settle it

Measure the $\Delta$(1600) helicity amplitudes at several $Q^{2}$ values between 0 and 1.5 $GeV^{2}$; if A_{1/2} and A_{3/2} do not become comparable in magnitude through a pion-cloud E2 contribution, the dynamical-generation picture is contradicted. A coupled-channels fit that includes rho-N and explicit pi-pi-N channels and finds the second pole above 1.6 GeV would also break the identification.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the P33 partial wave with only pi-N and pi-$\Delta$ coupled channels, the attractive p-wave pion interaction alone already generates two resonance poles: one near 1200 MeV dominated by pi-N loops, and one near 1400 MeV dominated by pi-$\Delta$ loops. Introducing a genuine three-quark (1s)^3 resonant state for $\Delta$(1232) mixes with the lower dynamical pole, and this mixing pushes the upper dynamical pole to about 1500 MeV, allowing it to be identified with the $\Delta$(1600). Adding a (1s)^2 2s quark state at 2.0-2.2 GeV does not mix strongly into the $\Delta$(1600); its pole trajectory stays well separated. The authors conclude that $\Delta$(1600) is perhaps the most clean example of a dynamically generated non-strange resonance in the second and third resonance regions, and that a large pion-cloud E2 contribution, making A_{1/2} comparable to A_{3/2} at low $Q^{2}$, is its distinctive testable signature.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the P33 dynamics below about 1.7 GeV is saturated by pion-nucleon and pion-$\Delta$ channels with simple one-baryon exchange and a separable kernel, so that omitted channels would not move the second pole from around 1.5 GeV; if they do, the identification with $\Delta$(1600) weakens.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Delta(1600) should not be treated as a simple (1s)^2 2s quark radial excitation; its pole properties arise from meson-baryon dynamics even before a genuine quark state is introduced.
  • The Delta(1232) and Delta(1600) are linked by the same dynamics: a genuine (1s)^3 core reproduces the lower resonance while pushing the second dynamical pole into the Delta(1600) region.
  • A (1s)^2 2s quark state near 2.0-2.2 GeV stays well separated in its pole evolution, so it may feed a higher P33 resonance rather than the Delta(1600).
  • Electroproduction below about 1.7 GeV should show A_{1/2} and A_{3/2} of comparable magnitude at low Q^2 because of the pion-cloud E2 contribution, unlike an M1-dominated quark excitation.
  • Measurements of the Q^2 dependence of the Delta(1600) helicity amplitudes can discriminate between the dynamical-generation picture and a quark-model radial-excitation picture.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If future electroproduction data confirm A_{1/2} approximately equal to A_{3/2} at low Q^2, Delta(1600) would become a benchmark for how much of a supposedly quark-model resonance can be generated by pion loops; the ratio A_{1/2}/A_{3/2} as a function of Q^2 is a direct test.
  • A natural extension is to include rho-N and explicit pi-pi-N channels instead of relying on pi-Delta saturation of the two-pion inelasticity; if the second pole remains near 1500 MeV with those channels, the dynamical-generation claim is strengthened, while a large shift would point to missing channels.
  • The same pole-trajectory method could be applied to other non-strange resonances in the second and third resonance regions where quark-model assignments are ambiguous, providing a systematic way to identify which states are dynamically generated.
  • Lattice QCD calculations of the P33 phase shifts with varying pion mass could show whether the second pole tracks the pi-Delta threshold (dynamical origin) or stays fixed at the bare quark mass (genuine state).
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the P33 partial wave of pion-nucleon scattering in a coupled-channels model with only pi-N and pi-Delta channels, u-channel N and Delta exchange, a separable-kernel approximation to the Lippmann-Schwinger equation, and Cloudy Bag Model vertices. Using the Laurent-Pietarinen expansion to follow S-matrix poles as the bag radius R is varied, the authors find two dynamically generated poles near 1200 MeV and 1380 MeV when no bare quark state is included. Introducing a genuine (1s)^3 Delta state, with its bare mass adjusted to reproduce the Delta(1232), pushes the second dynamical pole to about 1450-1510 MeV, which they identify with the Delta(1600). Adding a (1s)^2 2s quark state has little effect on this pole. The paper also computes photoproduction and electroproduction helicity amplitudes at the pole and predicts a strong pion-cloud E2 contribution that makes A_{1/2} and A_{3/2} comparable at low Q^2.

Significance. If the pole identification is robust, the paper makes a substantial contribution: it offers a concrete dynamical mechanism for the Delta(1600) as a quasi-bound pi-Delta/pi-N state, and it produces a falsifiable Q^2-dependent prediction that can discriminate between quark-core and pion-cloud pictures. The coupled-channels formalism is laid out in detail, the separable-kernel solution is exact to all orders, and the pole-extraction procedure via the Laurent-Pietarinen expansion is clearly described. The reproduction of the Delta(1232) sector and of the low-energy pi-N amplitudes is a genuine strength. However, the central claim that the second pole is the Delta(1600) depends on model choices that are only weakly constrained, and the electroproduction comparison is not yet quantitative; these issues require attention before the conclusion can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [III.2, Table II] The central identification of the upper pole with Delta(1600) rests on the level repulsion induced by the bare (1s)^3 state, but the size of the shift is controlled by the ad hoc renormalization factors introduced at the start of Section III.2: the pi-N-Delta and pi-Delta-Delta vertices are fixed at 110% and 55% of their quark-model values 'in order to (partially) compensate for the channels not taken into account'. Since the bare Delta mass is itself tuned to reproduce the Delta(1232) mass, the upward shift of the second pole is not a parameter-free consequence; it is contingent on the fit of the lower sector. No sensitivity analysis is given for these two renormalization factors, and Table II does not show any single R reproducing the PDG pole simultaneously: R=0.8 fm gives |r|=26.3 close to the PDG value of 25 but Re W_p=1449 MeV and width 350 MeV, while R=0.6 fm gives Re W_p=1508 MeV but width 427 MeV and |r|=50. Since the shift from roughly 1380 MeV to roughly 1500 MeV is the main evidence for identifying the pole with Delta(1600), the authors should provide a sensitivity study varying the renormalization factors, or a demonstration that omitted channels produce a comparable shift.
  2. [II (after Eq. (5)) and III.1] The restriction to pi-N and pi-Delta channels is justified only by the statement 'Based on our previous experience in the P11 and P33 partial waves these degrees of freedom dominate in the energy region considered in the following'. The manuscript itself flags this as an assumption, not a demonstrated property of the P33 wave in the present model. This matters because the upper pole is essentially a quasi-bound pi-Delta state whose width inherits the assumed constant Breit-Wigner width of the Delta in the two-pion loop described in Section III.1. The text acknowledges that this inelastic treatment is consistent only 'for sufficiently strong coupling (small R) where the parameters of the Delta(1232) are reproduced in the same dynamical model'. A quantitative estimate of omitted channels (for example sigma-Delta, pi-rho, eta-Delta) or at least a variation of the fixed Delta width should be provided before the 1500 MeV pole identification can be considered robust.
  3. [III.3, Fig. 7] The conclusion that a bare mass of 2000 MeV for the (1s)^2 2s state is 'ruled out' is based on the appearance of a resonant structure near 2000 MeV that is not supported by experiment. Given that the model omits all channels except pi-N and pi-Delta and uses the same radius and coupling prescriptions for the second bare state, this exclusion is too strong; the structure in that region could be altered by omitted channels or by different choices of the second state's couplings. This statement should either be softened or supported by a channel-completeness or parameter-sensitivity test.
  4. [IV, Fig. 10 and Table IV] The electroproduction prediction is presented as 'the most decisive test' of the dynamical picture, but the comparison in Fig. 10 is to MAID2007 amplitudes evaluated with a Breit-Wigner assumption at W=1470 MeV rather than at the S-matrix pole, and the text states that the model underestimates quark magnetic contributions, particularly at small Q^2. As a result, the large E2 multipole and the near-equality of A_{1/2} and A_{3/2} at the photon point are not yet quantitatively validated against pole-extracted data. The authors should compare with pole-extracted amplitudes such as those in Refs. [20] and [31] using a common convention, or explicitly frame the Q^2 dependence as a qualitative model prediction rather than a quantitative reproduction.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Tables I and II] The rows labeled 'PDG' mix Breit-Wigner parameters with pole parameters; the text should state explicitly which PDG values are pole values, for example from Ref. [18], and which are Breit-Wigner values, so that the comparison is not ambiguous.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract's phrase 'allows it to be identified with the Delta(1600)' is stronger than Table II supports, since no single R reproduces the PDG pole parameters simultaneously; a more cautious wording such as 'suggestive of' would better match the robustness of the extraction.
  3. [Figs. 3 and 6] The unsmooth portions of the pole trajectories are attributed to numerical instabilities, but no criterion is given for when a pole trajectory is reliable; a brief description of the stability criterion used in the Laurent-Pietarinen extraction would help the reader assess the pole identification.
  4. [Eq. (15)] Equation (15) should define the units of Res_{pi N} and Res A_h, and should state whether the phase convention for A_{1/2} and A_{3/2} is the same as in Refs. [31], [32], and [33], since the table compares phases across these analyses.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Δ(1600) pole emerges from the coupled-channel calculation rather than being imposed, and the self-citations supply model conventions rather than the target result.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is not circular. The model inputs are the πN and πΔ channels, u-channel N and Δ exchange, a separable kernel, Cloudy Bag vertices, and parameters set by the lower Δ(1232) sector: the bare Δ(1232) mass is adjusted so the Breit-Wigner mass is 1232 MeV, and the πNΔ and πΔΔ couplings are fixed at 110% and 55% of quark-model values. The upper pole is then a computed output of the coupled-channel equations; its position near 1500 MeV is only compared with PDG values afterward. No equation in the paper is defined in terms of the Δ(1600) mass, and no parameter is fitted to the upper pole. The helicity-amplitude Q^2 dependence is also calculated after the fit and is not used to tune the model. The citations to the authors' earlier work [8,21,23,24] provide the separable-kernel formalism, the Cloudy Bag parameter conventions, and 'previous experience' about dominant degrees of freedom; these are model-building choices, not unverified uniqueness theorems or imported ansätze that by themselves force the Δ(1600) identification. The robustness concern raised by a skeptical reader — that the upward shift of the second pole depends on the ad hoc compensation factors and on the chosen bag radius, and that no single R simultaneously reproduces all PDG pole parameters — is a legitimate model-uncertainty or correctness objection, but it is not circularity in the sense of the derivation reducing to its own inputs. Accordingly, no circular step is identified and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model relies on a truncated coupled-channels space and several adjusted coupling constants; the central claim about Delta(1600) depends on these choices. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (8)
  • Bag radius R = 0.6 to 0.8 fm (physical range); varied down to 0.2 fm for pole evolution
    Controls the cutoff and interaction strength; the authors choose R in 0.6 to 0.8 fm to best reproduce pi-N scattering data and the Delta(1232) width; results for the upper pole depend on R.
  • Bare mass of genuine Delta(1232) state = Adjusted to set Breit-Wigner mass to 1232 MeV
    Section III.2: 'We adjust the bare mass by fixing the Breit-Wigner resonance mass ... to 1232 MeV'.
  • pi-N-Delta coupling constant = 110% of the quark-model value
    Section III.2: 'fixed ... to 110% of the quark-model value'.
  • pi-Delta-Delta coupling constant = 55% of the quark-model value
    Section III.2: 'and the bare pi-Delta-Delta coupling constant to 55%'.
  • Delta vertex enhancement = 30% increase of vertices involving Delta
    Section II: 'the vertices involving the Delta are increased by 30% with respect to their bare (quark model) values in accordance with our analysis of the P33 resonances in [21]'.
  • Pion decay constant f_pi = 76 MeV
    Section II: 'f_pi (reduced to 76 MeV in order to reproduce the pi-N coupling constant)'.
  • Bare mass of second quark state m_Delta* = 2.0 GeV and 2.2 GeV (explored, not fitted)
    Section III.3: 'We therefore consider two possible bare masses of 2200 MeV and 2000 MeV'; the 2.0 GeV option is later stated to be ruled out by data.
  • Coupling constants for second state = 46% of corresponding quark-model values
    Section III.3: 'the constants are 46% of the corresponding quark-model values for the (1s)^3 configuration'.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math Lippmann-Schwinger equation and principal-value integration for the scattering amplitude
    Used throughout Section II to define the K-matrix and the scattering state.
  • standard math Laurent-Pietarinen expansion for analytic continuation and pole extraction
    Used to follow S-matrix poles in the complex energy plane; references [17-20].
  • domain assumption Only pi-N and pi-Delta channels, with u-channel N and Delta exchange, dominate below about 1.7 GeV
    Section II: 'Based on our previous experience ... these degrees of freedom dominate in the energy region considered in the following.'
  • domain assumption Separable approximation of the kernel (Eq. 6) is adequate; factorization is exact on-shell
    Section II, Eq. (6) and surrounding text.
  • domain assumption Two-pion inelasticity is fully accounted for by a pi-Delta intermediate state with probability given by the Delta Breit-Wigner mass and width
    Section III.1: 'We assume that the decay into two pions proceeds through the pi-Delta intermediate state as described in [23] and in Appendix A of [24].'
  • domain assumption The bare (1s)^3 three-quark state corresponds to Delta(1232), and the (1s)^2 2s state corresponds to a higher resonance; quark core wavefunctions come from the Cloudy Bag Model with bag radius R
    Sections II and III.3; the quark model determines the vertices.
  • ad hoc to paper Coupling renormalization factors (110% for pi-N-Delta, 55% for pi-Delta-Delta, 46% for the second state, and the 30% Delta-vertex enhancement) compensate for omitted channels and model simplicity
    Section III.2 and III.3; the paper states these adjustments are made 'in order to (partially) compensate for the channels not taken into account.'
  • domain assumption Helicity amplitudes can be extracted from the S-matrix pole even for a broad resonance like Delta(1600)
    Section IV: the paper acknowledges the resonance is too broad to be separated from background but proceeds with pole extraction as the only physically sensible way.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamical generation of resonances in the P33 partial wave." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3AIKSWLM

@misc{pith2026190811750,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamical generation of resonances in the P33 partial wave},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3AIKSWLM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.11750}
}
abstract

We investigate the formation of resonances in the P33 partial wave with the emphasis on possible emergence of dynamically generated quasi-bound states as a consequence of a strong $p$-wave pion attractive interaction in this partial wave, as well as their possible interaction with the genuine quark excited states. By using the Laurent-Pietarinen expansion we follow the evolution of the $S$-matrix poles in the complex energy plane as a function of the interaction strength. Already without introducing a genuine quark resonant state, two physically interesting resonances emerge with pole masses around 1200 MeV and 1400 MeV, with the dominant $\pi N$ and $\pi\Delta$ component, respectively. The added genuine resonant state in the $(1s)^3$ quark configuration mixes with the lower dynamically generated resonance forming the physical $\Delta(1232)$ resonance, and pushes the second dynamical resonance to around 1500 MeV, which allows it to be identified with the $\Delta(1600)$ resonance. Adding a second resonant state with one quark promoted to the $2s$ orbit generates another pole whose evolution remains well separated from the lower two poles. We calculate the helicity amplitudes at the pole and suggest that their $Q^2$ dependence could be a decisive test to discriminate between different models of the $\Delta(1600)$ resonance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.11750 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. for three typical bag radii. While for larger values of R the amplitudes do not show any visible sign of res￾onance, for R = 0.123 fm (for the u-channel N-exchange kernel) and for R = 0.20 fm (N and ∆-exchange) they perfectly fit the experimental data below 1300 MeV. By using the L+P expansion we have been able to follow the evolution of the pole(s) in the two cases considered above from the (relatively) weak coupli… view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The behavior of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. The probability for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Evolution of poles in the complex plane as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Evolution of poles in the complex plane as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: We notice that the presence of the new reso [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Evolution of the poles pertinent to the second reso [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Photoproduction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Helicity amplitudes (units 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [20]

    ˇSvarc, M

    A. ˇSvarc, M. Hadˇ zimehmedovi´ c, R. Omerovi´ c, H. Osman- ovi´ c, and J. Stahov, Phys. Rev. C89, 045205 (2014)

    work page 2014

  2. [31]

    http://gwdac.phys.gwu.edu/analysis/pr_analysis.html

    work page

  3. [1]

    H. L. Anderson, E. Fermi, E. A. Long, D. E. Nagle, Phys. Rev. 85, 934 (1952)

    work page 1952

  4. [2]

    Here Nα =√ ωαEα/(kαW ),kα andωα are on-shell pion momentum and energy, and W = ωα +Eα is the invariant mass

    The first term represents the free pion and the baryon ( N or ∆) and defines the channel, the next term corresponds to a bare three-quark resonant state, while the third term describes the pion cloud around the nucleon and ∆. Here Nα =√ ωαEα/(kαW ),kα andωα are on-shell pion momentum and energy, and W = ωα +Eα is the invariant mass. The integral is assumed ...

    work page 2000

  5. [3]

    2 0 FIG. 4. The probability for the π∆ component in theDπNπN amplitude as a function of W for four different R (in fm). into account. In addition to Eq. (9) we now solve Eq. (8); both equa- tions involve the same kernel which is identical to the one of the purely dynamical model, and hence the behavior of wmin(W ) coincides with that shown in Fig. 1. The s...

    work page

  6. [4]

    H. L. Anderson, E. Fermi, E. A. Long, D. E. Nagle, Phys. Rev. 85, 936 (1952)

    work page 1952

  7. [5]

    G. F. Chew and F. E. Low, Phys. Rev. 101, 1570 (1956)

    work page 1956

  8. [6]

    C. B. Lang, L. Leskovec, M. Padmanath, S. Prelovsek, Phys. Rev. D 95, 014510 (2017)

    work page 2017

Show all 37 references
  1. [7]

    A. L. Kiratidis et al., Phys. Rev. D 95, 074507 (2017)

    2017

  2. [8]

    Krehl, C

    O. Krehl, C. Hanhart, S. Krewald, and J. Speth, Phys. Rev. C 62, 025207 (2000)

    2000

  3. [9]

    R¨ onchen et al., Eur

    D. R¨ onchen et al., Eur. Phys. J. A49, 44 (2013)

    2013

  4. [10]

    Golli, H

    B. Golli, H. Osmanovi´ c, S.ˇSirca, A. ˇSvarc, Phys. Rev. C 97, 035204 (2018)

    2018

  5. [11]

    Suzuki, B

    N. Suzuki, B. Juli´ a-D´ ıaz, H. Kamano, T.-S. H. Lee, A. Matsuyama, and T. Sato, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 042302 (2010)

    2010

  6. [12]

    Kamano, S

    H. Kamano, S. X. Nakamura, T.-S. H. Lee, and T. Sato Phys. Rev. C 81, 065207 (2010)

    2010

  7. [13]

    Tanabashi et al

    M. Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 98, 030001 (2018)

    2018

  8. [14]

    R¨ onchen et al., Eur

    D. R¨ onchen et al., Eur. Phys. J. A50, 101 (2014)

    2014

  9. [15]

    Simon Capstick and B. D. Keister Phys. Rev. D 51, 3598 (1995)

    1995

  10. [16]

    Ramalho and K

    G. Ramalho and K. Tsushima, Phys. Rev. D 82, 073007 (2010)

    2010

  11. [17]

    I. G. Aznauryan and V. D. Burkert, Phys. Rev. C 92, 035211 (2015)

    2015

  12. [18]

    Lu et al., arXiv:1904.03205[nucl-th]

    Y. Lu et al., arXiv:1904.03205[nucl-th]

    1904 arXiv

  13. [19]

    ˇSvarc, M

    A. ˇSvarc, M. Hadˇ zimehmedovi´ c, H. Osmanovi´ c, J. Sta- hov, L. Tiator, and R. L. Workman, Phys. Rev. C 88, 035206 (2013)

    2013

  14. [21]

    ˇSvarc, M

    A. ˇSvarc, M. Hadˇ zimehmedovi´ c, H. Osmanovi´ c, J. Sta- hov, and R. L. Workman, Phys. Rev. C 91, 015205 (2015)

    2015

  15. [22]

    ˇSvarc, M

    A. ˇSvarc, M. Hadˇ zimehmedovi´ c, H. Osmanovi´ c, J. Sta- hov, L. Tiator, and R. L. Workman, Phys. Rev. C 89, 065208 (2014)

    2014

  16. [23]

    Golli and S

    B. Golli and S. ˇSirca, Eur. Phys. J. A 38, 271 (2008)

    2008

  17. [24]

    A. W. Thomas, Adv. Nucl. Phys. 13, 1 (1984)

    1984

  18. [25]

    Golli, S

    B. Golli, S. ˇSirca, and M. Fiolhais, Eur. Phys. J. A 42, 185 (2009)

    2009

  19. [26]

    Golli, S

    B. Golli, S. ˇSirca, Eur. Phys. J. A 47, 61 (2011)

    2011

  20. [27]

    Golli, S

    B. Golli, S. ˇSirca, Eur. Phys. J. A 49, 111 (2013)

    2013

  21. [28]

    Golli, S

    B. Golli, S. ˇSirca, Eur. Phys. J. A 52, 279 (2016)

    2016

  22. [29]

    G. H. Golub, C. F. Van Loan, Matrix Computations , 3rd edition, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore 1996. 10

    1996

  23. [30]

    R. A. Arndt, W. J. Briscoe, I. I. Strakovsky, R. L. Work- man, Phys. Rev. C 74, 045205 (2006)

    2006

  24. [32]

    Fiolhais, S

    M. Fiolhais, S. ˇSirca, B. Golli, Phys. Lett. B 373, 229 (1996)

    1996

  25. [33]

    Sokhoyan et al., Eur

    V. Sokhoyan et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 51, 95 (2015)

    2015

  26. [34]

    A. V. Anisovich et al. Eur. Phys. J. A 48, 15 (2012)

    2012

  27. [35]

    Kamano, S

    H. Kamano, S. X. Nakamura, T.-S. H. Lee and T. Sato, Phys. Rev. C 88, 035209 (2013)

    2013

  28. [36]

    R. L. Workman, L. Tiator, and A. Sarantsev, Phys. Rev. C 87, 068201 (2013)

    2013

  29. [37]

    Drechsel, S.S

    D. Drechsel, S.S. Kamalov, and L. Tiator, Eur. Phys. J. A 34, 69 (2007)

    2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.