Complex phase structure of the meson-baryon $T$-matrix

K. Nakayama; Shahab Razavi

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Complex phase structure of the meson-baryon $T$-matrix

T0 review · 2 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 derives the full complex phase structure of the meson-baryon $T$-matrix and shows the resonance pole's unitarity follows automatically from the dressing mechanism.

desk verdict The paper delivers a genuine formal result—explicit complex phase structure for the pole and nonpole meson-baryon T-matrix—but the abstract's claim that the pole part is automatically unitary is an overstatement that should be fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00869 v2 pith:3HLJRNQA submitted 2019-09-02 nucl-th

Shahab Razavi , K. Nakayama This is my paper · ORCID

classification nucl-th PACS 11.80.Gw11.80.Et13.75.-n13.60.Le13.60.Rj14.20.Gk

keywords meson-baryonscatteringcoupledchannelsT-matrixphasestructureK-matrixWatson'stheoremisobarmodelresonancedressingunitarity

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

This paper works out the full complex phase structure of the meson-baryon reaction amplitude in a coupled-channels framework, including photon-baryon channels. It shows that the phase of every part of the amplitude is controlled by the imaginary parts of the meson-baryon propagators, the same channel-opening factors that appear in Watson's theorem (the rule that a photoproduction amplitude's phase is fixed by the corresponding elastic scattering phase), which is recovered as a special case. The central result is an explicit form of the $T$-matrix, Eq. (66), split into resonance-pole and nonpole parts, in which the pole part is automatically unitary. This matters because isobar models currently unitarize the resonance amplitude by imposing separate constraints, such as complex resonance couplings; the new derivation says those extra conditions are unnecessary.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing structure is the pole-nonpole decomposition with separable pole potential $V^P = \sum_r |F_{0r}\rangle S_{0r} \langle F_{0r}|$, which yields $T^P = \sum_{r'r} |F_{r'}\rangle S_{r'r} \langle F_r|$ with dressed vertices $|F_r\rangle = (1+XG)|F_{0r}\rangle$ and dressed propagator $S^{-1} = S_0^{-1} - \Sigma$. The central identity is Eq. (66), which writes the full amplitude as the pole term plus the nonpole term $N^X \hat{W}$, where the Watson factors $N^X = 1/(1+i\hat{W}G^I)$ carry the channel-opening phases. The imaginary part of the self-energy in the resonance propagator, $i\sum_\beta \langle F_K|_\beta G^I_\beta N^X_\beta |\hat{F}_K\rangle_\beta$, is exactly what makes the pole part unitary.

What would settle it

Take a coupled-channels model in which the pole part of the driving potential is not of the separable form $\sum_r |F_{0r}\rangle S_{0r} \langle F_{0r}|$, solve the full $T$-matrix equation, decompose the amplitude into pole and nonpole parts, and test whether the pole part alone satisfies the unitarity relation without imposed constraints; any violation for an infinitesimal non-separable admixture would falsify the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the unitarity of the pole part of the $T$-matrix follows automatically from the dressing mechanism in the basic scattering equation, and needs no separate imposition. Starting from $T = V + V G T$, the authors decompose the potential into a separable pole part and a nonpole part, writing the full amplitude as $T = T^P + X$. Dressing the bare vertices and propagator by the nonpole amplitude produces a resonance propagator whose imaginary part comes from the same $G^I$ that builds the nonpole amplitude; unitarity is then a structural consequence, not an added constraint. Below the first inelastic threshold the elastic amplitude reduces to a resonance line-shape form multiplied by the phase factor $e^{i\delta_X} \cos \delta_X$, and the paper also derives a generalized Watson's theorem for two-body transition amplitudes and for photoproduction.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes every resonance's pole part of the driving potential is a sum of separable terms $V^P = \sum_r |F_{0r}\rangle S_{0r} \langle F_{0r}|$ and that the driving potential is Hermitian; if a resonance cannot be represented this way, the automatic unitarity argument does not apply.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Isobar models built from Eq. (66) have a unitary pole part by construction, so the procedure of imposing unitarity on resonance amplitudes through complex coupling constants can be dropped.
The generalized Watson's theorem from Sec. III fixes the phase of any meson-baryon transition amplitude below inelastic thresholds in terms of the elastic phase shifts and inelasticities.
Below the first inelastic threshold, an elastic resonance appears as a line-shape times $e^{i\delta_X} \cos \delta_X$ with width $\Gamma_r = 2\rho g^2$ and mass $M_r = m_{0r} + \Sigma_K + \tan\delta_X\,\Gamma_r/2$, so the phase is dictated by the nonpole background rather than added by hand.
In photoproduction, the one-photon approximation reduces the full phase structure to the classical Watson's theorem, and the pole-nonpole decomposition can be built while preserving gauge invariance.

Reading between the lines

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

A refit of existing resonance analyses with this form could shift the extracted resonance parameters, since current models absorb phases into complex couplings; the difference should be largest above inelastic thresholds.
The same automatic-unitarity mechanism should apply to any two-body scattering problem whose resonance-driving potential is separable, not only meson-baryon systems, so it could be tested in meson-meson coupled channels.
The authors' promised unitary isobar model gives a direct numerical test: compare the pole-part phases it produces with those of a model that unitarizes the pole separately, and see whether the data prefer one over the other.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

What you should know: this is a careful, parameter-free derivation of the complex phase structure of the coupled-channels meson-baryon T-matrix, including the photoproduction channel. The useful product is Eq. (66) and its photoproduction analog Eq. (69), which give explicit phase factors for the pole and nonpole parts and can serve as a common starting point for building isobar models that respect S-matrix unitarity. That is a real service to the baryon spectroscopy community.

What is actually new: the paper shows how the pole and nonpole parts of the K-matrix and T-matrix carry phases controlled by the nonpole Watson-like factors, and it makes the dressed-resonance propagator explicit in that framework. The below-threshold reduction in Eq. (67) has the expected Breit-Wigner-plus-background form. The derivation is laid out in enough detail to check, the appendices are helpful, and no empirical input is fitted. This is not a flashy paper, but it is a solid formal contribution for people who construct unitary isobar models.

The soft spot is the central claim in the abstract and Sec. VII. The paper says the unitarity of the pole part T^P arises automatically from the dressing mechanism. Look at Eq. (67): for one resonance below threshold, T^P = e^{2iδ_X} g^2/(E - M_r + iΓ/2), with Γ = 2ρg^2. At E = M_r, T^P = -i e^{2iδ_X}/ρ, so Im T^P = -cos(2δ_X)/ρ, while unitarity of an elastic amplitude would require Im T^P = -ρ|T^P|^2 = -1/ρ. These agree only when δ_X = 0. So T^P alone is not unitary. What the dressing mechanism actually guarantees is that T^P carries a phase consistent with the nonpole background X, so that the full amplitude T^P + X is unitary without separately unitarizing the pole term. That weaker statement is correct and still useful, but the abstract and Sec. VII should be reworded. The separable assumption in Eq. (36) is a real scope condition, though it is standard in isobar models and not a flaw by itself. The citation pattern is fine: the reliance on the Haberzettl-based field-theoretic framework is acknowledged and is the natural language for this decomposition.

Who this is for: isobar model builders and anyone doing coupled-channels resonance analyses. They will want the formulas even if they quibble with the abstract. I would send this to a serious referee. It deserves peer review, and the referee should be asked to verify Eq. (66) and to push the authors to state precisely what the dressing mechanism does and does not guarantee.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops the complex phase structure of the coupled-channels meson-baryon T-matrix and of the photoproduction amplitude. Starting from the Lippmann-Schwinger equation, the authors express T in terms of a Hermitian K-matrix and generalized Watson factors (Eqs. (19), (22)). They then separate the amplitude into pole and nonpole parts, with the pole part modeled by a separable dressed-resonance potential (Eq. (36)). The central formal result, Eq. (66), is an explicit decomposition of T into a dressed-resonance term and a nonpole term; a simplified elastic below-threshold case is given in Eq. (67), exhibiting a Breit-Wigner resonance multiplied by the nonpole phase factor. The authors claim that the unitarity of the pole part of the T-matrix arises automatically from the dressing mechanism, so that no additional unitarization of the resonance amplitude is needed in isobar models.

Significance. The derivation is self-contained and algebraically careful; it requires no phenomenological input, and it yields compact, transparent formulas (Eqs. (66), (69)) that generalize Watson's theorem and provide a clear vocabulary for constructing isobar models while maintaining S-matrix properties. The explicit separation of Watson factors from the rest of the amplitude is a useful organizing principle. However, the advertised interpretation of the result—unitarity of the pole part alone—is not supported by the paper's own equations, as detailed in the major comments; the correct statement is that the full amplitude is unitary by construction.

major comments (2)

[Abstract, Sec. VII, Eq. (67)] The central claim that "the unitarity of the pole part of the T-matrix arises automatically" is contradicted by Eq. (67). At E = M_r, the pole term alone is T^P = -i e^{2iδ^X_α}/ρ_α. Using the convention of Eq. (A1), a unitary elastic amplitude must satisfy Im T = -ρ|T|^2; for T^P one finds Im T^P = -cos(2δ^X_α)/ρ_α but -ρ|T^P|^2 = -1/ρ_α, with equality only if δ^X_α = 0. Thus T^P is not unitary unless the nonpole term X is included. The automatic property is a phase relation between T^P and X that makes T^P+X unitary. The Abstract and Sec. VII should be reworded; otherwise the advertised conclusion is quantitatively incorrect.
[Sec. VII; Eq. (66)] The general multi-channel claim is asserted rather than demonstrated. The explicit example in Eq. (67) is restricted to a single resonance, one stable elastic channel, and η^X = 1 below the first inelastic threshold. For the general coupled-channel case above threshold, where N^X, \hat W, and the resonance propagator are complex and energy-dependent, the paper does not show that T^P alone satisfies the generalized unitarity relation. If the intended claim concerns the full amplitude T^P+X, this should be stated; if it concerns T^P, a proof is required. Without this, the claim of automatic unitarity of the pole part remains unsupported.

minor comments (4)

[Sec. IV, before Eq. (67)] In the sentence defining the simplified elastic case, "N^X_α = \bar N^X_α = e^{δ^X_α} cos δ^X_α" should read "e^{iδ^X_α} cos δ^X_α"; the imaginary unit in the exponent is missing.
[Sec. IV, Eq. (36)] The separable form of the pole potential, Eq. (36), is an assumption that underlies the automatic-unitarity argument; the Abstract should mention this condition or note that isolated pole residues are factorizable, otherwise the advertised generality is overstated.
[Sec. V, Eq. (75)] In the last line of Eq. (75), "e^{δ_α'} cos δ_α'" should be "e^{iδ_α'} cos δ_α'", again with the imaginary unit missing.
[Sec. III, Eq. (28)] For the two-channel transition amplitude, the paper calls Eq. (28) an analog of Watson's theorem; it would help to state explicitly that this is the generalized form involving both initial- and final-state phase factors, in contrast to the photoproduction case where only the final-state factor survives.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the phase-structure result is derived algebraically from the scattering equation rather than assumed or fitted.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. Starting from the Lippmann-Schwinger equation T = V + VGT with a Hermitian driving potential, the authors algebraically decompose the T-matrix into pole and nonpole parts (Eqs. 34-40), express the pole part in terms of dressed vertices and a dressed resonance propagator (Eqs. 59-66), and thereby exhibit the phase structure of both parts. The claimed automatic unitarity of the resonance (pole) contribution is a consequence of the exact scattering equation and the dressing mechanism, not an imposed unitarity condition or a fitted parameter. No empirical data are fitted, and no target result is assumed in the derivation. The citations to Haberzettl's field-theoretic formulation provide a framework for the pole/nonpole decomposition and gauge-invariant photoproduction amplitude, but they do not force the central phase-structure result; the two-resonance propagator in Appendix C is an auxiliary algebraic form. Thus, while there may be room to debate whether the wording 'unitarity of the pole part' overstates what the pole term alone satisfies, that is a correctness or interpretation issue, not a circularity of the derivation.

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

The central derivation rests on standard scattering theory (Lippmann-Schwinger equation), the K-matrix formalism with a Hermitian potential, and a separable model for the resonance potential. These are domain assumptions common in hadron phenomenology; the paper introduces no new entities or fitted parameters.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The two-body reaction amplitude obeys the Lippmann-Schwinger-type equation T = V + VGT (Eq. 1).
Starting point of the whole derivation; it is the standard dynamical equation for the T-matrix in nuclear and hadron scattering.
domain assumption The two-body propagator G can be decomposed into real and imaginary parts, G = G_R - i G_I, with G_I related to the phase-space density for stable channels (Eqs. 8-10).
This decomposition is the foundation of the K-matrix formalism and the source of the unitarity cut.
domain assumption The K-matrix is Hermitian whenever the driving potential V is Hermitian (Sec. III).
The phase structure derived here relies on the Hermiticity of K. The paper assumes V Hermitian and time-reversal invariance without discussing cases where the effective potential is complex.
domain assumption The resonance part of the driving potential is a sum of separable terms V^P = sum_r |F0r> S0r <F0r| (Eq. 36).
This separable pole form is the basis for the decomposition into dressed resonance propagators; it is a standard but nontrivial model assumption in isobar approaches.
domain assumption The gauge-invariant photoproduction amplitude has the form M^mu = V^mu + T G V^mu (Eq. B14), based on Haberzettl's field-theoretic approach [53].
Used to derive the photoproduction phase structure in Sec. V; it is an input from earlier field-theoretic work.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Complex phase structure of the meson-baryon $T$-matrix." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3HLJRNQA

@misc{pith2026190900869,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Complex phase structure of the meson-baryon $T$-matrix},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3HLJRNQA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00869}
}

abstract

The full complex phase structure of the meson-baryon reaction amplitude in coupled channels approach is investigated, including also the photon-baryon channel. The result may be viewed as a generalization of the well-known Watson's theorem. Furthermore, the complex phase structure is exhibited for the pole and nonpole parts of the reaction amplitude in such a way that it will serve as a convenient common starting point for constructing models with different levels of approximation, in particular, for building isobar models where the basic properties of the $S$-matrix can be maintained. Such models should be useful, especially, in coupled multichannel calculations, where a large amount of experimental data are considered in resonance analyses, a situation encountered in modern baryon spectroscopy. In particular, it is shown that the unitarity of the pole part of the $T$-matrix arises automatically from the dressing mechanism inherent in the basic scattering equation. This implies that no separate conditions are required for making this part of the resonance amplitude unitary as it has been done in some of the existing isobar models.

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

Nucleon resonances in $\gamma p \to \omega p$ reaction
hep-ph 2019-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

An effective Lagrangian fit to the latest CLAS data on gamma p to omega p identifies seven s-channel nucleon resonances (N(1520), N(1700), N(1720), N(1860), N(1875), N(1895) and N(2060)), with parameters compared to PDG.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Meson-baryon T -matrix reaction amplitude The meson-baryon T -matrix obeys the Lippmann- Schwiger-type scattering equation T = V + V GT . (B1) It can be recast into the form T = T P + T N P , (B2) with T N P = V N P + V N PGT N P , (B3) where V N P stands for one-nucleon irreducible potential (the nonpole part of V ), i.e., V N P = V − V P , (B4) with the...

work page
[2]

(B5), M µ x (x = u, t) denotes the x-channel (tree-level Feynman diagram) contribution and, ˜mµ s stands for the s-channel bare current

Photoproduction reaction amplitude Following the ﬁeld theoretic approach of Haberzettl [53], the gauge-invariant photoproduction amplitude in the one-photon approximation can be expressed as M µ = V µ + T GV µ , (B14) with µ denoting the Lorentz index of the photon polar- ization and V µ = ˜mµ s + M µ u + M µ t + mµ KR + U µ G |FN ⟩ , (B15) where U µ stan...

work page
[3]

Matsuyama, T

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

work page 2007
[4]

Juli´ a-D ´ ıaz, T.-S

B. Juli´ a-D ´ ıaz, T.-S. H. Lee, A. Matsuyama, and T. Sato, Phys. Rev. C 76, 065201 (2007)

work page 2007
[5]

Juli´ a-D ´ ıaz, T.-S.H

B. Juli´ a-D ´ ıaz, T.-S.H. Lee, A. Matsuyama, T. Sato, and L. C. Smith, Phys. Rev. C 77, 045205 (2008)

work page 2008
[6]

Juli´ a-D ´ ıaz, H

B. Juli´ a-D ´ ıaz, H. Kamano, T.-S.H. Lee, A. Matsuyama, T. Sato, and N. Suzuki, Phys. Rev. C 80, 025207 (2009)

work page 2009
[7]

Kamano, Juli´ a-D ´ ıaz, T.-S.H

H. Kamano, Juli´ a-D ´ ıaz, T.-S.H. Lee, A. Matsuyama, and T. Sato, Phys. Rev. C 80, 065203 (2009)

work page 2009
[8]

Kamano, S

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

work page 2013

Show all 63 references

[9]

Kamano, S

H. Kamano, S. X. Nakamura, and T. Sato, Phys. Rev. C 90, 065204 (2014)

2014
[10]

Kamano, S

H. Kamano, S. X. Nakamura, T. -S. H. Lee, and T. Sato, Phys. Rev. C 92, 025205 (2015); Erratum: Phys. Rev. C 95, 049903 (2017)

2015
[11]

Doring, C

M. Doring, C. Hanhart, F. Huang, S. Krewald, and U.-G. Meißner, Nucl. Phys. A 829 170 (2009)

2009
[12]

Doring, C

M. Doring, C. Hanhart, F. Huang, S. Krewald, U.-G. Meißner, and D. Ronchen, Nucl. Phys. A 851, 58 (2011)

2011
[13]

Huang, M

F. Huang, M. Doring, H. Haberzettl, J. Haidenbauer, C. Hanhart, S. Krewald, Ulf -G. Meißner, and K. Nakayama, Phys. Rev. C 85, 054003 (2012)

2012
[14]

Ronchen, M

D. Ronchen, M. Doring, F. Huang, J. Haidenbauer, C. Hanhart, S. Krewald, U.-G. Meißner, and K. Nakayama, Eur. Phys. J. A 49, 44 (2013)

2013
[15]

R¨ onchen, M

D. R¨ onchen, M. D¨ oring, F. Huang, H. Haberzettl, J. Haidenbauer, C. Hanhart, S. Krewald, U.-G. Meißner, and K. Nakayama, Eur. Phys. J. A 50 101 (2014); Erra- tum: Eur. Phys. J. A 51, 63 (2015)

2014
[16]

R¨ onchen, M

D. R¨ onchen, M. D¨ oring, H. Haberzettl, J. Haidenbauer, U.-G. Meißner, and K. Nakayama, Eur. Phys. J. A 51, 70 (2015)

2015
[17]

R¨ onchen, M

D. R¨ onchen, M. D¨ oring, and U.-G. Meißner, Eur. Phys. J. A 54, 110 (2018)

2018
[18]

A. V. Anisovich, E. Klempt, V. A. Nikonov, M. A. Matveev, A. V. Sarantsev, and U. Thoma, Eur. Phys. J. A 44, 203 (2010)

2010
[19]

A. V. Anisovich, E. Klempt, V. A. Nikonov, A. V. Sarant- sev, and U. Thoma, Eur. Phys. J. A 47 153 (2011)

2011
[20]

A. V. Anisovich, R. Beck, E. Klempt, V. A. Nikonov, A. V. Sarantsev, and U. Thoma, Eur. Phys. J. A 48, 15 (2012)

2012
[21]

A. V. Anisovich, R. Beck, E. Klempt, V. A. Nikonov, A. V. Sarantsev, and U. Thoma, Eur. Phys. J. A 48, 88 (2012)

2012
[22]

A. V. Anisovich, R. Beck, E. Klempt, V. A. Nikonov, A. V. Sarantsev, U. Thoma, and Y. Wunderlich, Eur. Phys. J. A 49, 121 (2013)

2013
[23]

A. V. Anisovich, V. Burkert, N. Compton, K. Hicks, F. J. Klein, E. Klempt, V. A. Nikonov, A. M. Sandorﬁ, A. V. Sarantsev, and U. Thoma, Phys. Rev. C 96, 055202 (2017)

2017
[24]

Shklyar, H

V. Shklyar, H. Lenske, U. Mosel, and G. Penner, Phys. Rev. C 71, 055206 (2005), Erratum: Phys. Rev. C 72, 019903 (2005)

2005
[25]

Shklyar, H

V. Shklyar, H. Lenske, and U. Mosel, Phys. Rev. C 72, 14 015210 (2005)

2005
[26]

X. Cao, V. Shklyar, and H. Lenske, Phys. Rev. C 88, 055204 (2013)

2013
[27]

Shklyar, H

V. Shklyar, H. Lenske, and U. Mosel, Phys. Rev. C 93, 045206 (2016)

2016
[28]

D. M. Manley, International Journal of Modern Physics A 18, 441-448 (2003)

2003
[29]

Shrestha and D

M. Shrestha and D. M. Manley, Phys. Rev. C 86, 055203 (2012)

2012
[30]

Zhang, J

H. Zhang, J. Tulpan, M. Shrestha, and D. M. Manley, Phys. Rev. C 88, 035205 (2013)

2013
[31]

Batinic, S

M. Batinic, S. Ceci, A. Svarc, and B. Zauner, Phys. Rev. C 82, 038203 (2010)

2010
[32]

A. B. Gridnev, I. Horn, W. J. Briscoe, and I. I. Strakovsky, Phys. At. Nucl. 69, 1542 (2006)

2006
[33]

R. A. Arndt, W. J. Briscoe, I. I. Strakovsky, and R. L. Workman, Phys. Rev. C 74, 045205 (2006)

2006
[34]

R. L. Workman, R. A. Arndt, W. J. Briscoe, M. W. Paris, and I. I. Strakovsky, Phys. Rev. C 86, 035202 (2012)

2012
[35]

Usov and O

A. Usov and O. Scholten, Phys. Rev. C 72, 025205 (2005)

2005
[36]

Scholten, Prog

O. Scholten, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 186, 216 (2010)

2010
[37]

R. K. Adatr, Phys. Rev. 113, 338 (1959)

1959
[38]

R. H. Dalitz, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Sci. 13, 339 (1963)

1963
[39]

Michael, Phys

C. Michael, Phys. Lett. 21, 93 (1966)

1966
[40]

C. J. Goebel and K. W. McVoy, Phys. Rev. 164, 1932 (1967)

1967
[41]

M. G. Olsson, Nucl. Phys. B 78, 55 (1974)

1974
[42]

Basdevant and E

J.-L. Basdevant and E. L. Berger, Phys. Rev. D 19, 239 (1979)

1979
[43]

J. M. Laget, Nucl. Phys. A 481, 765 (1988)

1988
[44]

I. G. Aznauryan, Phys. Rev. C 67, 015209 (2003)

2003
[45]

Drechsel, O

D. Drechsel, O. Hanstein, and S. S. Kamalov, L. Tiator, Nucl. Phys. A 645, 145 (1999)

1999
[46]

Drechsel, S

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

2007
[47]

Tiator, D

L. Tiator, D. Drechsel, S. S. Kamalov and M. Vander- haeghen, Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 198, 141 (2011)

2011
[48]

Tiator, Few-Body Syst

L. Tiator, Few-Body Syst. 59, 21 (2018)

2018
[49]

Tiator, M

L. Tiator, M. Gorchtein, V. L. Kashevarov, K. Nikonov, M. Ostrick, M. Hadˇ zimehmedovi´ c, R. Omerovi´ c, H. Os- manovi´ c, J. Stahov, and A. ˇSvarc, Eur. Phys. J. A 54, 210 (2018)

2018
[50]

Landay, M

J. Landay, M. Mai, M. D¨ oring, H. Haberzettl, and K. Nakayama, Phys. Rev. D 99, 016001 (2019)

2019
[51]

K. M. Watson, Phys. Rev. 95, 228 (1954)

1954
[52]

E. E. Salpeter and H. A. Bethe Phys. Rev. 84, 1232 (1951)

1951
[53]

E. D. Cooper and B. K. Jennings, Nucl. Phys. A 483, 601 (1988)

1988
[54]

A. M. Badalyan, L. P. Kok, M. I. Polikarpov, and Yu. A. Simonov, Phys. Rept. 82, 31 (1982)

1982
[55]

Haberzettl, Phys

H. Haberzettl, Phys. Rev. C 56, 2041 (1997)

1997
[56]

Haberzettl, K

H. Haberzettl, K. Nakayama, and S. Krewald, Phys. Rev. C 74, 045202 (2006)

2006
[57]

Nozawa, B

S. Nozawa, B. Blankleider and T.-S. H. Lee, Nucl. Phys. A 513, 459 (1990)

1990
[58]

Kaiser, P

N. Kaiser, P. B. Siegel, and W. Weise, Phys. Lett. B 362, 23 (1995)

1995
[59]

Oset and A

E. Oset and A. Ramos, Eur. Phys. J. A 44, 445 (2010)

2010
[60]

P. C. Bruns, M. Mai, and U.-G. Meißner, Phys. Lett. B 697, 254 (2011)

2011
[61]

Gasiorowicz, Elementary Particle Physics , Wiley, New York, 1966

S. Gasiorowicz, Elementary Particle Physics , Wiley, New York, 1966

1966
[62]

I. R. Afnan and A. T. Stelbovics, Phys. Rev. C 23, 1384 (1981)

1981
[63]

Haberzettl (private communication)

H. Haberzettl (private communication)

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Meson-baryon T -matrix reaction amplitude The meson-baryon T -matrix obeys the Lippmann- Schwiger-type scattering equation T = V + V GT . (B1) It can be recast into the form T = T P + T N P , (B2) with T N P = V N P + V N PGT N P , (B3) where V N P stands for one-nucleon irreducible potential (the nonpole part of V ), i.e., V N P = V − V P , (B4) with the...

work page

[2] [2]

(B5), M µ x (x = u, t) denotes the x-channel (tree-level Feynman diagram) contribution and, ˜mµ s stands for the s-channel bare current

Photoproduction reaction amplitude Following the ﬁeld theoretic approach of Haberzettl [53], the gauge-invariant photoproduction amplitude in the one-photon approximation can be expressed as M µ = V µ + T GV µ , (B14) with µ denoting the Lorentz index of the photon polar- ization and V µ = ˜mµ s + M µ u + M µ t + mµ KR + U µ G |FN ⟩ , (B15) where U µ stan...

work page

[3] [3]

Matsuyama, T

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

work page 2007

[4] [4]

Juli´ a-D ´ ıaz, T.-S

B. Juli´ a-D ´ ıaz, T.-S. H. Lee, A. Matsuyama, and T. Sato, Phys. Rev. C 76, 065201 (2007)

work page 2007

[5] [5]

Juli´ a-D ´ ıaz, T.-S.H

B. Juli´ a-D ´ ıaz, T.-S.H. Lee, A. Matsuyama, T. Sato, and L. C. Smith, Phys. Rev. C 77, 045205 (2008)

work page 2008

[6] [6]

Juli´ a-D ´ ıaz, H

B. Juli´ a-D ´ ıaz, H. Kamano, T.-S.H. Lee, A. Matsuyama, T. Sato, and N. Suzuki, Phys. Rev. C 80, 025207 (2009)

work page 2009

[7] [7]

Kamano, Juli´ a-D ´ ıaz, T.-S.H

H. Kamano, Juli´ a-D ´ ıaz, T.-S.H. Lee, A. Matsuyama, and T. Sato, Phys. Rev. C 80, 065203 (2009)

work page 2009

[8] [8]

Kamano, S

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

work page 2013