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

Jun He

REVIEW 5 major objections 3 minor 33 references

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

T0 review · 5 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The ~1000 MeV peak in the π+η spectrum of D_s+ → π+π0π0η is a threshold cusp from coupled-channel scattering, not a genuine a0(980) resonance.

desk verdict A competent, honest chiral-unitary fit of a new BESIII four-body decay; the cusp-not-pole reading of a0(980)+ is plausible and consistent across fixed/free cutoffs, but the production vertex is the soft spot. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.28169 v2 pith:AWI3PKSJ submitted 2026-07-30 hep-ph

Jun He This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-ph

keywords D_s+decaya0(980)f0(500)f0(980)a1(1260)cuspeffectcoupled-channelscatteringchiralunitaryapproach

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 aims to show that the sharp peak near 1000 MeV in the π+η invariant mass spectrum of D_s+ → π+π0π0η is a kinematic cusp, produced when the K+ anti-K0 channel opens in coupled-channel rescattering, rather than evidence for a genuine a0(980) resonance pole. Working in the chiral unitary approach, the author builds the decay amplitude from two rescattering mechanisms: D_s+ → a0(980)+ f0(500,980), where a0(980)+ and f0(500)/f0(980) emerge dynamically from πη–K anti-K and six coupled channels, and D_s+ → a1(1260)+ η, where a1(1260)+ emerges from πρ and K anti-K* channels and cascades through ρ+ → π+π0. With a constant production vertex and SU(3)-fixed relative weights, the model fits all seven measured invariant mass spectra with χ2/ndf between 1.19 and 1.45, and an ad hoc X(800) resonance improves the fit only marginally. If correct, the a0(980)+ peak in this decay should be analyzed as a cusp, not parametrized as a Breit-Wigner, and the same machinery can be applied to other multi-body charm decays.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the chiral unitary approach: a coupled-channel Bethe-Salpeter equation in the on-shell factorized form T = [1 − VG]^−1 V, where V is the potential kernel and G is a two-meson loop function regularized by a cutoff. The loop integrals in the decay amplitude factorize, so the production vertex A appears as a constant per channel pair. The relative weights of channels are set by SU(3) hadronization of the external-emission quark-level diagram, leaving only three global strengths, three phases, one background constant, and (optionally) cutoffs as fit parameters. The cusp mechanism is central: the π+η–K+ anti-K0 coupling generates a sharp threshold effect that the paper identi

What would settle it

Measure the π+η invariant mass spectrum of D_s+ → π+π0π0η with fine binning (≈5–10 MeV) from threshold to about 1.1 GeV and compare the line shape to the cusp prediction: a cusp rises sharply at the K+ anti-K0 threshold (≈991 MeV) and falls asymmetrically, whereas a genuine resonance would produce a smoother, symmetric Breit-Wigner peak; the same comparison can be made by extracting the πη→K anti-K scattering amplitude from independent reactions and checking that the pole lies only in the unphysical sheet.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the a0(980)+ signal seen in D_s+ → π+π0π0η is not a resonance pole but a cusp at the K+ anti-K0 threshold. In the two-channel (π+η, K+ anti-K0) system, the coupled-channel potential produces a pole in the unphysical Riemann sheet at (1122 − 39i) MeV (or (1047 − 55i) MeV after freeing the cutoff), but its direct contribution to the physical spectrum is negligible. Instead, the observed sharp peak near 1000 MeV arises because the K+ anti-K0 channel opens at threshold, creating a cusp in the π+η amplitude. The same chiral unitary framework generates f0(500) and f0(980) from six coupled channels (π+π−, π0π0, K+K−, K0 anti-K0, ηη, π0η) and a1(1260)+ from πρ and (

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the production amplitude for the D_s decay into two meson pairs is a momentum-independent constant whose relative channel weights come only from external-emission SU(3) hadronization; if the vertex has significant momentum dependence or internal-emission diagrams contribute, the fitted interference and the cusp-not-pole conclusion could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The π+η peak near 1000 MeV should be described by a cusp shape from the unitarized T-matrix, not by a Breit-Wigner resonance; amplitude analyses that force a Breit-Wigner will misestimate the a0(980) parameters.
The f0(980) structure near 1000 MeV in the π0π0 spectrum emerges as a dynamically generated state from the K anti-K coupled channels, and the broad f0(500) accounts for the low-energy enhancement.
The a1(1260)+ so generated is broad (pole ≈ (1010 − 175i) MeV with cutoff 0.5 GeV) and its decay chain a1 → ρ+π0 → π+π0π0 explains the π+π0π0 and π+π0 spectra.
Releasing the cutoffs for the a0 and f0 systems improves the fit from χ2/ndf ≈ 1.45 to 1.24 without changing the qualitative conclusions, indicating the cusp and resonance interpretations are robust to regularization.
The current data do not require an extra X(800) resonance: including it improves χ2/ndf only from 1.24 to 1.19, a marginal effect.

Reading between the lines

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

If the cusp interpretation holds, the a0(980) pole is not a physically accessible state in this production channel, so lattice or dispersion studies of πη–K anti-K scattering should look for a pole only in the unphysical sheet; the physical line shape is fully determined by the scattering T-matrix and the production vertex.
The paper's factorization assumption can be tested by measuring the energy dependence of the primary D_s decay vertex; if the production amplitude has nontrivial momentum dependence, the cusp shape will be distorted, and this could be probed with high-statistics Dalitz plot analyses.
The same two-rescattering machinery can be applied to other four-body charm decays to systematically distinguish threshold cusps from genuine resonances, and to constrain SU(3) breaking in hadronization.
A precise measurement of the π+η line shape just above the K anti-K threshold would discriminate between cusp and pole interpretations: a cusp has a characteristic asymmetric rise at threshold, whereas a resonance pole produces a smoother, Lorentzian-like shape whose peak position and width are insensitive to the channel threshold.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

Read Jun He's EPJC submission on D_s+ -> pi+ pi0 pi0 eta. The new thing is applying the established chiral-unitary rescattering machinery to this four-body BESIII channel, with SU(3)-constrained production for the a0/f0 and a1 mechanisms, and fitting seven invariant-mass spectra. The closest previous work [26] treated D_s+ -> pi+ pi+ pi- eta, so this is a genuine extension, though not a big conceptual leap.

The paper's strengths: it is transparent. Four scenarios (fixed/free qmax, with/without X(800)) are laid out with chi2 per spectrum, individual mechanism contributions, and pole positions. The fixed-cutoff scenario anchors a0 and f0 cutoffs to earlier independent reactions, and the cusp interpretation of the ~1000 MeV pi+eta peak survives when the cutoffs are freed. The X(800) is handled sensibly: it improves the fit only marginally and the paper says so. The f0(980) and f0(500) pole positions in the fixed scenario match Ref. [23] by construction, which is fine.

Soft spots, in order of importance. First, the a1(1260) cutoff is fixed by hand at 500 MeV because the free fit ran to very small values; the resulting pole at (1010-175i) MeV is far from the nominal a1 mass, though the paper notes the experimental bump also sits low. That is a real ad hoc element, but it mostly affects the a1 sector, not the cusp conclusion. Second, the production vertex is assumed momentum-independent and only external-emission quark diagrams are kept. The stress-test worry about the K Kbar0 production weight is legitimate in principle, but I think it is less decisive than claimed: the peak's line shape is controlled by the unitarized T-matrix in the pi+eta-K Kbar0 system; the production weights mainly set magnitude and interference. Unless the vertex has strong momentum dependence that breaks the G(s)G(s') factorization, the cusp shape is robust. Still, a sensitivity check varying the K Kbar0 weight would be a fair referee request. Third, the V matrices are not reproduced, and no fit code or data are deposited. For a phenomenological fit paper that is not disqualifying, but it limits independent verification.

Overall, the central claim — that the ~1000 MeV pi+eta peak is a cusp rather than a pole — is plausible and consistently presented. No internal contradiction. The paper is a solid application of established methods, worth a serious referee. I would send it to review and ask for the V matrices (or a reference), a justification or scan of the a1 cutoff, and a sensitivity check on the production vertex. I'd also suggest using it in a reading group to show how these four-body analyses are done.

Best.

Referee Report

5 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the BESIII data for D_s^+ -> π^+ π^0 π^0 η using the chiral unitary approach. Two production mechanisms are considered: D_s^+ decaying into a0(980)^+ f0(500/980) via double rescattering in the (π+η, K+ Kbar0) and (ππ, K Kbar, ηη, π0 η) systems, and D_s^+ -> a1(1260)^+ η with subsequent ρ^+ -> π^+ π^0 decay. The model is fitted to seven invariant-mass spectra in four scenarios: fixed or free cut-offs q_max for the a0 and f0 systems, with or without an optional X(800) Breit-Wigner state. The reported χ^2/ndf ranges from 1.190 to 1.447. The main physics claim is that the ~1000 MeV peak in the π^+ η spectrum is a cusp effect from the K^+ Kbar0 threshold rather than a manifestation of a genuine a0(980) pole, while the f0(980)/f0(500) describe the π^0 π^0 spectrum and the a1(1260)^+ mechanism accounts for the higher-mass spectra. The inclusion of X(800) improves the fit only marginally.

Significance. If the cusp interpretation survives closer scrutiny, the paper offers a unified, mostly parameter-economical description of a four-body charmed-meson decay using dynamically generated scalar and axial-vector resonances. The Fixed scenario uses q_max values anchored to independent reactions, giving the cusp conclusion some external support. The paper also makes a concrete, falsifiable statement: the π^+ η peak near 1 GeV does not require a resonance pole in the a0 sector. Strengths include the transparent χ^2 reporting, the use of a publicly available Monte Carlo phase-space package, and the comparison of four scenarios. However, the central cusp-not-pole claim is model-dependent in ways that the paper does not quantitatively test.

major comments (5)

[Sec. 2, Eqs. (12)-(13)] The cusp-not-pole conclusion rests on the relative production weight of the K^+ Kbar0 component in Eq. (2). This weight is fixed by the external-emission diagrams of Fig. 2(a,b), while internal-emission diagrams and the third quark-level diagram discussed in Sec. 2 are neglected on a qualitative energy-suppression argument. If the K^+ Kbar0-to-π^+ η weight changes, the height and shape of the threshold cusp change, and the a0 interpretation may shift. Please test the sensitivity by introducing a free parameter for the third-diagram weight (or a general rescaling of the K^+ Kbar0 term) and report the change in χ^2 and in the pole/residue analysis.
[Sec. 2, Eqs. (1)-(2)] The factorization of the double-rescattering amplitude into a product of T(s)G(s) and T(s')G(s') assumes that the production vertex A_(PP)+(PP)0 is a momentum-independent constant. This is a strong assumption: if A carries momentum dependence, the two loop integrals do not factor, and the interference pattern as well as the cusp shape could change. The manuscript does not derive this factorization from a local operator or test its stability. A concrete check would be to include a simple momentum-dependent form factor at the production vertex and see whether the cusp conclusion survives.
[Sec. 3.1, Table 1] The cut-off q_a1^max is fixed at 0.5 GeV because the free fit drives it to a very small value, but the unconstrained result is not shown or discussed. The a1 pole position (1010 - 175i) MeV, and hence the interpretation of the π^+ π^0 π^0 and π^+ π^0 spectra, depends on this ad hoc choice. Please present the free-fit value, the χ^2 profile as a function of q_a1^max, and a justification of why the small cut-off is physically unreasonable.
[Sec. 3.2] The pole at (1122 - 39i) MeV in the a0 system is stated to have negligible direct contribution to the physical spectrum, and this statement is central to the cusp-not-pole claim. However, no residue, partial width, or line-shape decomposition is given. Please quantify the pole residue and show explicitly that the cusp term alone reproduces the π^+ η peak, while the pole contribution is negligible in the fit.
[Sec. 2, Eq. (4)] The V matrices for the a0, f0, and a1 coupled channels are not reproduced, with the text referring to previous literature. Since the cusp conclusion depends directly on the off-diagonal π^+ η - K^+ Kbar0 coupling, this omission makes independent verification difficult. Please provide the explicit potentials or a supplementary appendix/numerical file containing the kernels used in the fit.

minor comments (3)

[Table 1] In the Free(X) column, M_X is listed as 0.815+0.010-0.004 while the column header states masses are in MeV; the intended value is presumably 815 MeV. Please correct the units or the entry.
[Sec. 2, Eq. (2)] The notation A_(PP)+(PP)0 in Eq. (2) is later identified with g_(PP)+(PP)0; please use a single symbol for this constant vertex factor to avoid confusion.
[Fig. 3 caption] The panel labels in the figure captions do not always match the sequence in the text; for example, the text refers to panels (a)-(g) while the caption layout is compressed. Please ensure the labels are consistent in the final PDF.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the a0 cusp-not-pole conclusion is not an input; Fixed-scenario cutoffs come from independent reactions.

full rationale

The paper's main derivation chain is not circular. The production amplitudes (Eqs. 12-15) are fixed by SU(3) hadronization of external-emission quark diagrams, not fitted to the target spectra. The rescattering T-matrices are taken from the standard chiral unitary approach (Refs. [6,7,22]) with the a0 and f0 cutoffs in the 'Fixed' scenarios taken from independent reactions (qmax=600 MeV from Lambda_c+ -> eta pi+ Lambda [24]; qmax=650 MeV from D_s+ -> a0(980) e+ nu_e [23]), so the resulting line shapes, including the K+Kbar0 cusp, are not obtained by tuning to the BESIII pi+eta peak. The paper explicitly computes the T-matrix pole at (1122-39i) MeV and finds its direct contribution negligible, which is a genuine dynamical result rather than an assumption. The 'Free' scenarios fit qmax to the BESIII spectra, but those fits are presented as improvements of the description, not as predictions; the central cusp-not-pole conclusion is already present in the Fixed scenario. The X(800) Breit-Wigner is fitted and explicitly found to give only marginal improvement, so it is not a prediction masquerading as a fit. The only self-citations (Refs. [30,31]) concern the Monte Carlo phase-space implementation (DalitzPlot.jl), which is standard and publicly available, and they are not load-bearing for the physics conclusions. No equation reduces by construction to its input, and no load-bearing step is justified solely by a self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central calculation imports the chiral-unitary potentials and loop functions from Refs. [6,7,23,24]; the paper contributes the production-amplitude construction, the fitting, and the interpretation. The free parameters listed are fitted to the BESIII spectra or chosen by hand.

free parameters (11)

ga (strength of mechanism a) = 1.851–12.44 (scenario-dependent, Table 1)
Overall size of the D_s+ -> (PP)+ (PP)0 external-emission amplitude, fitted to BESIII spectra.
φa (phase of mechanism a) = 0.713π–1.374π
Relative phase between production mechanisms, fitted to the data.
gb (strength of mechanism b) = 3.870–6.613
Overall size of the second quark-level topology for two-pseudoscalar production, fitted to data.
φb (phase of mechanism b) = 0.174π–1.512π
Relative phase for mechanism b, fitted to the data.
ga1 (strength of a1 mechanism) = 2.147–2.326
Effective coupling for D_s+ -> (PV)+ η, absorbing the ρ decay constant, fitted to data.
φa1 (phase of a1 mechanism) = 1.522π–1.792π
Relative phase for the a1(1260)+ mechanism, fitted to the data.
gbk (background strength) = 2.649–3.821
Constant non-resonant background amplitude, fitted to the data.
q_a0^max (cutoff for a0 system) = 0.6 GeV fixed, or 0.760/0.896 GeV in Free fits
Regularization cutoff for the π+η / K+ anti-K0 loop; fixed from Ref. [24] or fitted to BESIII data.
q_f0^max (cutoff for f0 system) = 0.65 GeV fixed, or 0.854/0.913 GeV in Free fits
Regularization cutoff for the coupled ππ/KK/ηη channels; fixed from Ref. [23] or fitted to BESIII data.
q_a1^max (cutoff for a1 system) = 0.5 GeV fixed
Chosen by hand because a free fit drove it to a very small, deemed unreasonable, value (§3.1).
X(800) Breit-Wigner parameters (gX, φX, MX, ΓX) = gX ~0.105–0.108, φX ~0.220–0.432, MX ~801.7–815 MeV, ΓX fixed 50 MeV
Phenomenological resonance near 800 MeV; mass, strength, phase are fitted, width fixed to avoid overfitting (§3.1).

assumptions (7)

domain assumption On-shell factorized Bethe-Salpeter equation T = [1 - V G]^-1 V (Eq. 4) with cutoff-regularized loop functions (Eq. 3) and potentials of Refs. [6,7] describe the rescattering amplitudes.
The chiral unitary approach is a model framework; the V matrices are quoted from earlier papers and not re-derived here.
domain assumption SU(3) flavor symmetry weights in Eqs. (12)-(15), retaining only external-emission W-boson topology.
Internal emission and q-qbar creation from the s-sbar pair are neglected; if wrong, the relative channel weights change.
ad hoc to paper The production amplitude for two simultaneous rescatterings is a momentum-independent constant, so the two loop integrals factor cleanly.
Eqs. (1)-(2); no momentum dependence or form factors are included in the vertex.
ad hoc to paper The a1 cutoff qmax = 500 MeV is fixed because a free fit ran to a very small value.
Stated in §3.1; this choice determines the a1 pole at (1010−175i) MeV and the a1 spectral contribution.
domain assumption BESIII data and the assumed a0(980)+ f0(500)/a1(1260)+ η production mechanisms are correct.
The entire fit is built on the experimental amplitude-analysis picture from Ref. [1].
ad hoc to paper X(800) is parametrized as a Breit-Wigner with width fixed to 50 MeV.
Motivated by a data excess near 800 MeV; the fixed width is chosen to prevent it from absorbing structures in other spectra.
domain assumption The ρ+ line shape is described by the Gounaris-Sakurai formula as in the experimental analysis.
Used in Eq. (5); standard phenomenological parametrization but a modeling choice.

invented entities (1)

X(800) resonance
purpose: To describe an excess near 800 MeV in the π+η invariant mass spectrum that the dynamical mechanisms do not explain.
Added as a phenomenological Breit-Wigner with fitted mass/strength/phase and hand-fixed width. The paper itself concludes that it yields only a marginal improvement, so it is not an independently evidenced state.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Roles of $a_0(980)^+ f_0(500,980)$ and $a_1(1260)^+\eta$ production mechanisms in decay $D_s^+ \to \pi^+ \pi^0 \pi^0 \eta$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AWI3PKSJ

@misc{pith2026260728169,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Roles of $a_0(980)^+ f_0(500,980)$ and $a_1(1260)^+\eta$ production mechanisms in decay $D_s^+ \to \pi^+ \pi^0 \pi^0 \eta$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AWI3PKSJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.28169}
}

abstract

In this work, we theoretically investigate the decay mechanism of $D_s^+ \to \pi^+ \pi^0 \pi^0 \eta$ based on BESIII data, considering two mechanisms: the production of two dynamically generated resonances, $D_s^+ \to a_0(980)^+ f_0(500,980)$, and a process with one dynamically generated resonance, $D_s^+ \to a_1(1260)^+\eta$. In the first mechanism, the interactions $\pi^+\eta$ and $K^+\bar{K}^0$ are included to generate the $a_0(980)^+$, while coupled-channel interactions involving $\pi^+\pi^-$, $\pi^0\pi^0$, $K^+K^-$, $K^0\bar{K}^0$, $\eta\eta$, and $\pi^0\eta$ are adopted to generate the $f_0(500)$ as well as the $f_0(980)$. For the second mechanism, the $\pi\rho$ and $\bar{K}^*{K} - K^*\bar{K}$ channels are included to generate the $a_1(1260)$. With these interactions, the amplitudes are calculated in the chiral unitary approach and used to compute the invariant mass spectra of $D_s^+ \to \pi^+ \pi^0 \pi^0 \eta$. The results suggest that the peak near 1000~\text{MeV} in the $\pi^+\eta$ invariant mass spectrum can be well interpreted as the $a_0(980)^+$ arising from a cusp effect. The $f_0(980)$, generated together with the $f_0(500)$, is responsible for the small structure near 1000 MeV in the $\pi^0\pi^0$ spectrum. The $a_1(1260)^+$ and its decay to $\rho^+\pi^0$ followed by the subsequent $\rho^+$ decay provide a good description of the $\pi^+\pi^0\pi^0$ and $\pi^+\pi^0$ mass spectra. The inclusion of an additional resonance near 800 MeV in the $\pi^+\eta$ spectrum leads to only a marginal improvement of the fit.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

[26]

Role of meson interaction s in the D+ s →π+π+π−η decay,

J. Song, A. Feijoo and E. Oset, “Role of meson interaction s in the D+ s →π+π+π−η decay,” Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) no.7, 074027

2022
[23]

The D+ s → a0(980)e+νe reaction and the a0(980) − f0(980) mixing,

J. X. Lin, J. T. Li, S. J. Jiang, W. H. Liang and E. Oset, “The D+ s → a0(980)e+νe reaction and the a0(980) − f0(980) mixing,” Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) no.11, 1017

2021
[1]

Observation of D+ s → a0(980)+ f0(500) in the Amplitude Analysis of D+ s → π+π0π0η,

M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII], “Observation of D+ s → a0(980)+ f0(500) in the Amplitude Analysis of D+ s → π+π0π0η,” [arXiv:2603.18521 [hep-ex]]

arXiv
[2]

From controversy to precision on the sigma m eson: a review on the status of the non-ordinary f0(500) resonance,

J. R. Pelaez, “From controversy to precision on the sigma m eson: a review on the status of the non-ordinary f0(500) resonance,” Phys. Rept. 658 (2016), 1

2016
[3]

50 Y ears of Quantum Chromodynamics,

F. Gross, E. Klempt, S. J. Brodsky, A. J. Buras, V . D. Burker t, G. Heinrich, K. Jakobs, C. A. Meyer, K. Orginos and M. Strick- land, et al. “50 Y ears of Quantum Chromodynamics,” Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023), 1125

2023
[4]

Scalar mesons above and be low 1-GeV ,

F. E. Close and N. A. Tornqvist, “Scalar mesons above and be low 1-GeV ,” J. Phys. G28 (2002), R249-R267

2002
[5]

Mesons beyond the naive qua rk model,

C. Amsler and N. A. Tornqvist, “Mesons beyond the naive qua rk model,” Phys. Rept. 389 (2004), 61-117

2004
[6]

Chiral symmetry amplitudes in the S wave isoscalar and isovector channels and the σ, f0(980), a0(980) scalar mesons,

J. A. Oller and E. Oset, “Chiral symmetry amplitudes in the S wave isoscalar and isovector channels and the σ, f0(980), a0(980) scalar mesons,” Nucl. Phys. A 620 (1997), 438-456 [erratum: Nucl. Phys. A 652 (1999), 407-409]

1997

Show all 33 references

[7]

Low lying axial-vector meso ns as dynamically generated resonances,

L. Roca, E. Oset and J. Singh, “Low lying axial-vector meso ns as dynamically generated resonances,” Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005), 014002

2005
[8]

Unconventional States of Conﬁned Quarks and Gluons,

R. L. Ja ﬀe and K. Johnson, “Unconventional States of Conﬁned Quarks and Gluons,” Phys. Lett. B 60 (1976), 201-204

1976
[9]

Understanding the scalar meson q anti-q nonet,

N. A. Tornqvist, “Understanding the scalar meson q anti-q nonet,” Z. Phys. C 68 (1995), 647-660

1995
[10]

f0(980) mes on as a K anti-K molecule in a phenomenological Lagrangian approac h,

T. Branz, T. Gutsche and V . E. Lyubovitskij, “f0(980) mes on as a K anti-K molecule in a phenomenological Lagrangian approac h,” Eur. Phys. J. A 37 (2008), 303-317

2008
[11]

Molecular nature of the a1(1260 ) axial-vector meson,

S. Clymton and H. C. Kim, “Molecular nature of the a1(1260 ) axial-vector meson,” Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) no.11, 114015

2022
[12]

Do Multi-Quark Hadrons Exi st?,

J. D. Weinstein and N. Isgur, “Do Multi-Quark Hadrons Exi st?,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 48 (1982), 659

1982
[13]

Com - posite and elementary natures of a1(1260) meson,

H. Nagahiro, K. Nawa, S. Ozaki, D. Jido and A. Hosaka, “Com - posite and elementary natures of a1(1260) meson,” Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011), 111504

2011
[14]

Is Ther e a ’Signature’ of the ∆ (980) Meson Four Quark Nature?,

N. N. Achasov, S. A. Devyanin and G. N. Shestakov, “Is Ther e a ’Signature’ of the ∆ (980) Meson Four Quark Nature?,” Phys. Lett. B 96 (1980), 168-170 10

1980
[15]

Evidence that the a(0)(980) and f(0)(98 0) are not elementary particles,

V . Baru, J. Haidenbauer, C. Hanhart, Y . Kalashnikova and A. E. Kudryavtsev, “Evidence that the a(0)(980) and f(0)(98 0) are not elementary particles,” Phys. Lett. B 586 (2004), 53-61

2004
[16]

K anti-K Molecules,

J. D. Weinstein and N. Isgur, “K anti-K Molecules,” Phys. Rev. D 41 (1990), 2236

1990
[17]

Study the molecular nature of σ, f0(980), and a0(980) states,

H. A. Ahmed and C. W. Xiao, “Study the molecular nature of σ, f0(980), and a0(980) states,” Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) no.9, 094034 [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 112 (2025) no.9, 099902]

2020
[18]

An a0 resonance in strongly coupled πη, K K scattering from lattice QCD,

J. J. Dudek et al. [Hadron Spectrum], “An a0 resonance in strongly coupled πη, K K scattering from lattice QCD,” Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) no.9, 094506

2016
[19]

Data-dri ven dis- persive analysis of the ππ and πK scattering,

I. Danilkin, O. Deineka and M. V anderhaeghen, “Data-dri ven dis- persive analysis of the ππ and πK scattering,” Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) no.11, 114023

2021
[20]

Dispersive d etermi- nation of resonances from ππ scattering data,

J. R. Pel´ aez, P . Rab´ an and J. R. de Elvira, “Dispersive d etermi- nation of resonances from ππ scattering data,” Phys. Rev. D 113 (2026) no.3, 034018

2026
[21]

A Meson exchange mod el for pi rho scattering,

G. Janssen, K. Holinde and J. Speth, “A Meson exchange mod el for pi rho scattering,” Phys. Rev. C 49 (1994), 2763-2776

1994
[22]

Weak decays of heavy hadrons into dynamically generated resonan ces,

E. Oset, W. H. Liang, M. Bayar, J. J. Xie, L. R. Dai, M. Albal adejo, M. Nielsen, T. Sekihara, F. Navarra and L. Roca, et al. “Weak decays of heavy hadrons into dynamically generated resonan ces,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 25 (2016), 1630001

2016
[24]

Λc+→ηπ+Λ reaction and theΛa0+(980) and π+Λ(1670) contributions,

M. Y . Duan, W. T. Lyu, C. W. Xiao, E. Wang, J. J. Xie, D. Y . Chen and E. Oset, “Λc+→ηπ+Λ reaction and theΛa0+(980) and π+Λ(1670) contributions,” Phys. Rev. D 111 (2025) no.1, 016004

2025
[25]

Hadronic decay D+→π+ηη and the a0(980) and f0(1370) contributions,

W. T. Lyu, L. L. Wei, D. M. Li and E. Wang, “Hadronic decay D+→π+ηη and the a0(980) and f0(1370) contributions,” Phys. Rev. D 112 (2025) no.5, 054015

2025
[27]

Chiral unitary approac h to meson meson and meson - baryon interactions and nuclear appl i- cations,

J. A. Oller, E. Oset and A. Ramos, “Chiral unitary approac h to meson meson and meson - baryon interactions and nuclear appl i- cations,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 45 (2000), 157-242

2000
[28]

Intermediate vector meson contributions to V0 —> P0 P0 gamma decays,

A. Bramon, A. Grau and G. Pancheri, “Intermediate vector meson contributions to V0 —> P0 P0 gamma decays,” Phys. Lett. B 283 (1992), 416-420

1992
[29]

τ− → ντ M1 M2, with M1, M2 pseudoscalar or vector mesons,

L. R. Dai, R. Pavao, S. Sakai and E. Oset, “ τ− → ντ M1 M2, with M1, M2 pseudoscalar or vector mesons,” Eur. Phys. J. A 55 (2019) no.2, 20

2019
[30]

Role of Σ*(1/2−) baryons in Λc→Λπ+π+π− decay,

J. He, “Role of Σ*(1/2−) baryons in Λc→Λπ+π+π− decay,” Phys. Rev. C 112 (2025) no.1, 015205

2025
[31]

Virtual state and two-pole structure: Ξ(1690) and Ξ(1820) from BESIII data on ψ(3686) → K−Λ ¯Ξ+,

J. He, “Virtual state and two-pole structure: Ξ(1690) and Ξ(1820) from BESIII data on ψ(3686) → K−Λ ¯Ξ+,” [arXiv:2607.25606 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[32]

Monte-Carlo phase space,

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

1968
[33]

https: //github.com/junhe1979/DalitzPlot.jl

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [26]

Role of meson interaction s in the D+ s →π+π+π−η decay,

J. Song, A. Feijoo and E. Oset, “Role of meson interaction s in the D+ s →π+π+π−η decay,” Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) no.7, 074027

2022

[2] [23]

The D+ s → a0(980)e+νe reaction and the a0(980) − f0(980) mixing,

J. X. Lin, J. T. Li, S. J. Jiang, W. H. Liang and E. Oset, “The D+ s → a0(980)e+νe reaction and the a0(980) − f0(980) mixing,” Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) no.11, 1017

2021

[3] [1]

Observation of D+ s → a0(980)+ f0(500) in the Amplitude Analysis of D+ s → π+π0π0η,

M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII], “Observation of D+ s → a0(980)+ f0(500) in the Amplitude Analysis of D+ s → π+π0π0η,” [arXiv:2603.18521 [hep-ex]]

arXiv

[4] [2]

From controversy to precision on the sigma m eson: a review on the status of the non-ordinary f0(500) resonance,

J. R. Pelaez, “From controversy to precision on the sigma m eson: a review on the status of the non-ordinary f0(500) resonance,” Phys. Rept. 658 (2016), 1

2016

[5] [3]

50 Y ears of Quantum Chromodynamics,

F. Gross, E. Klempt, S. J. Brodsky, A. J. Buras, V . D. Burker t, G. Heinrich, K. Jakobs, C. A. Meyer, K. Orginos and M. Strick- land, et al. “50 Y ears of Quantum Chromodynamics,” Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023), 1125

2023

[6] [4]

Scalar mesons above and be low 1-GeV ,

F. E. Close and N. A. Tornqvist, “Scalar mesons above and be low 1-GeV ,” J. Phys. G28 (2002), R249-R267

2002

[7] [5]

Mesons beyond the naive qua rk model,

C. Amsler and N. A. Tornqvist, “Mesons beyond the naive qua rk model,” Phys. Rept. 389 (2004), 61-117

2004

[8] [6]

Chiral symmetry amplitudes in the S wave isoscalar and isovector channels and the σ, f0(980), a0(980) scalar mesons,

J. A. Oller and E. Oset, “Chiral symmetry amplitudes in the S wave isoscalar and isovector channels and the σ, f0(980), a0(980) scalar mesons,” Nucl. Phys. A 620 (1997), 438-456 [erratum: Nucl. Phys. A 652 (1999), 407-409]

1997