Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Hyperon electromagnetic timelike elastic form factors at large $q^2$

T0 review · 5 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 Measured hyperon timelike form factors already obey asymptotic reflection relations at momentum transfers above 10 GeV^2, long before the perturbative QCD onset.

desk verdict Useful external predictions for hyperon timelike form factors; the text overstates the consistency claim because the central reflection shift is a heuristic midpoint. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04864 v2 pith:MUHNJVTR submitted 2019-08-13 hep-ph hep-exnucl-exnucl-th

G. Ramalho , M.T. Peña , K. Tsushima This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-exnucl-exnucl-th PACS 13.40.Gp14.20.Jn12.39.Ki
keywords hyperonelectromagneticformfactorstimelikespacelikeasymptoticreflectionrelationcovariantquarkmodeleffectivefactorOmega-minusbaryonanalyticityandunitarity
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 tries to establish that the electromagnetic form factors of hyperons in the timelike region — probed by $e^+e^-$ annihilation into a baryon-antibaryon pair — can be predicted at large momentum transfer from a quark model fixed in the spacelike (scattering) region, together with model-independent reflection relations derived from analyticity and unitarity. It argues that the existing data on the $\Lambda$, $\Sigma$, $\Xi$, and $\Omega^-$ are consistent with those relations already for $q^2 \gtrsim 10$ GeV$^2$, even though the perturbative QCD power-law falloff of the form factors sets in only around $q^2 \sim 30$–$50$ GeV$^2$. If correct, this means the asymptotic regime for form-factor relations is reached much earlier than the perturbative regime, so the spacelike quark model can serve as a quantitative reference for upcoming timelike experiments.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is the finite-$q^2$ version of the asymptotic reflection relation, $G_l(q^2)\simeq G_l^{\mathrm{SL}}(2M_B^2 - q^2)$ with $l=M,E$, which maps the spacelike quark-model form factor into the timelike region by reflecting around the midpoint of the unphysical gap $(0,4M_B^2)$. The strict $q^2\to\infty$ relation $G_l(q^2)\simeq G_l^{\mathrm{SL}}(-q^2)$ and the mirror variant $G_l^{\mathrm{SL}}(4M_B^2 - q^2)$ bracket the model uncertainty. This identity is what converts a quark model calibrated in the spacelike region into predictions for the timelike observables $\sigma_{\mathrm{Born}}(q^2)$ and $|G(q^2)|$.

What would settle it

A decisive check would be a high-precision measurement of the $\Lambda$ or $\Xi^-$ timelike form factor at several $q^2$ values between 10 and 30 GeV$^2$: if the results fall outside the band bounded by $G^{\mathrm{SL}}(-q^2)$ and $G^{\mathrm{SL}}(4M_B^2-q^2)$, or disagree with the central value $G^{\mathrm{SL}}(2M_B^2-q^2)$, the claimed validity of the reflection relations in that window is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the timelike effective form factor $|G(q^2)|$ of the octet hyperons and the $\Omega^-$, extracted from the $e^+e^- \to B\bar B$ cross sections, is well described by the spacelike form factor $G_l^{\mathrm{SL}}(2M_B^2 - q^2)$ evaluated at the reflected argument, for $q^2$ roughly above 8–10 GeV$^2$. The reflection point $2M_B^2$ lies inside the unphysical gap $(0,4M_B^2)$ between the spacelike and timelike regions; the strict large-$q^2$ relation $G_l^{\mathrm{SL}}(-q^2)$ gives a lower limit and the variant $G_l^{\mathrm{SL}}(4M_B^2 - q^2)$ an upper limit, and the data sit within this band. The same comparison indicates that the perturbative QCD falloff $G \propto 1/q^4$ is not yet operative at those momentum transfers and begins only beyond $q^2 \sim 30$–$50$ GeV$^2$. For the $\Omega^-$, the timelike data favor a small magnetic octupole form factor, $G_{M3}(0)\sim 1$, rather than the larger value produced by the model before confronting the data.

Load-bearing premise

The predictions hinge on the assumption that the finite-$q^2$ reflection identity $G_l(q^2)\simeq G_l^{\mathrm{SL}}(2M_B^2 - q^2)$ correctly continues the spacelike form factors into the timelike region for $q^2$ between about 10 and 30 GeV$^2$; the $2M_B^2$ midpoint is a tentative choice without a derivation, and a different analytic mapping in that window would shift the claimed onset and the quantitative agreement with data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, the timelike form factors of all octet hyperons and the $\Omega^-$ for $q^2$ between about 10 and 30 GeV$^2$ are effectively fixed by the spacelike quark model, giving concrete reference tables for future $p\bar p$ and $e^+e^-$ experiments.
  • The early onset of the reflection regime means the current data at $q^2\gtrsim 10$ GeV$^2$ are probing non-perturbative dynamics, and fits that assume a $1/q^4$ perturbative falloff in this window would be misleading.
  • The agreement with the reflection band supports treating $|G_E|$ and $|G_M|$ as distinct and close in magnitude, rather than imposing $G_E=G_M$, a common simplification.
  • For the $\Omega^-$, the data discriminate between models of the baryon wave function: they rule out a large magnetic octupole moment $G_{M3}(0)\simeq 15$ in favor of $G_{M3}(0)\sim 1$, constraining the $D$-state content.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One extension left implicit in the paper: the same reflection relation should also be tested on the proton, where the long-standing discrepancy between spacelike and timelike form factors might be partly a finite-$q^2$ reflection-centre effect; the $2M_B^2$ shift changes the predicted magnitude by the same kind of factor seen across the hyperon band.
  • If the reflection centre really lies inside the unphysical gap, the same analyticity logic should also modify transition form factors such as $\gamma^*\Lambda\to\Sigma^0$, which the paper computes but does not use to pin down the mapping.
  • A clean model-independent test would come from a lattice or continuum Minkowski-space calculation of a timelike form factor at $q^2\simeq 15$ GeV$^2$: comparing it with the spacelike model evaluated at $2M_B^2-q^2$ would settle the reflection-centre question without waiting for new data.
  • Carrying the same machinery to charmed baryons, which the authors say is under study, would make the reflection-centre choice more consequential because the unphysical gap widens with baryon mass, so charmed data would sharply discriminate among the finite-$q^2$ variants.
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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper extends the covariant spectator quark model, previously calibrated on spacelike form factors, lattice QCD results, and magnetic moments, to the timelike elastic form factors of the hyperon octet and the Omega-minus baryon. The timelike values are obtained by evaluating the spacelike form factors at shifted arguments, with a central choice G_SL(2M_B^2 - q^2) and endpoints G_SL(-q^2) and G_SL(4M_B^2 - q^2) used to draw uncertainty bands. The resulting effective form factor |G(q^2)| is compared with BaBar, BESIII, and CLEO data, and the paper claims that the data are consistent with the asymptotic reflection relations for q^2 above roughly 8-10 GeV^2, while the perturbative QCD 1/q^4 falloff sets in only above q^2 about 30-50 GeV^2. Predictions are tabulated for q^2 up to 60 GeV^2, including for Sigma^-.

Significance. The external character of the comparison is a genuine strength: no timelike data are used to calibrate the model, so the agreement or disagreement is a real test of the spacelike model supplemented by the analyticity-based mapping. The paper also provides useful numerical estimates for future experiments such as PANDA and BESIII, and it explicitly separates the onset of the asymptotic reflection relations from the much later onset of the pQCD falloff. However, the quantitative content of the test rests on an ad hoc finite-q^2 reflection shift introduced without derivation, so the significance is conditional on that assumption being derived or at least controlled.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. IV, Eqs. (4.1)–(4.2)] The finite-q^2 reflection shift q^2 -> 2M_B^2 - q^2 is introduced as a 'tentative' choice without derivation. The Phragmén-Lindelöf theorem constrains only the q^2 -> infinity limit, not the mapping at q^2 = 10-30 GeV^2 where the data comparisons are made. Because the central curves in Figs. 1-3 and the ratios in Table I use this choice, the central quantitative claim is not controlled. Please either derive the finite-q^2 center from dispersion relations or estimate the size of the neglected corrections, for example from the imaginary parts of the form factors.
  2. [Sec. V.A, Figs. 1–3] The dashed lines in the figures do not represent a theory uncertainty; they span an undetermined reflection-center parameter between -q^2 and 4M_B^2 - q^2. The central value is an arbitrary point inside this interval, so the statement that the data 'lie within the upper and lower limits of the theoretical uncertainty' overstates the theoretical control. The conclusions should be re-expressed as a sensitivity study over the unknown mapping rather than as a band of theoretical uncertainty.
  3. [Sec. V.A, Table I] The baryon-average ratio 1.12 obscures large per-baryon deviations, namely Lambda at 2.19 and Xi^0 at 0.60. A quantitative consistency claim needs a per-baryon comparison that includes the experimental uncertainties, not an unweighted average over baryons, especially because the individual deviations are not centered around 1.
  4. [Sec. V.B, Fig. 5] The Omega^- comparison is not a clean prediction: the full model overestimates the data, and the 'close agreement' in the right panel is obtained after dropping GE2 and GM3, whose large-q^2 behavior is unconstrained by the lattice fit at Q^2 < 2 GeV^2. The text appropriately cautions that the model's falloff in this sector is 1/Q^6 rather than the pQCD 1/Q^4, but the conclusion that the timelike data favor a small GM3 should be stated as a data-driven constraint, not as a validation of the model.
  5. [Sec. III.B and Appendices B2–B4] The plotted curves and Table I do not propagate uncertainties from the quark-current parameters (Table B2), the radial wave-function parameters (Table B3), or the pion-cloud normalization factors Z_B (Table B5). Since these parameters are fitted to data with known errors, a claim of consistency with the timelike data requires at least a sensitivity estimate, or an explicit statement that the central curves are representative only.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. V.B] There are typographical errors: 'overstimate' should be 'overestimate' in the discussion of the Omega^- results.
  2. [Sec. V.A] The claim that the pQCD onset is 'only beyond the region of q^2: 30-50 GeV^2' is illustrated only for Sigma^+ in Fig. 4; please provide the corresponding onset values for the other hyperons or state explicitly that the onset is inferred from similar behavior.
  3. [Tables II and III] The table captions should state explicitly that G is the full effective form factor including the GE != GM correction, since the text distinguishes this from the G = GM approximation.
  4. [Sec. IV] The phrase 'tentatively taken as q^2 = 2M_B^2' deserves either a citation to prior literature or an explicit flag as a new model assumption, so that readers do not mistake it for a theorem.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the timelike predictions are external to the spacelike-model calibration; the 2M_B^2 reflection shift is an admitted ansatz rather than a fitted input.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: covariant spectator quark model calibrated in the spacelike region (Refs. [34,35,48]) -> asymptotic reflection relations (2.3)-(2.4) from analyticity and the Phragmén-Lindelöf theorem -> finite-q^2 corrected forms (4.1)-(4.2) -> timelike effective form factors -> comparison with e+e- data. No timelike data are used to calibrate any parameter of the model; the wave-function range parameters, quark anomalous moments, and pion-cloud normalization were fixed by spacelike, lattice-QCD, and magnetic-moment constraints. Equations (4.1)-(4.2) are explicitly characterized as a tentative choice ('can be tentatively taken as q^2 = 2M_B^2 instead of q^2 = 0'), and the paper brackets this central choice with lower and upper limits corresponding to q^2 = 0 and q^2 = 4M_B^2. The central 2M_B^2 value is not fitted to the hyperon timelike data, so the subsequent data comparison is a genuine external test rather than a reconstruction of the input. The self-citations to Refs. [34,35,48] carry the spacelike model, but those prior results are externally falsifiable (lattice QCD, magnetic moments, spacelike form factors), so they do not constitute load-bearing circularity under the stated rules. The genuine weakness of the paper—an underevidenced, finite-q^2 reflection shift with no controlled estimate of neglected corrections—is a correctness and robustness caveat, not a circular step: no equation in the paper reduces the timelike prediction to the fit by construction.

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

The estimates are not derived from first principles in this paper; they inherit the covariant spectator quark model and its fitted parameters from earlier papers. The timelike step adds one ad hoc reflection-center assumption. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced; the effective heavy vector meson mass 2M_N is part of the prior VMD parametrization rather than a proposed new entity.

free parameters (5)
  • Radial wave-function momentum-range parameters beta_1 through beta_4 = 0.0440, 0.9077, 0.7634, 0.4993
    Set the falloff of baryon form factors through the overlap integral; calibrated in Refs. [34,39] to lattice and physical spacelike data.
  • Quark current parameters (kappa coefficients, c_plus, c_minus, c_0, d_plus, d_minus, d_0) = Table B2: 1.462, 1.756, 1.462; 4.160, 1.160, 4.427; -0.686, -0.686, -1.860
    Define the VMD quark form factors in Eq. (B3); fixed by nucleon and decuplet data in earlier work by the same authors.
  • lambda_q = 1.22
    VMD quark-current parameter fixed by deep inelastic scattering in Ref. [39]; enters every quark form factor.
  • Pion cloud normalization Z_B, derived from B1 or Z_N = Z_N=0.885, Z_Lambda=0.941, Z_Sigma=0.929, Z_Xi=0.995
    Normalizes baryon wave functions after pion-cloud dressing; fixed from physical nucleon data and octet magnetic moments in Ref. [34].
  • Omega-minus model parameters (three momentum-range parameters and two D-state mixture coefficients) = Values from Ref. [48]; not tabulated in this paper
    Calibrated to lattice QCD form factors for Q^2 below 2 GeV^2 in Ref. [48]; drives the Omega-minus GM3 prediction that the timelike data disfavor.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Phragmen-Lindelof asymptotic equality between timelike and spacelike form factors, F(q^2) approaches F(-q^2) as q^2 goes to infinity
    Invoked in Eqs. (2.3) and (2.4) as model-independent relations from analyticity and unitarity; the proof is cited to Ref. [4], not repeated.
  • ad hoc to paper Reflection center at 2M_B^2 for finite q^2 in Eqs. (4.1) and (4.2)
    Described as tentatively taken in Sec. IV; this is the central value of the predictions and has no derivation or external citation.
  • domain assumption Covariant spectator quark model with quark-diquark structure and impulse approximation
    Section III assumes this structure and that the diquark can be integrated out; the model is validated in prior papers, not within this manuscript.
  • domain assumption Vector-meson-dominance parametrization of the quark current with poles at light vector meson and 2M_N masses
    Used in Eq. (B3); the analytic continuation into the timelike region inherits these poles below threshold, with no explicit handling of their effect.
  • domain assumption One-photon-exchange expression for the Born cross section in Eq. (2.1)
    Standard QED and spin-average assumption; reasonable at large q^2 but not questioned in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hyperon electromagnetic timelike elastic form factors at large $q^2$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MUHNJVTR

@misc{pith2026190804864,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hyperon electromagnetic timelike elastic form factors at large $q^2$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MUHNJVTR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04864}
}
abstract

We present estimates of the hyperon elastic form factors for the baryon octet and the $\Omega^-$ baryon for large four-momentum transfer squared, $q^2$, in the timelike region ($q^2>0$). Experimentally, those form factors can be extracted from the $e^+ e^- \to B \bar B$ and $p \bar p \to B \bar B$ processes, where $B$ stands for a general baryon. Our results are based on calculations of the elastic electromagnetic form factors in the spacelike region ($Q^2 = - q^2 > 0$) within a covariant quark model. To connect the results in the spacelike region to those in the timelike region, we use asymptotic relations between the two regions which are constraints derived from analyticity and unitarity. We calculate the effective form factors $|G(q^2)|$ and compare them with the integrated cross section data $\sigma_{\rm Born} (q^2)$ from BaBar, BES III, and CLEO. The available data are at the moment restricted to $\Lambda$, $\Sigma^0$, $\Sigma^-$, $\Xi^-$, $\Xi^0$, and $\Omega^-$ as well as to $e^+ e^- \to \Lambda \bar \Sigma^0 $ and $e^+ e^- \to \Sigma^0 \bar \Lambda$ reactions. Our results provide useful reference for future experiments and seem to indicate that the present data are still in the non-perturbative QCD region, while the onset for the asymptotic constraints from analyticity and unitarity happens much before the region of the perturbative QCD falloff of the form factors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04864 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Electromagnetic form factors of singly charmed baryons $\Sigma_c$ and $\Lambda_c$ in a covariant quark-diquark model

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Spacelike electromagnetic form factors of Σc and Λc are computed in a covariant quark-diquark model, finding compact charge distributions and a charm-quark-dominated magnetic form factor for Λc.

  2. The electromagnetic form factors of $\Sigma$ and $\Sigma^0 \to \Lambda$ transition in the timelike region

    hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    An extended vector meson dominance model with excited rho, omega, and phi states reproduces e+e- to Sigma Sigma-bar and e+e- to Lambda Sigma-zero data, and predicts unmeasured form factor ratios and phases.

  3. Electromagnetic form factors of hyperons in the timelike region: A short review

    hep-ph 2024-12 accept novelty 1.0 of 10

    A review of recent experimental and theoretical results on hyperon electromagnetic form factors in the timelike region, highlighting near-threshold final-state interactions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [4]

    are also presented in Appendix B. Our calculations for the baryon octet presented in the next sections for the Q2 > 5 GeV 2 region depend essen- tially on seven parameters: four momentum-range pa- rameters (βi), two anomalous magnetic moments (κ u and κ d) and one pion cloud parameter associated with the normalization of the octet baryon wave functions. T...

    work page

  2. [1]

    The baryon wave function Ψ B, rearranged as an active quark and a spectator quark pair, is repre- sented in terms of the spin-flavor structure of the individual quarks with SUS(2) ×SUF (3) symme- try [35, 39]

    work page

  3. [2]

    By applying the impulse approximation, after in- tegrating over the quark pair degrees of freedom the three-quark system transition matrix element can be reduced to that of a quark-diquark system, parametrized by a radial wave function ψ B [35, 39, 40]

    work page

  4. [3]

    Concerning the first two points above, the literature emphasizes the role of diquarks in the baryons [6–11]

    The electromagnetic structure of the quark is parametrized by the quark form factors, j1 (Dirac) and j2 (Pauli) according to the flavor content, which encode the substructure associated with the gluons and quark-antiquark effects, and are parametrized using the vector meson dominance (VMD) mechanism [35, 46, 49]. Concerning the first two points above, the li...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Model” indicate the exact result; the lines with the label “Large Q2

    to the timelike region ( q2 > 0). The calculation in the timelike region is based also on the model-independent relations (2.3)–(2.4) results for large Q2. Concerning the relations (2.3)–(2.4), they map the re- gion of q2: ] − ∞, 0] into the region [0 , +∞[. Note, how- ever, that q2 = 0 is not the center point of the reflec- tion symmetry that relates time...

    work page 1977

  6. [6]

    50 [48, 65] (which has a significant errorbar)

    25 ± 7. 50 [48, 65] (which has a significant errorbar). From the form factors GE0,GM1,GE2 andGM3, we cal- culate the functionG based on the results in Appendix A. The results are presented in the left panel of Fig. 5. Our estimates for the electromagnetic form factors in the timelike region of Ω − should be taken with caution, since the model used for the ...

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Baryon wave functions In the covariant spectator quark model the spin states associated with Eq. (3.1) are represented by [34, 39] φ 0 S =uB(P,s ), φ 1 S = −(ε∗ λ )α (P )U α B(P,s ), (B1) where uB is the Dirac spinor of the baryon, s is the baryon spin projection, λ represents the polarization of the diquark, and U α B(P,s ) = 1 √ 3γ5 ( γ µ − P α MB ) uB(...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Quark form factors To parametrize the quark current (3.6), we adopt the structure inspired by the VMD mechanism as in Refs. [35, 39]: f1± =λ q + (1 −λ q) m2 v m2 v +Q2 +c± M 2 hQ2 (M 2 h +Q2)2, f10 =λ q + (1 −λ q) m2 φ m2 φ +Q2 +c0 M 2 hQ2 (M 2 h +Q2)2, f2± =κ ± { d± m2 v m2 v +Q2 + (1 −d± ) M 2 h M 2 h +Q2 } , f20 =κ s { d0 m2 φ m2 φ +Q2 + (1 −d0) M 2 h ...

    work page

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    (3.8) and (3.9)

    Octet baryon form factors The valence quark contributions to the octet baryon electromagnetic form factors are then determined by the combination of the quark form factors and the parametrization of the radial wave functions, according to Eqs. (3.8) and (3.9). The parameters a...

  2. [10]

    In the study of the electromagnetic structure of the octet baryons those effects are taken into account in an effec- tive way

    Pion cloud dressing In the low- Q2 region, it is necessary to include the effects of the pion cloud dressing of the baryons. In the study of the electromagnetic structure of the octet baryons those effects are taken into account in an effec- tive way. There are two main contribut...

  3. [11]

    I. G. Aznauryan et al. , Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 22, 1330015 (2013) [arXiv:1212.4891 [nucl-th]]

    2013 arXiv

  4. [12]

    C. F. Perdrisat, V. Punjabi and M. Vanderhaeghen, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 59, 694 (2007) [hep-ph/0612014]

    2007 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Denig and G

    A. Denig and G. Salme, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 68, 113 (2013) [arXiv:1210.4689 [hep-ex]]

    2013 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Pacetti, R

    S. Pacetti, R. Baldini Ferroli and E. Tomasi-Gustafsson , Phys. Rept. 550-551, 1 (2015)

    2015

  7. [15]

    Cabibbo and R

    N. Cabibbo and R. Gatto, Phys. Rev. 124, 1577 (1961)

    1961

  8. [16]

    Kroll, T

    P. Kroll, T. Pilsner, M. Schurmann and W. Schweiger, Phys. Lett. B 316, 546 (1993) [hep-ph/9305251]

    1993 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Jakob, P

    R. Jakob, P. Kroll, M. Schurmann and W. Schweiger, Z. Phys. A 347, 109 (1993) [hep-ph/9310227]

    1993 arXiv

  10. [18]

    R. L. Jaffe and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 232003 (2003) [hep-ph/0307341]

    2003 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Wilczek, in From fields to strings , edited by M

    F. Wilczek, in From fields to strings , edited by M. Shif- man, Vol. 1, pp 77-93 (2005) [hep-ph/0409168]

    2005 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Selem and F

    A. Selem and F. Wilczek, New Trends HERA Phys. 2005, 337 (2006) hep-ph/0602128

    2006 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Dobbs, K

    S. Dobbs, K. K. Seth, A. Tomaradze, T. Xiao and G. Bonvicini, Phys. Rev. D 96, 092004 (2017) [arXiv:1708.09377 [hep-ex]]

    2017 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Dobbs, A

    S. Dobbs, A. Tomaradze, T. Xiao, K. K. Seth and G. Bonvicini, Phys. Lett. B 739, 90 (2014) 14 [arXiv:1410.8356 [hep-ex]]

    2014 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Aubert et al

    B. Aubert et al. [BaBar Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 73, 012005 (2006) [hep-ex/0512023]

    2006 arXiv

  16. [24]

    K. K. Seth, S. Dobbs, Z. Metreveli, A. Tomaradze, T. Xiao and G. Bonvicini, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 022002 (2013) [arXiv:1210.1596 [hep-ex]]

    2013 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Sch¨ onning and C

    K. Sch¨ onning and C. Li, EPJ Web Conf. 137, 12002 (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

    Li [BESIII Collaboration], J

    C. Li [BESIII Collaboration], J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 742, 012020 (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    Aubert et al

    B. Aubert et al. [BaBar Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 76, 092006 (2007) [arXiv:0709.1988 [hep-ex]]

    2007 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 87, 11, 112011 (2013) [arXiv:1305.1782 [hep-ex]]

    2013 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 97, 032013 (2018) [arXiv:1709.10236 [hep-ex]]

    2018

  22. [30]

    J. G. Korner and M. Kuroda, Phys. Rev. D 16, 2165 (1977)

    1977

  23. [31]

    Haidenbauer, T

    J. Haidenbauer, T. Hippchen, K. Holinde, B. Holzenkamp, V. Mull and J. Speth, Phys. Rev. C 45, 931 (1992)

    1992

  24. [32]

    A. Z. Dubnickova, S. Dubnicka and P. Strizenec, Czech. J. Phys. 43, 1177 (1993)

    1993

  25. [33]

    O. D. Dalkarov, P. A. Khakhulin and A. Y. Voronin, Nucl. Phys. A 833, 104 (2010) [arXiv:0906.0266 [nucl- th]]

    2010 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Haidenbauer and U

    J. Haidenbauer and U. G. Meissner, Phys. Lett. B 761, 456 (2016) [arXiv:1608.02766 [nucl-th]]

    2016 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Yang and Z

    Y. Yang and Z. Lu, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 33, 1850133 (2018) [arXiv:1712.06459 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    X. Cao, J. P. Dai and Y. P. Xie, Phys. Rev. D 98, 094006 (2018) [arXiv:1808.06382 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Y. Yang, D. Y. Chen and Z. Lu, Phys. Rev. D 100, 073007 (2019) [arXiv:1902.01242 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Singh et al

    B. Singh et al. [PANDA Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 95, 032003 (2017) [arXiv:1610.02149 [nucl-ex]]

    2017 arXiv

  31. [39]

    S. J. Brodsky and G. R. Farrar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 31, 1153 (1973)

    1973

  32. [40]

    S. J. Brodsky and G. R. Farrar, Phys. Rev. D 11, 1309 (1975)

    1975

  33. [41]

    G. P. Lepage and S. J. Brodsky, Phys. Rev. D 22, 2157 (1980)

    1980

  34. [42]

    C. E. Carlson and F. Gross, Phys. Rev. D 36, 2060 (1987)

    1987

  35. [43]

    A. V. Belitsky, X. d. Ji and F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 092003 (2003) [hep-ph/0212351]

    2003 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Ramalho and K

    G. Ramalho and K. Tsushima, Phys. Rev. D 87, 093011 (2013) [arXiv:1302.6889 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Ramalho, K

    G. Ramalho, K. Tsushima and F. Gross, Phys. Rev. D 80, 033004 (2009) [arXiv:0907.1060 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Eichmann, P

    G. Eichmann, P. Duarte, M. T. Pe˜ na and A. Stadler, Phys. Rev. D 100, 094001 (2019) [arXiv:1907.05402 [hep- ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Haidenbauer, X.-W

    J. Haidenbauer, X.-W. Kang and U.-G. Meissner, Nucl. Phys. A 929, 102 (2014) [arXiv:1405.1628 [nucl-th]]

    2014 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Tzara, Nucl

    C. Tzara, Nucl. Phys. B 18, 246 (1970)

    1970

  41. [49]

    Gross, G

    F. Gross, G. Ramalho and M. T. Pe˜ na, Phys. Rev. C 77, 015202 (2008) [nucl-th/0606029]

    2008 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Gross, G

    F. Gross, G. Ramalho and M. T. Pe˜ na, Phys. Rev. D 85, 093005 (2012) [arXiv:1201.6336 [hep-ph]]

    2012 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Ramalho, Few Body Syst

    G. Ramalho, Few Body Syst. 59, 92 (2018) [arXiv:1801.01476 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Ramalho, K

    G. Ramalho, K. Tsushima and A. W. Thomas, J. Phys. G 40, 015102 (2013) [arXiv:1206.2207 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Ramalho, J

    G. Ramalho, J. P. B. C. De Melo and K. Tsushima, Phys. Rev. D 100, 014030 (2019) [arXiv:1902.08844 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Ramalho and K

    G. Ramalho and K. Tsushima, Phys. Rev. D 86, 114030 (2012) [arXiv:1210.7465 [hep-ph]]

    2012 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Ramalho, M

    G. Ramalho, M. T. Pe˜ na and F. Gross, Phys. Rev. D 78, 114017 (2008) [arXiv:0810.4126 [hep-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Ramalho and M

    G. Ramalho and M. T. Pe˜ na, Phys. Rev. D 80, 013008 (2009) [arXiv:0901.4310 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Ramalho, M

    G. Ramalho, M. T. Pe˜ na, J. Weil, H. van Hees and U. Mosel, Phys. Rev. D 93, 033004 (2016) [arXiv:1512.03764 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Ramalho and M

    G. Ramalho and M. T. Pe˜ na, Phys. Rev. D 83, 054011 (2011) [arXiv:1012.2168 [hep-ph]]

    2011 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Ramalho and M

    G. Ramalho and M. T. Pe˜ na, J. Phys. G 36, 115011 (2009) [arXiv:0812.0187 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Ramalho, M

    G. Ramalho, M. T. Pe˜ na and F. Gross, Eur. Phys. J. A 36, 329 (2008) [arXiv:0803.3034 [hep-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Ramalho and M

    G. Ramalho and M. T. Pe˜ na, J. Phys. G 36, 085004 (2009) [arXiv:0807.2922 [hep-ph]]; G. Ramalho, M. T. Pe˜ na and F. Gross, Phys. Rev. D81, 113011 (2010) [arXiv:1002.4170 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Gross, G

    F. Gross, G. Ramalho and K. Tsushima, Phys. Lett. B 690, 183 (2010) [arXiv:0910.2171 [hep-ph]]

    2010 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Ramalho, D

    G. Ramalho, D. Jido and K. Tsushima, Phys. Rev. D 85, 093014 (2012) [arXiv:1202.2299 [hep-ph]]

    2012 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Ramalho, Phys

    G. Ramalho, Phys. Rev. D 94, 114001 (2016) [arXiv:1606.03042 [hep-ph]]; G. Ramalho, Eur. Phys. J. A 54, 75 (2018) [arXiv:1709.07412 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  57. [65]

    T. K. Pedlar et al. [CLEO Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 261803 (2005) [hep-ex/0510005]

    2005 arXiv

  58. [66]

    T. A. Armstrong et al. [E760 Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1212 (1993)

    1993

  59. [67]

    Ambrogiani et al

    M. Ambrogiani et al. [E835 Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 60, 032002 (1999)

    1999

  60. [68]

    E. A. Kuraev, E. Tomasi-Gustafsson and A. Dbeyssi, Phys. Lett. B 712, 240 (2012) [arXiv:1106.1670 [hep-ph]]

    2012 arXiv

  61. [69]

    A. J. R. Puckett et al. , Phys. Rev. C 96, 055203 (2017) Erratum: [Phys. Rev. C 98, 019907 (2018)] [arXiv:1707.08587 [nucl-ex]]

    2017 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Alexandrou, G

    C. Alexandrou, G. Koutsou, J. W. Negele and A. Tsapalis, Phys. Rev. D 74, 034508 (2006) [hep-lat/0605017]

    2006 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Bisello et al

    D. Bisello et al. [DM2 Collaboration], Z. Phys. C 48, 23 (1990)

    1990

  64. [72]

    Antonelli et al

    A. Antonelli et al. , Nucl. Phys. B 517, 3 (1998)

    1998

  65. [73]

    M. N. Achasov et al. , Phys. Rev. D 90, 112007 (2014) [arXiv:1410.3188 [hep-ex]]

    2014 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Alexandrou, T

    C. Alexandrou, T. Korzec, G. Koutsou, J. W. Negele and Y. Proestos, Phys. Rev. D 82, 034504 (2010) [arXiv:1006.0558 [hep-lat]]

    2010 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Boinepalli, D

    S. Boinepalli, D. B. Leinweber, P. J. Moran, A. G. Williams, J. M. Zanotti and J. B. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 80, 054505 (2009) [arXiv:0902.4046 [hep-lat]]

    2009 arXiv

  68. [76]

    T. M. Aliev, K. Azizi and M. Savci, Phys. Lett. B 681, 240 (2009) [arXiv:0904.2485 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  69. [77]

    A. J. Buchmann and E. M. Henley, Eur. Phys. J. A 35, 267 (2008) [arXiv:0808.1165 [hep-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 132001 (2018) [arXiv:1710.00150 [hep-ex]]

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

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