Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 62 references

Color transparency in $\bar p d \to \pi^- \pi^0 p$ reaction

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 predicts that color transparency should show up as a factor-of-2–3 shift in the nuclear transparency ratio of exclusive $\bar p d \to \pi^- \pi^0 p$ scattering, making the reaction a practical test of QCD's small-size quark…

desk verdict A useful exploratory prediction for \bar p d -> pi- pi0 p at PANDA, but the headline factor 2-3 CT signal partly rests on applying color transparency to the incoming antiproton before the hard vertex, which is not standard. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00379 v2 pith:TZ7MWAV4 submitted 2019-09-01 nucl-th hep-exhep-phnucl-ex

A.B. Larionov , M. Strikman This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thhep-exhep-phnucl-ex
keywords colortransparencynuclearratiogeneralizedeikonalapproximationquantumdiffusionmodelantiproton-deuteronscatteringexclusivetwo-pionproductionspectatorprotoncoherencelength
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 predicts that color transparency—the reduced interaction of small-size quark configurations formed in hard collisions—should be visible in exclusive antiproton–deuteron scattering to two pions and a proton at beam momenta around 10 GeV/c. Without color transparency, rescattering of the antiproton and the pions off the spectator proton produces a characteristic pattern: absorption at low spectator transverse momentum and enhancement at high transverse momentum. The paper finds that color transparency suppresses these rescattering amplitudes, pushing the nuclear transparency ratio toward the impulse-approximation value and changing it by a factor of 2–3 in the absorption and rescattering regions. It also argues that this difference can be seen with a modest number of events, making the reaction a practical test of color transparency.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the quantum-diffusion model of color transparency, implemented through a position-dependent effective cross section $\sigma_{\mathrm{eff}}^{hp}(p_h, |z|)$ that grows linearly from a suppressed value over the coherence length $l_h = 2 p_h / \Delta M^2$, with $\Delta M^2 = 0.7$–$1.1$ GeV$^2$. This effective cross section replaces the constant total cross section inside the elastic rescattering amplitudes of the generalized eikonal approximation, so that rescattering is weaker when the struck system is still small. The transparency ratio $T = |M_{\mathrm{IA}} + M_{\bar p} + M_{\pi^-} + M_{\pi^0}|^2 / |M_{\mathrm{IA}}|^2$ then carries the predicted signal.

What would settle it

Measure the transparency ratio $T(p_{st}, \phi)$ in $\bar p d \to \pi^- \pi^0 p$ at 10–15 GeV/c and bin by spectator transverse momentum and relative azimuthal angle. If the no-color-transparency generalized eikonal calculation is correct, the absorption dip at $p_{st} \lesssim 0.3$ GeV/c and the out-of-plane enhancement at $p_{st} \gtrsim 0.3$ GeV/c should persist; if color transparency is present, $T$ should move toward the impulse-approximation value by roughly a factor of 2–3 in those bins. A sample of about $10^4$ to $10^6$ events in the specified phase space is enough to distinguish the two predictions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes a model calculation in which, for the exclusive reaction $\bar p d \to \pi^- \pi^0 p$ at 5–15 GeV/c, the nuclear transparency ratio $T$ is computed coherently from the impulse amplitude plus antiproton and pion rescattering on the spectator proton. Its central result is that including color transparency via a quantum-diffusion effective cross section suppresses those rescattering amplitudes: the predicted $T$ is closer to the impulse-approximation shape, being increased in the absorption region and decreased in the rescattering region by a factor of 2–3 relative to the same calculation without color transparency. The paper argues that this is a practical signature because the required event samples are modest and the effect becomes stronger with increasing beam momentum.

Load-bearing premise

The prediction rests on the quantum-diffusion input, taken from earlier work, that the effective cross section grows linearly with distance over $l_h = 2 p_h / \Delta M^2$ with $\Delta M^2 = 0.7$–$1.1$ GeV$^2$; if that expansion rate is wrong, the factor of 2–3 changes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The transparency ratio $T(p_{st}, \phi)$ in this reaction should lie between the no-color-transparency generalized eikonal result and the impulse approximation, with less deepening of the absorption region ($p_{st} \lesssim 0.3$ GeV/c) and less enhancement of the rescattering region ($p_{st} \gtrsim 0.3$ GeV/c).
  • At fixed kinematics, including color transparency changes $T$ by roughly a factor of 2–3, with the effect more pronounced at 15 GeV/c than at 5 GeV/c.
  • The azimuthal pattern—minima at $\phi = 90^\circ$ and $270^\circ$ for small $p_{st}$, maxima there for large $p_{st}$—is smoothed by color transparency, most visibly in out-of-plane kinematics at high beam momentum.
  • A few tens of thousands of events in the selected phase space suffice to distinguish the color-transparency calculation from the no-color-transparency one, so the reaction is experimentally accessible in the near term.
  • Choosing the light-cone variable $\beta \approx 1.5$ instead of $\beta \approx 1$ raises the cross section by an order of magnitude while preserving the color-transparency signal, improving event rates.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the mechanism is correct, the same position-dependent suppression should appear in related mesonic channels such as $\bar p d \to K^- K^0 p$ and $\bar p d \to \pi^- \gamma p$; comparing several channels would separate the QCD small-size effect from details of the final-state interaction.
  • Moving to heavier targets, $A(\bar p, \pi^- \pi^0)(A-1)^*$, color transparency should reduce absorption relative to the generalized eikonal prediction more strongly than in the deuteron, because the coherence length of 4–6 fm is comparable to medium-size nuclei; this yields a sharper nuclear-size dependence to test.
  • A companion test is quasi-elastic $\bar p p$ scattering: because quark exchange is forbidden there, small-size configurations should not form and no color-transparency enhancement is expected, so the contrast between the two-pion channel and the quasi-elastic channel would isolate the point-like configuration mechanism.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the exclusive reaction \bar p d -> \pi^- \pi^0 p at beam momenta 5-15 GeV/c, in kinematics where the elementary \bar p n -> \pi^- \pi^0 subprocess has large momentum transfer. The model combines an impulse-approximation amplitude with three elastic-rescattering amplitudes (antiproton rescattering on the spectator proton, and \pi^- and \pi^0 rescattering on the spectator) evaluated in the generalized eikonal approximation. Color transparency is implemented through the quantum diffusion model, replacing the constant elastic rescattering amplitudes by position-dependent amplitudes with an effective cross section that grows from a small value near the hard vertex to the full hadron-proton cross section over the coherence length. The central claim is that CT strongly suppresses rescattering and changes the transparency ratio T(p_st, \phi) by a factor of 2-3 in the absorption and rescattering regions, and that this effect is observable at PANDA with modest statistics based on Monte-Carlo event-rate estimates.

Significance. If the prediction is correct, the paper offers a new exclusive channel for color-transparency studies at PANDA and a concrete observable, the p_st- and \phi-dependence of the transparency ratio, that is largely insensitive to the very rough normalization of the elementary \bar p n -> \pi^- \pi^0 amplitude because the amplitude factors out of the ratio. The explicit reduction from Feynman diagrams to the pole-approximated GEA amplitudes is a strength, as is the inclusion of Monte-Carlo feasibility estimates. The main limitation is that the quantitative factor 2-3 is controlled by the assumed QDM input, Eq. (23), and, in particular, by the application of CT to the initial-state antiproton rescattering; the paper does not justify that application against the standard treatment in the (p,2p) literature.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 2.1, Eq. (23) applied to Eq. (17)] The CT suppression is imposed on the initial-state antiproton rescattering diagram (b), in which the \bar p scatters on the spectator proton before reaching the hard \bar p n -> \pi^- \pi^0 vertex. In the standard QDM picture used in the A(p,2p) CT literature, the point-like configuration is created at the hard vertex and expands afterwards; the incident hadron has not yet undergone the hard interaction when it rescatters, so its attenuation should be described by the full cross section. The sentence after Eq. (22), 'hadrons participating in a hard collision', does not distinguish initial- from final-state rescattering. The numerical impact is significant: for plab=15 GeV/c, \beta=1, the hard scale is roughly Q^2 \approx 7.5 GeV^2, \langle n_{\bar p}^2 k_{ht}^2\rangle \approx 1.1 GeV^2 and l_h \approx 8 fm for \Delta M^2=0.7 GeV^2, so Eq. (23) gives \sigma_eff/\sigma_tot \approx 0.35 already at |z| \approx 2 fm, a factor \sim 3 suppression of the \bar p rescattering amplitude relative to the GEA. Since the text states that \bar p rescattering alone already produces strong deviations from IA, this suppression is plausibly the dominant source of the factor 2-3 separation between the GEA and CT curves in Figs. 4-5. The authors should either justify the application of CT before the hard vertex or recompute the predictions with CT applied only to the final-state pion rescattering amplitudes (diagrams (c) and (d)) and show how much of the claimed signal survives.
  2. [Sec. 2.1, Eq. (23)] The headline 'factor of 2-3' in Sec. 5 is not a parameter-free prediction but an output of the QDM ansatz. The grey bands in Figs. 4-7 scan only the mass denominator \Delta M^2; the values \langle k_{ht}^2\rangle^{1/2}=0.35 GeV/c, the valence-parton numbers n_h, and the linear interpolation of \sigma_eff between the PLC and full-strength regimes are fixed. Because T is a ratio of cross sections and the elementary amplitude cancels in the pole approximation, the GEA-versus-CT separation in Figs. 4-5 is essentially determined by the functional form of Eq. (23). The authors should state this limitation explicitly and, ideally, show the sensitivity of T to \langle k_{ht}^2\rangle^{1/2} and to the assumed z-dependence of \sigma_eff.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (22)] The displayed form-factor modification in Eq. (22), 'Gh(t \cdot \sigma_eff^{hp}(p_h,|z|)/\sigma_tot^{hp}) Gh(t)', appears to be garbled in the typeset text; please check that the QDM-modified form-factor argument is shown correctly.
  2. [Sec. 2.2] The caveat that the elementary \bar p n -> \pi^- \pi^0 amplitude is 'quite rough' and should be normalized to quasifree data is appropriate, but it should be carried into the abstract and conclusions, since the absolute differential cross sections in Figs. 2-3 are model-normalized; the transparency ratio is the more robust observable.
  3. [Figs. 8-9 and Table I] The labels in Figs. 8-9 and Table I write 'p-d' and 'p-d -> \pi^- \pi^0 ps' without the bar on the antiproton; also, showing statistical error bars in Figs. 8-9 would better substantiate the claim that the GEA/CT separation is visible with the stated event counts.
  4. [Sec. 3, Figs. 4-5] The statement that CT 'smooths down the structures' in T is true in the absorption region, but in the rescattering region T(CT) can exceed T(GEA) in some bins; the text should be phrased more carefully to avoid implying a uniform reduction of T.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the CT suppression is an explicit model input, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained as a model application. The transparency ratio T = |M^(a)+M^(b)+M^(c)+M^(d)|^2/|M^(a)|^2 (Eq. 35) is computed from the coherent sum of the impulse approximation amplitude and three generalized eikonal rescattering integrals (Eqs. 17-19). The hard bar-p n -> pi- pi0 amplitude is fixed independently by a nucleon/Delta-exchange model whose cutoff parameters are adjusted to external bar-p p -> pi- pi+ data (Appendix A), and the soft elastic amplitudes use measured total cross sections, slopes, and rho parameters (Appendix A2-A3). The quantum diffusion model effective cross section, Eq. (23), is introduced as an explicit modeling assumption with parameters (<k_ht^2>, Delta M^2, form factors) taken from prior literature, and that literature is independently constrained by pion- and rho-meson electroproduction data at TJNAF (refs. [41-45]); this is external evidence rather than a self-citation chain. The qualitative statement that color transparency suppresses rescattering is indeed built into Eq. (23), since sigma_eff <= sigma_tot for |z| < l_h, but the paper presents this as the model being tested, not as a derived prediction. The quantitative factor-of-2-3 changes and the p_st and phi shapes of T emerge from the interference integrals, not from any fitted parameter tied to the target observable. The application of CT to the initial-state antiproton rescattering (diagram b) before the hard vertex is physically debatable, which is a possible correctness risk, but it is a modeling assumption rather than a circular reduction: no target quantity is used to define an input. Self-citations to refs. [13,28,35,40] are present, but they support the model pedigree and are not the sole justification of the central numerical claim. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported, and no known result is merely relabeled. Hence no significant circularity is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central predictions rest on the quantum diffusion model, the generalized eikonal approximation, the Paris deuteron wave function, and an elementary annihilation amplitude whose parameters were fitted to \bar pp -> pi- pi+ data. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Lambda_piNN = 2.0 GeV
    Cutoff in the piNN vertex form factor; chosen to reproduce the t-dependence of dsigma(\bar pp -> pi- pi+)/dt at plab=5 GeV/c (Appendix A1).
  • Lambda_piNDelta = 1.8 GeV
    Cutoff in the piNDelta vertex form factor; chosen together with Lambda_piNN to match the shape of the \bar pp -> pi- pi+ cross section (Appendix A1).
  • Omega = 0.008
    Global factor multiplying the \bar N N -> pi pi amplitude, fitted to the absolute cross section at Theta_cm=90 degrees (Appendix A1); controls absolute rates and PANDA event counts.
  • Delta M^2 = 0.7 to 1.1 GeV^2
    Mass denominator in coherence length l_h=2 p_h / Delta M^2, Eq. (24); taken from refs [13,28] and varied as a band. The central CT prediction is directly sensitive to this parameter.
  • <k_ht^2>^(1/2) = 0.35 GeV/c
    Average transverse parton momentum in the scattered hadron, entering the sigma_eff formula Eq. (23); an input from prior literature, not derived here.
  • Elastic parameters sigma_tot, B, rho for \bar p p, pi+ p, pi- p = plab-dependent fits from refs [47,51-53]
    These enter the rescattering amplitudes (A2)-(A3) and the sigma_eff formula (22); they are experimental fits taken as inputs, not free parameters of this paper.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Generalized eikonal approximation: linearization of inverse propagators, pole approximation, and neglect of Fermi motion in nucleon energies
    Eqs. (8)-(14) reduce the rescattering amplitudes by keeping only the particle pole and linearizing p'^2 - m^2; this is central to all numerical results.
  • domain assumption Quantum diffusion model: sigma_eff grows linearly with |z| up to l_h and equals sigma_tot beyond (Eq. 23)
    This is the CT input; it is quoted from refs [35,40] and not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption Hard annihilation amplitude M_ann varies weakly and is factored out of rescattering integrals
    Used to obtain Eqs. (8)-(10); relies on a hard/soft scale separation.
  • domain assumption Nonrelativistic deuteron wave function from the Paris potential
    Used for phi(p) and phi(r), and stated to be valid for the alpha_s=1 kinematics considered.
  • ad hoc to paper Elementary \bar p n -> pi- pi0 amplitude model with nucleon and Delta exchanges and vertex form factors
    Appendix A1 describes a model from ref. [34] with parameters fitted to \bar pp data; the paper admits it is rough.
  • domain assumption Neglect of charge exchange, rho -> pi transitions, and double rescattering amplitudes
    Sec. 2 justifies these by small cross sections and by prior analysis in ref. [28]; only small corrections are expected.
  • domain assumption Elastic rescattering amplitudes conserve spin projections and are spin-independent
    Sec. 2 states this simplification explicitly; reasonable for small momentum transfers but still an assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Color transparency in $\bar p d \to \pi^- \pi^0 p$ reaction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TZ7MWAV4

@misc{pith2026190900379,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Color transparency in $\bar p d \to \pi^- \pi^0 p$ reaction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TZ7MWAV4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00379}
}
abstract

We consider exclusive two-pion production in antiproton-deuteron interactions at the beam momenta around 10 GeV/c in the kinematics with large momentum transfer in the underlying hard process $\bar p n \to \pi^- \pi^0$. The calculations are performed taking into account the antiproton and pion soft rescattering on the spectator proton in the framework of the generalized eikonal approximation. We focus on the color transparency effect that is modeled by introducing the dependence of rescattering amplitudes on the relative position of the struck and spectator nucleons along the momentum of a fast particle. As a consequence of the interplay between the impulse approximation and rescattering amplitudes the nuclear transparency ratio reveals a pretty complicated behaviour as a function of the transverse momentum of the spectator proton and the relative azimuthal angle between the $\pi^-$-meson and the proton. Color transparency significantly suppresses rescattering amplitudes which leads to substantial modifications of the nuclear transparency ratio moving it closer to the value obtained in the impulse approximation. By performing the Monte-Carlo analysis we determine that this effect can be studied at PANDA with a reasonable statistics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.00379 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Feynman diagrams for the process ¯p [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Four-differential cross section ¯p [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Same as Fig. 2 but for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Transparency ratio (see Eq.(35)) for the process ¯p [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Same as Fig. 4 but for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Transparency ratio (see Eq.(35)) for the process ¯p [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Same as Fig. 6 but for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Transparency ratio calculated in the MC simulation ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Transparency ratio from the MC simulation at the beam [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Differential cross section ¯p [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    INTRODUCTION It is widely accepted starting with the classical paper of F. Low [1] th at small size color singlets interact with hadrons with a reduced strength which, howe ver, grows with energy since the cross section is proportional to the gluon strength at sm all x [2–4]. This pattern is a distinctive feature of QCD. The first clear evidence of the sma...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Hence the charge exchange processes and the transitions ρ → π can be safely neglected and we will keep elastic rescattering only

    THE MODEL At the beam momenta of ∼ 5−15 GeV/c the differential cross sections of charge exchange dσ¯pp→¯nn/dt [30], dσπ −p→π 0n/dt [31] and the inelastic cross section dσπ +p→ρ+p/dt [32] at t = 0 are about two orders of magnitude smaller than the respective elas tic differential cross sections at t = 0. Hence the charge exchange processes and the transition...

    work page

  3. [3]

    RESUL TS All calculations are performed in the transverse kinematics, αs = 1, where the used non-relativistic description of the DWF is expected to be valid (cf. [28 ]). In Fig. 2 we display the spectator transverse momentum, pst, dependence of the four-differential cross section, Eq.(32), calculated for three values of the beam momentu m, plab = 5, 10 and...

    work page

  4. [4]

    we set p′ s = 0

    In the last step of Eq.(14) the Fermi motion of the on shell interme - diate spectator is neglected, i.e. we set p′ s = 0. The inverse propagator of the π−-meson can be obtained by using Eqs.(13),(14) with replacement of the subscrip t 2 → 1. Eqs.(11),(13) are the main assumptions of the GEA. Similar expressio ns appear in other calculations based on the ...

    work page

  5. [5]

    = ∫ d3r (2π)3/ 2 e−ip′ 1rφ(r) , r = r1 − rs . (16) We will now put the intermediate fast particles on the mass shell by se tting kz = ∆ 0 ¯p, ∆ 0 2 and ∆ 0 1 in the elementary elastic rescattering amplitudes M¯pp(t), Mπ 0p(t) and Mπ −p(t), respectively. This allows to perform integration over p′z s in Eqs.(8),(9),(10) analytically. Then, after integration...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Lett. B748, 392 (2015), arXiv:1412.4092 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2015

  7. [7]

    Chatrchyan et al

    S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS), Eur. Phys. J. C74, 2951 (2014), arXiv:1401.4433 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2014

  8. [8]

    Two types of MC simulations have been performed

    MONTE-CARLO SIMULA TIONS We have performed Monte-Carlo (MC) simulations primarily aimed to ev aluate event rates at PANDA. Two types of MC simulations have been performed. In the first simulation run, we have calculated the integrated cross section applying the kinematic cuts on the produced particles. The integrated cross se ction has been calculated as f...

    work page

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    SUMMAR Y AND OUTLOOK Based on the GEA method, we have developed the model for the exc lusive channel ¯pd → π−π0p at plab ∼ 10 GeV/c for large momentum transfer in the elementary process 21 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 90 180 270 360 pst > 0.3 GeV/c, α s=1±0.1, β=1±0.1 (a) T φ (deg) p-d → π...

  2. [10]

    F. E. Low, Phys. Rev. D12, 163 (1975)

    1975

  3. [11]

    Frankfurt, G

    L. Frankfurt, G. A. Miller, and M. Strikman, Phys. Lett. B304, 1 (1993), arXiv:hep-ph/9305228 [hep-ph]

    1993 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Blaettel, G

    B. Blaettel, G. Baym, L. L. Frankfurt, and M. Strikman, Ph ys. Rev. Lett. 70, 896 (1993)

    1993

  5. [13]

    Frankfurt, A

    L. Frankfurt, A. Radyushkin, and M. Strikman, Phys. Rev. D55, 98 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9610274 [hep-ph]

    1997 arXiv

  6. [14]

    The reason for CT is that the lo ngitudinally polarized photon consists of a q ¯q pair having a transverse size ∼ 1/Q

    is valid which leads to the CT regime. The reason for CT is that the lo ngitudinally polarized photon consists of a q ¯q pair having a transverse size ∼ 1/Q. There are several classes of the exclusive processes where large momentum transfer may lead to the transition to the CT...

  7. [15]

    E. M. Aitala et al. (E791), Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 4773 (2001), arXiv:hep-ex/0010044 [hep-ex]

    2001 arXiv

  8. [16]

    El Fassi et al

    L. El Fassi et al. (CLAS), Phys. Lett. B712, 326 (2012)

    2012

  9. [17]

    Adare et al

    A. Adare et al. (PHENIX), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 122301 (2016), arXiv:1509.04657 [nucl-ex]

    2016

  10. [18]

    Alvioli, L

    M. Alvioli, L. Frankfurt, D. Perepelitsa, and M. Strikma n, Phys. Rev. D98, 071502 (2018), arXiv:1709.04993 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  11. [19]

    S. J. Brodsky, in Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on Multipar ticle Dynamics , edited by W. Kittel, W. Metzger, and A. Stergiou (World Scien tific, Singapore, 1982) p. 963

    1982

  12. [20]

    A. H. Mueller, in Proceedings of the 17th Rencontres de Moriond , Vol. I, edited by J. Tran Thanh Van (Editions Frontieres, Gif-sur-Yvette, Fr ance, 1982) p. 13

    1982

  13. [21]

    S. J. Brodsky and A. H. Mueller, Phys. Lett. B206, 685 (1988)

    1988

  14. [22]

    Dutta, K

    D. Dutta, K. Hafidi, and M. Strikman, Prog.Part.Nucl.Ph ys. 69, 1 (2013)

    2013

  15. [23]

    J. C. Collins, L. Frankfurt, and M. Strikman, Phys.Rev. D56, 2982 (1997)

    1997

  16. [24]

    Clasie et al

    B. Clasie et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 242502 (2007)

    2007

  17. [25]

    V. A. Matveev, R. M. Muradian, and A. N. Tavkhelidze, Let t. Nuovo Cim. 7, 719 (1973)

    1973

  18. [26]

    A. S. Carroll et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 1698 (1988). 24

    1988

  19. [27]

    Mardor et al

    I. Mardor et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5085 (1998)

    1998

  20. [28]

    7 of ref

    for the case of d(p, 2p)n process (see Fig. 7 of ref. [28])

  21. [29]

    Leksanov et al

    A. Leksanov et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 212301 (2001), arXiv:hep-ex/0104039 [hep-ex]

    2001 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Aclander et al

    J. Aclander et al. , Phys. Rev. C70, 015208 (2004), arXiv:nucl-ex/0405025 [nucl-ex]

    2004 arXiv

  23. [31]

    S. J. Brodsky and G. F. de Teramond, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 1924 (1988)

    1988

  24. [32]

    J. P. Ralston and B. Pire, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 1823 (1988)

    1988

  25. [33]

    Van Overmeire and J

    B. Van Overmeire and J. Ryckebusch, Phys. Lett. B644, 304 (2007), arXiv:nucl-th/0608040 [nucl-th]

    2007 arXiv

  26. [34]

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

    1973

  27. [35]

    C. E. Carlson, M. Chachkhunashvili, and F. Myhrer, Phys . Rev. D46, 2891 (1992)

    1992

  28. [36]

    The PANDA Collaboration, M. F. M. Lutz, B. Pire, O. Schol ten, and R. Timmermans, arXiv:0903.3905 (2009)

    2009

  29. [37]

    L. L. Frankfurt, E. Piasetzky, M. M. Sargsian, and M. I. S trikman, Phys. Rev. C56, 2752 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9607395 [hep-ph]

    1997 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Lacombe, B

    M. Lacombe, B. Loiseau, R. Vinh Mau, J. Cote, P. Pires, an d R. de Tourreil, Phys. Lett. 101B, 139 (1981)

    1981

  31. [39]

    J. G. Lee et al. , Nucl. Phys. B52, 292 (1973)

    1973

  32. [40]

    W. D. Apel et al. (Serpukhov-CERN), Phys. Lett. 72B, 132 (1977), [Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.26,659(1977)]

    1977

  33. [41]

    Evans, K

    D. Evans, K. Neat, C. Caso, U. Trevisan, P. Antich, G. Cec chet, S. Ratti, P. Daronian, A. Daudin, and C. Lewin, Nuovo Cim. A16, 299 (1973)

    1973

  34. [42]

    V. B. Berestetskii, E. M. Lifshitz, and L. P. Pitaevskii , Relativistic Quantum Theory (Perg- amon Press, 1971)

    1971

  35. [43]

    A. B. Larionov, A. Gillitzer, J. Haidenbauer, and M. Str ikman, Phys. Rev. C98, 054611 (2018), arXiv:1807.05105 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  36. [44]

    L. L. Frankfurt, W. R. Greenberg, G. A. Miller, M. M. Sarg sian, and M. I. Strikman, Z. Phys. A352, 97 (1995), arXiv:nucl-th/9501009 [nucl-th]

    1995 arXiv

  37. [45]

    L. L. Frankfurt, M. M. Sargsian, and M. I. Strikman, Phys . Rev. C 56, 1124 (1997), arXiv:nucl-th/9603018 [nucl-th]

    1997 arXiv

  38. [46]

    M. M. Sargsian, Int. J. of Mod. Phys. E 10, 405 (2001)

    2001

  39. [47]

    A. B. Larionov, A. Gillitzer, and M. Strikman, (2019), a rXiv:1905.10419 [nucl-th]. 25

    2019 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Varshalovich, A

    D. Varshalovich, A. Moskalev, and V. Khersonskii, Quantum Theory of Angular Momentum (World Scientific, Singapore, 1988)

    1988

  41. [49]

    Farrar, H

    G. Farrar, H. Liu, L. Frankfurt, and M. Strikman, Phys. R ev. Lett. 61, 686 (1988)

    1988

  42. [50]

    Dutta et al

    D. Dutta et al. (Jefferson Lab E940104), Phys. Rev. C68, 021001 (2003), arXiv:nucl-ex/0305005 [nucl-ex]

    2003 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Larson, G

    A. Larson, G. A. Miller, and M. Strikman, Phys. Rev. C74, 018201 (2006)

    2006

  44. [52]

    Cosyn, M

    W. Cosyn, M. C. Martinez, and J. Ryckebusch, Phys. Rev. C77, 034602 (2008), arXiv:0710.4837 [nucl-th]

    2008 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Frankfurt, G

    L. Frankfurt, G. A. Miller, and M. Strikman, Phys. Rev. C78, 015208 (2008), arXiv:0803.4012 [nucl-th]

    2008 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Gallmeister, M

    K. Gallmeister, M. Kaskulov, and U. Mosel, Phys. Rev. C83, 015201 (2011), arXiv:1007.1141 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  47. [55]

    S. R. Amendolia et al. (NA7), Proceedings, 23RD International Conference on High Energy Physics, JULY 16-23, 1986, Berkeley, CA , Nucl. Phys. B277, 168 (1986)

    1986

  48. [56]

    Montanet et al

    L. Montanet et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D50, 1173 (1994)

    1994

  49. [57]

    A. B. Larionov and M. Strikman, Phys. Lett. B760, 753 (2016), arXiv:1606.00761 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Strikman and A

    M. Strikman and A. B. Larionov, in Workshop on High-Intensity Photon Sources (HIPS2017) Mini-Proceedings (2017) pp. 55–58

    2017

  51. [59]

    White et al

    C. White et al. , Phys. Rev. D49, 58 (1994)

    1994

  52. [60]

    A. B. Larionov and H. Lenske, Nucl. Phys. A957, 450 (2017), arXiv:1609.03343 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Patrignani et al

    C. Patrignani et al. (Particle Data Group), Chin. Phys. C40, 100001 (2016)

    2016

  54. [62]

    J. P. Burq et al. , Nucl. Phys. B217, 285 (1983). 26 Appendix A: Elementary amplitudes A1. ¯pn → π −π 0 For the ¯N N → ππ annihilation amplitude we apply the nucleon and ∆ exchange model in a version described in Appendix C of ref. [34]. The powers of the ver tex form factors ...

    1983

Pith tools

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