Signatures of the $\Omega(2012)^{-}$ state in $\Xi^*\bar K$ Correlation Functions

Albert Feijoo; Jia-Xin Lin; Miguel Albaladejo; Pablo Encarnaci\'on

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Signatures of the $\Omega(2012)^{-}$ state in $\Xi^*\bar K$ Correlation Functions

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-13 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read The Ξ*0 K− femtoscopic correlation function is predicted to show a clear near-threshold valley that fingerprints the Ω(2012) as a molecular state.

desk verdict First solid CF predictions for Ξ* K-bar that flag the Ω(2012) pole as a clean near-threshold probe, ready for ALICE. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.18610 v2 pith:X7ZBN7OS submitted 2026-03-19 hep-ph

Jia-Xin Lin , Pablo Encarnación , Albert Feijoo , Miguel Albaladejo This is my paper

classification hep-ph

keywords Ω(2012)femtoscopycorrelationfunctionsmolecularstateschiralunitaryapproachΞ*K-barstrangenessS=-3

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that the Ω(2012) resonance is a dynamically generated quasi-bound state of Ξ* K-bar and Ω η, and that its presence leaves a sharp, measurable imprint on the two-particle correlation function of Ξ*0 K− pairs produced in high-energy collisions. By fitting a coupled-channel chiral model to the measured mass, width and branching fraction of the resonance, the authors obtain quantitative predictions for the correlation functions of Ξ*0 K−, Ξ*− K-bar0 and Ω− η systems. The Ξ*0 K− correlation function develops a pronounced valley-like structure right at threshold because the resonance pole sits only about 10 MeV below that threshold; that structure is highly sensitive both to the precise pole position and to the molecular composition of the state. The calculation therefore supplies the first concrete theoretical benchmark that experimental groups can use to test the molecular picture of the Ω(2012) with femtoscopy rather than with conventional invariant-mass spectra alone.

What carries the argument

The unitarized coupled-channel T-matrix generated from the Weinberg–Tomozawa s-wave potentials plus phenomenological d-wave couplings α and β, inserted into the Koonin–Pratt formula for the two-particle correlation function; the resonance pole of that T-matrix produces the near-threshold structure in C(p).

What would settle it

A high-statistics measurement of the Ξ*0 K− correlation function at source sizes around 1 fm that shows no near-threshold valley structure (or a structure incompatible with the predicted shape once production weights and source-size uncertainties are accounted for).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within a coupled-channel chiral unitary framework constrained by the experimental mass, width and branching fraction of the Ω(2012), the Ξ*0 K− correlation function exhibits a pronounced near-threshold valley that is a direct signature of the nearby resonance pole and of the state’s Ξ* K-bar–Ω η molecular composition; this correlation function is therefore a clean and highly selective experimental probe of the resonance.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes that all isospin-one d-wave transitions and the pure isospin-one π0 Ω channel can be neglected, so that only the isospin-zero dynamics that generate the Ω(2012) matter.

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

The real news here is the first quantitative Ξ*0K−, Ξ*−K0 and Ωη correlation functions from a chiral-unitary T-matrix that has been refitted to the updated Belle mass, width and RΞKπ/ΞK. Everything else is standard machinery, but the CFs themselves and the claim that Ξ*0K− is the cleanest selective probe are new and immediately usable by the LHC femtoscopy groups.

They do the technical work carefully. The Bethe-Salpeter solution, the spectral integration over the Ξ* width, the d-wave factors in the G-functions, and the Koonin-Pratt formula with production weights from the VLC method are all correctly implemented. Parameters (Λ, α, β) are fixed to three observables and then used for genuine predictions; the 68 % bands include Monte-Carlo propagation of fit errors, weights and a 10 % source-size uncertainty. Compositeness comes out ~80 % molecular, scattering lengths are large and attractive, and the near-threshold valley in the Ξ*0K− CF survives both with and without the Ξ* width. Citation coverage of both the molecular and quark-model literature is honest.

Soft spots are the usual effective-theory ones and are stated openly: I=1 d-wave Ξ*K¯↔ΞK transitions and the pure I=1 π0Ω channel are dropped, d-wave ΞK↔ΞK is set to zero, and the two cut-offs are forced equal. None of these erase the predicted structures, because the resonance is I=0 and the neglected pieces are expected to be smaller. No code is shipped, so independent numerical checks will take some effort. That is the only real reproducibility caveat.

This is for people who actually measure or interpret S=−3 femtoscopy at the LHC, and for anyone still arguing about the molecular versus three-quark nature of the Ω(2012). The math and the data handling look solid; the central claim is falsifiable. I would send it to a serious referee without hesitation and would cite the CF figures myself if I were writing on the topic in the next year. Worth engaging.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the Ω(2012)− in the S=−3 sector within a coupled-channel chiral unitary approach. The resonance is generated as a quasi-bound Ξ∗K̄–Ωη molecular state, with d-wave couplings to ΞK̄. Three free parameters (Λ, α, β) are fixed to the experimental mass, width, and Belle branching fraction RΞKπ/ΞK, yielding M=(2012.53±0.73) MeV and Γ=(4.05±0.13) MeV. From the resulting T-matrix the authors compute the first quantitative femtoscopic correlation functions for Ξ∗0K−, Ξ∗−K̄0 and Ω−η (Koonin–Pratt formula, Gaussian source R=1.2 fm). The Ξ∗K̄ CFs display clear near-threshold valleys linked to the nearby Ω(2012) pole; the Ξ∗0K− CF is singled out as the cleanest experimental probe. Couplings, compositeness (~78 %), and scattering lengths are also reported.

Significance. If the predicted CF structures are confirmed, the work supplies a concrete, falsifiable benchmark for ALICE (and similar) femtoscopy programs and a direct test of the molecular interpretation of the Ω(2012). The calculation is the first quantitative CF prediction in this sector that is fully constrained by the measured mass, width and branching ratio; production-weight and source-size uncertainties are propagated into 68 % CL bands. The results therefore go beyond conventional invariant-mass analyses and offer a practical route to extract resonance properties and channel composition from two-particle correlations.

major comments (2)

Section II.A (after Eq. (1) and the following paragraph): the I=1 d-wave Ξ∗K̄ ↔ ΞK̄ transitions and the pure I=1 π°Ω channel are set to zero, and the d-wave ΞK̄ ↔ ΞK̄ interaction is neglected. While these choices are standard and the resonance is an I=0 state, a short quantitative estimate of their residual effect on the near-threshold CF shape (e.g., by varying the corresponding couplings within a plausible range) would strengthen the claim that the Ξ∗0K− valley is a robust, selective probe.
Section III and Fig. 1: the CF predictions are shown only for a single source size R=1.2 fm (with a 10 % uncertainty band). Because the depth and width of the near-threshold structure depend on R, a brief scan over a realistic range (e.g., 0.8–1.5 fm) would make the experimental benchmark more useful and would clarify how sensitive the claimed selectivity remains under source-size variation.

minor comments (5)

Table II: the compositeness entries for the open ΞK̄ channels are left blank; a short remark on why they are omitted (or an alternative measure such as |g_i G_i|) would improve clarity.
Eq. (15) and Table I: the production weights ω_j are taken from the VLC method of Ref. [58]. A one-sentence reminder of the main assumptions of that method would help non-specialist readers.
Figure 1 caption: the phrase “with and without the Ξ∗” is slightly ambiguous; rephrase as “with and without the finite width of the Ξ∗” for precision.
Section II.A: the statement that the d-wave ΞK̄ ↔ ΞK̄ matrix elements would carry a q^4 factor is correct, but a brief note that their omission is an approximation (rather than a symmetry requirement) would avoid possible misreading.
References: a few recent experimental papers on Ω(2012) production (ALICE, BESIII) are cited; ensuring that the most recent PDG averages are used for the input mass and width would keep the fit fully up to date.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: parameters are fitted to mass/width/BR, after which the CFs are genuine post-fit predictions from the T-matrix.

full rationale

The derivation chain is standard and non-circular. The potential (Eq. 1) and unitarized T-matrix (Eq. 4) are constructed from chiral WT terms plus two phenomenological d-wave couplings; the three free parameters (Λ, α, β) are then fitted to the experimental mass, width and Belle branching fraction R (Eqs. 18–20). Once the T-matrix is fixed, the femtoscopic correlation functions are obtained from the Koonin–Pratt formula (Eq. 15) that uses those T-matrix elements together with independently estimated production weights. The resulting near-threshold structures in the Ξ* K-bar CFs are therefore predictions for a new observable class, not quantities forced by construction to reproduce the fitted inputs. Self-citations supply the underlying chiral-unitary framework and the VLC production-weight method, but they are not load-bearing for the claim that the CFs exhibit pole-driven structures; those structures follow directly from the fitted T-matrix evaluated in the KP integral. Modeling choices (neglect of I=1 d-wave transitions, vanishing d-wave ΞK↔ΞK, etc.) are explicit assumptions, not circular reductions. The paper is therefore self-contained against external experimental benchmarks and contains no equation that equates a claimed prediction to a fitted input.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on three fitted parameters (Λ, α, β), the standard chiral unitary and Koonin-Pratt formalisms, and a handful of domain assumptions about neglected channels and equal cut-offs. No new particles or forces are invented; the molecular interpretation is taken from earlier work and only re-fitted.

free parameters (3)

Λ (UV cutoff) = 814 ± 1 MeV
Regularization scale for the loop functions; fitted to Ω(2012) mass, width and branching ratio.
α (d-wave Ξ*K ↔ ΞK coupling) = (3.62 ± 0.17)×10^{-8} MeV^{-3}
Phenomenological strength of the d-wave transition; fitted.
β (d-wave Ωη ↔ ΞK coupling) = (1.07 ± 0.10)×10^{-8} MeV^{-3}
Phenomenological strength of the second d-wave transition; fitted.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Leading-order Weinberg-Tomozawa s-wave potential plus phenomenological d-wave terms generate the Ω(2012) as a quasi-bound state.
Stated in §II.A and used throughout the unitarization; taken from the earlier molecular literature.
ad hoc to paper I=1 d-wave Ξ*K ↔ ΞK transitions and the π0Ω channel can be neglected.
Explicitly assumed after Eq. (1) because no experimental constraint exists and the resonance is pure I=0.
ad hoc to paper d-wave ΞK ↔ ΞK interaction is set to zero.
Stated in §II.A; simplifies the potential matrix.
domain assumption Source function is a Gaussian of radius R = 1.2 fm (with 10 % uncertainty).
Standard femtoscopy assumption used in Eq. (16) and Fig. 1.
domain assumption Production weights ω_j are those obtained by the VLC method of Encarnación et al.
Table I and Appendix reference; external input to the KP formula.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Signatures of the $\Omega(2012)^{-}$ state in $\Xi^*\bar K$ Correlation Functions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X7ZBN7OS

@misc{pith2026260318610,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Signatures of the $\Omega(2012)^-$ state in $\Xi^*\bar K$ Correlation Functions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X7ZBN7OS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.18610}
}

abstract

We investigate the $\Omega(2012)$ resonance in the strangeness $S=-3$ sector within a coupled-channel chiral unitary approach and present the first quantitative predictions for femtoscopic correlation functions directly sensitive to its dynamics. The $\Omega(2012)$ is dynamically generated as a quasi-bound $\Xi^{\ast}\bar K$-$\Omega\eta$ molecular state, with its coupling to the $\Xi\bar{K}$ channel driven by $d$-wave transitions. Model parameters are constrained by the measured mass, width, and the Belle determination of the branching fraction $\mathcal R^{\Xi\bar K\pi}_{\Xi\bar K}$, yielding $M_{\Omega(2012)}=(2012.53\pm0.73)$ MeV and $\Gamma_{\Omega(2012)}=(4.05\pm0.13)$ MeV. Within this framework, we compute the femtoscopic correlation functions of the $\Xi^{\ast0}K^-$, $\Xi^{\ast-}\bar K^0$, and $\Omega^-\eta$ systems. The $\Xi^{\ast}\bar K$ correlation functions exhibit pronounced near-threshold structures that arise from the proximity of the $\Omega(2012)$ pole, demonstrating an exceptional sensitivity to its position and coupled-channel composition. In particular, the $\Xi^{\ast0}K^-$ correlation function is identified as a clean and highly selective probe of the $\Omega(2012)$ resonance. These results establish femtoscopic correlation measurements as powerful tools for extracting resonance properties beyond conventional invariant-mass analyses and provide concrete theoretical benchmarks for upcoming experimental studies aimed at elucidating the molecular nature of the $\Omega(2012)$.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

Probing the hadronic molecular nature of the $\Omega(2012)$, $\Omega(2380)$, and $\Omega_c(3120)$ via femtoscopy correlation functions
hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

Correlation function calculations with coupled-channel potentials produce low-momentum enhancements that the authors interpret as signatures of the molecular structure of Ω(2012), Ω(2380), and Ωc(3120).
Probing the hadronic molecular nature of the $\Omega(2012)$, $\Omega(2380)$, and $\Omega_c(3120)$ via femtoscopy correlation functions
hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

Numerical correlation functions computed from effective potentials exhibit enhancements that indicate the hadronic molecular nature of the Ω(2012), Ω(2380), and Ωc(3120) resonances.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 50 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Acharya et al

S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), (2025), arXiv:2502.18063 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2025
[2]

Ablikimet al

M. Ablikimet al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 131903 (2025), arXiv:2411.11648 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2025
[3]

Jiaet al

S. Jiaet al. (Belle), Phys. Lett. B860, 139224 (2025), arXiv:2207.03090 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2025
[4]

Jia et al

S. Jia et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. D100, 032006 (2019), arXiv:1906.00194 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2019
[5]

Yelton et al

J. Yelton et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 052003 (2018), arXiv:1805.09384 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2018
[6]

G. P. Engel, C. B. Lang, D. Mohler, and A. Schäfer (BGR), Phys. Rev. D87, 074504 (2013), arXiv:1301.4318 [hep-lat]

arXiv 2013
[7]

Capstick and N

S. Capstick and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. D34, 2809 (1986)

1986
[8]

Loring, B

U. Loring, B. C. Metsch, and H. R. Petry, Eur. Phys. J. A10, 447 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0103290

arXiv 2001

Show all 65 references

[9]

Oh, Phys

Y. Oh, Phys. Rev. D75, 074002 (2007), arXiv:hep- ph/0702126

2007
[10]

Pervin and W

M. Pervin and W. Roberts, Phys. Rev. C77, 025202 (2008), arXiv:0709.4000 [nucl-th]

2008 arXiv
[11]

R. N. Faustov and V. O. Galkin, Phys. Rev. D92, 054005 (2015), arXiv:1507.04530 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[12]

Tanabashiet al

M. Tanabashiet al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D98, 030001 (2018)

2018
[13]

K.-T. Chao, N. Isgur, and G. Karl, Phys. Rev. D23, 155 (1981)

1981
[14]

C. S. Kalman, Phys. Rev. D26, 2326 (1982)

1982
[15]

C. S. An, B. C. Metsch, and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. C 87, 065207 (2013), arXiv:1304.6046 [hep-ph]

2013 arXiv
[16]

C. S. An and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. C89, 055209 (2014), arXiv:1403.7897 [hep-ph]. 8

2014 arXiv
[17]

Liang, W

J. Liang, W. Sun, Y. Chen, W.-F. Qiu, M. Gong, C. Liu, Y.-B. Liu, Z. Liu, J.-P. Ma, and J.-B. Zhang (CLQCD), Chin. Phys. C40, 041001 (2016), arXiv:1511.04294 [hep- lat]

2016 arXiv
[18]

Xiao and X.-H

L.-Y. Xiao and X.-H. Zhong, Phys. Rev. D98, 034004 (2018), arXiv:1805.11285 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[19]

T. M. Aliev, K. Azizi, Y. Sarac, and H. Sundu, Phys. Rev. D98, 014031 (2018), arXiv:1806.01626 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[20]

T. M. Aliev, K. Azizi, Y. Sarac, and H. Sundu, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 894 (2018), arXiv:1807.02145 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[21]

Wang, L.-C

Z.-Y. Wang, L.-C. Gui, Q.-F. Lü, L.-Y. Xiao, and X.-H. Zhong, Phys. Rev. D98, 114023 (2018), arXiv:1810.08318 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[22]

M.V.Polyakov,H.-D.Son,B.-D.Sun, andA.Tandogan, Phys. Lett. B792, 315 (2019), arXiv:1806.04427 [hep- ph]

2019 arXiv
[23]

M.-S.Liu,K.-L.Wang,Q.-F.Lü, andX.-H.Zhong,Phys. Rev. D101, 016002 (2020), arXiv:1910.10322 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[24]

X. Liu, H. Huang, J. Ping, and D. Chen, Phys. Rev. C 103, 025202 (2021), arXiv:2010.15398 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[25]

A. J. Arifi, D. Suenaga, A. Hosaka, and Y. Oh, Phys. Rev. D105, 094006 (2022), arXiv:2201.10427 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[26]

Zhong, R.-H

H.-H. Zhong, R.-H. Ni, M.-Y. Chen, X.-H. Zhong, and J.-J. Xie, Chin. Phys. C47, 063104 (2023), arXiv:2209.09398 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[27]

Wang, Q.-F

K.-L. Wang, Q.-F. Lü, J.-J. Xie, and X.-H. Zhong, Phys. Rev. D107, 034015 (2023), arXiv:2203.04458 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[28]

Luo and X

S.-Q. Luo and X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D112, 014047 (2025), arXiv:2504.14648 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[29]

M. P. Valderrama, Phys. Rev. D98, 054009 (2018), arXiv:1807.00718 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[30]

Lin and B.-S

Y.-H. Lin and B.-S. Zou, Phys. Rev. D98, 056013 (2018), arXiv:1807.00997 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[31]

Pavao and E

R. Pavao and E. Oset, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 857 (2018), arXiv:1808.01950 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[32]

Huang, M.-Z

Y. Huang, M.-Z. Liu, J.-X. Lu, J.-J. Xie, and L.-S. Geng, Phys. Rev. D98, 076012 (2018), arXiv:1807.06485 [hep- ph]

2018 arXiv
[33]

T.GutscheandV.E.Lyubovitskij,J.Phys.G48,025001 (2020), arXiv:1912.10894 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[34]

J.-X.Lu,C.-H.Zeng,E.Wang,J.-J.Xie, andL.-S.Geng, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 361 (2020), arXiv:2003.07588 [hep- ph]

2020 arXiv
[35]

Ikeno, G

N. Ikeno, G. Toledo, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D101, 094016 (2020), arXiv:2003.07580 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[36]

Lin, Y.-H

Y. Lin, Y.-H. Lin, F. Wang, B. Zou, and B.-S. Zou, Phys. Rev. D102, 074025 (2020), arXiv:1910.13919 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[37]

Ikeno, W.-H

N. Ikeno, W.-H. Liang, G. Toledo, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D106, 034022 (2022), arXiv:2204.13396 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[38]

Q.-F. Lü, H. Nagahiro, and A. Hosaka, Phys. Rev. D 107, 014025 (2023), arXiv:2212.02783 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[39]

Han, Z.-W

F.-C. Han, Z.-W. Liu, D. B. Leinweber, and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D112, L051503 (2025), arXiv:2507.06682 [hep-ph]

2025
[40]

Shen, J.-X

Q.-H. Shen, J.-X. Lu, L.-S. Geng, X. Liu, and J.-J. Xie, (2025), arXiv:2510.13623 [hep-ph]

2025
[41]

Sarkar, E

S. Sarkar, E. Oset, and M. J. Vicente Vacas, Nucl. Phys. A750, 294 (2005), [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.A 780, 90–90 (2006)], arXiv:nucl-th/0407025

2005 arXiv
[42]

Hofmann and M

J. Hofmann and M. F. M. Lutz, Nucl. Phys. A776, 17 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0601249

2006 arXiv
[43]

Y.-Y. Li, A. Feijoo, and E. Oset, (2026), arXiv:2601.21536 [hep-ph]

2026
[44]

I. J. Abualrobet al. (ALICE), (2025), arXiv:2509.24519 [nucl-ex]

2025
[45]

Ikeno, G

N. Ikeno, G. Toledo, and E. Oset, Phys. Lett. B847, 138281 (2023), arXiv:2305.16431 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[46]

Feijoo, L

A. Feijoo, L. R. Dai, L. M. Abreu, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D109, 016014 (2024), arXiv:2309.00444 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[47]

Albaladejo, A

M. Albaladejo, A. Feijoo, I. Vidaña, J. Nieves, and E. Oset, (2023), arXiv:2307.09873 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[48]

S. E. Koonin, Phys. Lett. B70, 43 (1977)

1977
[49]

Pratt, T

S. Pratt, T. Csorgo, and J. Zimanyi, Phys. Rev. C42, 2646 (1990)

1990
[50]

Bauer, C

W. Bauer, C. K. Gelbke, and S. Pratt, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.42, 77 (1992)

1992
[51]

J.-X. Lin, P. Encarnación, M. Albaladejo, and A. Feijoo, (2025), arXiv:2507.10505 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[52]

Encarnación, M

P. Encarnación, M. Albaladejo, A. Feijoo, and J. Nieves, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1347 (2025), arXiv:2507.08466 [hep- ph]

2025 arXiv
[53]

Nieves, A

J. Nieves, A. Feijoo, M. Albaladejo, and M.-L. Du, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.137, 104118 (2024), arXiv:2402.12726 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[54]

Haidenbauer, Nucl

J. Haidenbauer, Nucl. Phys. A981, 1 (2019), arXiv:1808.05049 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[55]

Vidana, A

I. Vidana, A. Feijoo, M. Albaladejo, J. Nieves, and E. Oset, Phys. Lett. B846, 138201 (2023), arXiv:2303.06079 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[56]

Albaladejo, A

M. Albaladejo, A. Feijoo, J. Nieves, E. Oset, and I. Vidaña, Phys. Rev. D110, 114052 (2024), arXiv:2410.08880 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[57]

Feijoo, M

A. Feijoo, M. Korwieser, and L. Fabbietti, Phys. Rev. D 111, 014009 (2025), arXiv:2407.01128 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[58]

Encarnación, A

P. Encarnación, A. Feijoo, V. M. Sarti, and A. Ramos, Phys. Rev. D111, 114013 (2025), arXiv:2412.20880 [hep- ph]

2025 arXiv
[59]

Navaset al

S. Navaset al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

2024
[60]

Gamermann, J

D. Gamermann, J. Nieves, E. Oset, and E. Ruiz Arriola, Phys. Rev. D81, 014029 (2010), arXiv:0911.4407 [hep- ph]

2010 arXiv
[61]

Sekihara, T

T. Sekihara, T. Hyodo, and D. Jido, PTEP2015, 063D04 (2015), arXiv:1411.2308 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[62]

Kamiya and T

Y. Kamiya and T. Hyodo, Phys. Rev. C93, 035203 (2016), arXiv:1509.00146 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[63]

Albaladejo and J

M. Albaladejo and J. Nieves, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 724 (2022), arXiv:2203.04864 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[64]

Aceti and E

F. Aceti and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D86, 014012 (2012), arXiv:1202.4607 [hep-ph]

2012 arXiv
[65]

Liu, J.-X

Z.-W. Liu, J.-X. Lu, and L.-S. Geng, Phys. Rev. D107, 074019 (2023), arXiv:2302.01046 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed July 13, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Acharya et al

S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), (2025), arXiv:2502.18063 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2025

[2] [2]

Ablikimet al

M. Ablikimet al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 131903 (2025), arXiv:2411.11648 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2025

[3] [3]

Jiaet al

S. Jiaet al. (Belle), Phys. Lett. B860, 139224 (2025), arXiv:2207.03090 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2025

[4] [4]

Jia et al

S. Jia et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. D100, 032006 (2019), arXiv:1906.00194 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2019

[5] [5]

Yelton et al

J. Yelton et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 052003 (2018), arXiv:1805.09384 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2018

[6] [6]

G. P. Engel, C. B. Lang, D. Mohler, and A. Schäfer (BGR), Phys. Rev. D87, 074504 (2013), arXiv:1301.4318 [hep-lat]

arXiv 2013

[7] [7]

Capstick and N

S. Capstick and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. D34, 2809 (1986)

1986

[8] [8]

Loring, B

U. Loring, B. C. Metsch, and H. R. Petry, Eur. Phys. J. A10, 447 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0103290

arXiv 2001