pith. sign in

arxiv: 2607.00783 · v1 · pith:XN3VJZ4Xnew · submitted 2026-07-01 · ✦ hep-ph

Exploring the neutron momentum distribution in nuclei through γ n to π^- p at an electron-positron collider

Zi-Wei Yan , Shu-man Hu , Wei Wang , Ji Xu , Fu-Sheng Yu , Ya-Teng Zhang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-02 10:10 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph
keywords neutron momentum distributionshort-range correlationsBESIIIimpulse approximationgamma n to pi pdeuteronberyllium targetradiative Bhabha scattering
0
0 comments X

The pith

Electron-positron colliders like BESIII can measure the neutron momentum distribution in nuclei via the γn → π⁻p process.

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

The paper proposes studying the γn → π⁻p process on deuteron and beryllium targets at the BESIII experiment to extract the neutron momentum distribution. Cross sections are computed in the impulse approximation, and the effective luminosity is evaluated from radiative Bhabha scattering accounting for the experimental setup. The calculation shows that tens of thousands of events are expected, sufficient for precise measurements. This distribution matters because it enables extraction of free neutron observables and probes the high-momentum component tied to the tensor force and short-range correlations. A reader would care if this opens nuclear structure studies at existing e+e- collider facilities.

Core claim

The paper claims that the γn → π⁻p process at BESIII, using the beryllium beam pipe as target material, can generate tens of thousands of events within the impulse approximation, providing the statistics needed for precise measurements of the neutron momentum distribution in nuclei.

What carries the argument

The impulse approximation framework for cross-section calculations on deuteron and beryllium targets, combined with the photon flux from radiative Bhabha scattering.

If this is right

  • Precise measurements of the neutron momentum distribution become feasible at BESIII.
  • Improved extraction of free neutron observables from nuclear targets.
  • Direct access to the high-momentum neutron fraction that tests the tensor force and short-range correlations.
  • Electron-positron colliders gain a demonstrated role in nuclear structure research.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar beam-pipe targets at other e+e- colliders could enable comparable measurements without dedicated nuclear facilities.
  • The method could be cross-checked against electron-scattering data on the same nuclei to test consistency of momentum distributions.
  • Higher-luminosity runs or detector upgrades would scale the event yield for finer binning in momentum.

Load-bearing premise

The impulse approximation accurately describes the γn → π⁻p process on deuteron and beryllium targets without significant final-state interaction or off-shell corrections that would alter the extracted momentum distribution.

What would settle it

An actual count of events at BESIII that falls well below or above the predicted tens of thousands, or an extracted momentum distribution that deviates markedly from impulse-approximation expectations after data taking.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.00783 by Fu-Sheng Yu, Ji Xu, Shu-Man Hu, Wei Wang, Ya-Teng Zhang, Zi-Wei Yan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Schematic diagram of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: shows the cross section for the γn → π −p reac￾tion from threshold up to 1.35 GeV, as provided by the MAID model. A prominent peak around √ s ∼ 1.20 GeV corresponds to the excitation of the ∆(1232) resonance. 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.25 1.30 1.35 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 s (GeV) σfree(μb) FIG. 2: The total cross section of γn → π −p as a function of center-of-mass energy √ s, provided by MAID. Here the neutron in … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: The cross section of the reaction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The cross section of the reaction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The integrand in Eq. (2) displayed in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: The integrand in Eq. (2) displayed in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: The photon energy distribution of the radiative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The neutron momentum distribution is essential both for reliably extracting fundamental free neutron observables from nuclear measurements and for probing the tensor force via the high-momentum neutron fraction, which is crucial to the theoretical understanding of short-range correlations (SRCs). In this work, we investigate this distribution by studying the $\gamma n \to \pi^- p$ process at an electron-positron collider, proposing to utilize the beryllium beam pipe at the Beijing Spectrometer III (BESIII). The cross sections for this process on both deuteron and beryllium targets are calculated within the impulse approximation framework. We also evaluate the effective luminosity of the photon flux from radiative Bhabha scattering, taking into account the distribution of target materials within the BESIII experimental setup. Our results show that tens of thousands of events can be generated at BESIII, offering the potential for precise measurements of the neutron momentum distribution. These findings suggest that electron-positron colliders could play a valuable role in elucidating nuclear structure and advancing our understanding of nonperturbative QCD, offering promising new avenues for both particle and nuclear physics.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes measuring the neutron momentum distribution in nuclei via the γn → π⁻p process on deuteron and beryllium targets at BESIII, using photons from radiative Bhabha scattering. Cross sections are computed in the impulse approximation, the effective luminosity is evaluated accounting for the experimental setup, and the resulting event yield is estimated at tens of thousands, which the authors argue would enable precise extraction of the neutron momentum distribution.

Significance. If the impulse-approximation cross sections and luminosity estimates are accurate and the mapping to the free-neutron distribution holds, the work would demonstrate a novel use of e⁺e⁻ collider infrastructure for nuclear-structure studies and short-range correlations. The absence of any quantitative validation of the modeling assumptions or comparison to existing data limits the assessed significance.

major comments (2)
  1. [theoretical framework and results sections] The cross-section calculations (theoretical framework and results sections) are performed strictly within the impulse approximation for both deuteron and beryllium targets, with no quantitative estimate or bound provided for final-state interaction or off-shell corrections. These effects are known to modify the observed momentum distribution in photoproduction, particularly in the high-momentum tail; without an assessment of their size (e.g., via comparison to models that include them), the claim that measured yields directly yield the neutron momentum distribution is not supported.
  2. [abstract and results section] The abstract and results section state that cross sections and luminosities were calculated and that tens of thousands of events are expected, yet no numerical values, error estimates, or validation against existing photoproduction data are supplied. This leaves the central event-yield claim dependent on unexamined modeling choices.
minor comments (2)
  1. [abstract] The abstract would benefit from a brief statement of the numerical cross-section and luminosity values obtained.
  2. [luminosity evaluation section] Notation for the effective luminosity and target-material distribution should be defined explicitly when first introduced.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful review and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address the major comments point by point below, indicating where revisions will be made.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [theoretical framework and results sections] The cross-section calculations (theoretical framework and results sections) are performed strictly within the impulse approximation for both deuteron and beryllium targets, with no quantitative estimate or bound provided for final-state interaction or off-shell corrections. These effects are known to modify the observed momentum distribution in photoproduction, particularly in the high-momentum tail; without an assessment of their size (e.g., via comparison to models that include them), the claim that measured yields directly yield the neutron momentum distribution is not supported.

    Authors: We agree that final-state interactions and off-shell corrections are important and can affect the high-momentum tail. The present work restricts itself to the impulse approximation to obtain a first estimate of event yields from the collider luminosity. In a revised manuscript we will add an explicit discussion of these effects, citing literature estimates of their typical size for deuteron photoproduction, and will rephrase the abstract and conclusions to state that any extraction of the neutron momentum distribution would require comparison with models that incorporate FSI rather than claiming a direct mapping from yields. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [abstract and results section] The abstract and results section state that cross sections and luminosities were calculated and that tens of thousands of events are expected, yet no numerical values, error estimates, or validation against existing photoproduction data are supplied. This leaves the central event-yield claim dependent on unexamined modeling choices.

    Authors: The results section contains the impulse-approximation cross sections and the effective-luminosity calculation that together produce the stated yield. To address the concern we will insert a table with the explicit numerical cross-section and luminosity values together with the resulting event estimates. We will also add a short paragraph noting that the deuteron impulse-approximation framework has been employed in earlier photoproduction studies; a direct comparison to existing data will be included where space permits. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; forward calculations from external models

full rationale

The derivation computes cross sections for γn → π⁻p on deuteron and Be targets strictly within the impulse approximation, evaluates photon flux from radiative Bhabha scattering using the BESIII setup, and multiplies to obtain event yields. These steps are forward predictions from stated external inputs with no parameter fitting to the target observables, no self-definitional loops, and no load-bearing self-citations that reduce the central claim to its own inputs. The event count is therefore not forced by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the impulse approximation for the chosen reaction and on the accuracy of the photon-flux calculation from radiative Bhabha scattering; no free parameters or new entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The impulse approximation is valid for calculating the γn → π⁻p cross section on deuteron and beryllium targets.
    Explicitly stated as the framework used for the cross-section calculations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5746 in / 1202 out tokens · 33679 ms · 2026-07-02T10:10:06.437373+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages · 20 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    L. L. Frankfurt and M. I. Strikman, Phys. Rept.160 (1988), 235-427 doi:10.1016/0370-1573(88)90179-2

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-1573(88)90179-2 1988

  2. [2]

    O. Hen, G. A. Miller, E. Piasetzky and L. B. We- instein, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, no.4, 045002 (2017) doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.89.045002 [arXiv:1611.09748 [nucl-ex]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/revmodphys.89.045002 2017

  3. [3]

    Arrington, N

    J. Arrington, N. Fomin and A. Schmidt, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.72, 307-337 (2022) doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl- 102020-022253 [arXiv:2203.02608 [nucl-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl- 2022

  4. [4]

    Ciofi degli Atti and S

    C. Ciofi degli Atti and S. Simula, Phys. Rev. C53 (1996), 1689 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.53.1689 [arXiv:nucl- th/9507024 [nucl-th]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.53.1689 1996

  5. [5]

    Fujii, O

    Y. Fujii, O. Hashimoto, T. Nakagawa, Y. Sato, T. Taka- hashi, J. T. Brack, C. J. Gelderloos, M. V. Keilman, R. J. Peterson and M. Itoh,et al.Phys. Rev. C64(2001), 034608 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.64.034608

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.64.034608 2001

  6. [6]

    On the dependence of the wave function of a bound nucleon on its momentum and the EMC effect

    C. Ciofi degli Atti, L. L. Frankfurt, L. P. Kaptari and M. I. Strikman, Phys. Rev. C76(2007), 055206 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.76.055206 [arXiv:0706.2937 [nucl-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevc.76.055206 2007

  7. [7]

    Das, Phys

    S. Das, Phys. Rev. C107(2023) no.3, 035201 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.107.035201 [arXiv:2303.13214 [nucl-th]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.107.035201 2023

  8. [8]

    R. B. Wiringa, R. Schiavilla, S. C. Pieper and J. Carlson, Phys. Rev. C89, no.2, 024305 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.89.024305 [arXiv:1309.3794 [nucl-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevc.89.024305 2014

  9. [9]

    Piarulli, S

    M. Piarulli, S. Pastore, R. B. Wiringa, S. Brusilow and R. Lim, Phys. Rev. C107(2023) no.1, 014314 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.107.014314 [arXiv:2210.02421 [nucl-th]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.107.014314 2023

  10. [10]

    V. M. Datar, D. R. Chakrabarty, S. Kumar, V. Nanal, S. Pastore, R. B. Wiringa, S. P. Be- hera, A. Chatterjee, D. Jenkins and C. J. Lister, et al.Phys. Rev. Lett.111(2013) no.6, 062502 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.062502 [arXiv:1305.1094 [nucl-ex]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.111.062502 2013

  11. [11]

    Quantum Monte Carlo methods for nuclear physics

    J. Carlson, S. Gandolfi, F. Pederiva, S. C. Pieper, R. Schi- avilla, K. E. Schmidt and R. B. Wiringa, Rev. Mod. Phys.87(2015), 1067 doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.87.1067 [arXiv:1412.3081 [nucl-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/revmodphys.87.1067 2015

  12. [12]

    Light-nuclei spectra from chiral dynamics

    M. Piarulli, A. Baroni, L. Girlanda, A. Kievsky, A. Lo- vato, E. Lusk, L. E. Marcucci, S. C. Pieper, R. Schiavilla and M. Viviani,et al.Phys. Rev. Lett.120(2018) no.5, 052503 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.052503 [arXiv:1707.02883 [nucl-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.120.052503 2018

  13. [14]

    Schmidtet al.[CLAS], Nature578(2020) no.7796, 540-544 doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2021-6 [arXiv:2004.11221 [nucl-ex]]

    A. Schmidtet al.[CLAS], Nature578(2020) no.7796, 540-544 doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2021-6 [arXiv:2004.11221 [nucl-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2021-6 2020

  14. [15]

    Schmookleret al.[CLAS], Nature566, no.7744, 354-358 (2019) doi:10.1038/s41586-019-0925-9 [arXiv:2004.12065 [nucl-ex]]

    B. Schmookleret al.[CLAS], Nature566, no.7744, 354-358 (2019) doi:10.1038/s41586-019-0925-9 [arXiv:2004.12065 [nucl-ex]]. 9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-019-0925-9 2019

  15. [16]

    Probing Cold Dense Nuclear Matter

    R. Subedi, R. Shneor, P. Monaghan, B. D. Ander- son, K. Aniol, J. Annand, J. Arrington, H. Be- naoum, W. Bertozzi and F. Benmokhtar,et al.Sci- ence320(2008), 1476-1478 doi:10.1126/science.1156675 [arXiv:0908.1514 [nucl-ex]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1126/science.1156675 2008

  16. [17]

    Study of Non-Strange Baryon Resonances with Meson Photoproduction

    B. Krusche and S. Schadmand, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 51(2003), 399-485 doi:10.1016/S0146-6410(03)90005-6 [arXiv:nucl-ex/0306023 [nucl-ex]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/s0146-6410(03)90005-6 2003

  17. [18]

    Isospin decomposition of $\gamma N \to N^*$ transitions within a dynamical coupled-channels model

    H. Kamano, S. X. Nakamura, T. S. H. Lee and T. Sato, Phys. Rev. C94(2016) no.1, 015201 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.94.015201 [arXiv:1605.00363 [nucl-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevc.94.015201 2016

  18. [19]

    L. L. Frankfurt, M. I. Strikman, D. B. Day and M. Sargsian, Phys. Rev. C48, 2451-2461 (1993) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.48.2451

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.48.2451 1993

  19. [20]

    Hard probes of short-range nucleon-nucleon correlations

    J. Arrington, D. W. Higinbotham, G. Rosner and M. Sargsian, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.67, 898-938 (2012) doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2012.04.002 [arXiv:1104.1196 [nucl- ex]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2012.04.002 2012

  20. [21]

    G. A. Miller, Phys. Rev. C102(2020) no.5, 055206 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.102.055206 [arXiv:2008.06524 [nucl-th]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.102.055206 2020

  21. [22]

    Y. P. Zhang, Z. H. Ye, D. Nguyen, P. Aguilera, Z. Ahmed, H. Albataineh, K. Allada, B. Ander- son, D. Anez and K. Aniol,et al.Phys. Lett. B 872(2026), 140087 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.140087 [arXiv:2504.17462 [nucl-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.140087 2026

  22. [23]

    J. J. Aubertet al.[European Muon], Phys. Lett. B123 (1983), 275-278 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(83)90437-9

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(83)90437-9 1983

  23. [24]

    L. B. Weinstein, E. Piasetzky, D. W. Higinbotham, J. Gomez, O. Hen and R. Shneor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 052301 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.052301 [arXiv:1009.5666 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.106.052301 2011

  24. [25]

    O. Hen, E. Piasetzky and L. B. Weinstein, Phys. Rev. C85, 047301 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.85.047301 [arXiv:1202.3452 [nucl-ex]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevc.85.047301 2012

  25. [26]

    A. W. Dennistonet al.[nCTEQ], Phys. Rev. Lett.133(2024) no.15, 152502 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.152502 [arXiv:2312.16293 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.133.152502 2024

  26. [27]

    S. M. Hu, W. Wang, J. Xu, X. H. Yang and S. Zhao, [arXiv:2601.11867 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv

  27. [28]

    W. Wang, J. Xu, X. H. Yang and S. Zhao, PoS QCHSC24(2025), 065 doi:10.22323/1.483.0065

    work page doi:10.22323/1.483.0065 2025

  28. [29]

    Courtoy and A

    A. Courtoy and A. Ibsen, Eur. Phys. J. C86 (2026) no.1, 86 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-026-15324-9 [arXiv:2511.07518 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-026-15324-9 2026

  29. [30]

    Paakkinen, [arXiv:2510.00252 [hep-ph]]

    P. Paakkinen, [arXiv:2510.00252 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv

  30. [31]

    Yang and C

    W. Yang and C. Li, Nucl. Phys. A1060(2025), 123111 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2025.123111 [arXiv:2407.17107 [nucl-th]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2025.123111 2025

  31. [32]

    Huang, S

    F. Huang, S. M. Hu, D. M. Li and J. Xu, Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025) no.10, 1225 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025- 14960-x [arXiv:2501.07059 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025- 2025

  32. [33]

    W. Wang, J. Xu, X. H. Yang and S. Zhao, Eur. Phys. J. A61(2025) no.5, 112 doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-025- 01588-4 [arXiv:2401.16662 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-025- 2025

  33. [34]

    Mirjalili, M

    A. Mirjalili, M. A. Ahmadmahmoudi, H. Abdolmaleki and M. M. Yazdanpanah, Phys. Rev. D112(2025) no.11, 114011 doi:10.1103/shvj-txd6 [arXiv:2511.06099 [nucl-th]]

    work page doi:10.1103/shvj-txd6 2025

  34. [35]

    B. J. Cai, B. A. Li and Y. G. Ma, doi:10.1140/epjs/s11734-026-02227-9 [arXiv:2512.04206 [nucl-th]]

    work page doi:10.1140/epjs/s11734-026-02227-9

  35. [36]

    X. H. Yang, F. Huang and J. Xu, Phys. Rev. D108 (2023) no.5, 053005 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.053005 [arXiv:2305.11538 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.053005 2023

  36. [37]

    Huang, J

    F. Huang, J. Xu and X. H. Yang, Phys. Rev. D104 (2021) no.3, 033002 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.033002 [arXiv:2103.07873 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.033002 2021

  37. [38]

    C. Z. Yuan and M. Karliner, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, no.1, 012003 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.012003 [arXiv:2103.06658 [hep-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.127.012003 2021

  38. [39]

    J. Dai, H. B. Li, H. Miao and J. Zhang, Chin. Phys. C 48, no.7, 073003 (2024) doi:10.1088/1674-1137/ad3dde [arXiv:2209.12601 [hep-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-1137/ad3dde 2024

  39. [40]

    W. Wang, J. Xu, X. H. Yang, Y. T. Zhang, X. R. Zhou and S. Zhao, [arXiv:2512.12293 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv

  40. [41]

    Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys

    M. Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys. Rev. Lett.130, no.25, 251902 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.251902 [arXiv:2304.13921 [hep-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.130.251902 2023

  41. [42]

    Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys

    M. Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys. Rev. Lett.132, no.23, 231902 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.231902 [arXiv:2401.09012 [hep-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.132.231902 2024

  42. [43]

    Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys

    M. Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys. Rev. C113(2026) no.3, L032201 doi:10.1103/nzzh-4f6y

    work page doi:10.1103/nzzh-4f6y 2026

  43. [44]

    Ablikimet al.[BESIII], [arXiv:2511.21462 [hep-ex]]

    M. Ablikimet al.[BESIII], [arXiv:2511.21462 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv

  44. [45]

    W. Wang, J. Xu, X. H. Yang, Y. T. Zhang and S. Zhao, Phys. Lett. B875, 140329 (2026) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2026.140329 [arXiv:2409.14367 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2026.140329 2026

  45. [46]

    D. G. Ireland, E. Pasyuk and I. Strakovsky, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.111, 103752 (2020) doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2019.103752 [arXiv:1906.04228 [nucl-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2019.103752 2020

  46. [47]

    W. J. Briscoeet al.[A2], Phys. Rev. C100 (2019) no.6, 065205 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.100.065205 [arXiv:1908.02730 [nucl-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.100.065205 2019

  47. [48]

    W. J. Briscoe, A. E. Kudryavtsev, I. I. Strakovsky, V. E. Tarasov and R. L. Workman, Eur. Phys. J. A 58(2022) no.2, 23 doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00671-4 [arXiv:2112.08150 [nucl-th]]

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00671-4 2022

  48. [49]

    Strandberget al., Phys

    B. Strandberget al., Phys. Rev. C101, no.3, 035207 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.101.035207 [arXiv:1812.03023 [nucl-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.101.035207 2020

  49. [50]

    W. J. Briscoe, A. E. Kudryavtsev, I. I. Strakovsky, V. E. Tarasov and R. L. Workman, Eur. Phys. J. A 56(2020) no.8, 218 doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-020-00221- w [arXiv:2004.01742 [nucl-th]]

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-020-00221- 2020

  50. [51]

    Design and Construction of the BESIII Detector

    M. Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A614, 345-399 (2010) doi:10.1016/j.nima.2009.12.050 [arXiv:0911.4960 [physics.ins-det]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.nima.2009.12.050 2010

  51. [52]

    Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Chin

    M. Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Chin. Phys. C44, no.4, 040001 (2020) doi:10.1088/1674-1137/44/4/040001 [arXiv:1912.05983 [hep-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-1137/44/4/040001 2020

  52. [53]

    Hatta, M

    Y. Hatta, M. Strikman, J. Xu and F. Yuan, Phys. Lett. B803(2020), 135321 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135321 [arXiv:1911.11706 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135321 2020

  53. [54]

    Xu and F

    J. Xu and F. Yuan, Phys. Lett. B801(2020), 135187 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.135187 [arXiv:1908.10413 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.135187 2020

  54. [55]

    R. S. White, M. J. Jacobson and A. G. Schulz, Phys. Rev.88(1952), 836-850 doi:10.1103/PhysRev.88.836

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.88.836 1952

  55. [56]

    Unitary Isobar Model - MAID2007

    D. Drechsel, S. S. Kamalov and L. Tiator, Eur. Phys. J. A34, 69-97 (2007) doi:10.1140/epja/i2007-10490-6 [arXiv:0710.0306 [nucl-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1140/epja/i2007-10490-6 2007

  56. [57]

    M. Hilt, B. C. Lehnhart, S. Scherer and L. Tiator, Phys. Rev. C88, 055207 (2013) 10 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.88.055207 [arXiv:1309.3385 [nucl-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevc.88.055207 2013

  57. [58]

    E. J. Moniz, I. Sick, R. R. Whitney, J. R. Ficenec, R. D. Kephart and W. P. Trower, Phys. Rev. Lett.26, 445-448 (1971) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.26.445

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.26.445 1971

  58. [59]

    Quantifying short-range correlations in nuclei

    M. Vanhalst, J. Ryckebusch and W. Cosyn, Phys. Rev. C86, 044619 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.86.044619 [arXiv:1206.5151 [nucl-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevc.86.044619 2012

  59. [60]

    Henet al., Supplementary Materials for Science346, 614-617 (2014) doi:10.1126/science.1256785

    O. Henet al., Supplementary Materials for Science346, 614-617 (2014) doi:10.1126/science.1256785

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1256785 2014

  60. [61]

    M. M. Sargsian, Phys. Rev. C89, no.3, 034305 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.89.034305 [arXiv:1210.3280 [nucl-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevc.89.034305 2014

  61. [62]

    Lattice simulations for few- and many-body systems

    D. Lee, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.63(2009), 117-154 doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2008.12.001 [arXiv:0804.3501 [nucl- th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2008.12.001 2009

  62. [63]

    S. Shen, S. Elhatisari, D. Lee, U. G. Meißner and Z. Ren, Phys. Rev. Lett.134(2025) no.16, 162503 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.162503 [arXiv:2411.14935 [nucl-th]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.134.162503 2025

  63. [64]

    L. Wu, S. Elhatisari, U. G. Meißner, S. Shen, L. S. Geng and Y. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett.136(2026) no.14, 142502 doi:10.1103/89w9-p443 [arXiv:2601.01801 [nucl-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/89w9-p443 2026

  64. [65]

    C. M. Carloni Calame, G. Montagna, O. Nicrosini and F. Piccinini, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 131, 48-55 (2004) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2004.02.008 [arXiv:hep-ph/0312014 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2004.02.008 2004

  65. [66]

    Achasovet al., Front

    M. Achasovet al., Front. Phys. (Beijing)19, no.1, 14701 (2024) doi:10.1007/s11467-023-1333-z [arXiv:2303.15790 [hep-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1007/s11467-023-1333-z 2024