Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 61 references

The $\Lambda_c^+\to\Lambda\pi^+\pi^+\pi^-$ reaction, and a triangle singularity producing the $\Sigma^*(1430)$ state

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the Σ*(1430) peak observed by Belle is dynamically generated and enhanced by a triangle singularity involving K*-, a proton, and anti-K0, predicting a secondary bump near 1875 MeV and a branching ratio of roughly…

desk verdict A serious triangle-singularity calculation with a plausible central mechanism, but the omitted isospin-conjugate diagram means the quantitative predictions are incomplete. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21403 v2 pith:Z5OQ5GHD submitted 2025-05-27 hep-ph

Yi-Yao Li , Jing Song , Eulogio Oset , Wei-Hong Liang , Raquel Molina This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords trianglesingularitySigma*(1430)chiralunitaryapproachdynamicallygeneratedresonanceLambda_cdecaymeson-baryonfinalstateinteractionBelleexperimentinvariantmassdistribution
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 narrow $\Sigma^*(1430)$ peak seen by Belle in $\Lambda_c^+ \to \Lambda \pi^+ \pi^+ \pi^-$ decays is a dynamically generated resonance, not a conventional three-quark state, and that its visibility is strongly enhanced by a triangle singularity. The triangle loop involves $K^{*-}$, a proton, and an anti-$K^0$: at a specific kinematic point all three can be on shell and collinear, making a small meson-baryon amplitude for anti-$K^0 p \to \pi^+\Lambda$ dominate the spectrum. Fixing the weak vertex from the measured $\Lambda_c^+ \to \pi^+K^{*-}p$ width leaves no free parameters, and the calculation reproduces a sharp, cusp-like peak near 1434 MeV in the $\pi^+\Lambda$ invariant mass distribution. It also predicts a secondary enhancement around 1875 MeV in the $\pi^-\Sigma^*(1430)$ distribution and a branching ratio of about $3.5 \times 10^{-4}$, both of which can be checked by reanalyzing existing data.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a triangle Feynman diagram with internal $K^{*-}$, proton, and anti-$K^0$ lines, evaluated in the rest frame of the $K^{*-}p$ system. A triangle singularity occurs when the three internal particles can propagate on shell and collinearly, the Coleman-Norton condition, and the paper locates this condition with Eq. (18) of the cited triangle-singularity literature. The $K^{*-}$ decay and the weak $\Lambda_c^+$ decay vertices are standard, while the final $\bar K^0 p \to \pi^+\Lambda$ vertex is taken from a chiral unitary coupled-channel amplitude in which $\Sigma^*(1430)$ emerges dynamically. A coalescence step replaces the resonance's decay to $\pi^+\Lambda$ by its coupling to $\bar K^0p$ and then unfolds the decay through unitarity, so the loop amplitude can be converted directly into the double differential width $d\Gamma/dM_{\pi^+\Lambda}\,dM_{\pi^-R}$.

What would settle it

Reanalyze the existing $\Lambda_c^+ \to \Lambda \pi^+\pi^+\pi^-$ data and select events whose $\pi^+\Lambda$ invariant mass lies between 1375 and 1500 MeV. The paper predicts a clear bump near 1875 MeV in the $\pi^-\Sigma^*(1430)$ (equivalently $\pi^+\pi^-\Lambda$) mass distribution and a branching ratio of about $3.5 \times 10^{-4}$; observing no such bump, or measuring a branching ratio far from this value, would falsify the triangle-singularity mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Belle signal near 1430 MeV is the dynamically generated $\Sigma^*(1430)$ produced through the triangle chain $\Lambda_c^+ \to \pi^+K^{*-}p$, $K^{*-} \to \pi^- \bar K^0$, $\bar K^0 p \to \pi^+\Lambda$. Because the $K^{*-}$, proton, and $\bar K^0$ can all be on shell simultaneously at one kinematic point, the triangle develops a singularity that gives a large enhancement to an amplitude that would otherwise be too small to see. The calculated $\pi^+\Lambda$ invariant mass distribution peaks around 1434 MeV with a width of about 25 MeV, matching the cusp-like shape reported by Belle. The same loop, viewed through the $\Sigma^*(1430)$ mass window, produces a bump near 1875 MeV in the $\pi^-\Sigma^*(1430)$ invariant mass distribution, and integrating the spectrum gives $\mathrm{Br}[\Lambda_c^+ \to \pi^+\pi^-\Sigma^*(1430)(\to \pi^+\Lambda)] \approx 3.5 \times 10^{-4}$. These last two outputs are parameter-free predictions of the approach.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that the chiral unitary model's amplitude for anti-$K^0 p \to \pi^+\Lambda$, with the 630 MeV cutoff, is quantitatively correct; if that amplitude is wrong, or if the neglected diagram (b) or the $\phi\Lambda$ term contributes comparably, the predicted peak, bump, and branching ratio change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Belle cusp near the anti-$K N$ threshold is read as evidence for a dynamically generated $\Sigma^*(1430)$ rather than a Breit-Wigner resonance.
  • A triangle singularity can amplify an intrinsically weak resonance-production amplitude enough to make the state prominent in weak baryon decays.
  • The 1875 MeV bump in the $\pi^-\Sigma^*(1430)$ distribution is a parameter-free prediction that can be searched for in existing data.
  • The predicted branching ratio of about $3.5 \times 10^{-4}$ puts the decay within reach of current experimental facilities.
  • The same triangle-loop topology should be considered when interpreting near-threshold enhancements in other $\Lambda_c$ and $\Lambda_b$ decays.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A dedicated analysis of the full two-dimensional distribution $d\Gamma/dM_{\pi^+\Lambda}\,dM_{\pi^-R}$ would test not just the positions of the two peaks but the phase structure of the triangle amplitude, a sharper diagnostic than one-dimensional spectra.
  • If the mechanism is correct, the same $K^{*-} p \bar K^0$ triangle can appear in other weakly decaying baryons, producing analogous near-threshold bumps that could be mistaken for new states.
  • The smallness of the $\Sigma^*(1385)$ contribution through the same triangle is the paper's argument that a large observed $\Sigma^*(1385)$ signal reflects a conventional three-quark state; a spin-parity measurement of the 1434 MeV peak could give an independent check of that distinction.
  • Comparing the 1875 MeV bump's line shape with the triangle-singularity template would distinguish it from a genuine resonance, since the two can coincide in mass.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the decay Λ_c^+ -> Λ π^+ π^+ π^- and interprets the Σ*(1430) state observed by Belle as a dynamically generated resonance in the chiral unitary coupled-channel approach. The production is modeled through a triangle-loop mechanism with intermediate K*-, p, and anti-K0, using the weak vertex strength A fixed from the PDG width of Λ_c^+ -> π^+ K*- p and the anti-K0 p -> π^+ Λ amplitude from a previous chiral unitary model with cutoff q_max = 630 MeV. The calculation yields a narrow peak near 1434 MeV in the π^+ Λ invariant mass distribution, a secondary bump near 1875 MeV in the π^- Σ*(1430) distribution attributed to a triangle singularity, and an estimated branching ratio Br[Λ_c^+ -> π^+ π^- Σ*(1430) (-> π^+ Λ)] ≈ 3.5 × 10^-4. The paper emphasizes that the branching ratio and the 1875 MeV bump are predictions without adjustable parameters.

Significance. If the calculation is correct, the paper provides a concrete, parameter-free mechanism for the Belle observation and makes a falsifiable prediction (the 1875 MeV enhancement) that can be tested with existing Belle/Belle II data. A clear strength is that the input quantities (A from the PDG, q_max and amplitudes from prior chiral unitary fits) are external rather than fitted to the Belle spectrum, so the branching ratio is an absolute prediction rather than a fit to the data under study. The formalism is standard and the loop calculation is presented in enough detail to be reproduced. However, the lack of a quantitative comparison with Belle data and the neglect of the isospin-conjugate amplitude leave the central quantitative claims provisional.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II.B, Eq. (6), Fig. 3] The amplitude in Eq. (6) is evaluated for diagram (a) of Fig. 3 only, and the text states 'we only consider the mechanism of diagram (a)' without a quantitative suppression argument. Equation (4) gives the weak-production vertex the combination K*−p + anti-K*0 n with equal weights, and diagram (b) is the isospin conjugate of diagram (a): it has the same masses, the same I=1 Σ*(1430) amplitude from Section II.D, and the same triangle-singularity kinematics. Because the final state contains two identical π+, the full amplitude must be symmetrized over the two π+, which couples diagrams (a) and (b) with a relative sign fixed by Bose statistics. Without a proof that diagram (b) is suppressed, the height of the 1434 MeV peak, the 1875 MeV bump, and the branching ratio in Eq. (38) are not well-defined; an O(1) modification is plausible. Please compute diagram (b) and the symmetrized amplitude, or demonstrate a symmetry-based cancellation or suppression, before claiming absolute predictions.
  2. [Section III.A, Fig. 6] The abstract and conclusions claim that the 1434 MeV peak is 'in agreement with the experimental observations' of Belle, but the paper does not overlay the theoretical distribution on the Belle data, does not provide a chi-square or fit, and does not account for experimental resolution. The comparison of the width (about 25 MeV) with the Belle values Γ(Λπ+) = 11.5 ± 2.8 ± 5.3 MeV and Γ(Λπ−) = 33.0 ± 7.5 ± 23.6 MeV is qualitative. Moreover, the peak position and cusp shape are largely inherited from the input chiral unitary amplitude t_{anti-K0 p -> π+ Λ} with q_max = 630 MeV, rather than being derived from the triangle singularity; the TS's unique kinematic signature is the 1875 MeV bump in the π−Σ*(1430) distribution. To support the central claim, the authors should compare the normalized distribution with the Belle data and, ideally, show the result without the triangle loop to quantify the TS enhancement.
  3. [Section III.C, Eq. (38)] The branching ratio 3.5 × 10^-4 is quoted without an uncertainty. The input A in Eq. (7) has a 35% uncertainty (|A|^2 = (3.9 ± 1.4) × 10^-16 MeV^-2), the cutoff q_max = 630 MeV inherited from Ref. [54] is a model parameter whose sensitivity is not explored, and the integration window Minv(π+Λ) ∈ [1375, 1500] MeV is chosen without a background-subtraction or stability analysis. The Introduction's claim of determining the branching ratio 'without any free parameters' is therefore too strong. Please propagate the uncertainty in A, test the dependence on q_max, and justify the integration range.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II.D, Eq. (17)] The cutoff is written as Θ(q_max − |q*_cm|) in the equation but described in the text as Θ(q_max − |q_cm|); please make the notation consistent.
  2. [Section II.C, Eqs. (6), (10)] The same symbol t is used for the weak vertex, the K* decay amplitude, and the meson-baryon scattering amplitude; consider distinct symbols for readability.
  3. [Figures 6 and 8] The figures are not visible in the manuscript text provided (they appear as placeholders); please ensure the final version has properly embedded figures with axes labeled.
  4. [Introduction and Conclusion] The Introduction states the authors 'do not aim at reproducing the Belle spectrum', but the Conclusion says the peak 'matches well' with the observed structure; these statements should be reconciled.
  5. [Section II.B, Fig. 3] The statement 'we only consider the mechanism of diagram (a)' should be expanded, per Major Comment 1, and the caption of Fig. 3 should indicate that only diagram (a) is used.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 1875 MeV bump and the branching ratio are genuine predictions, while the 1434 MeV peak is inherited from the chiral-unitary input amplitude and Ref. [54] is a minor self-citation.

full rationale

The derivation chain uses external inputs: the weak amplitude A from the measured Lambda_c+ -> pi+ K*- p width (Eq. 7), the VPP coupling g from the standard Lagrangian (Eqs. 8-10), and the t_{bar K N -> pi+ Lambda} amplitude from the chiral unitary model of Refs. [6,54] with qmax = 630 MeV. None of these quantities are fitted to the Belle spectrum; the Belle data are used only for comparison. The predicted 1875 MeV bump is fixed by triangle-singularity kinematics, not by the input amplitude, and the branching ratio 3.5e-4 is an unmeasured integral of Eq. (29), so both are independent predictions. The 1434 MeV peak position is indeed inherited from the input chiral-unitary amplitude, which already contains the dynamically generated Sigma*(1430); this makes the peak a model reproduction rather than a new prediction, but it is not circular because the model was established in prior work. The only self-citation of note is Ref. [54] for qmax = 630 MeV, which shares authors with the present paper; it is a minor, non-load-bearing citation. The neglect of isospin-conjugate diagram (b) of Fig. 3 is a completeness risk rather than a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The calculation imports several external ingredients rather than being parameter-free: the weak coupling |A|^2 from the measured Lambda_c -> pi+ K*- p width, the chiral unitary amplitude with cutoff qmax = 630 MeV from prior fits, and a 1 GeV form factor for the small Sigma*(1385) term. None of these is adjusted to the Belle spectrum being explained, which keeps the circularity burden low, but the claim of 'without any free parameters' in Section I is too strong. No new particles or fields are invented.

free parameters (3)
  • A (Lambda_c -> pi+ K*- p weak vertex strength) = |A|^2 = (3.9 +/- 1.4) x 10^-16 MeV^-2
    Determines the overall normalization of the triangle amplitude and hence the branching ratio; taken from the measured Lambda_c -> pi+ K*- p width in the PDG, not fitted in this paper.
  • qmax (meson-baryon loop cutoff) = 630 MeV
    Regulator in the chiral unitary coupled-channel amplitude of Refs. [6,54]; controls whether Sigma*(1430) appears as a bound state or cusp and hence the line shape.
  • Lambda form factor for Sigma*(1385) vertex = 1 GeV (varied to 1.2 GeV)
    Cutoff in Eqs. (25)-(26) for the small Sigma*(1385) triangle contribution; changes that contribution by about 15 percent and does not affect the central Sigma*(1430) result.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Sigma*(1430) is dynamically generated in the chiral unitary coupled-channel approach with the Weinberg-Tomozawa interaction, Eqs. (33)-(35).
    The t_{Kbar0 p -> pi+ Lambda} amplitude used in the triangle loop comes from this model; the resonance mass and width are model outputs, not measured inputs. Invoked in Section II D.
  • domain assumption The weak decay proceeds via external W+ emission with the ud pair as spectator, leading to H = K*-p + Kbar*0 n - (sqrt(6)/3) phi Lambda in Eq. (4).
    This defines the initial two-body state; the phi Lambda term and other topologies are dropped. Invoked in Section II A.
  • domain assumption Only positive-energy on-shell parts of the loop propagators are kept, and the Coleman-Norton condition determines the triangle singularity.
    Used to simplify Eqs. (14)-(17) and to identify the 1875 MeV peak; standard for triangle singularities but ignores some off-shell effects.
  • domain assumption The coalescence amplitude can be converted to the decay distribution via g^2 = -(1/pi) integral Im t dM and the ratio Gamma_piLambda/Gamma_tot, Eq. (29).
    This factorization is standard in the authors' framework but is an approximation; assumes narrow resonance and factorizable vertices.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The $\Lambda_c^+\to\Lambda\pi^+\pi^+\pi^-$ reaction, and a triangle singularity producing the $\Sigma^*(1430)$ state." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z5OQ5GHD

@misc{pith2026250521403,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The $\Lambda_c^+\to\Lambda\pi^+\pi^+\pi^-$ reaction, and a triangle singularity producing the $\Sigma^*(1430)$ state},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z5OQ5GHD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21403}
}
abstract

We study the decay $\Lambda_c^+ \to \Lambda \pi^+ \pi^+ \pi^-$, focusing on the production of the $\Sigma^*(1430)$ resonance observed by the Belle Collaboration. Interpreted as a dynamically generated state from meson-baryon interactions in the chiral unitary approach, the $\Sigma^*(1430)$ signal is shown to be enhanced by a triangle singularity involving intermediate $K^{*-}$, $p$, and $\bar K^0$ states. This mechanism leads to a sharp peak near 1434 MeV in the $\pi^+ \Lambda$ invariant mass distribution, in agreement with the experimental observations, and predicts a secondary peak around 1875 MeV in the $\pi^- \Sigma^*(1430)$ spectrum tied to the triangle singularity. We also estimate the branching ratio of $\Lambda_c^+ \to \pi^+ \pi^- \Sigma^*(1430)$ to be about $3.5 \times 10^{-4}$. The results for the branching ratio and the $\pi^- \Sigma^*(1430)$ mass distributions are predictions of the theoretical approach, which could be tested with reanalysis of existing data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.21403 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Triangle diagrams for the decay of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: External [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Triangle diagrams for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Coalescence triangle diagram for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Coalescence production of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Invariant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Possible [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The singularity arises when intermediate particles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Invariant mass distribution of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [11]

    Inoue, E

    T. Inoue, E. Oset, and M. J. Vicente V acas, Phys. Rev. C 65, 035204 (2002)

    work page 2002

  2. [54]

    Gamermann, J

    D. Gamermann, J. Nieves, E. Oset, and E. Ruiz Arriola, Ph ys. Rev. D 81, 014029 (2010)

    2010

  3. [38]

    Sakai, E

    S. Sakai, E. Oset, and A. Ramos, Eur. Phys. J. A 54, 10 (2018)

    work page 2018

  4. [1]

    4 as tΣ ∗(1430) T S

    Amplitude for Σ ∗ (1430) We denote the triangle amplitude contributing to the Σ ∗(1430) in the coalescence diagram of Fig. 4 as tΣ ∗(1430) T S . Removing the coupling of the third vertex, we write the amplitude as: tΣ ∗(1430) T S =gΣ ∗(1430), ¯K 0p˜tT S. (12) The calculation of the loop function of Eq. (6) is greatly sim plified by writing a general propag...

    work page

  5. [2]

    The partial width of Σ ∗ (1385) Following the same step as in the former subsection, the part ial width is dΓ dMinv(π+Λ)dMinv(π−R) = − 1 π Im(t ¯K 0p→ ¯K 0p) Γ π+Λ Γ tot 1 (2π)3 2MΛ + c 2MΛ4M 2 Λ + c pπ+ ˜pπ− ¯∑∑ |tΣ ∗(1385) TS |2, (36) with Im(t ¯K 0p→ ¯K 0p) = Im( 1Minv(π+Λ) −MΣ ∗(1385) + iΓ Σ ∗(1385) 2 ), (37) with Γ π + Λ Γ tot = 0.87 [47]. III. RESUL...

    2024

  6. [3]

    (6) substituting t ¯K 0p→π+Λ =⇒ gΣ ∗(1430), ¯K 0p with gΣ ∗(1430), ¯K 0p the coupling of the Σ ∗(1430) to the channel ¯K 0p

    (11) Then the triangle diagram amplitude can be evaluated by mean s of Eq. (6) substituting t ¯K 0p→π+Λ =⇒ gΣ ∗(1430), ¯K 0p with gΣ ∗(1430), ¯K 0p the coupling of the Σ ∗(1430) to the channel ¯K 0p. Note that we are not including at this stage information abo ut the decay of Σ ∗(1430) to π+Λ . Only the vertex for formation from ¯K 0p is needed at this le...

    work page

  7. [4]

    (28) Next we give the step to evaluate the mass distribution with t o the explicit decay of Σ ∗(1430) toπ+Λ

    The partial width of Σ ∗ (1430) For Λ + c − →π+π−R (R ≡ Σ ∗(1430)) we have dΓ dMinv(π−R) = 1 (2π)3 2MΛ + c 2MΛ4M 2 Λ + c pπ+ ˜pπ− ¯∑∑ |tTS|2, (27) with pπ+ = λ 1 2 (M 2 Λ + c ,m 2 π+,M 2 inv(π−R)) 2MΛ + c , ˜pπ− = λ 1 2 (M 2 inv(π−R),m 2 π−,M 2 R) 2Minv(π−R) . (28) Next we give the step to evaluate the mass distribution with t o the explicit decay of Σ ∗(...

    work page

  8. [5]

    Ma et al

    Y . Ma et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 151903 (2023)

    work page 2023

Show all 61 references
  1. [6]

    J. A. Oller and U. G. Meissner, Phys. Lett. B 500, 263 (2001)

    2001

  2. [7]

    Hyodo and D

    T. Hyodo and D. Jido, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 67, 55 (2012)

    2012

  3. [8]

    Roca and E

    L. Roca and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. C 88, 055206 (2013)

    2013

  4. [9]

    D. Jido, J. A. Oller, E. Oset, A. Ramos, and U. G. Meissner, Nucl. Phys. A 725, 181 (2003)

    2003

  5. [10]

    Oset and A

    E. Oset and A. Ramos, Nucl. Phys. A 635, 99 (1998)

    1998

  6. [12]

    Garcia-Recio, J

    C. Garcia-Recio, J. Nieves, E. Ruiz Arriola, and M. J. Vic ente V acas, Phys. Rev. D67, 076009 (2003)

    2003

  7. [13]

    Zhuang, R

    Z. Zhuang, R. Molina, J.-X. Lu, and L.-S. Geng (2024), 240 5.07686

    2024

  8. [14]

    Moriya et al

    K. Moriya et al. (CLAS), Phys. Rev. C 87, 035206 (2013)

    2013

  9. [15]

    Xie and E

    J.-J. Xie and E. Oset, Phys. Lett. B 792, 450 (2019)

    2019

  10. [16]

    Coleman and R

    S. Coleman and R. E. Norton, Nuovo Cim. 38, 438 (1965)

    1965

  11. [17]

    L. D. Landau, Nucl. Phys. 13, 181 (1959)

    1959

  12. [18]

    Bayar, F

    M. Bayar, F. Aceti, F.-K. Guo, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 94, 074039 (2016)

    2016

  13. [19]

    X.-H. Liu, M. Oka, and Q. Zhao, Phys. Lett. B 753, 297 (2016)

    2016

  14. [20]

    Xie, L.-S

    J.-J. Xie, L.-S. Geng, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 95, 034004 (2017)

    2017

  15. [21]

    F.-K. Guo, C. Hanhart, U.-G. Meißner, Q. Wang, Q. Zhao, a nd B.-S. Zou, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 015004 (2018), [Erratum: Rev.Mod.Phys. 94, 029901 (2022)]

    2018

  16. [22]

    Guo, U.-G

    F.-K. Guo, U.-G. Meißner, and C.-P . Shen, Phys. Lett. B 738, 172 (2014)

    2014

  17. [23]

    H.-J. Jing, S. Sakai, F.-K. Guo, and B.-S. Zou, Phys. Rev . D 100, 114010 (2019)

    2019

  18. [24]

    Guo, Phys

    F.-K. Guo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 202002 (2019)

    2019

  19. [25]

    J. A. Oller and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 60, 074023 (1999)

    1999

  20. [26]

    Kaiser, P

    N. Kaiser, P . B. Siegel, and W. Weise, Nucl. Phys. A 594, 325 (1995)

    1995

  21. [27]

    M. F. M. Lutz and E. E. Kolomeitsev, Nucl. Phys. A 700, 193 (2002)

    2002

  22. [28]

    Sarkar, E

    S. Sarkar, E. Oset, and M. J. Vicente V acas, Nucl. Phys. A 750, 294 (2005), [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.A 780, 90–90 (2006)]

    2005

  23. [29]

    Hyodo, D

    T. Hyodo, D. Jido, and A. Hosaka, Phys. Rev. C 78, 025203 (2008)

    2008

  24. [30]

    Ramos, A

    A. Ramos, A. Feijoo, and V . K. Magas, Nucl. Phys. A 954, 58 (2016)

    2016

  25. [31]

    K. P . Khemchandani, A. Mart´ ınez Torres, and J. A. Oller, Phys. Rev. C 100, 015208 (2019)

    2019

  26. [32]

    Ciepl´ y, M

    A. Ciepl´ y, M. Mai, U.-G. Meißner, and J. Smejkal, Nucl. Phys. A 954, 17 (2016)

    2016

  27. [33]

    Aceti, J

    F. Aceti, J. M. Dias, and E. Oset, Eur. Phys. J. A 51, 48 (2015)

    2015

  28. [34]

    G. D. Alexeev et al. (COMPASS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 082501 (2021)

    2021

  29. [35]

    A. P . Szczepaniak, Phys. Lett. B 747, 410 (2015)

    2015

  30. [36]

    Guo, H.-J

    F.-K. Guo, H.-J. Jing, U.-G. Meißner, and S. Sakai, Phys . Rev. D 99, 091501 (2019)

    2019

  31. [37]

    Liu, H.-X

    Y .-R. Liu, H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, and S.-L. Zhu, Pro g. Part. Nucl. Phys. 107, 237 (2019)

    2019

  32. [39]

    V . R. Debastiani, S. Sakai, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. C 96, 025201 (2017)

    2017

  33. [40]

    Wang, J.-J

    E. Wang, J.-J. Xie, W.-H. Liang, F.-K. Guo, and E. Oset, P hys. Rev. C 95, 015205 (2017)

    2017

  34. [41]

    Scheluchin et al

    G. Scheluchin et al. (BGOOD), Phys. Lett. B 833, 137375 (2022)

    2022

  35. [42]

    He (2025), 2505.04126

    J. He (2025), 2505.04126

    2025 arXiv

  36. [43]

    L. R. Dai, R. Pavao, S. Sakai, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 97, 116004 (2018)

    2018

  37. [44]

    Molina and E

    R. Molina and E. Oset, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 451 (2020)

    2020

  38. [45]

    Ikeno, R

    N. Ikeno, R. Molina, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. C 104, 014614 (2021)

    2021

  39. [46]

    Feijoo, R

    A. Feijoo, R. Molina, L. R. Dai, and E. Oset, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 1028 (2022)

    2022

  40. [47]

    Huang, Z.-X

    Q. Huang, Z.-X. Ma, J.-J. Wu, R.-G. Ping, J. He, and H.-X. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 110, 034018 (2024)

    2024

  41. [48]

    Wang, L.-S

    E. Wang, L.-S. Geng, J.-J. Wu, J.-J. Xie, and B.-S. Zou, C hin. Phys. Lett. 41, 101401 (2024)

    2024

  42. [49]

    Miyahara, T

    K. Miyahara, T. Hyodo, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. C 92, 055204 (2015)

    2015

  43. [50]

    Miyahara, T

    K. Miyahara, T. Hyodo, M. Oka, J. Nieves, and E. Oset, Phy s. Rev. C 95, 035212 (2017)

    2017

  44. [51]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  45. [52]

    Li, J.-X

    H.-P . Li, J.-X. Lin, W.-H. Liang, and E. Oset, Eur. Phys. J. A 61, 97 (2025)

    2025

  46. [53]

    N. N. Achasov, A. A. Kozhevnikov, and G. N. Shestakov, Ph ys. Rev. D 92, 036003 (2015)

    2015

  47. [55]

    Fernandez de Cordoba, Y

    P . Fernandez de Cordoba, Y . Ratis, E. Oset, J. Nieves, M. J. Vicente-V acas, B. Lopez-Alvaredo, and F. Gareev, Nucl. P hys. A 586, 586 (1995)

    1995

  48. [56]

    P . S. J. McNamee and F. Chilton, Rev. Mod. Phys. 36, 1005 (1964). 13

    1964

  49. [57]

    J. M. Dias, V . R. Debastiani, J. J. Xie, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 98, 094017 (2018)

    2018

  50. [58]

    Li, C.-W

    H.-P . Li, C.-W. Xiao, W.-H. Liang, J.-J. Wu, E. Wang, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 110, 114018 (2024)

    2024

  51. [59]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (Super-Kamiokande), Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 241803 (2024)

    2024

  52. [60]

    Song, W.-H

    J. Song, W.-H. Liang, and E. Oset (2025), 2502.20160

    2025 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (A TLAS), Phys. Rev. D 89, 032002 (2014)

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.