Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 119 references

Exclusive $\eta$ production in proton-proton collisions at energies available at the GSI Facility for Antiproton and Ion Research

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that at FAIR energies the dominant mechanism for $pp \to pp\eta$ is excitation of the $N(1535)$ resonance by $\rho$-meson exchange, and that the resulting effective-Lagrangian model reproduces the measured angular…

desk verdict Solid benchmark predictions for FAIR, but the rho-dominance conclusion rests on DISTO data where the model's own ISI/FSI caveat bites. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14952 v2 pith:ZONHAUVR submitted 2025-01-24 hep-ph hep-ex

Piotr Lebiedowicz This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords etamesonproductionproton-protoncollisionsN(1535)resonancerho-mesonexchangeeffectiveLagrangianvector-mesonfusionreggeizedGSI-FAIRpredictions
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

At the energies of the HADES, PANDA, and SIS100 experiments at GSI-FAIR, the paper computes the exclusive reaction $pp \to pp\eta$ with an effective-Lagrangian model built from $\eta$-bremsstrahlung, nucleon-resonance excitation, and vector-meson-fusion amplitudes. Its central claim is that the $N(1535)$ resonance, excited predominantly by $\rho$-meson exchange, controls the cross section and its angular shape in this region, and that with this assumption the model matches the DISTO data on $d\sigma/d\cos\theta_\eta$ and $d\sigma/dp_\eta$. If correct, the calculation provides a concrete benchmark for the upcoming HADES measurement at $\sqrt{s}=3.46$ GeV and for later PANDA and SIS100 runs, including the expected roles of the heavier resonances $N(1650)$, $N(1710)$, $N(1880)$ and of $\rho^0\rho^0$ and $\omega\omega$ fusion. The work extends earlier near-threshold models into a poorly explored energy range where future data will decide which excitation mechanism is right.

What carries the argument

The engine is a coherent amplitude split into two classes: (i) $\eta$-bremsstrahlung diagrams with an intermediate proton or nucleon resonance $N^* = N(1535), N(1650), N(1710), N(1880)$, exchanging virtual $\pi^0$, $\eta$, $\rho^0$, or $\omega$ mesons, and (ii) vector-meson-fusion diagrams $\rho^0\rho^0,\ \omega\omega \to \eta$ with reggeized vector-meson propagators. The load-bearing piece is the $\rho$-exchange excitation of $N(1535)$; its tensor coupling constant $g_{\rho NN(1535)}$ is derived from the radiative and two-pion decay rates of the resonance, and the meson-vertex parameters are fixed by comparing the same effective Lagrangians to the $\gamma p\to\eta p$ and $\pi^- p\to\eta n$ data. Form factors and cutoff parameters soften the off-shell vertices, and a phenomenological suppression factor $f_{\rm sup}(s)$ damps the vector-meson-exchange contributions at higher energies.

What would settle it

Measure the HADES differential distributions at $\sqrt{s}=3.46$ GeV: if $d\sigma/d\cos\theta_\eta$ comes out flat or backward-peaked rather than with the $\rho$-exchange $N(1535)$ shape, or if the reconstructed $M_{p\eta}$ distribution lacks the $N(1535)$ band, the central claim fails; a precise total cross section below about 80 $\mu$b at that energy would likewise indicate that the neglected initial-state interaction or an overestimated $\rho NN(1535)$ coupling is doing real work.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The author claims that in $pp \to pp\eta$ for $\sqrt{s}$ from roughly 2.75 to 8 GeV, the $N(1535)$ contribution is dominant but not sufficient alone: the coherent sum of all amplitudes, with significant interference terms, is needed to match the measured energy dependence and the DISTO differential distributions. The preferred dynamical content is that the resonant excitation proceeds through the exchange of a virtual $\rho$ meson with a tensor-type $\rho NN(1535)$ coupling, whose strength is fixed from the $N(1535)\to p\gamma$ and $N(1535)\to N\rho\to N\pi^+\pi^-$ decays. With this input, the model reproduces the shape of the angular and momentum distributions measured by DISTO, while models with pseudoscalar-meson excitation of the resonances describe those shapes less well. For the HADES energy point $\sqrt{s}=3.46$ GeV the model predicts a total cross section in the range of roughly 80 to 140 $\mu$b depending on the parameter set, together with detailed differential predictions in $\cos\theta_\eta$, $p_\eta$, $M_{p\eta}$, $M_{pp}$, $x_F$, and transverse momenta.

Load-bearing premise

The predictions rest on dropping the nucleon-nucleon initial- and final-state interactions at $\sqrt{s}\ge 3.46$ GeV, even though the paper itself notes that the initial-state interaction is known to matter in exactly this energy range.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • HADES at $\sqrt{s}=3.46$ GeV should see a total cross section near the model-1 value of about 137 $\mu$b, with a $d\sigma/d\cos\theta_\eta$ shape controlled by the $\rho$-exchange $N(1535)$ mechanism rather than by forward-peaked pseudoscalar exchange.
  • The $\rho^0\rho^0$- and $\omega\omega$-fusion contributions are separately testable: they are small near threshold but grow relative to the bremsstrahlung terms toward $\sqrt{s}=8$ GeV, and reggeization suppresses them by about a factor of 10 at $\sqrt{s}=3.46$ GeV.
  • At PANDA and SIS100 energies the model falls to roughly 37 and 3 $\mu$b for model 1, so the measured energy dependence of the total cross section will directly discriminate between the competing excitation mechanisms.
  • The heavier resonances $N(1650)$, $N(1710)$, and $N(1880)$ contribute only through interference, but they produce visible structures in the $M_{p\eta}$ distributions, giving experimental searches a concrete signature to confirm or exclude them.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the $\rho$-exchange dominance survives the HADES comparison, the same effective-Lagrangian machinery should transfer naturally to $\eta'$, $\omega$, and $\phi$ production, where analogous vector-meson exchange and fusion mechanisms are expected to operate.
  • The paper's own caveat about the neglected initial-state proton-proton interaction is the main hidden risk: a measured total cross section at $\sqrt{s}=3.46$ GeV that is uniformly lower than the $\rho$-exchange model by tens of per cent would point to that missing ingredient rather than to a wrong $N(1535)$ coupling.
  • A decisive future analysis could use the two-dimensional $M_{p\eta}^{(1)}$--$M_{p\eta}^{(2)}$ map: the model predicts a concentrated $N(1535)$ band, whereas an alternative scenario with $D_{13}$-resonance dominance would populate a different region of the same plot.
  • The VV-fusion contribution could be isolated at PANDA energies by looking for a slowly rising forward component in the $\eta$ transverse-momentum distribution, since the bremsstrahlung terms are strongly damped there.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents an effective-Lagrangian calculation of exclusive pp → ppη cross sections at energies relevant for the HADES, PANDA, and SIS100 experiments at GSI-FAIR. The model includes η-bremsstrahlung via intermediate proton exchange with π0, η, ρ0, and ω exchanges, excitation of the N(1535), N(1650), N(1710), and N(1880) resonances via pseudoscalar and/or vector-meson exchanges, and ρ0ρ0/ωω fusion with reggeized vector mesons. Parameters are partly constrained by fits to γp → ηp and π−p → ηn data and by radiative decay widths. Three model variants are compared with the energy dependence of the pp → ppη cross section and with DISTO differential distributions. The central conditional claim is that ρ exchange is the dominant N(1535) excitation mechanism and that the resulting model reproduces the DISTO angular shapes; predictions are given for √s = 3.46, 5.0, and 8.0 GeV.

Significance. If the central claim survives scrutiny, the paper provides a useful benchmark for ongoing and planned FAIR measurements, and its inclusion of VV-fusion and reggeized exchanges goes beyond several earlier near-threshold studies. The anchoring of N∗ couplings in γp and π−p data is a genuine strength, and the HADES √s = 3.46 GeV predictions are falsifiable in the near term. However, the central evidence for ρ dominance rests on DISTO comparisons at energies below the paper's own FSI-negligibility threshold, while the exponential suppression f_sup(s) is tuned to the energy dependence of the very pp → ppη data the model claims to describe. The present manuscript is therefore best read as a framework with conditional conclusions rather than as an established determination of the reaction mechanism.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II.A, Eq. (2.11)] The function f_sup(s) = exp(−(s−s_thr)/Λ²_sup) is described as a 'purely phenomenological suppression function' introduced 'to ensure a correct energy dependence.' Because Λ_sup is adjusted by hand and is not derived from the γp or π−p anchors, the agreement of the total cross section with the HADES/DISTO energy dependence in Fig. 3 and Table I is not an independent prediction. This concern is sharpened by Table I, where model 1 gives σ(√s=3.46 GeV) = 136.9 μb, identical to the Teilab thesis central value quoted in Sec. III. The manuscript should state explicitly whether any pp → ppη data point was used to set Λ_sup, and should not count the energy dependence of the total cross section as a prediction unless that freedom is removed.
  2. [Sec. II.A and Figs. 4-5] The central comparison with DISTO angular distributions is made at √s = 2.748 and 2.978 GeV, but Sec. II.A states that NN FSI can be 'safely neglected' only for √s ≥ 3.46 GeV (Q_exc > 625 MeV). At the DISTO energies the excess energies are roughly 325 and 555 MeV, so the stated FSI-negligibility condition is not met, and ISI is omitted altogether. The manuscript itself cites Ref. [10] for the result that ISI suppresses the ρ-exchange contribution much more than the π-exchange contribution and can change the dominant mechanism. Because models 1 and 2 (ρ-only) are preferred over model 3 (ρ+π+η) mainly on the basis of the DISTO shapes, the omission of ISI/FSI is directly load-bearing for the rho-dominance conclusion, not merely a caveat for future work. The authors should either provide an estimate of ISI/FSI effects at the DISTO energies, or explicitly limit the conclusion to a no-ISI/no-FSI model comparison.
  3. [Sec. III, models 1-3] The model comparison is confounded: models 1 and 2 use Λ_sup = 4 GeV, while model 3 uses Λ_sup = 2 GeV. Thus any difference between model 1 and model 3 in the DISTO angular shapes is not attributable solely to the addition of π and η exchanges; the exponential suppression of vector-meson-exchange amplitudes also changes. To support the statement that 'a model with the dominance of the ρ exchange is the preferred option,' the authors should show a control calculation in which the meson content is varied while Λ_sup is held fixed, or demonstrate that the angular shapes are insensitive to Λ_sup within a reasonable range.
  4. [Sec. III, Figs. 3-8] The manuscript repeatedly uses qualitative language such as 'good agreement' and 'reproduces the shape' without any quantitative goodness-of-fit measure, and no parameter uncertainties or error bands are provided for the predictions. Given the number of adjustable elements (Λ_sup, Λ_V,mon, Λ_VNN, Λ_πNN*, X, g_ρNN(1535), etc.), the reader cannot judge whether the agreement with DISTO is statistically meaningful or whether the three models are distinguishable by the data shown. A chi-square or likelihood comparison for the DISTO angular and momentum distributions would materially strengthen the central claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 3] The legend entry rendered as 'η p p→ p p⇐' appears to be a garbled label for the p̄p → p̄pη data points; please correct it.
  2. [Fig. 16 caption and Sec. III] The caption for Fig. 16 states Λ_V,mon = 1.2 GeV, while the text says 'one finds the cutoff parameters Λ_VNN = 1.4 GeV and Λ_V,mon = 1.3 GeV'; please unify these values or explain the discrepancy.
  3. [Sec. III, HADES points] The text notes that the preliminary HADES result [25] and the Teilab thesis value [26] are inconsistent, but it does not state which point is plotted in Fig. 3 or how the inconsistency is handled in judging model agreement; please clarify.
  4. [Appendix A, Table II] For N(1700), the branching ratio B(N(1700)→ηN) is listed as 'seen' without a numerical PDG value; a brief statement of the adopted value used in the calculation would be helpful.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

The energy dependence of the pp→ppη total cross section is partly imposed by the phenomenological f_sup(s) suppression, so the integrated-cross-section 'prediction' is not fully independent; the DISTO angular-shape evidence for rho dominance is not affected and supports the central claim.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. II.A, Eq. (2.11); applied in Sec. III, Fig. 3 comparison and Table I predictions.]
    "The amplitudes with vector-meson exchanges were multiplied by a purely phenomenological suppression function in order to ensure a correct energy dependence: fsup(s) = exp(−(s − sthr)/Λ2sup) (2.11) with sthr = (2mp + mη)2 and Λsup = 4 GeV (unless stated otherwise). ... The results calculated for the N∗ contributions excited by the ρ exchange reproduce energy dependence of the measured pp → pp η cross section."

    The dominant N(1535) contribution, carried by ρ exchange, is multiplied by f_sup(s), introduced explicitly 'to ensure a correct energy dependence.' No independent derivation of Λsup is given; the parameter is phenomenological and is even changed between models (4 GeV to 2 GeV for model 3). The statement that the ρ-excited N∗ contribution 'reproduce[s] the energy dependence of the measured pp→ppη cross section' therefore restates the input that went into choosing Λsup. The subsequent HADES/PANDA/SIS100 integrated cross sections inherit this fitted normalization and are not an independent prediction of the energy dependence. The DISTO angular shapes are unaffected because f_sup depends only on s, so the rho-dominance conclusion from those shapes retains independent content.

full rationale

This is a single, honest phenomenological input rather than a fully circular derivation. Couplings for π/η exchange are fixed from PDG widths and from fits to γp→ηp and π−p→ηn data, which are external to the pp→ppη target; Appendix C determines ρNN* couplings from radiative and two-pion decays. The DISTO comparison of dσ/d cos θη and dσ/dpη selects ρ exchange from the shape, which f_sup cannot manufacture. However, the energy dependence of the total cross section is explicitly engineered by f_sup(s), so the tabulated total cross sections at √s = 3.46, 5.0, and 8.0 GeV are partly a reflection of the fitted suppression rather than a pure first-principles prediction. This warrants a moderate circularity score, not a charge that the central angular-shape result is forced.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger is dominated by cutoffs and coupling constants. Most are constrained by gamma p and pi- p data or PDG widths, which gives independent grounding. The most concerning entry is Lambda_sup, a hand-tuned suppression that shapes the energy dependence of the very pp->pp eta cross section being predicted. No genuinely new particles or fields are introduced.

free parameters (8)
  • Lambda_sup (exponential suppression scale in f_sup, Eq. 2.11) = 4 GeV (models 1/2); 2 GeV (model 3)
    Introduced 'to ensure a correct energy dependence' of the pp->pp eta cross section; the value is changed between models, effectively fitting the energy dependence of the target data.
  • Lambda_V,mon (monopole cutoff in VV-eta vertex, Eq. 2.17) = 1.2 GeV (main text); 1.3 GeV (Appendix B)
    Adjusted to reproduce the t dependence of CLAS gamma p -> eta p data; then applied unchanged to pp -> pp eta.
  • Lambda_VNN (cutoff in V-proton vertex, Eq. 2.20) = 1.4 GeV
    Taken from Bonn potential fit to NN scattering; controls the size of VV-fusion and V-exchange amplitudes.
  • Lambda_piNN*, Lambda_etaNN* (meson-N* cutoffs, Eq. 2.8) = 1.2 GeV
    Used for every N* resonance; affects the relative strength of pi/eta versus rho excitation of N(1535).
  • Lambda_piNN, Lambda_etaNN (meson-nucleon cutoffs, Eq. 2.9) = 1.0 GeV
    Standard values adopted from previous analyses; heavily suppress the nucleonic bremsstrahlung term at high off-shellness.
  • g_rhoNN(1535) tensor coupling = 5.0 (models 1,3); 4.5 (model 2)
    Extracted in Appendix C from N(1535)->p gamma and N(1535)->N pi+ pi- via VMD; sensitive to cutoff Lambda_rho and branching ratio input.
  • X (damping parameter in resonance widths, Eq. A18-A19) = 0.2 GeV
    Fixed for all resonances; changes the s-dependence of N* propagators and thus the interference structure.
  • Lambda_rho (cutoff in rho-N-N* form factor, Eq. C5) = 1.2 GeV
    Used when extracting the rho-N-N* couplings; the paper shows the extracted couplings vary strongly with this value.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Effective Lagrangian one-meson-exchange description of pp -> pp eta (bremsstrahlung plus N* excitation plus VV fusion).
    The whole calculation assumes hadronic degrees of freedom with point-like vertices modified by form factors; no QCD-level derivation. Entered in Section II.
  • domain assumption Vector meson dominance for gamma-V transitions and for extracting g_VV_eta from V -> eta gamma decays.
    Used in Appendix B (Eq. B6) and Appendix C (Eq. C2); if VMD fails, the rho-N* couplings and VV-fusion strengths shift.
  • domain assumption Reggeized vector-meson propagator with square-root trajectory (Eqs. 2.23-2.26).
    Taken from Ref. [62]; without reggeization the VV-fusion cross section grows with energy, so the high-energy predictions depend on this modeling.
  • ad hoc to paper Neglect of initial- and final-state nucleon-nucleon interactions at sqrt(s)>=3.46 GeV.
    Stated in Section II A after Eq. (2.11); the text itself notes ISI is important in the HADES/PANDA range and postpones a consistent treatment.
  • domain assumption Signs of g_eta_NN* and g_pi_NN* couplings are taken from outside analyses, not fixed here.
    Branching ratios fix only |g|^2; the signs control interference terms (see text after Eq. A21 and Table II).
  • domain assumption Phenomenological form factors (monopole, dipole) with chosen cutoffs normalize all vertices.
    Every amplitude is multiplied by cutoffs (Eqs. 2.7-2.9, A20-A21); the paper acknowledges the cross sections are sensitive to these parameters.
  • domain assumption Input coupling constants g_piNN^2/4pi=14.0 and g_eta from Ref. [82] (lambda=0.504, g_eta=4.03).
    These values are uncertain in the literature and directly set the nucleonic bremsstrahlung contribution.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exclusive $\eta$ production in proton-proton collisions at energies available at the GSI Facility for Antiproton and Ion Research." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZONHAUVR

@misc{pith2026250114952,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exclusive $\eta$ production in proton-proton collisions at energies available at the GSI Facility for Antiproton and Ion Research},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZONHAUVR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14952}
}
abstract

The cross sections for the $p p \to p p \eta$ reaction are evaluated at energies relevant for the HADES, PANDA, and SIS100 experiments at GSI-FAIR. Consideration includes the $\eta$-bremsstrahlung mechanism involving intermediate proton exchange via the $\pi^{0}$, $\eta$, $\rho^{0}$, and $\omega$ exchanges and the mechanism involving the nucleon resonances $N(1535)$, $N(1650)$, $N(1710)$, and $N(1880)$ excited via the pseudoscalar- and/or vector-meson exchanges, depending on the model. The role of the $\omega \omega$- and $\rho^{0} \rho^{0}$-fusion processes with the reggeized vector-meson exchanges is also discussed. The calculation is done in an effective Lagrangian approach. To determine the parameters of the model, the $\gamma p \to \eta p$ and $\pi^{-} p \to \eta n$ reactions are studied and the results are then compared with the Crystal Ball and CLAS data. For the $p p \to p p \eta$ reaction, the model results are compared with the energy dependence of the cross section measured far from the threshold and with the differential distributions $d\sigma/d\cos{\theta_{\eta}}$ and $d\sigma/dp_{\eta}$ measured by the DISTO Collaboration. The comparison shows that the $N(1535)$ resonance is the dominant contribution and that other contributions are also important due to interference effects. Assuming that the $\rho$ exchange is the dominant resonant excitation process, the model is able to describe the available data, e.g., it reproduces the shape of the angular distributions measured by the DISTO Collaboration. Predictions are given for the HADES experiment at center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s} = 3.46$ GeV, which can be verified in the near future, and for planned PANDA and SIS100 experiments at higher energies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.14952 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The diagrams for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Total cross section for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Differential cross sections [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Differential cross sections [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Differential cross sections for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Differential cross sections [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Differential cross sections for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. The two-dimensional distributions in ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Diagrams for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Total cross section for the reaction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. The differential cross sections [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Diagrams for photoproduction of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: shows the integrated cross sections for the γp → ηp reaction for two models, 1 and 2 (explained in the previous section), together with experimental data. It can be seen from the calculation results that the domi￾nant production mechanism is via N(1535) resonance. At …
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. The differential cross sections [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. The differential cross sections [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. Coupling constant constrained from the two decays [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. Coupling constant constrained from the decays [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_18.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

119 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [10]

    some additional comments are in order. While the four- momenta squared of transferred s-channel baryons is p2 s = W2 π− p > (mN + mη)2 /greaterorsimilar2.21 GeV2, this is not the case for transferred u-channel baryons where one has p2 u < (mN − mη)2 ≲ 0.15 GeV2. The form factors ( A20) and ( A21) used to describe the p2s,u dependence of baryons are defined...

    1900

  2. [1]

    L. Gan, B. Kubis, E. Passemar, and S. Tulin, Precision tests of fundamental physics with η and η′ mesons, Phys. Rept. 945 (2022) 2191, arXiv:2007.00664 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  3. [2]

    off-shell parameter

    as far as the shape of the distributions is concerned. The impor- tance of the N(1710) and N(1880) resonances is more visible in model 3 [see two distinct resonant bumps af- ter N(1535) in dσ/dM pη]. Such prediction of the model (resonant features) may be verified by examining the distributions in the proton transverse momentum and in the η p invariant mas...

    1900

  4. [3]

    J. M. Laget, F. Wellers, and J. F. Lecolley ,η-meson 27 production in nucleon-nucleon collisions, Phys. Lett. B 257 (1991) 254

    1991

  5. [4]

    One can see that the contribution of N(1535) (through ρ exchange) is dominant and that there is a large interference of dif- ferent components in the amplitude

    for the two models 1 and 2 are presented. One can see that the contribution of N(1535) (through ρ exchange) is dominant and that there is a large interference of dif- ferent components in the amplitude. The shape of com- plete theoretical predictions of cos θη and pη seems to be in good agreement with the DISTO data [24]. The ex- perimental data points we...

  6. [5]

    Near threshold eta production in proton-proton collisions

    M. Batinic, A. Svarc, and T. S. H. Lee, Near threshold η production in proton-proton collisions, Phys. Scripta 56 (1997) 321, arXiv:nucl-th/9604043

    work page Pith review arXiv 1997

  7. [6]

    J. F. Germond and C. Wilkin, The pp → ppη reaction near threshold, Nucl. Phys. A 518 (1990) 308

    1990

  8. [7]

    A. B. Santra and B. K. Jain, η production in proton proton collisions, Nucl. Phys. A 634 (1998) 309

    1998

Show all 119 references
  1. [8]

    V etter, A

    T. V etter, A. Engel, T. Biró, and U. Mosel, η production in nucleon-nucleon collisions, Phys. Lett. B 263 (1991) 153

    1991

  2. [9]

    Fäldt and C

    G. Fäldt and C. Wilkin, The production of η mesons in nucleon-nucleon collisions near threshold, Phys. Scripta 64 (2001) 427, arXiv:nucl-th/0104081

    2001 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Gedalin, A

    E. Gedalin, A. Moalem, and L. Razdolskaja, A covariant OBE model for η production in NN collisions, Nucl. Phys. A 634 (1998) 368, arXiv:hep-ph/9712375

    1998 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Calén et al., Higher partial waves in pp → ppη near threshold, Phys

    H. Calén et al., Higher partial waves in pp → ppη near threshold, Phys. Lett. B 458 (1999) 190, arXiv:nucl-ex/9811003

    1999 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Fix and H

    A. Fix and H. Arenhövel, Final state interaction in the reaction NN → ηNN, Phys. Rev . C69 (2004) 014001, arXiv:nucl-th/0310034

    2004 arXiv

  6. [14]

    V . Baru, A. M. Gasparyan, J. Haidenbauer, C. Hanhart, A. E. Kudryavtsev , and J. Speth,Production of η mesons in nucleon-nucleon collisions, Phys.Rev .C67 (2003) 024002, arXiv:nucl-th/0212014 [nucl-th]

    2003 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Nakayama, J

    K. Nakayama, J. Speth, and T.-S. H. Lee, η meson production in NN collisions, Phys.Rev .C65 (2002) 045210, arXiv:nucl-th/0202012 [nucl-th]

    2002 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Nakayama, J

    K. Nakayama, J. Haidenbauer, C. Hanhart, and J. Speth, Analysis of the reaction pp → ppη near threshold, Phys. Rev . C68 (2003) 045201, arXiv:nucl-th/0302061

    2003 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Moskalet al., Near threshold production of the η meson via the quasi-free pn → pnη reaction, Phys

    P . Moskalet al., Near threshold production of the η meson via the quasi-free pn → pnη reaction, Phys. Rev . C79 (2009) 015208, arXiv:0807.0722 [hep-ex]

    2009 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Deloff, Phenomenology of pp → ppη reaction close to threshold, Phys

    A. Deloff, Phenomenology of pp → ppη reaction close to threshold, Phys. Rev . C69 (2004) 035206, arXiv:nucl-th/0309059

    2004 arXiv

  11. [19]

    S. Ceci, A. Svarc, and B. Zauner, The importance of η exchange in the pp → ppη process up to T lab = 4.5 GeV, Phys. Scripta 73 (2006) 663, arXiv:nucl-th/0402040

    2006 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Czy ˙zykiewicz et al., Mechanism of Near-Threshold Production of the η Meson, Phys

    R. Czy ˙zykiewicz et al., Mechanism of Near-Threshold Production of the η Meson, Phys. Rev . Lett.98 (2007) 122003, arXiv:hep-ex/0611015

    2007 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Klajaet al., Measurement of the invariant mass distributions for the pp → ppη′ reaction at excess energy of Q = 16.4 MeV, Phys

    P . Klajaet al., Measurement of the invariant mass distributions for the pp → ppη′ reaction at excess energy of Q = 16.4 MeV, Phys. Lett. B 684 (2010) 11, arXiv:1001.5174 [nucl-ex]

    2010 arXiv

  14. [22]

    L. P . Kaptari and B. Kämpfer, Di-electrons from η-meson Dalitz decay in proton-proton collisions, Eur. Phys. J. A 33 (2007) 157, arXiv:nucl-th/0702033

    2007 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Shyam, η-meson production in nucleon-nucleon collisions within an effective Lagrangian model, Phys

    R. Shyam, η-meson production in nucleon-nucleon collisions within an effective Lagrangian model, Phys. Rev . C75 (2007) 055201, arXiv:nucl-th/0701011

    2007 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Nakayama, Y

    K. Nakayama, Y . Oh, and H. Haberzettl, Combined Analysis of η Meson Hadro- and Photoproduction off Nucleons, J.Korean Phys.Soc. 59 (2011) 224, arXiv:0803.3169 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Teilab, (HADES Collaboration), ω and η meson production in p + p reactions at E kin = 3.5 GeV, Int

    K. Teilab, (HADES Collaboration), ω and η meson production in p + p reactions at E kin = 3.5 GeV, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 26 (2011) 694, arXiv:1009.3442 [nucl-ex]

    2011 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Lü and D.-M

    Q.-F. Lü and D.-M. Li, Near-threshold η production in pp collisions, Chin. Phys. C 39 no. 11, (2015) 113104 , arXiv:1501.06266 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Krusche and C

    B. Krusche and C. Wilkin, Production of η and η′ mesons on nucleons and nuclei, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 80 (2015) 43, arXiv:1410.7680 [nucl-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Balestra et al., (DISTO Collaboration), Exclusive η production in proton-proton reactions, Phys

    F. Balestra et al., (DISTO Collaboration), Exclusive η production in proton-proton reactions, Phys. Rev . C69 (2004) 064003

    2004

  21. [29]

    Treli ´ nski and I

    S. Treli ´ nski and I. Ciepał,Application of Kinematic Fit with Missing Particle Constraint in Proton-Proton Collisions with HADES, Acta Phys. Pol. B Proc. Suppl. 18 (2025) 4–A8

    2025

  22. [30]

    Teilab, The production of η and ω mesons in 3.5 GeV p+p interaction in HADES, Ph.D

    K. Teilab, The production of η and ω mesons in 3.5 GeV p+p interaction in HADES, Ph.D. thesis, Frankfurt University , 2011, available at https://hades.gsi.de/node/4

    2011

  23. [31]

    G. Agakishiev et al., (HADES Collaboration), Study of exclusive one-pion and one-eta production using hadron and dielectron channels in pp reactions at kinetic beam energie s of 1.25 GeV and 2.2 GeV with HADES, Eur. Phys. J. A 48 (2012) 74, arXiv:1203.1333 [nucl-ex]

    2012 arXiv

  24. [32]

    S. Treli ´ nski,Exclusive production of η and ω in pp at 4.5 GeV with HADES presented at Workshop at 1 GeV scale: From mesons to axions, September 19-20, 2024, Jagiellonian Univeristy , Kraków , Poland, available at https://indico.meson.if.uj.edu.pl/event/5/contributions/429

    2024

  25. [33]

    N. I. Kochelev , T. Morii, B. L. Reznik, and A. V . Vinnikov ,The role of secondary Reggeons in central meson production, Eur.Phys.J. A8 (2000) 405, arXiv:hep-ph/0005088 [hep-ph]

    2000 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Lebiedowicz, O

    P . Lebiedowicz, O. Nachtmann, P . Salabura, and A. Szczurek, Exclusive f 1(1285) meson production for energy ranges available at the GSI-F AIR with HADES and P ANDA, Phys. Rev . D104 no. 3, (2021) 034031 , arXiv:2105.07192 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  27. [35]

    QCD at FAIR Workshop 2024, https://indico.gsi.de/event/20301/

    2024

  28. [36]

    N. I. Kochelev , T. Morii, and A. V . Vinnikov ,Pomeron fusion and central η and η′ meson production, Phys.Lett. B457 (1999) 202, arXiv:hep-ph/9903279 [hep-ph]

    1999 arXiv

  29. [37]

    M. J. Anderson, S. K. Domokos, J. A. Harvey , and N. Mann, Central production of η and η′ via double Pomeron exchange in the Sakai-Sugimoto model, Phys. Rev .D90 no. 8, (2014) 086010 , arXiv:1406.7010 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Lebiedowicz, O

    P . Lebiedowicz, O. Nachtmann, and A. Szczurek, Exclusive central diffractive production of scalar and pseudoscalar mesons; tensorial vs. vectorial pomeron, Annals Phys. 344 (2014) 301, arXiv:1309.3913 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Lebiedowicz, O

    P . Lebiedowicz, O. Nachtmann, and A. Szczurek, Central exclusive production of η and η′ mesons in diffractive proton-proton collisions at the LHC within the tensor-pomeron approach, arXiv:2506.04846 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  32. [40]

    Ewerz, M

    C. Ewerz, M. Maniatis, and O. Nachtmann, A Model for Soft High-Energy Scattering: T ensor Pomeron and Vector Odderon, Annals Phys. 342 (2014) 31, arXiv:1309.3478 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Bellenger, S

    D. Bellenger, S. Deutsch, D. Luckey , L. S. Osborne, and R. Schwitters, Photoproduction of η0 Mesons at 4 GeV, Phys. Rev . Lett.21 (1968) 1205

    1968

  34. [42]

    M. J. Anderson, S. Domokos, and N. Mann, Central production of η via double Pomeron exchange and double Reggeon exchange in the Sakai-Sugimoto model, Phys. Rev . D96 no. 4, (2017) 046002 , arXiv:1612.07457 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Kroll and K

    P . Kroll and K. Passek-Kumeriˇ cki,Two-gluon components of the η and η′ mesons to leading-twist accuracy, Phys.Rev .D67 (2003) 054017, 28 arXiv:hep-ph/0210045 [hep-ph]

    2003 arXiv

  36. [44]

    S. D. Bass and P . Moskal, η′ and η mesons with connection to anomalous glue, Rev . Mod. Phys.91 no. 1, (2019) 015003 , arXiv:1810.12290 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Williams et al., (CLAS Collaboration), Differential cross sections for the reactions γp → pη and γp → pη′, Phys

    M. Williams et al., (CLAS Collaboration), Differential cross sections for the reactions γp → pη and γp → pη′, Phys. Rev . C80 (2009) 045213, arXiv:0909.0616 [nucl-ex]

    2009 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Braunschweig, W

    W. Braunschweig, W. Erlewein, H. Frese, K. Luebelsmeyer, H. Meyer-Wachsmuth, D. Schmitz, A. Schultz V on Dratzig, and G. Wessels, Single photoproduction of η-mesons on hydrogen in the forward direction at 4 and 6 GeV, Phys. Lett. B 33 (1970) 236

    1970

  39. [47]

    Dewire, B

    J. Dewire, B. Gittelman, R. Loe, E. C. Loh, D. J. Ritchie, and R. A. Lewis, Photoproduction of eta mesons from hydrogen, Phys. Lett. B 37 (1971) 326

    1971

  40. [48]

    Dugger et al., (CLAS Collaboration), η Photoproduction on the Proton for Photon Energies from 0.75 to 1.95 GeV, Phys

    M. Dugger et al., (CLAS Collaboration), η Photoproduction on the Proton for Photon Energies from 0.75 to 1.95 GeV, Phys. Rev . Lett.89 (2002) 222002. [Erratum: Phys.Rev .Lett. 89, 249904 (2002)]

    2002

  41. [49]

    Chiang, S

    W.-T. Chiang, S. N. Yang, L. Tiator, M. Vanderhaeghen, and D. Drechsel, Reggeized model for η and η′ photoproduction, Phys. Rev . C68 (2003) 045202, arXiv:nucl-th/0212106

    2003 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Credéet al., (CBELSA/TAPS Collaboration), Photoproduction of η and η′ mesons off protons, Phys

    V . Credéet al., (CBELSA/TAPS Collaboration), Photoproduction of η and η′ mesons off protons, Phys. Rev . C80 (2009) 055202, arXiv:0909.1248 [nucl-ex]

    2009 arXiv

  43. [51]

    E. F. McNicoll et al., (Crystal Ball Collaboration at MAMI), Experimental study of the γp → η p reaction with the Crystal Ball detector at the Mainz Microtron (MAMI-C), Phys. Rev . C82 (2010) 035208, arXiv:1007.0777 [nucl-ex]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev .C 84, 029901 (2011)]

    2010 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Hu et al., (CLAS Collaboration), Photoproduction of η mesons off the proton for 1.2 < Eγ < 4.7 GeV using CLAS at Jefferson Laboratory, Phys

    T. Hu et al., (CLAS Collaboration), Photoproduction of η mesons off the proton for 1.2 < Eγ < 4.7 GeV using CLAS at Jefferson Laboratory, Phys. Rev . C102 (2020) 065203, arXiv:2006.01361 [nucl-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Tiator, M

    L. Tiator, M. Gorchtein, V . L. Kashevarov , K. Nikonov , M. Ostrick, M. Hadžimehmedovi´ c, R. Omerovi´ c, H. Osmanovi´ c, J. Stahov , and A. Švarc,Eta and etaprime photoproduction on the nucleon with the isobar model EtaMAID2018, Eur. Phys. J. A 54 no. 12, (2018) 210 , arXiv:...

    2018 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Zhong and Q

    X.-H. Zhong and Q. Zhao, η photoproduction on quasifree nucleons in the chiral quark model, Phys. Rev . C84 (2011) 045207, arXiv:1106.2892 [nucl-th]

    2011 arXiv

  47. [55]

    J. Nys, V . Mathieu, C. Fernández-Ramírez, A. N. Hiller Blin, A. Jackura, M. Mikhasenko, A. Pilloni, A. P . Szczepaniak, G. Fox, and J. Ryckebusch, (JP AC Collaboration), Finite-energy sum rules in eta photoproduction off a nucleon, Phys. Rev . D95 no. 3, (2017) 034014 , arXiv...

    2017 arXiv

  48. [56]

    V . L. Kashevarov , M. Ostrick, and L. Tiator,Regge phenomenology in π0 and η photoproduction, Phys. Rev . C96 no. 3, (2017) 035207 , arXiv:1706.07376 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  49. [57]

    L. P . Kaptari and B. Kämpfer, Combined analysis of near-threshold production of ω and φ mesons in nucleon-nucleon collisions within an effective meson-nuc leon model, Eur.Phys.J. A23 (2005) 291, arXiv:nucl-th/0406077 [nucl-th]

    2005 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Sibirtsev and W

    A. Sibirtsev and W. Cassing, η′ Production in proton-proton collisions near threshold, Eur. Phys. J. A 2 (1998) 333, arXiv:nucl-th/9806022

    1998 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Hanhart and K

    C. Hanhart and K. Nakayama, On the treatment of NN interaction effects in meson production in NN collisions, Phys.Lett. B454 (1999) 176, arXiv:nucl-th/9809059 [nucl-th]

    1999 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Nakayama, A

    K. Nakayama, A. Szczurek, C. Hanhart, J. Haidenbauer, and J. Speth, Production of ω mesons in proton-proton collisions, Phys. Rev . C57 (1998) 1580, arXiv:nucl-th/9802013

    1998 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Machleidt, K

    R. Machleidt, K. Holinde, and C. Elster, The bonn meson-exchange model for the nucleon–nucleon interaction , Phys.Rept. 149 (1987) 1

    1987

  54. [62]

    Shyam and H

    R. Shyam and H. Lenske, Reaction ¯pp → ¯Λ − c Λ + c within an effective Lagrangian model, Phys. Rev . D90 no. 1, (2014) 014017 , arXiv:1406.7071 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Shyam, Charmed-baryon production in antiproton-proton collisions within an effective Lagrangian model, Phys

    R. Shyam, Charmed-baryon production in antiproton-proton collisions within an effective Lagrangian model, Phys. Rev . D96 no. 11, (2017) 116019 , arXiv:1712.00352 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Nakayama, H

    K. Nakayama, H. F. Arellano, J. W. Durso, and J. Speth, η′ meson production in proton-proton collisions, Phys. Rev . C61 (2000) 024001, arXiv:nucl-th/9908077

    2000 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Baldini, V

    A. Baldini, V . Flaminio, W. G. Moorhead, and D. R. O. Morrison, T otal Cross-Sections for Reactions of High Energy Particles, vol. 12 of Landolt-Börnstein - Group I: Nuclear and Particle Physics. Springer-V erlag Berlin, 1988

    1988

  58. [66]

    M. M. Brisudová, L. Burakovsky , and J. T. Goldman, Effective functional form of Regge trajectories, Phys. Rev . D61 (2000) 054013, arXiv:hep-ph/9906293

    2000 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Nakayama, J

    K. Nakayama, J. W. Durso, J. Haidenbauer, C. Hanhart, and J. Speth, φ-meson production in proton-proton collisions, Phys. Rev . C60 (1999) 055209, arXiv:nucl-th/9904040

    1999 arXiv

  60. [68]

    https://www.hepdata.net/

    Repository for publication-related High-Energy Physics data. https://www.hepdata.net/

  61. [69]

    Chiavassa et al., η meson production in pd and pp collisions, Phys

    E. Chiavassa et al., η meson production in pd and pp collisions, Phys. Lett. B 337 (1994) 192

    1994

  62. [70]

    Pickup, D

    E. Pickup, D. K. Robinson, and E. O. Salant, Three-Pion Mass Distributions and the η Meson, Phys. Rev . Lett.8 (1962) 329

    1962

  63. [71]

    Alexander, O

    G. Alexander, O. Benary , G. Czapek, B. Haber, N. Kidron, B. Reuter, A. Shapira, E. Simopoulou, and G. Yekutieli, Proton-Proton Interactions at 5.5 GeV/c, Phys. Rev .154 (1967) 1284

    1967

  64. [72]

    Le Guyader, M

    J. Le Guyader, M. Sené, J. Ginestet, D. Manesse, T. Ha Anh, and D. Vignaud, Experimental study of four-prong events in proton proton interactions at 13.1 GeV/c, Nucl. Phys. B 35 (1971) 573

    1971

  65. [73]

    Navas et al., (Particle Data Group), Review of particle physics, Phys

    S. Navas et al., (Particle Data Group), Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev . D110 no. 3, (2024) 030001 . 29

    2024

  66. [74]

    Calén et al., The pp → ppη reaction near the kinematical threshold, Phys

    H. Calén et al., The pp → ppη reaction near the kinematical threshold, Phys. Lett. B 366 (1996) 39

    1996

  67. [75]

    Hibou et al., Comparison of η and η′ production in the pp → ppη(η′) reactions near threshold, Phys

    F. Hibou et al., Comparison of η and η′ production in the pp → ppη(η′) reactions near threshold, Phys. Lett. B 438 (1998) 41, arXiv:nucl-ex/9802002

    1998 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Moskalet al., Invariant-mass distributions for the pp → ppη reaction at Q = 10 MeV, Eur

    P . Moskalet al., Invariant-mass distributions for the pp → ppη reaction at Q = 10 MeV, Eur. Phys. J. A 43 (2010) 131, arXiv:0912.1592 [nucl-ex]

    2010 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Benmerrouche, N

    M. Benmerrouche, N. C. Mukhopadhyay , and J. F. Zhang, Effective Lagrangian approach to the theory of η photoproduction in the N ∗(1535) region, Phys. Rev . D51 (1995) 3237, arXiv:hep-ph/9412248

    1995 arXiv

  70. [78]

    H. W. Atherton et al., The reaction ¯pp → ¯ppπ+π−π0 at 5.7 GeV/c and a p ω0( ¯pω0) enhancement at 1.81 GeV, Nuovo Cim. A 30 (1975) 505

    1975

  71. [79]

    G. W. Van Apeldoorn et al., Final states with a neutral meson and a π+π− or ¯pp pair in ¯pp interactions at 7.2 GeV/c, Nucl. Phys. B 133 (1978) 245

    1978

  72. [80]

    Balestra et al., (DISTO Collaboration), φ and ω meson production in pp reactions at p lab = 3.67 GeV/c, Phys

    F. Balestra et al., (DISTO Collaboration), φ and ω meson production in pp reactions at p lab = 3.67 GeV/c, Phys. Rev . C63 (2001) 024004, arXiv:nucl-ex/0011009

    2001 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Tiator, C

    L. Tiator, C. Bennhold, and S. S. Kamalov , The ηNN coupling in eta photoproduction, Nucl. Phys. A 580 (1994) 455, arXiv:nucl-th/9404013

    1994 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Machleidt, High-precision, charge-dependent Bonn nucleon-nucleon potential, Phys

    R. Machleidt, High-precision, charge-dependent Bonn nucleon-nucleon potential, Phys. Rev . C63 (2001) 024001, arXiv:nucl-th/0006014

    2001 arXiv

  75. [83]

    C. Wang, J. Hu, Y . Zhang, and H. Shen, The charge-dependent Bonn potentials with pseudovector pion-nucleon coupling, Chin. Phys. C 43 no. 11, (2019) 114107 , arXiv:1909.06013 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Y . Li, M. K. Liou, and W. M. Schreiber, Proton-proton bremsstrahlung calculation: Studies of the off-shell prot on electromagnetic vertex and of pseudoscalar vs pseudovecto r πN couplings, Phys. Rev . C57 (1998) 507

    1998

  77. [85]

    Feuster and U

    T. Feuster and U. Mosel, Unitary model for meson-nucleon scattering, Phys. Rev . C58 (1998) 457, arXiv:nucl-th/9708051

    1998 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Kirchbach and L

    M. Kirchbach and L. Tiator, On the coupling of the η meson to the nucleon, Nucl. Phys. A 604 (1996) 385, arXiv:nucl-th/9601002

    1996 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Lü, X.-H

    Q.-F. Lü, X.-H. Liu, J.-J. Xie, and D.-M. Li, The near threshold π− p → ηn reaction in an effective Lagrangian approach, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 29 (2014) 1450012, arXiv:1312.5803 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Feuster and U

    T. Feuster and U. Mosel, Photon- and meson-induced reactions on the nucleon, Phys. Rev . C59 (1999) 460, arXiv:nucl-th/9803057

    1999 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Vrancx, L

    T. Vrancx, L. De Cruz, J. Ryckebusch, and P . Vancraeyveld,Consistent interactions for high-spin fermion fields, Phys. Rev . C84 (2011) 045201, arXiv:1105.2688 [nucl-th]

    2011 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Drechsel, O

    D. Drechsel, O. Hanstein, S. S. Kamalov , and L. Tiator, A unitary isobar model for pion phot- and electroproduction o n the proton up to 1 GeV, Nucl. Phys. A 645 (1999) 145, arXiv:nucl-th/9807001

    1999 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Shyam, pp → pK+Λ reaction in an effective Lagrangian model, Phys

    R. Shyam, pp → pK+Λ reaction in an effective Lagrangian model, Phys. Rev . C60 (1999) 055213, arXiv:nucl-th/9901038

    1999 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Nakayama and H

    K. Nakayama and H. Haberzettl, Analyzing η′ photoproduction data on the proton at energies of 1.5 − 2.3 GeV, Phys. Rev . C73 (2006) 045211, arXiv:nucl-th/0507044

    2006 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Deinet, H

    W. Deinet, H. Mueller, D. Schmitt, H. M. Staudenmaier, S. Buniatov , and E. Zavattini, Differential and total cross-sections for π− + p → η + n from 718 to 1050 MeV/c, Nucl. Phys. B 11 (1969) 495

    1969

  86. [94]

    Müller et al., (CBELSA/TAPS Collaboration), New data on ⃗γ⃗p → η p with polarized photons and protons and their implications for N ∗ → Nη decays, Phys

    J. Müller et al., (CBELSA/TAPS Collaboration), New data on ⃗γ⃗p → η p with polarized photons and protons and their implications for N ∗ → Nη decays, Phys. Lett. B 803 (2020) 135323, arXiv:1909.08464 [nucl-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Ouyang, J.-J

    Z. Ouyang, J.-J. Xie, B.-S. Zou, and H.-S. Xu, Theoretical study on pp → pnπ+ reaction at medium energies, Int.J.Mod.Phys. E18 (2009) 281, arXiv:0902.1818 [nucl-th]

    2009 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Bulos et al., Charge Exchange and Production of η Mesons and Multiple Neutral Pions in π− p Reactions between 654 and 1247 MeV/c, Phys

    F. Bulos et al., Charge Exchange and Production of η Mesons and Multiple Neutral Pions in π− p Reactions between 654 and 1247 MeV/c, Phys. Rev .187 (1969) 1827

    1969

  89. [97]

    R. B. Chaffee, A study of the reaction π− p → ηn in the region of the N ∗(1688), Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory , 1975, Report No. LBL-1060 (unpublished), https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/4237887/

    1975

  90. [98]

    W. B. Richards et al., Production and neutral decay of the η meson in π− p collisions, Phys. Rev . D1 (1970) 10

    1970

  91. [99]

    J. E. Nelson, A high statistics study of the reaction π− p → π0n between 1.0 and 2.4 GeV/c , Ph.D. thesis, California University - Berkeley , 1972, Report No. LBL-1019 (unpublished)

    1972

  92. [100]

    Feltesse, R

    J. Feltesse, R. Ayed, P . Bareyre, P . Borgeaud, M. David, J. Ernwein, Y . Lemoigne, and G. Villet, The reaction π− p → ηn up to p ∗ η = 450 MeV/c: experimental results and partial-wave analysis, Nucl. Phys. B 93 (1975) 242

    1975

  93. [101]

    Prakhov et al., (Crystal Ball Collaboration), Measurement of π− p → ηn from threshold to p π− = 747 MeV/c, Phys

    S. Prakhov et al., (Crystal Ball Collaboration), Measurement of π− p → ηn from threshold to p π− = 747 MeV/c, Phys. Rev . C72 (2005) 015203

    2005

  94. [102]

    N. C. Debenham, D. M. Binnie, L. Camilleri, J. Carr, A. Duane, D. A. Garbutt, W. G. Jones, J. Keyne, I. Siotis, and J. G. Mcewen, Backward π− p reactions between 0.6 and 1.0 GeV/c, Phys. Rev . D12 (1975) 2545

    1975

  95. [103]

    R. M. Brown et al., Differential cross sections for the reaction π− p → ηn between 724 and 2723 MeV/c, Nucl. Phys. B 153 (1979) 89

    1979

  96. [104]

    H. R. Crouch et al., Cross sections for π− + p → n + kπ0 (k = 1 to 5) and π− + p → n + η0(η0 → 2γ) for incident pion momenta between 1.3 and 3.8 GeV/c, Phys. Rev . D21 (1980) 3023

    1980

  97. [105]

    Zhong, Q

    X.-H. Zhong, Q. Zhao, J. He, and B. Saghai, Study of π− p → ηn at low energies in a chiral constituent quark model, Phys. Rev . C76 (2007) 065205, arXiv:0706.3543 [nucl-th]

    2007 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Clajus and B

    M. Clajus and B. M. K. Nefkens, The π− + p → η + n Data Base, πN Newsletter 7 (1992) 76

    1992

  99. [107]

    Durand, B

    J. Durand, B. Juliá-Dáaz, T.-S. H. Lee, B. Saghai, and T. Sato, Coupled-channels study of the π− p → ηn process, Phys. Rev . C78 (2008) 025204, arXiv:0804.3476 [nucl-th]

    2008 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Shrestha and D

    M. Shrestha and D. M. M. Manley , Partial-wave analysis of the π− p → ηn and π− p → K0Λ reactions, Phys. Rev . C86 (2012) 045204, arXiv:1205.5294 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  101. [109]

    Huang, M

    F. Huang, M. Doring, H. Haberzettl, J. Haidenbauer, C. Hanhart, S. Krewald, U. G. Meissner, and 30 K. Nakayama, Pion photoproduction in a dynamical coupled-channels model, Phys. Rev . C85 (2012) 054003, arXiv:1110.3833 [nucl-th]

    2012 arXiv

  102. [110]

    He and B

    J. He and B. Saghai, Combined study of γp → η p and π− p → ηn in a chiral constituent quark approach, Phys. Rev . C80 (2009) 015207, arXiv:0812.1617 [nucl-th]

    2009 arXiv

  103. [111]

    Rönchen, M

    D. Rönchen, M. Doring, F. Huang, H. Haberzettl, J. Haidenbauer, C. Hanhart, S. Krewald, U. G. Meissner, and K. Nakayama, Coupled-channel dynamics in the reactions πN → πN, ηN, K Λ , K Σ , Eur. Phys. J. A 49 (2013) 44, arXiv:1211.6998 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  104. [112]

    L.-Y . Xiao, F. Ouyang, K.-L. Wang, and X.-H. Zhong, Combined analysis of the π− p → K0Λ , ηn reactions in a chiral quark model, Phys. Rev . C94 no. 3, (2016) 035202 , arXiv:1602.04455 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  105. [113]

    B. C. Hunt and D. M. Manley , Updated determination of N∗ resonance parameters using a unitary, multichannel formalism, Phys. Rev . C99 no. 5, (2019) 055205 , arXiv:1810.13086 [nucl-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  106. [114]

    J.-J. Xie, C. Wilkin, and B.-S. Zou, Coupling constant for N∗(1535)Nρ, Phys. Rev . C77 (2008) 058202, arXiv:0802.2802 [nucl-th]

    2008 arXiv

  107. [115]

    0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 (GeV)ρΛ∼ 0 5 10 15 | NN(1535)ρ |g Tensor coupling γ p →N(1535) ­π +π p →N(1535) FIG

    for the S wave was used. 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 (GeV)ρΛ∼ 0 5 10 15 | NN(1535)ρ |g Tensor coupling γ p →N(1535) ­π +π p →N(1535) FIG. 17. Coupling constant constrained from the two decays N(1535)+ → pγ and N(1535)+ → pπ+π− as a function of the cutoff parameter ˜Λ ρ in ˜Fρ (C...

  108. [116]

    D. O. Riska and G. E. Brown, Nucleon resonance transition couplings to vector mesons, Nucl. Phys. A 679 (2001) 577, arXiv:nucl-th/0005049

    2001 arXiv

  109. [117]

    M. T. Peña, H. Garcilazo, and D. O. Riska, The reaction pp → ppη and the eta-nucleon and nucleon-nucleon interactions, Nucl. Phys. A 683 (2001) 322, arXiv:nucl-th/0006011

    2001 arXiv

  110. [118]

    R. A. Kycia, P . Lebiedowicz, and A. Szczurek, DECAY: A Monte Carlo Library for the Decay of a Particle with ROOT Compatibility, Commun. Comput. Phys. 30 no. 3, (2021) 942 , arXiv:2011.14750 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  111. [119]

    J. Adamczewski-Musch et al., (HADES Collaboration), Two-pion production in the second resonance region in π− p collisions with the High-Acceptance Di-Electron Spectrometer (HADES), Phys. Rev . C102 no. 2, (2020) 024001 , arXiv:2004.08265 [nucl-ex]

    2020 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.