Partial wave analyses of psi(3686)to pbar{p}π⁰ and psi(3686)to pbar{p}η
Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 07:55 UTC · model grok-4.3
The pith
Partial wave analysis sets the N(1535) decay width ratio to N eta over N pi at 0.99
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
Core claim
Using (2712±14)×10^6 psi(3686) events, partial wave analyses of ψ(3686)→p p̄π⁰ and ψ(3686)→p p̄η produce branching fractions of (133.9±11.2±2.3)×10^{-6} or (183.7±13.7±3.2)×10^{-6} for the π⁰ mode and (61.5±6.5±1.1)×10^{-6} or (84.4±6.9±1.4)×10^{-6} for the η mode due to the ambiguous phase. Multiple N* states appear in the spectra, and the ratio Γ_{N(1535)→Nη}/Γ_{N(1535)→Nπ} equals 0.99±0.05±0.19.
What carries the argument
Partial wave analysis modeling resonant N* amplitudes in the pπ⁰ and pη systems together with continuum contributions, subject to an ambiguous relative phase that produces two discrete solutions.
If this is right
- Branching fraction of ψ(3686)→p p̄π⁰ equals either (133.9±11.2±2.3)×10^{-6} or (183.7±13.7±3.2)×10^{-6}.
- Branching fraction of ψ(3686)→p p̄η equals either (61.5±6.5±1.1)×10^{-6} or (84.4±6.9±1.4)×10^{-6}.
- Branching fractions for the observed N* states decaying to pπ⁰ and pη are measured.
- The N(1535) exhibits nearly equal decay widths to the Nη and Nπ channels.
Where Pith is reading between the lines
- A ratio near unity may constrain quark-model or chiral-symmetry calculations of the N(1535) wave function and its couplings.
- The persistent two-fold ambiguity from the resonant-continuum phase suggests that additional data from polarized beams or different production channels could resolve it.
- The extracted ratio supplies a reference point for comparing N(1535) properties across photoproduction, electroproduction, and charmonium-decay environments.
- Higher-statistics runs at the same or higher energies could test whether the ratio remains stable when more partial waves are included.
Load-bearing premise
The chosen set of N* resonances plus the parametrization of backgrounds and resonant-continuum interference fully describes the angular and mass distributions without large bias from omitted terms.
What would settle it
Repeating the partial wave analysis after adding further resonances or changing the background model and obtaining a ratio outside the quoted uncertainty range would falsify the central result.
Figures
read the original abstract
Using a sample of $(2712\pm14)\times10^6$ $\psi(3686)$ events collected with the BESIII detector, we perform partial wave analyses of the decays $\psi(3686)\to p\bar{p}\pi^0$ and $\psi(3686)\to p\bar{p}\eta$. The branching fractions of $\psi(3686)\to p\bar{p}\pi^0$ and $\psi(3686)\to p\bar{p}\eta$ are determined to be $(133.9\pm11.2\pm2.3)\times10^{-6}$ or $(183.7\pm13.7\pm3.2)\times10^{-6}$ and $(61.5\pm6.5\pm1.1)\times10^{-6}$ or $(84.4\pm6.9\pm1.4)\times10^{-6}$, respectively, where the two solutions are caused by an ambiguous phase angle between resonant and continuum processes. Several well-established $N^*$ states are observed in the $p\pi^0$ and $p\eta$ systems, and the corresponding branching fractions are measured. The ratio of decay widths $\Gamma_{N(1535)\to N\eta}/\Gamma_{N(1535)\to N\pi}$ is determined to be $0.99\pm0.05\pm0.19$.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The manuscript performs partial-wave analyses of ψ(3686)→p p-bar π⁰ and ψ(3686)→p p-bar η using (2712±14)×10⁶ ψ(3686) events collected with BESIII. It reports two solutions for the ψ(3686) branching fractions arising from an ambiguous phase between resonant and continuum amplitudes, measures branching fractions for several N* states in the pπ⁰ and pη systems, and extracts the ratio Γ_{N(1535)→Nη}/Γ_{N(1535)→Nπ} = 0.99±0.05±0.19 from the fitted N(1535) amplitudes in the two channels.
Significance. If the extracted ratio is robust against the phase ambiguity, the result supplies a direct experimental constraint on the N(1535) decay pattern that is relevant for models of the lowest-lying negative-parity nucleon resonance. The large data sample permits observation of multiple well-established N* states and a data-driven extraction rather than reliance on prior inputs.
major comments (2)
- [Abstract] Abstract: The ratio 0.99±0.05±0.19 is presented as a single central value, yet the text explicitly states that an ambiguous phase produces two distinct solutions for the ψ(3686) branching fractions. It is not shown whether the relative N(1535) amplitudes (and thus the ratio) remain stable under both phase choices; because the ratio is derived from the fitted branching fractions in the pπ⁰ versus pη channels, a shift in relative normalization or interference would directly affect the quoted result.
- The manuscript does not report the fit quality (χ²/ndf or likelihood values), the systematic studies on resonance content, or the treatment of background parametrization that would allow assessment of whether omitted amplitudes bias the N(1535) extraction in either solution.
Simulated Author's Rebuttal
We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and the constructive comments. We address each major comment below. Where the manuscript was incomplete, we have revised it accordingly; where clarification is needed, we provide it without altering the reported results.
read point-by-point responses
-
Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The ratio 0.99±0.05±0.19 is presented as a single central value, yet the text explicitly states that an ambiguous phase produces two distinct solutions for the ψ(3686) branching fractions. It is not shown whether the relative N(1535) amplitudes (and thus the ratio) remain stable under both phase choices; because the ratio is derived from the fitted branching fractions in the pπ⁰ versus pη channels, a shift in relative normalization or interference would directly affect the quoted result.
Authors: The phase ambiguity between resonant and continuum amplitudes affects the overall normalization of the ψ(3686) branching fractions but does not alter the relative amplitudes of the N(1535) in the two decay channels. We have explicitly verified that the extracted ratio Γ_{N(1535)→Nη}/Γ_{N(1535)→Nπ} is identical (within the quoted uncertainties) for both phase solutions. In the revised manuscript we report the ratio separately for each solution to make this stability transparent, confirming that the central value and uncertainties remain unchanged. revision: yes
-
Referee: The manuscript does not report the fit quality (χ²/ndf or likelihood values), the systematic studies on resonance content, or the treatment of background parametrization that would allow assessment of whether omitted amplitudes bias the N(1535) extraction in either solution.
Authors: We agree that these details should have been included. The revised manuscript now reports the χ²/ndf (and -2lnL values) for the nominal fits in both channels, describes the systematic variations performed on the resonance content (including tests with additional N* amplitudes), and details the background parametrization (polynomial orders and sideband subtraction). These studies show that the N(1535) amplitudes are stable and that omitted components do not bias the ratio beyond the quoted systematic uncertainty. revision: yes
Circularity Check
No significant circularity; purely data-driven PWA extraction from observed events
full rationale
The paper reports branching fractions and the N(1535) width ratio extracted via fits to a large ψ(3686) data sample. The central results (two solutions from phase ambiguity, measured BFs, and the quoted ratio 0.99±0.05±0.19) are obtained by minimizing a likelihood against the observed invariant-mass and angular distributions. No equation or self-citation reduces the reported ratio or BFs to a prior result by construction; the model assumptions (resonance content, background parametrization) are stated as inputs to the fit rather than outputs derived from the target quantities. This is a standard experimental measurement whose validity rests on data and fit quality, not on internal redefinition.
Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Experimental Advances on Light Baryon Spectroscopy at BESIII Experiment
BESIII reports discoveries of multiple new excited light baryon states from high-statistics data, expanding the known spectrum and supporting non-perturbative QCD studies.
-
Experimental Advances on Light Baryon Spectroscopy at BESIII Experiment
BESIII reports discoveries of new excited nucleon, Lambda, Sigma, Xi, and Omega hyperon states from high-statistics electron-positron collision data.
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
2)×10−6 and (61. 5±6. 5±1. 1)×10−6 or (84. 4±6. 9±1. 4)×10−6, respectively, where the two solutions are caused by an ambiguous phase angle between resonant and c ontinuum processes. Several well- established N ∗ states are observed in the pπ 0 and pη systems, and the corresponding branching fractions are measured. The ratio of decay widths Γ N(1535)→N η/ ...
-
[2]
99 ± 0. 05 ± 0. 19. I. INTRODUCTION The nature of the lowest lying J P = 1 / 2− nucleon resonance N (1535) is not well understood as of yet. Ac- cording to the conventional constituent quark model, the mass of the first orbital angular momentum excitation state, N (1535), should always be below that of the first radial excitation state, N (1440) [ 1], also ...
work page 2009
-
[3]
Based on the Born cross sections of e+e− → p¯pη taken from Ref. [ 41], the nor- 10 )2c (GeV/ppM 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 )2cEvents / (10 MeV/ 1000 2000 3000 (a) /nbin=197.4/160 2χ )2c (GeV/0πpM 1.5 2.0 2.5 )2cEvents / (10 MeV/1000 2000 3000 (b) /nbin=260.7/167 2χ )2c (GeV/0πpM 1.5 2.0 2.5 )2cEvents / (10 MeV/1000 2000 3000 (c) /nbin=203.3/167 2χ Data Total Fit Bac...
work page 2000
-
[4]
They are estimated as described below. The integrated luminosity is measured using Bhabha scattering events, with an uncertainty less than 1.0% [ 42]. The uncertainty related to tracking efficiency of proton is estimated to be 1.0% using a control sample of J/ψ → pπ − ¯pπ + [ 43]. The uncertainty due to the PID efficiency is studied with a control sample of J...
work page 1960
-
[5]
5% [ 3], respectively. B. Uncertainties on intermediate resonance measurements The systematic uncertainties on the intermediate reso- nance measurements are divided into two categories. The first one is non-PW A related, including photon detection, tracking efficiency of proton, helix parameter, normal- ization factor fc, interference with continuum process,...
-
[6]
05 ± 0. 19, where the first uncertainty is statistical and the second one is systematic. IX. SUMMAR Y In summary, using a sample of (2712 ± 14)× 106ψ (3686) events collected with the BESIII detector, partial wave analyses of the decays ψ (3686) → p¯pπ 0 and ψ (3686) → p¯pη are performed. The data can be well described by considering several well-establishe...
work page 2020
- [7]
-
[8]
L. Olbrich, M. Zetenyi, F. Giacosa et al. , Phys. Rev. D 97, 014007 (2018)
work page 2018
-
[9]
R. L. Workman et al. (Particle Data Group), Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2022, 083C01 (2022)
work page 2022
- [10]
-
[11]
P. C. Bruns, M. Mai, and U. G. Meissner, Phys. Lett. B 697, 254 (2011)
work page 2011
-
[12]
E. J. Garzon and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. C 91, 025201 (2015)
work page 2015
-
[13]
C. S. An and B. S. Zou, Sci. Sin. G 52, 1452 (2009)
work page 2009
-
[14]
B. C. Liu and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 042002 (2006)
work page 2006
-
[15]
X. Cao, J. J. Xie, B. S. Zou et al. , Phys. Rev. C 80, 025203 (2009)
work page 2009
-
[16]
Z. W. Liu, W. Kamleh, D. B. Leinweber et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 082004 (2016)
work page 2016
-
[17]
J. P. Alexander et al. (CLEO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 82, 092002 (2010)
work page 2010
-
[18]
M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 022001 (2013)
work page 2013
-
[19]
M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 88, 032010 (2013)
work page 2013
-
[20]
M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 614, 345 (2010)
work page 2010
-
[21]
C. H. Yu et al., Proceedings of IPAC 2016, Busan, Korea, 2016
work page 2016
-
[22]
M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), Chin. Phys. C 44, 040001 (2020)
work page 2020
-
[23]
J. Lu, Y. Xiao, X. Ji, Radiat. Detect. Technol. Methods 4, 337–344 (2020)
work page 2020
-
[24]
J. W. Zhang, L. H. Wu, S. S. Sun et al. , Radiat. Detect. Technol. Methods 6, 289–293 (2022)
work page 2022
-
[25]
X. Li et al., Radiat. Detect. Technol. Methods 1, 13 (2017) ; Y. X. Guo et al., Radiat. Detect. Technol. Methods 1, 15 (2017) ; P. Cao et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 953, 163053 (2020)
work page 2017
-
[26]
S. Agostinelli et al. (GEANT4 Collaboration), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506, 250 (2003)
work page 2003
- [27]
-
[28]
D. J. Lange, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 462, 152 (2001); R. G. Ping, Chin. Phys. C 32, 599 (2008)
work page 2001
-
[29]
J. C. Chen, G. S. Huang, X. R. Qi, D. H. Zhang and Y. S. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 62, 034003 (2000); R. L. Yang, R. G. Ping and H. Chen, Chin. Phys. Lett. 31, 061301 (2014)
work page 2000
-
[30]
J. X. Wang, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 534, 241 (2004)
work page 2004
-
[31]
B. C. Hunt and D. M. Manley, Phys. Rev. C 99, 055205 (2019)
work page 2019
-
[32]
F. V. Hippel and C. Quigg, Phys. Rev. D 5, 624 (1972)
work page 1972
-
[33]
E. M. Aitala et al. (Fermilab E791 collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 770 (2001)
work page 2001
-
[34]
G. J. Gounaris and J. J. Sakurai, Phys. Rev. Lett. 21, 244 (1968)
work page 1968
- [35]
-
[36]
M. Ablikim et al. (BES Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 062001 (2006)
work page 2006
- [37]
-
[38]
W. H. Liang, P. N. Shen, B. S. Zou et al. , Eur. Phys. J. A 21, 487 (2004)
work page 2004
-
[39]
M. Ablikim et al. (BES Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 80, 052004 (2009) . 19
work page 2009
- [40]
-
[41]
M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 100, 032004 (2019)
work page 2019
-
[42]
J. P. Lees et al. (BaBar Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 86, 032013 (2012)
work page 2012
-
[43]
A. V. Anisovich et al. , Phys. Lett. B 542, 8 (2002)
work page 2002
-
[44]
Y. Q. Wang and C. Z. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 106, 054014 (2022)
work page 2022
-
[45]
R. G. Ping, Chin. Phys. C 38, 083001(2014)
work page 2014
-
[46]
A. V. Anisovich et al. , Phys. Lett. B 542, 19 (2002)
work page 2002
-
[47]
M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 104, 092008 (2021)
work page 2021
-
[48]
M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), Chin. Phys. C 39, 093001 (2015)
work page 2015
-
[49]
M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 87, 012007 (2013)
work page 2013
-
[50]
M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 87, 052005 (2010)
work page 2010
-
[51]
M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 87, 012002 (2013)
work page 2013
-
[52]
Y. P. Guo and C. Z. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 105, 114001 (2022)
work page 2022
- [53]
- [54]
-
[55]
N. Brambilla, S. Eidelman, B. K. Heltsley et al. , Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1534 (2011)
work page 2011
-
[56]
B. S. Zou, Nucl. Phys. A 827, 333C-335C (2009)
work page 2009
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.