pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.04690 · v1 · pith:UW2FQWTEnew · submitted 2026-06-03 · ✦ hep-ph

Unveiling the elusive Sigma(1380) resonance through coupled-channel dynamics in Λ_c^+toηπ^+Λ reaction

Wen-Tao Lyu , Si-Wei Liu , Jia-Jun Wu , De-Min Li , En Wang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 05:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph
keywords Σ(1380) resonanceΛ_c^+ decaycoupled-channel dynamicsinvariant mass distributionangular distributionmeson-baryon interactionBESIIIBelle
0
0 comments X

The pith

The Σ(1380) resonance with J^P=1/2^- improves the description of data in the Λ_c^+ → η π^+ Λ decay.

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

This paper studies the decay Λ_c^+ to η π^+ Λ using data from Belle and BESIII to test for a contribution from the Σ(1380) state. It models the process with dynamically generated Λ(1670) and a0(980) resonances whose line shapes are taken from other reactions, plus explicit terms for Σ(1385) and the candidate Σ(1380). Direct comparison of calculated invariant mass and angular distributions shows that adding the Σ(1380) term produces a noticeably better match to experiment. The authors locate the kinematic regions where this contribution is most visible and note that future high-precision measurements can test the state's existence.

Core claim

The Σ(1380) state with spin-parity 1/2^- contributes importantly to the Λ_c^+ → η π^+ Λ reaction; its explicit inclusion in the amplitude improves agreement with the measured invariant mass and angular distributions relative to calculations that omit it, while the line shapes of the dynamically generated Λ(1670) and a0(980) remain fixed from prior work.

What carries the argument

Explicit addition of the Σ(1380) resonance amplitude in the decay, together with coupled-channel-generated Λ(1670) and a0(980) states, to fit the ηΛ and π^+Λ invariant-mass spectra and angular distributions.

If this is right

  • The Σ(1380) term alters the shape of the ηΛ invariant-mass spectrum in identifiable regions.
  • Angular distributions supply independent sensitivity to the resonance's presence.
  • High-precision measurements focused on those regions can confirm or rule out the state.
  • If the line shapes hold, the same Σ(1380) contribution should appear in related hadronic reactions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Confirmation would support the idea that some low-lying Σ states can be generated dynamically from meson-baryon interactions.
  • The state could help account for missing entries in the Σ baryon spectrum below 1400 MeV.
  • Analogous coupled-channel analyses of other Λ_c decays offer independent tests of the resonance parameters.

Load-bearing premise

The line shapes of the dynamically generated Λ(1670) and a0(980) states remain valid without modification when applied to the Λ_c^+ → η π^+ Λ channel.

What would settle it

High-precision data on the ηΛ invariant-mass distribution near 1380 MeV that show no improvement in fit quality, or that contradict the predicted angular dependence, when the Σ(1380) term is added.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.04690 by De-Min Li, En Wang, Jia-Jun Wu, Si-Wei Liu, Wen-Tao Lyu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Quark level diagram for the process (a) Λ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Mechanisms for (a) tree level Λ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Invariant mass distributions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate the $\Lambda_c^+ \to \eta \pi^+ \Lambda$ decay measured by the Belle and BESIII Collaborations, focusing on the possible role of the $\Sigma(1380)$ state with spin-parity $J^P=1/2^-$. In our theoretical framework, the $\Lambda(1670)$ and $a_0(980)$ are dynamically generated from meson-baryon and meson-meson final-state interactions, respectively, and the corresponding line shapes of these two states used here are applicable to all relevant hadronic reactions. Furthermore, the contributions from the intermediate $\Sigma(1385)$ resonance and the possible $\Sigma(1380)$ state are included explicitly. By comparing the invariant mass and angular distributions obtained with and without the $\Sigma(1380)$ state, we demonstrate that this state plays an important role in improving the description of the experimental data. We also identify the kinematic regions most sensitive to the possible $\Sigma(1380)$ contribution. Future high-precision measurements of this process will be instrumental for testing the existence of the $\Sigma$ state with $J^P=1/2^-$.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates the Λ_c⁺ → η π⁺ Λ decay measured by Belle and BESIII, employing coupled-channel dynamics to generate Λ(1670) and a₀(980) dynamically while including explicit contributions from Σ(1385) and a proposed Σ(1380) resonance with J^P = 1/2⁻. The central claim is that comparing invariant-mass and angular distributions with and without the Σ(1380) demonstrates its important role in improving agreement with data, while also identifying the most sensitive kinematic regions for future tests.

Significance. If the result holds after addressing the noted issues, the work would provide targeted evidence for the existence of the elusive Σ(1380) and illustrate how fixed line shapes from dynamical generation can be leveraged in weak decays of charmed baryons. The methodological choice to treat Λ(1670) and a₀(980) line shapes as transferable across reactions is a clear strength when properly validated, as it reduces free parameters relative to fully phenomenological fits.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and model framework] Abstract and model framework: The statement that the line shapes of the dynamically generated Λ(1670) and a₀(980) 'are applicable to all relevant hadronic reactions' is used to hold these shapes fixed when applied to the Λ_c⁺ decay. No explicit test or sensitivity analysis is provided showing that the shapes survive the change in production mechanism and available energy; this assumption is load-bearing for the claim that any observed improvement is due to Σ(1380) rather than model mismatch.
  2. [Results (comparison of distributions with/without Σ(1380)] Results (comparison of distributions with/without Σ(1380)): The manuscript asserts that inclusion of Σ(1380) visibly improves the description of invariant-mass and angular distributions, yet reports no quantitative measures (Δχ², number of additional parameters, or statistical significance) for the improvement. Without these, it cannot be assessed whether the gain exceeds what is expected from the extra degrees of freedom (mass, width, and couplings of Σ(1380)) or from possible deficiencies in the baseline model.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figures] Figure captions should explicitly state whether error bands include only statistical uncertainties or also systematic variations from the fixed line shapes.
  2. [Introduction] Add a short paragraph contrasting the present Σ(1380) parameters with earlier phenomenological extractions to clarify novelty.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and the constructive major comments. We address each point below and indicate the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and model framework] Abstract and model framework: The statement that the line shapes of the dynamically generated Λ(1670) and a₀(980) 'are applicable to all relevant hadronic reactions' is used to hold these shapes fixed when applied to the Λ_c⁺ decay. No explicit test or sensitivity analysis is provided showing that the shapes survive the change in production mechanism and available energy; this assumption is load-bearing for the claim that any observed improvement is due to Σ(1380) rather than model mismatch.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the present manuscript does not contain a dedicated sensitivity study that varies the production mechanism or available energy specifically for the Λ_c⁺ decay. The line shapes are taken from our prior coupled-channel calculations that were already confronted with data from several different reactions. To strengthen the paper we will add a short paragraph in the model section that recalls the range of reactions in which these shapes have been tested and that quantifies the residual uncertainty by varying the subtraction constants within their previously determined ranges. This will make the robustness of the assumption explicit without requiring a full re-calculation of the dynamical generation. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results (comparison of distributions with/without Σ(1380)] Results (comparison of distributions with/without Σ(1380)): The manuscript asserts that inclusion of Σ(1380) visibly improves the description of invariant-mass and angular distributions, yet reports no quantitative measures (Δχ², number of additional parameters, or statistical significance) for the improvement. Without these, it cannot be assessed whether the gain exceeds what is expected from the extra degrees of freedom (mass, width, and couplings of Σ(1380)) or from possible deficiencies in the baseline model.

    Authors: The referee is correct that only visual comparisons are shown. In the revised manuscript we will add a table reporting χ² per degree of freedom for the baseline model and for the model that includes the Σ(1380), together with the number of additional free parameters (mass, width, and two couplings) and the change in χ². We will also state the kinematic bins used for the comparison so that the improvement can be judged quantitatively. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; central comparison uses external line shapes and explicit addition of resonance

full rationale

The provided text shows a standard comparison of invariant-mass and angular distributions with versus without an explicit Σ(1380) term, while taking Λ(1670) and a0(980) line shapes from prior reactions as fixed inputs. No equation or statement reduces the improvement claim to a self-definition, a fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or a self-citation chain that bears the load. The derivation remains self-contained against the experimental data once the transferability assumption is granted; no load-bearing step collapses by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

Abstract-only review yields limited visibility into parameters; the model relies on standard assumptions of chiral unitary approaches and explicit resonance inclusion.

free parameters (1)
  • Σ(1380) mass, width, and coupling constants
    These must be adjusted to produce the reported improvement in line shapes.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Dynamically generated resonances from meson-baryon and meson-meson interactions retain their line shapes across different production reactions
    Invoked when the authors state that the Λ(1670) and a0(980) shapes are applicable to all relevant hadronic reactions.
invented entities (1)
  • Σ(1380) resonance with J^P=1/2^- no independent evidence
    purpose: To account for structures in the invariant mass distributions not explained by other included states
    The state is introduced explicitly to improve the fit; no independent evidence outside this analysis is provided in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5760 in / 1422 out tokens · 28908 ms · 2026-06-28T05:41:33.140383+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. $\Lambda(1670)$ production in the $\psi(3686) \to \Lambda \bar \Lambda \eta$ reaction

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Theoretical calculation of ψ(3686) → Λ Λ̄ η decay shows Λ(1670) peaks in ηΛ and ηΛ̄ distributions using two SU(3) flavor structures and final-state interactions, with one free parameter fitting data and supporting a m...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Navaset al.[Particle Data Group], Phys

    S. Navaset al.[Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D110, no.3, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  2. [2]

    E. Oset, A. Ramos and C. Bennhold, Phys. Lett. B 527, 99-105 (2002) [erratum: Phys. Lett. B530, 260- 9 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 Events / 3 MeV MηΛ (MeV) Exp Total Tree MB MM Σ(1385) Σ(1380) (a) 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 Events / 3 MeV Mπ +η (MeV) Exp Total Tree MB...

    2002

  3. [3]

    Oset and A

    E. Oset and A. Ramos, Nucl. Phys. A635, 99-120 (1998)

    1998

  4. [4]

    K. P. Khemchandani, A. Mart´ ınez Torres and J. A. Oller, Phys. Rev. C100, no.1, 015208 (2019)

    2019

  5. [5]

    Kamiya, K

    Y. Kamiya, K. Miyahara, S. Ohnishi, Y. Ikeda, T. Hyodo, E. Oset and W. Weise, Nucl. Phys. A954, 41-57 (2016)

    2016

  6. [6]

    D. Jido, J. A. Oller, E. Oset, A. Ramos and U. G. Meiss- ner, Nucl. Phys. A725, 181-200 (2003)

    2003

  7. [7]

    J. A. Oller, Eur. Phys. J. A28, 63-82 (2006)

    2006

  8. [8]

    Garcia-Recio, J

    C. Garcia-Recio, J. Nieves, E. Ruiz Arriola and M. J. Vi- cente Vacas, Phys. Rev. D67, 076009 (2003)

    2003

  9. [9]

    M. F. M. Lutz and E. E. Kolomeitsev, Nucl. Phys. A 700, 193-308 (2002)

    2002

  10. [10]

    Moriyaet al.[CLAS], Phys

    K. Moriyaet al.[CLAS], Phys. Rev. C87, no.3, 035206 (2013)

    2013

  11. [11]

    Roca and E

    L. Roca and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. C88, no.5, 055206 (2013)

    2013

  12. [12]

    L. R. Dai, R. Pavao, S. Sakai and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 97, no.11, 116004 (2018)

    2018

  13. [13]

    J. J. Xie and E. Oset, Phys. Lett. B792, 450-453 (2019)

    2019

  14. [14]

    E. Wang, J. J. Xie and E. Oset, Phys. Lett. B753, 526- 532 (2016)

    2016

  15. [15]

    L. J. Liu, E. Wang, J. J. Xie, K. L. Song and J. Y. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D98, no.11, 114017 (2018)

    2018

  16. [16]

    Y. H. Lyu, H. Zhang, N. C. Wei, B. C. Ke, E. Wang and J. J. Xie, Chin. Phys. C47, no.5, 053108 (2023)

    2023

  17. [17]

    S. H. Kim, K. P. Khemchandani, A. Martinez Torres, S. i. Nam and A. Hosaka, Phys. Rev. D103, no.11, 114017 (2021)

    2021

  18. [18]

    Y. Li, W. T. Lyu, G. Y. Wang, L. Li, W. C. Yan and E. Wang, Phys. Rev. D111, no.5, 054011 (2025)

    2025

  19. [19]

    S. C. Zhang, W. T. Lyu, G. Y. Wang, B. Q. Ma and E. Wang, Chin. Phys. Lett.43, no.5, 050203 (2026)

    2026

  20. [20]

    B. S. Zou, Nucl. Phys. B1024(2026), 117363

    2026

  21. [21]

    Y. Yao, X. Liu, X. Chen, Y. Wu, J. Ping, Y. Tan and Q. Huang, Chin. Phys. C50(2026) no.2, 023109

    2026

  22. [22]

    Z. L. Ma, Z. W. Liu and J. J. Liu, Phys. Rev. D113 (2026) no.1, 014037

    2026

  23. [23]

    J. X. Lin, J. Song, M. Albaladejo, A. Feijoo and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D112(2025) no.1, 014044

    2025

  24. [24]

    H. P. Li, C. W. Xiao, W. H. Liang, J. J. Wu, E. Wang and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D110(2024) no.11, 114018

    2024

  25. [25]

    Maet al.[Belle], Phys

    Y. Maet al.[Belle], Phys. Rev. Lett.130(2023) no.15, 151903 10

    2023

  26. [26]

    Y. Y. Li, J. Song, E. Oset, W. H. Liang and R. Molina, Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025) no.9, 1086

    2025

  27. [27]

    He, Phys

    J. He, Phys. Rev. C112(2025) no.1, 015205

    2025

  28. [28]

    E. Wang, L. S. Geng, J. J. Wu, J. J. Xie and B. S. Zou, Chin. Phys. Lett.41, no.10, 101401 (2024)

    2024

  29. [29]

    Zhang, Y

    A. Zhang, Y. R. Liu, P. Z. Huang, W. Z. Deng, X. L. Chen and S. L. Zhu, HEPNP29(2005), 250

    2005

  30. [30]

    J. X. Lu, L. S. Geng, M. Doering and M. Mai, Phys. Rev. Lett.130(2023) no.7, 071902

    2023

  31. [31]

    J. J. Wu, S. Dulat and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. C81, 045210 (2010)

    2010

  32. [32]

    J. J. Wu, S. Dulat and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. D80, 017503 (2009)

    2009

  33. [33]

    J. J. Xie, J. J. Wu and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. C90, no.5, 055204 (2014)

    2014

  34. [34]

    Y. H. Chen and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. C88, no.2, 024304 (2013)

    2013

  35. [35]

    K. Wang, Y. F. Wang, B. C. Liu and F. Huang, Phys. Rev. D110, no.9, 094017 (2024)

    2024

  36. [36]

    Y. Li, S. W. Liu, E. Wang, D. M. Li, L. S. Geng and J. J. Xie, Phys. Rev. D110, no.7, 074010 (2024)

    2024

  37. [37]

    P. Gao, J. J. Wu and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. C81, 055203 (2010)

    2010

  38. [38]

    J. J. Xie and L. S. Geng, Phys. Rev. D95, no.7, 074024 (2017)

    2017

  39. [39]

    G. Y. Wang, N. C. Wei, H. M. Yang, E. Wang, L. S. Geng and J. J. Xie, Phys. Rev. D106(2022) no.5, 056001

    2022

  40. [40]

    J. Y. Leeet al.[Belle], Phys. Rev. D103, no.5, 052005 (2021)

    2021

  41. [41]

    W. T. Lyu, S. C. Zhang, G. Y. Wang, J. J. Wu, E. Wang, L. S. Geng and J. J. Xie, Phys. Rev. D110, no.5, 054020 (2024)

    2024

  42. [42]

    Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys

    M. Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys. Rev. Lett.134, no.2, 021901 (2025)

    2025

  43. [43]

    S. Wang, H. Liu, S. Fang and X. Wang, Chin. Phys. Lett. 43(2026) no.5, 050201

    2026

  44. [44]

    M. Y. Duan, W. T. Lyu, C. W. Xiao, E. Wang, J. J. Xie, D. Y. Chen and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D111, no.1, 016004 (2025)

    2025

  45. [45]

    Jaeyong Lee, A PhD thesis submitted to the Graduate School of Seoul National University

  46. [46]

    X. R. Lyu, private communication

  47. [47]

    J. J. Xie and L. S. Geng, Eur. Phys. J. C76(2016) no.9, 496

    2016

  48. [48]

    M. Y. Duan, M. Bayar and E. Oset, Phys. Lett. B857, 139003 (2024)

    2024

  49. [49]

    Gasser and H

    J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Annals Phys.158, 142 (1984)

    1984

  50. [50]

    Scherer, Adv

    S. Scherer, Adv. Nucl. Phys.27, 277 (2003)

    2003

  51. [51]

    X. L. Ren, E. Oset, L. Alvarez-Ruso and M. J. Vicente Vacas, Phys. Rev. C91, no.4, 045201 (2015)

    2015

  52. [52]

    M. Y. Li, W. T. Lyu, L. J. Liu and E. Wang, Phys. Rev. D111, no.3, 034046 (2025)

    2025

  53. [53]

    Y. Li, E. Wang, L. S. Geng and J. J. Xie, Phys. Rev. D 113(2026) no.5, 054039

    2026

  54. [54]

    M. Y. Li, G. Y. Wang, N. C. Wei, D. M. Li and E. Wang, Phys. Rev. D113(2026) no.9, 094013

    2026

  55. [55]

    S. C. Zhang, M. Y. Duan, W. T. Lyu, G. Y. Wang, J. Y. Zhu and E. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C84, no.12, 1253 (2024)

    2024

  56. [56]

    Kamano, S

    H. Kamano, S. X. Nakamura, T. S. H. Lee and T. Sato, Phys. Rev. C92, no.2, 025205 (2015) [erratum: Phys. Rev. C95, no.4, 049903 (2017)]

    2015

  57. [57]

    J. X. Lin, J. T. Li, S. J. Jiang, W. H. Liang and E. Oset, Eur. Phys. J. C81, no.11, 1017 (2021)

    2021

  58. [58]

    W. T. Lyu, L. L. Wei, D. M. Li and E. Wang, Phys. Rev. D112, no.5, 054015 (2025)

    2025

  59. [59]

    T. E. O. Ericson and W. Weise, Clarendon Press, 1988, ISBN 978-0-19-852008-5

    1988

  60. [60]

    E. Oset, H. Toki and W. Weise, Phys. Rept.83, 281-380 (1982)

    1982

  61. [61]

    W. T. Lyu, L. R. Dai and E. Oset, [arXiv:2603.16640 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  62. [62]

    Rarita and J

    W. Rarita and J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev.60, 61 (1941)

    1941