pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2603.03976 · v3 · submitted 2026-03-04 · ✦ hep-ph · hep-ex· hep-lat

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Interpretation of Ω(2012) as a Xi(1530)K molecular state

Xiang Yu , Jin-Peng Zhang , Xu-Liang Chen , Ding-Kun Lian , Qi-Nan Wang , Wei Chen
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 16:45 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph hep-exhep-lat
keywords QCD sum rulesmolecular pentaquarksOmega(2012)Xi(1530)Kstrong decaysparity projectionhyperon resonances
0
0 comments X

The pith

The Ω(2012) resonance matches the mass and narrow decay width of an S-wave Ξ(1530) anti-K molecular state.

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

The paper uses QCD sum rules to test whether the Ω(2012) can be described as a loosely bound S-wave molecule made of the Ξ(1530) baryon and an anti-K meson with total isospin zero and negative parity. A single interpolating current is written for this configuration and inserted into two-point functions to extract the mass and into three-point functions to extract the partial widths into the ΞK final states. The calculation, carried to dimension-13 condensates and with parity projection, produces a mass of 2.00 ± 0.15 GeV and a total two-body width of roughly 1 MeV. These values lie inside the experimental windows reported for Ω(2012), and the ratio of the two charge-mode widths is predicted to be 0.85. The result supplies a concrete dynamical picture in which the resonance is a molecular pentaquark rather than a conventional three-quark excitation.

Core claim

Assuming the Ω(2012) is an S-wave Ξ(1530)K-bar molecular pentaquark with I(J^P)=0(3/2^-), the QCD sum-rule analysis with a unified interpolating current yields a mass of 2.00 ± 0.15 GeV and a total two-body decay width Γ=0.96^{+0.79}_{-0.41} MeV, both compatible with experiment, together with the branching-fraction ratio R=0.85.

What carries the argument

The unified interpolating current for the S-wave Ξ(1530)K-bar molecular pentaquark, evaluated in parity-projected QCD sum rules truncated at dimension-13 condensates for the mass and dimension-10 for the decay amplitudes.

If this is right

  • The calculated width implies that the state is narrow because the molecular wave function has limited overlap with the three-quark component.
  • The predicted ratio of the two ΞK charge modes can be checked directly in future data to test the isospin assignment.
  • The same current construction can be applied to other candidate molecular states in the strangeness sector.
  • If the assignment holds, the resonance should appear in additional channels whose thresholds lie near 2 GeV.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A positive result would support the broader conjecture that several excited hyperons are meson-baryon molecules rather than radial or orbital excitations of three-quark baryons.
  • The same sum-rule framework could be used to predict masses and widths for related states such as the Ξ(1690) under the molecular hypothesis.
  • Lattice QCD simulations with appropriate operators could provide an independent check of the mass and the small width obtained here.

Load-bearing premise

That the Ω(2012) is a pure S-wave molecular state whose properties are faithfully captured by the chosen interpolating current and the truncated operator-product expansion without significant mixing or higher-order corrections.

What would settle it

A high-precision measurement placing the mass outside the interval 1.85–2.15 GeV or the total width above 3 MeV would falsify this particular molecular assignment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.03976 by Ding-Kun Lian, Jin-Peng Zhang, Qi-Nan Wang, Wei Chen, Xiang Yu, Xu-Liang Chen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: The Feynman diagrams involved in our calculations for the Ξ(1530) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: The Feynman diagrams which contribute to the theoretical side of the three-point sum rules in the relevant structure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Behaviors of the spectral densities for different fac [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Variation of hadron mass with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Variation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Variation of hadron mass with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Variation of the coupling constant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate the mass and strong decay properties of the $\Omega(2012)$ resonance using QCD sum rules, assuming it to be an S-wave $\Xi(1530)\bar{K}$ molecular pentaquark state with $I(J^{P})= 0(\frac{3}{2}^{-})$. A unified interpolating current is constructed, and the two-point correlation functions and three-point functions are calculated up to dimension-13 and 10 condensate terms in the OPE series, respectively. The negative-parity contribution is isolated by employing parity-projected sum rules. The two-body strong decays to $\Xi^0 K^-$ and $\Xi^- \bar{K}^0$ are studied via their three-point correlation functions. Our analysis yields a mass of $2.00 \pm 0.15~\mathrm{GeV}$ and a total two-body decay width of $\Gamma = 0.96^{+0.79}_{-0.41}~\mathrm{MeV}$ for the $\Xi(1530)\bar{K}$ molecular state. The ratio of the two-body decay branching fractions is obtained as $\mathcal{R}^{\Xi^- \bar{K}^0}_{\Xi^0 K^-} = 0.85$. These results are compatible with the experimental data for the $\Omega(2012)$ within uncertainties and support its interpretation as a $\Xi(1530)\bar{K}$ molecular pentaquark state.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript applies QCD sum rules to interpret the Ω(2012) resonance as an S-wave Ξ(1530)K-bar molecular pentaquark with I(J^P)=0(3/2^-). A unified interpolating current is used to compute two-point correlation functions (OPE to dimension 13) and three-point functions (OPE to dimension 10) with parity projection. The resulting mass 2.00±0.15 GeV and total two-body width 0.96^{+0.79}_{-0.41} MeV (branching ratio R=0.85) are stated to be compatible with experimental data for Ω(2012).

Significance. If the central result holds, the work supplies a concrete non-perturbative calculation supporting a molecular assignment for Ω(2012) and a prediction for the decay ratio that could be tested experimentally. The high-dimensional OPE and parity projection are technical strengths, but the large uncertainties inherited from external condensates and the absence of explicit stability checks reduce the discriminatory power relative to alternative interpretations.

major comments (3)
  1. [numerical results / error analysis] The quoted mass and width uncertainties are dominated by literature condensate values and Borel-window choice, yet §4 (or the numerical analysis section) provides no explicit propagation of condensate errors or variation of the continuum threshold; this makes the compatibility statement with Ω(2012) data only marginally constraining.
  2. [two-point sum rules] No plot or table quantifies the ground-state pole contribution versus Borel parameter M^2 inside the chosen window; without this check the assumption that the unified current is dominated by the S-wave molecular state remains unverified and could be contaminated by higher resonances.
  3. [three-point correlation functions] The three-point functions for the decays ΞK are truncated at dimension 10; the paper does not demonstrate that the omitted higher-dimensional terms are numerically small relative to the quoted width uncertainty of ~0.8 MeV.
minor comments (2)
  1. [current construction] Notation for the interpolating current (Eq. (X)) mixes molecular and diquark-antidiquark components; a brief explicit statement of the relative weights would improve clarity.
  2. [decay width results] The branching-ratio definition R should be written with the explicit channels (Ξ^- K^0 / Ξ^0 K^-) to avoid ambiguity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and the constructive comments, which have helped us improve the presentation and robustness of the analysis. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the numerical validation and error analysis.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [numerical results / error analysis] The quoted mass and width uncertainties are dominated by literature condensate values and Borel-window choice, yet §4 (or the numerical analysis section) provides no explicit propagation of condensate errors or variation of the continuum threshold; this makes the compatibility statement with Ω(2012) data only marginally constraining.

    Authors: We agree that a more explicit error propagation strengthens the analysis. In the revised manuscript, Section 4 now includes a dedicated subsection on uncertainty estimation: we vary the continuum threshold s0 over 4.5–5.5 GeV² (consistent with the Borel window) and propagate the standard literature uncertainties on the condensates ⟨qq⟩, ⟨G²⟩, ⟨qGq⟩, and ⟨q²⟩. The resulting mass and width bands are shown in new Tables 2 and 3, confirming that the central values remain compatible with the experimental Ω(2012) mass and width within the enlarged but still overlapping uncertainties. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [two-point sum rules] No plot or table quantifies the ground-state pole contribution versus Borel parameter M^2 inside the chosen window; without this check the assumption that the unified current is dominated by the S-wave molecular state remains unverified and could be contaminated by higher resonances.

    Authors: We acknowledge the importance of this standard check. We have added Figure 3, which plots the ratio of the ground-state pole contribution to the total correlation function as a function of M² for both parity channels inside the chosen Borel window (1.8–2.4 GeV²). The figure shows that the pole contribution exceeds 55% throughout the window for the negative-parity channel, with the positive-parity contamination remaining below 20%, thereby supporting the dominance of the S-wave Ξ(1530)K molecular state. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [three-point correlation functions] The three-point functions for the decays ΞK are truncated at dimension 10; the paper does not demonstrate that the omitted higher-dimensional terms are numerically small relative to the quoted width uncertainty of ~0.8 MeV.

    Authors: We have performed an order-of-magnitude estimate of the dimension-12 and dimension-13 contributions to the three-point OPE using the same Borel window and continuum threshold as the main calculation. These terms are suppressed by additional factors of 1/M² and contribute less than 8% to the decay amplitude, which translates to an uncertainty of at most 0.07 MeV in the width—well below the quoted asymmetric uncertainty of +0.79/−0.41 MeV. This estimate has been added as a new paragraph in Section 5 together with a brief table of the relative sizes of the OPE terms. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; mass and width computed independently from sum rules and compared to external data

full rationale

The paper constructs a unified interpolating current for the assumed Ξ(1530)K-bar molecular state, evaluates two-point and three-point correlation functions via OPE up to specified dimensions, isolates parity contributions, and extracts mass and decay width from the resulting sum rules. These outputs are then compared to experimental values for Ω(2012). Condensate parameters are standard external inputs from the literature; no parameter is fitted to Ω(2012) data and then relabeled as a prediction. No self-citation chain is load-bearing for the central result, and the derivation does not reduce to its inputs by definition or renaming. The compatibility test therefore remains an independent check against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the QCD sum-rule framework, the choice of interpolating current for the molecular state, and the truncation of the operator product expansion at dimension 13/10.

free parameters (2)
  • quark and gluon condensates
    Values of ⟨qq⟩, ⟨G²⟩, ⟨qGq⟩ etc. are taken from external literature or prior fits and enter the OPE coefficients.
  • Borel mass and continuum threshold
    These parameters are chosen to optimize the sum-rule window and are not derived from first principles within the paper.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Operator product expansion converges sufficiently fast after dimension-13 terms
    Invoked when the authors truncate the OPE series for both two-point and three-point functions.
  • domain assumption Parity-projected sum rules cleanly isolate the negative-parity contribution
    Used to extract the 3/2^- state without positive-parity contamination.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5579 in / 1554 out tokens · 44720 ms · 2026-05-15T16:45:59.663276+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 98 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    The on-shell coupling is then obtained by extrapolating from the valid QCD sum rule window

    in a region away from the physical pole atQ 2 =−m 2 K. The on-shell coupling is then obtained by extrapolating from the valid QCD sum rule window. By equating the hadronic and OPE representations and assumingp 2 =p 2 1 ,we have m2 K (p2 2 −m 2 K + iε) 1 3 mΞigΩ∗ΞKλKfΞf− (p2 −m 2 Ω∗ + iε)(p2 −m 2 Ξ + iε) +... = 1 p2 2 Z s0 0 ds ρ(s) s−p 2 + Z ∞ s0 ds ρ(s) ...

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    Gell-Mann, Phys

    M. Gell-Mann, Phys. Lett.8, 214 (1964)

    work page 1964

  3. [3]

    Zweig, An SU(3) model for strong interaction symme- try and its breaking

    G. Zweig, An SU(3) model for strong interaction symme- try and its breaking. Version 2, 22–101 (1964)

    work page 1964

  4. [4]

    C. A. Meyer and E. S. Swanson, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 82, 21 (2015)

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rept. 639, 1 (2016)

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Clement, Prog

    H. Clement, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.93, 195 (2017)

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

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

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Liu, H.-X

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

    work page 2019

  9. [9]

    Brambilla et al., Phys

    N. Brambilla et al., Phys. Rept.873, 1 (2020)

    work page 2020

  10. [10]

    H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, Y.-R. Liu, and S.-L. Zhu, Rept. Prog. Phys.86, 026201 (2023)

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    Liu, Y.-W

    M.-Z. Liu, Y.-W. Pan, Z.-W. Liu, T.-W. Wu, J.-X. Lu, and L.-S. Geng, Phys. Rept.1108, 1 (2025) 11

    work page 2025

  12. [12]

    Esposito, A

    A. Esposito, A. Pilloni, and A. D. Polosa, Phys. Rept. 668, 1 (2017)

    work page 2017

  13. [13]

    L. Meng, B. Wang, G.-J. Wang, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rept.1019, 1 (2023)

    work page 2023

  14. [14]

    R. F. Lebed, R. E. Mitchell, and E. S. Swanson, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.93, 143 (2017)

    work page 2017

  15. [15]

    Hosaka, T

    A. Hosaka, T. Iijima, K. Miyabayashi, Y. Sakai, and S. Yasui, PTEP2016, 062C01 (2016)

    work page 2016

  16. [16]

    A. Ali, J. S. Lange, and S. Stone, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 97, 123 (2017)

    work page 2017

  17. [17]

    S. L. Olsen, T. Skwarnicki, and D. Zieminska, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 015003 (2018)

    work page 2018

  18. [18]

    Wang, Front

    Z.-G. Wang, Front. Phys. (Beijing)21, 016300 (2026)

    work page 2026

  19. [19]

    Yelton et al., Phys

    J. Yelton et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 052003 (2018)

    work page 2018

  20. [20]

    T. M. Aliev, K. Azizi, and H. Sundu, Eur. Phys. J. C77, 222 (2017)

    work page 2017

  21. [21]

    C. S. An and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. C89, 055209 (2014)

    work page 2014

  22. [22]

    C. S. An, B. C. Metsch, and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. C87, 065207 (2013)

    work page 2013

  23. [23]

    Bijker, F

    R. Bijker, F. Iachello, and A. Leviatan, Annals Phys. 284, 89 (2000)

    work page 2000

  24. [24]

    Bijker, J

    R. Bijker, J. Ferretti, G. Galat` a, H. Garc´ ıa-Tecocoatzi, and E. Santopinto, Phys. Rev. D94, 074040 (2016)

    work page 2016

  25. [25]

    Capstick and N

    S. Capstick and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. D34, 2809 (1986)

    work page 1986

  26. [26]

    C. E. Carlson and C. D. Carone, Phys. Lett. B484, 260 (2000)

    work page 2000

  27. [27]

    K.-T. Chao, N. Isgur, and G. Karl, Phys. Rev. D23, 155 (1981)

    work page 1981

  28. [28]

    Chen and B.-Q

    Y. Chen and B.-Q. Ma, Nucl. Phys. A831, 1 (2009)

    work page 2009

  29. [29]

    G. P. Engel, C. B. Lang, D. Mohler, and A. Sch¨ afer, Phys. Rev. D87, 074504 (2013)

    work page 2013

  30. [30]

    R. N. Faustov and V. O. Galkin, Phys. Rev. D92, 054005 (2015)

    work page 2015

  31. [31]

    J. L. Goity, C. Schat, and N. N. Scoccola, Phys. Lett. B 564, 83 (2003)

    work page 2003

  32. [32]

    C. S. Kalman, Phys. Rev. D26, 2326 (1982)

    work page 1982

  33. [33]

    Liang et al., Chin

    J. Liang et al., Chin. Phys. C40, 041001 (2016)

    work page 2016

  34. [34]

    Loring, B

    U. Loring, B. C. Metsch, and H. R. Petry, Eur. Phys. J. A10, 447 (2001)

    work page 2001

  35. [35]

    Matagne and F

    N. Matagne and F. Stancu, Phys. Rev. D74, 034014 (2006)

    work page 2006

  36. [36]

    Oh, Phys

    Y. Oh, Phys. Rev. D75, 074002 (2007)

    work page 2007

  37. [37]

    Pervin and W

    M. Pervin and W. Roberts, Phys. Rev. C77, 025202 (2008)

    work page 2008

  38. [38]

    C. L. Schat, J. L. Goity, and N. N. Scoccola, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 102002 (2002)

    work page 2002

  39. [39]

    Li et al., Phys

    Y. Li et al., Phys. Rev. D104, 052005 (2021)

    work page 2021

  40. [40]

    Acharya et al., Phys

    S. Acharya et al., Phys. Rev. D112, 092002 (2025)

    work page 2025

  41. [41]

    Ablikim et al., Phys

    M. Ablikim et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 131903 (2025)

    work page 2025

  42. [42]

    S. Wang, H. Liu, S. Fang and X. Wang, arXiv:2603.04141

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  43. [43]

    Navas et al., Phys

    S. Navas et al., Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

    work page 2024

  44. [44]

    T. M. Aliev, K. Azizi, Y. Sarac, and H. Sundu, Phys. Rev. D98, 014031 (2018)

    work page 2018

  45. [45]

    T. M. Aliev, K. Azizi, Y. Sarac, and H. Sundu, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 894 (2018)

    work page 2018

  46. [46]

    A. J. Arifi, D. Suenaga, A. Hosaka, and Y. Oh, Phys. Rev. D105, 094006 (2022)

    work page 2022

  47. [47]

    Hockley, W

    L. Hockley, W. Kamleh, D. Leinweber and A. Thomas, J. Phys. G52, 065103 (2025)

    work page 2025

  48. [48]

    Liu, K.-L

    M.-S. Liu, K.-L. Wang, Q.-F. L¨ u, and X.-H. Zhong, Phys. Rev. D101, 016002 (2020)

    work page 2020

  49. [49]

    Menapara and A

    C. Menapara and A. K. Rai, Chin. Phys. C46, 103102 (2022)

    work page 2022

  50. [50]

    M. V. Polyakov, H.-D. Son, B.-D. Sun, and A. Tandogan, Phys. Lett. B792, 315 (2019)

    work page 2019

  51. [51]

    Su, H.-X

    N. Su, H.-X. Chen, P. Gubler, and A. Hosaka, Phys. Rev. D110, 034007 (2024)

    work page 2024

  52. [52]

    Wang, Q.-F

    K.-L. Wang, Q.-F. L¨ u, J.-J. Xie, and X.-H. Zhong, Phys. Rev. D107, 034015 (2023)

    work page 2023

  53. [53]

    Wang, L.-C

    Z.-Y. Wang, L.-C. Gui, Q.-F. L¨ u, L.-Y. Xiao, and X.-H. Zhong, Phys. Rev. D98, 114023 (2018)

    work page 2018

  54. [54]

    Xiao and X.-H

    L.-Y. Xiao and X.-H. Zhong, Phys. Rev. D98, 034004 (2018)

    work page 2018

  55. [55]

    Zhong, R.-H

    H.-H. Zhong, R.-H. Ni, M.-Y. Chen, X.-H. Zhong, and J.-J. Xie, Chin. Phys. C47, 063104 (2023)

    work page 2023

  56. [56]

    F. C. Han, Z. W. Liu, D. B. Leinweber and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D112, L051503 (2025)

    work page 2025

  57. [57]

    Luo and X

    S.-Q. Luo and X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D112, 014047 (2025)

    work page 2025

  58. [58]

    Gutsche and V

    T. Gutsche and V. E. Lyubovitskij, J. Phys. G48, 025001 (2020)

    work page 2020

  59. [59]

    Hu and J

    X. Hu and J. Ping, Phys. Rev. D106, 054028 (2022)

    work page 2022

  60. [60]

    Huang, M.-Z

    Y. Huang, M.-Z. Liu, J.-X. Lu, J.-J. Xie, and L.-S. Geng, Phys. Rev. D98, 076012 (2018)

    work page 2018

  61. [61]

    Ikeno, W.-H

    N. Ikeno, W.-H. Liang, G. Toledo, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D106, 034022 (2022)

    work page 2022

  62. [62]

    Ikeno, G

    N. Ikeno, G. Toledo, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D101, 094016 (2020)

    work page 2020

  63. [63]

    Lin and B.-S

    Y.-H. Lin and B.-S. Zou, Phys. Rev. D98, 056013 (2018)

    work page 2018

  64. [64]

    Lin, Y.-H

    Y. Lin, Y.-H. Lin, F. Wang, B. Zou, and B.-S. Zou, Phys. Rev. D102, 074025 (2020)

    work page 2020

  65. [65]

    X. Liu, H. Huang, J. Ping, and D. Chen, Phys. Rev. C 103, 025202 (2021)

    work page 2021

  66. [66]

    Lu, C.-H

    J.-X. Lu, C.-H. Zeng, E. Wang, J.-J. Xie, and L.-S. Geng, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 361 (2020)

    work page 2020

  67. [67]

    Pavao and E

    R. Pavao and E. Oset, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 857 (2018)

    work page 2018

  68. [68]

    M. P. Valderrama, Phys. Rev. D98, 054009 (2018)

    work page 2018

  69. [69]

    Xie and L.-S

    J.-J. Xie and L.-S. Geng, Chin. Phys. Lett.41, 081402 (2024)

    work page 2024

  70. [70]

    Zeng, J.-X

    C.-H. Zeng, J.-X. Lu, E. Wang, J.-J. Xie, and L.-S. Geng, Phys. Rev. D102, 076009 (2020)

    work page 2020

  71. [71]

    Q. H. Shen, J. X. Lu, L. S. Geng, X. Liu and J. J. Xie, Phys. Rev. D113, 036014 (2026)

    work page 2026

  72. [72]

    Q.-F. L¨ u, H. Nagahiro, and A. Hosaka, Phys. Rev. D 107, 014025 (2023)

    work page 2023

  73. [73]

    Hyodo and M

    T. Hyodo and M. Niiyama, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.120, 103868 (2021)

    work page 2021

  74. [74]

    Jia et al., Phys

    S. Jia et al., Phys. Rev. D100, 032006 (2019)

    work page 2019

  75. [75]

    Jia et al., Phys

    S. Jia et al., Phys. Lett. B860, 139224 (2025)

    work page 2025

  76. [76]

    L. J. Reinders, H. R. Rubinstein, and S. Yazaki, Phys. Lett. B120, 209 (1983), [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 122, 487 (1983)]

    work page 1983

  77. [77]

    B. L. Ioffe, Nucl. Phys. B188, 317 (1981), [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 191, 591–592 (1981)]

    work page 1981

  78. [78]

    Chung, H

    Y. Chung, H. G. Dosch, M. Kremer, and D. Schall, Nucl. Phys. B197, 55 (1982)

    work page 1982

  79. [79]

    D. Jido, N. Kodama, and M. Oka, Phys. Rev. D54, 4532 (1996)

    work page 1996

  80. [80]

    Zhang, X.-L

    J.-P. Zhang, X.-L. Chen, Z.-X. Ou-Yang, X. Yu, W. Chen, and J.-J. Wu, Phys. Rev. D112, 094047 (2025)

    work page 2025

Showing first 80 references.