Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Finite-volume quantization condition from the $N/D$ representation

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that finite-volume lattice spectra determine the numerator of the N/D representation at energies below the left-hand cut, a region the standard quantization condition cannot reach.

desk verdict A genuinely new N/D quantization condition; the below-threshold claim is plausible but needs an explicit continuity argument and a numerical check. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15730 v1 pith:OXVNG7B2 submitted 2024-11-24 hep-lat nucl-th

Sebastian M. Dawid , Andrew W. Jackura , Adam P. Szczepaniak This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-latnucl-th
keywords finite-volumequantizationconditionN/DrepresentationlatticeQCDleft-handcutshadronicresonancespartial-waveamplitudeunitarityanalyticity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper proposes a new model-independent way to extract two-body scattering amplitudes from spectra computed in a finite cubic volume. The idea is to write the partial-wave amplitude in the N/D form, in which the numerator $\mathcal{N}$ carries all left-hand singularities from crossed-channel exchanges and the denominator $D$ carries the right-hand unitarity cut. The paper derives a quantization condition $\det D_L = 0$ that relates the finite-volume energies to the infinite-volume numerator $\mathcal{N}$, and argues that, unlike the original quantization condition, it is valid at energies below the nearest left-hand cut. If correct, it would let lattice QCD constrain resonances whose physics is dominated by particle exchange in regions that standard methods cannot reach.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the finite-volume denominator matrix $D_L$ arising from the $N/D$ decomposition of the finite-volume partial-wave amplitude, $\widetilde{M}_L = \mathcal{N}_L D_L^{-1}$. Unitarity in the box fixes $\operatorname{Im} D_L$ as a sum over discrete momenta, and the solution $D_L$ has poles at free energies; zeros of $\det D_L$ are the interacting energies. The argument then replaces $\mathcal{N}_L$ by the infinite-volume numerator $\mathcal{N}$ using a Poisson summation (sum-integral difference) step that leaves only exponentially suppressed corrections, so that the quantization condition involves only $\mathcal{N}$ and known finite-volume kinematic factors.

What would settle it

Take a non-relativistic or relativistic model with a known left-hand cut, such as one-pion exchange, put it in a finite volume, and compute the exact spectrum by diagonalizing the Hamiltonian at several box sizes. Then compare those energies to the zeros of $\det D_L$ from Eq. (20), with $\mathcal{N}$ obtained by analytically continuing the infinite-volume numerator below threshold; a discrepancy that grows as a power of $L$, rather than shrinking exponentially, would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, for a single-channel two-body reaction of spinless particles, the finite-volume spectrum is determined by $\det D_L = 0$, with $D_L$ built from the infinite-volume numerator $\mathcal{N}$ of the $N/D$ representation via a sum over finite-volume momenta, $D_L = 1 + (\xi/L^3)\sum_k L(k,P) \mathcal{Y}^*(k^*) \mathcal{Y}(k^*)^T \mathcal{N}(k^*)/(s-E^*(k)^2)$. The derivation never assumes $s > s_{\mathrm{lhc}}$, so the condition is claimed to hold arbitrarily far below the left-hand branch point, where the standard condition breaks down. The finite-volume numerator is shown to equal the infinite-volume one up to $O(e^{-\Delta L})$ corrections in the physical region, and the new condition reduces to the standard quantization condition in the elastic region above the left-hand cut.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the finite-volume numerator stays exponentially close to the infinite-volume one even when the momentum is imaginary, but the proof in the paper is written for real physical momenta only.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Lattice spectra in energy regions below left-hand cuts, such as near-threshold states with important $t$-channel exchanges, become usable for amplitude constraints without modeling the singular part of the amplitude.
  • Parameters of $\mathcal{N}$ fit from lattice energies feed directly into the $N/D$ integral equations, reconstructing the full partial-wave amplitude and its resonance poles.
  • In the elastic region above the left-hand cut, the new condition is equivalent to the original quantization condition, so existing extractions remain valid.
  • The formalism opens a route to systems like $DD^*$ scattering relevant to tetraquark candidates, where one- and multi-particle left-hand cuts lie inside the energy region of interest.
  • The construction generalizes the standard condition to arbitrary one- and multi-particle exchanges encoded in $\mathcal{N}$, extending the reach of finite-volume methods.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next test would be a benchmark in a solvable model with a known exact finite-volume spectrum and a left-hand cut, comparing the energies predicted by $\det D_L = 0$ to exact diagonalization; the paper does not include such a numerical demonstration.
  • The same replacement logic might extend to coupled-channel and three-body finite-volume equations, where left-hand cuts also complicate standard quantization conditions, though the paper only sketches these as future work.
  • If the below-threshold analytic continuation holds, the method effectively turns lattice spectra into direct constraints on the couplings of exchanged particles, since those couplings enter $\mathcal{N}$ through the known positions and residues of left-hand singularities.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a finite-volume (FV) quantization condition derived from the N/D representation of a two-body partial-wave amplitude. After defining an FV analog of the N/D decomposition, the authors derive a pole-sum expression for the FV denominator D_L, Eq. (17), replace the FV numerator N_L by the infinite-volume numerator N using an argument in Supplement C, and obtain the quantization condition det D_L = 0 with D_L given by Eq. (19). The central claim is that this condition remains valid for energies below the nearest left-hand cut, where the standard Lüscher condition is inapplicable. Supplement D derives the reduction to the Lüscher condition in the elastic region, and Supplement E proposes pole and one-particle-exchange parametrizations of N.

Significance. If the derivation is correct, the result is a useful and conceptually clean extension of Lüscher's framework: it avoids evaluating singular crossed-channel contributions at finite volume and provides a direct route from lattice spectra to the N/D numerator. The paper is strong in its explicit setup of the FV unitarity equations, its formal supplement with definitions of FV partial waves, and its concrete parametrization suggestions; it also honestly flags the need for subtractions and for a truncation study of the angular-momentum basis. The main weakness is that the proof of the key replacement N_L→N contains an apparent error in the written kernel, and the analytic continuation to s<slhc is not explicitly stated, so the advertised extension is not yet fully supported as printed. No numerical demonstration is included, which would materially increase confidence in the new condition.

major comments (3)
  1. [Supplement C, Eqs. (31)-(32)] The kernel in Eq. (31) is written as ρℓ(s'') Im[T(s'')-T(s)]/(s''-s-iϵ) N(s''). For s and s'' above sthr, T(s) is real because it contains only left-hand singularities, so this imaginary part vanishes identically and Eq. (31) reduces to N(s)=T(s). That result is inconsistent with the pole-model solution Nℓ(s)=g Dℓ(slhc)/(s-slhc) in Supplement E.1 and with the standard N/D integral equation, whose correct kernel is [T(s'')-T(s)]/(s''-s-iϵ) without the operation Im. The same spurious Im appears in Eq. (32). As written, the comparison between Eqs. (31) and (32) does not prove N_L=N+O(e^{-ΔL}); please correct both equations and re-derive the comparison.
  2. [Main text, Eqs. (17)-(19); Supplement C] Supplement C establishes the equality of FV and IV numerator functions only for physical kinematics p*>0. Since the sum in Eq. (17) runs over physical discrete momenta, the termwise replacement N_L(k*,P)→N(k*) is justified at each k*, and Eq. (19) can then be read as an identity of meromorphic functions in the external variable s, valid also for s<slhc. This analytic-continuation step is not stated in the paper. Please add an explicit sentence or short argument explaining that the pole-sum representation defines D_L for all s away from the unitarity cut and that the replacement is made inside the sum; without this clarification, the advertised extension to left-hand-cut energies is not directly supported by the proof as presented.
  3. [Conclusions and overall validation] No numerical demonstration of the new condition is provided. For a proposal whose advertised advantage is validity below the left-hand cut, a simple test—for example, using the one-pole model of Supplement E.1 to generate synthetic FV energies and showing that the zeros of Eq. (20) match them—would directly exercise the continued Eq. (19) in the region where Lüscher's condition is not available. Without such a check, the reader cannot distinguish the claimed extension from an uncontrolled analytic continuation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Supplement E.1, Eqs. (51)-(52)] Please verify the sign convention in Eq. (51). With the standard 1/(s'-s-iϵ) prescription, Im Iℓ(s)=+ρℓ(s)/(s-slhc) for s above sthr, whereas the displayed minus sign gives the opposite sign. Equation (52) appears to use the opposite sign convention and also appears to drop a term proportional to (s-slhc)Iℓ(slhc) that follows from the consistency condition Nℓ(s)=gDℓ(slhc)/(s-slhc); please reconcile these expressions.
  2. [Main text, paragraph after Eq. (20)] The statement 'at no point were we required to assume s > slhc' should be qualified, because the proof of N_L=N in Supplement C does assume physical kinematics for the momenta appearing in the sum; the stronger statement is that Eq. (19) is an identity in the external variable s after the termwise replacement, not that no physical-kinematics assumption enters the derivation.
  3. [Figure 1 and caption] The caption does not clearly identify which shaded band corresponds to the 'validity of Lüscher' region and which to 'validity of this work' in panels (a) and (b); please clarify the legend and the meaning of the blue region.
  4. [Main text, Eq. (20) and Conclusions] The angular-momentum truncation of the determinant in Eq. (20) is mentioned only in the conclusions. A brief statement in the main text about the expected convergence of the ℓmℓ basis for the parametrizations in Supplement E would help practitioners assess the practical cost of the new condition.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the N/D-based finite-volume quantization condition is derived from unitarity and analyticity, checked against the Lüscher condition in the elastic region, and does not reduce to its inputs by construction.

full rationale

The central relation, Eq. (20) with Eq. (19), is obtained by taking the N/D decomposition as the input analytic framework and then deriving the finite-volume denominator D_L from the finite-volume unitarity relation. This is not circular: the output is a quantization condition relating lattice energies to the infinite-volume numerator N, which is a parametrization input, not a quantity being predicted from itself. The derivation does not fit any parameter to the quantity it claims to predict, and no data are involved. In the elastic region, the formalism is explicitly shown in Supplement D to reduce to the standard Lüscher quantization condition, providing an external consistency check. The paper's own assumptions are stated: N_L = N + O(e^{-Delta L}) is proven in Supplement C only for physical kinematics p* > 0, and the condition is then asserted for s below the left-hand cut where p* is imaginary. This is a genuine gap in analytic-continuation justification and a correctness risk, but it is not circularity: a missing derivation is not the same as a result being equivalent to its input by construction. Self-citations appear only in standard contexts, such as the definition of the F-matrix elements and prior N/D phenomenology, and they are not used as the load-bearing justification for the new quantization condition. No uniqueness theorem from the authors is invoked, and no known empirical result is renamed as a new formalism. The below-threshold claim may be unproven or even wrong, but under the stated rules that concern is a correctness risk, not a circularity defect.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities; N and D are standard auxiliary functions. The derivation relies on standard dispersive machinery plus several domain assumptions about the finite-volume theory. The most load-bearing assumption, treated separately in the weakest_assumption field, is that the N_L = N replacement proven for physical kinematics extends without proof to the below-threshold region where the new quantization condition is claimed to apply.

free parameters (1)
  • N_l(s) (numerator function, or its pole-model coupling g and residual functions R_l(s)) = not fitted in this paper; to be constrained by lattice energies through Eq. (20)
    The quantization condition is only usable once a model of the IV numerator is supplied. The paper provides example parametrizations (Eq. (50) with g, Eq. (56) with R_l), whose parameters would be fitted to data. No such fit is performed here, so these are external inputs rather than free parameters of the derivation.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math The partial-wave amplitude admits an N/D decomposition with N containing only left-hand cuts and D only the right-hand unitarity cut.
    Invoked in Eq. (6) and the surrounding main text; this is a standard dispersive representation, though its convergence requires the subtractions discussed in Supplement B.
  • domain assumption Convergence of the N/D dispersion integrals and the finite-volume momentum sum; N decays fast enough as |s| tends to infinity.
    Assumed in Eq. (9) and after Eq. (17); the paper defers a full treatment to Supplement B.
  • domain assumption Finite-volume masses are exponentially close to infinite-volume masses, m_i,L = m_i + O(e^{-m_pi L}).
    Stated in the finite-volume section before Eq. (12), and needed for the FV amplitude to approximate the IV amplitude.
  • domain assumption The FV and IV interaction Hamiltonian matrix elements are identical up to delta normalizations, allowing a definition of FV partial waves.
    Footnote 1 in Supplement A; this underpins the extension of the amplitude to continuous momenta and the partial-wave projection used in Eq. (13).
  • ad hoc to paper The FV numerator N_L equals the IV numerator N up to O(e^{-Delta L}) in the entire region where Eq. (19) is applied.
    Supplement C proves this only for physical kinematics p* > 0, but Eq. (19) is used at energies below threshold and below the left-hand cut, with no continuation argument supplied.
  • domain assumption The left-hand cut structure can be modeled from known branch points plus flexible short-range terms.
    The conclusions and Supplement E rely on this for practical applications, though the derivation itself does not depend on a specific model.
  • domain assumption Truncation of the partial-wave basis in det D_L = 0 is justified for specific models of N.
    The Conclusions explicitly flag that the formal investigation of angular momentum basis truncation has to be performed for specific models; this is an acknowledged open assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Finite-volume quantization condition from the $N/D$ representation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OXVNG7B2

@misc{pith2026241115730,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Finite-volume quantization condition from the $N/D$ representation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OXVNG7B2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15730}
}
abstract

We propose a new model-independent method for determining hadronic resonances from lattice QCD. The formalism is derived from the general principles of unitarity and analyticity, as encoded in the $N/D$ representation of a partial-wave two-body amplitude. The associated quantization condition relates the finite-volume spectrum to the infinite-volume numerator, $\mathcal{N}$, used to reconstruct the scattering amplitude from dispersive relations. Unlike the original L\"uscher condition, this new formalism is valid for energies coinciding with the left-hand cuts from arbitrary one- and multi-particle exchanges.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15730 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the partial-wave am [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example Feynman diagrams contributing to the left-hand singularity structure of the partial-wave amplitude in some [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Resonances at finite temperature from the lattice

    hep-lat 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Thermoparticle states are used to generalize the two-particle finite-volume quantization condition to finite temperature, keeping the kinematic function finite at all real energies and opening a route to thermal reson...

  2. Analytic decomposition of two-body electroweak processes with left-hand cuts

    hep-lat 2026-07 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

    An on-shell decomposition of 2+J o2 electroweak amplitudes isolates OPE poles, logs, and triangle singularities, leaving only smooth short-distance functions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

108 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    J. R. Pelaez, Phys. Rept. 658, 1 (2016), arXiv:1510.00653 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    right-hand

    , (1) where λ(x, y, z) = x2 + y2 + z2 − 2xy − 2yz − 2zx is the K¨ all´ en triangle function. The total scattering energy is given by E = p (E⋆)2 + P 2 and energy conservation implies that E⋆ = ω1(p⋆) + ω2(p⋆). Given the S matrix, S = 1 + iT , the scattering ampli- tude is an element of the transition operator, ⟨p′ 1p′ 2| T |p1p2⟩ = (2π)4 δ(4)(P ′ − P ) M(...

  3. [3]

    J. R. Pel´ aez, A. Rodas, and J. R. de Elvira, Eur. Phys. J. ST 230, 1539 (2021), arXiv:2101.06506 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Alde et al

    D. Alde et al. (IHEP-Brussels-Los Alamos- Annecy(LAPP)), Phys. Lett. B 205, 397 (1988)

    1988

  5. [5]

    Rodas et al

    A. Rodas et al. (JPAC), Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 042002 (2019), arXiv:1810.04171 [hep-ph]. 6

    arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    A. J. Woss, J. J. Dudek, R. G. Edwards, C. E. Thomas, and D. J. Wilson (Hadron Spectrum), Phys. Rev. D 103, 054502 (2021), arXiv:2009.10034 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 252001 (2013), arXiv:1303.5949 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2013

  8. [8]

    Z. Q. Liu et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 252002 (2013), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 111, 019901 (2013)], arXiv:1304.0121 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2013

Show all 108 references
  1. [9]

    Maiani, V

    L. Maiani, V. Riquer, R. Faccini, F. Piccinini, A. Pil- loni, and A. D. Polosa, Phys. Rev. D 87, 111102 (2013), arXiv:1303.6857 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Pilloni, C

    A. Pilloni, C. Fernandez-Ramirez, A. Jackura, V. Math- ieu, M. Mikhasenko, J. Nys, and A. P. Szczepa- niak (JPAC), Phys. Lett. B 772, 200 (2017), arXiv:1612.06490 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 072001 (2015), arXiv:1507.03414 [hep-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  4. [12]

    A. N. Hiller Blin, C. Fern´ andez-Ram ´ ırez, A. Jackura, V. Mathieu, V. I. Mokeev, A. Pilloni, and A. P. Szczepaniak, Phys. Rev. D 94, 034002 (2016), arXiv:1606.08912 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 222001 (2019), arXiv:1904.03947 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Fern´ andez-Ram ´ ırez, A

    C. Fern´ andez-Ram ´ ırez, A. Pilloni, M. Albaladejo, A. Jackura, V. Mathieu, M. Mikhasenko, J. A. Silva- Castro, and A. P. Szczepaniak (JPAC), Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 092001 (2019), arXiv:1904.10021 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  7. [15]

    T. Blum, P. A. Boyle, V. G¨ ulpers, T. Izubuchi, L. Jin, C. Jung, A. J¨ uttner, C. Lehner, A. Portelli, and J. T. Tsang (RBC, UKQCD), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 022003 (2018), arXiv:1801.07224 [hep-lat]

    2018 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Borsanyi et al

    S. Borsanyi et al. , Nature 593, 51 (2021), arXiv:2002.12347 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Abi et al

    B. Abi et al. (Muon g-2), Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 141801 (2021), arXiv:2104.03281 [hep-ex]

    2021

  10. [18]

    D. P. Aguillard et al. (Muon g-2), Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 161802 (2023), arXiv:2308.06230 [hep-ex]

    2023

  11. [19]

    Alexandrou et al

    C. Alexandrou et al. (Extended Twisted Mass), Phys. Rev. D 107, 074506 (2023), arXiv:2206.15084 [hep-lat]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Athron, A

    P. Athron, A. Fowlie, C.-T. Lu, L. Wu, Y. Wu, and B. Zhu, Nature Commun. 14, 659 (2023), arXiv:2204.03996 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    G´ erardin, W

    A. G´ erardin, W. E. A. Verplanke, G. Wang, Z. Fodor, J. N. Guenther, L. Lellouch, K. K. Szabo, and L. Varn- horst, (2023), arXiv:2305.04570 [hep-lat]

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Davier, Z

    M. Davier, Z. Fodor, A. Gerardin, L. Lellouch, B. Malaescu, F. M. Stokes, K. K. Szabo, B. C. Toth, L. Varnhorst, and Z. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 109, 076019 (2024), arXiv:2308.04221 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. D 90, 112004 (2014), arXiv:1408.5373 [hep-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  16. [24]

    J. H. Alvarenga Nogueira, I. Bediaga, A. B. R. Caval- cante, T. Frederico, and O. Lourenco, Phys. Rev. D 92, 054010 (2015), arXiv:1506.08332 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 031801 (2020), arXiv:1909.05211 [hep-ex]

    2020

  18. [26]

    L¨ uscher, Commun.Math.Phys.105, 153 (1986)

    M. L¨ uscher, Commun.Math.Phys.105, 153 (1986)

    1986

  19. [27]

    L¨ uscher, Nucl.Phys.B354, 531 (1991)

    M. L¨ uscher, Nucl.Phys.B354, 531 (1991)

    1991

  20. [28]

    Rummukainen and S

    K. Rummukainen and S. A. Gottlieb, Nucl. Phys. B 450, 397 (1995), arXiv:hep-lat/9503028 [hep-lat]

    1995 arXiv

  21. [29]

    C. h. Kim, C. T. Sachrajda, and S. R. Sharpe, Nucl. Phys. B 727, 218 (2005), arXiv:hep-lat/0507006 [hep- lat]

    2005 arXiv

  22. [30]

    S. He, X. Feng, and C. Liu, JHEP 07, 011 (2005), arXiv:hep-lat/0504019 [hep-lat]

    2005 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Davoudi and M

    Z. Davoudi and M. J. Savage, Phys. Rev. D 84, 114502 (2011), arXiv:1108.5371 [hep-lat]

    2011 arXiv

  24. [32]

    R. A. Briceno and Z. Davoudi, Phys. Rev. D 88, 094507 (2013), arXiv:1204.1110 [hep-lat]

    2013 arXiv

  25. [33]

    R. A. Briceno, Z. Davoudi, and T. C. Luu, Phys. Rev. D 88, 034502 (2013), arXiv:1305.4903 [hep-lat]

    2013 arXiv

  26. [34]

    R. A. Briceno, Phys. Rev. D 89, 074507 (2014), arXiv:1401.3312 [hep-lat]

    2014 arXiv

  27. [35]

    R. A. Briceno and Z. Davoudi, Phys. Rev. D 87, 094507 (2013), arXiv:1212.3398 [hep-lat]

    2013 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Romero-L´ opez, A

    F. Romero-L´ opez, A. Rusetsky, and C. Urbach, Phys. Rev. D 98, 014503 (2018), arXiv:1802.03458 [hep-lat]

    2018 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Polejaeva and A

    K. Polejaeva and A. Rusetsky, Eur. Phys. J. A 48, 67 (2012), arXiv:1203.1241 [hep-lat]

    2012 arXiv

  30. [38]

    M. T. Hansen and S. R. Sharpe, Phys. Rev. D 90, 116003 (2014), arXiv:1408.5933 [hep-lat]

    2014 arXiv

  31. [39]

    M. T. Hansen and S. R. Sharpe, Phys. Rev. D 92, 114509 (2015), arXiv:1504.04248 [hep-lat]

    2015 arXiv

  32. [40]

    R. A. Brice˜ no, M. T. Hansen, and S. R. Sharpe, Phys. Rev. D 95, 074510 (2017), arXiv:1701.07465 [hep-lat]

    2017 arXiv

  33. [41]

    H. W. Hammer, J. Y. Pang, and A. Rusetsky, JHEP 10, 115 (2017), arXiv:1707.02176 [hep-lat]

    2017 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Mai and M

    M. Mai and M. D¨ oring, Eur. Phys. J. A53, 240 (2017), arXiv:1709.08222 [hep-lat]

    2017 arXiv

  35. [43]

    R. A. Brice˜ no, M. T. Hansen, and S. R. Sharpe, Phys. Rev. D 99, 014516 (2019), arXiv:1810.01429 [hep-lat]

    2019 arXiv

  36. [44]

    T. D. Blanton and S. R. Sharpe, Phys. Rev. D 103, 054503 (2021), arXiv:2011.05520 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  37. [45]

    M. T. Hansen, F. Romero-L´ opez, and S. R. Sharpe, JHEP 07, 047 (2020), [Erratum: JHEP 02, 014 (2021)], arXiv:2003.10974 [hep-lat]

    2020 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Meng and E

    L. Meng and E. Epelbaum, JHEP 10, 051 (2021), arXiv:2108.02709 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  39. [47]

    M¨ uller, J.-Y

    F. M¨ uller, J.-Y. Pang, A. Rusetsky, and J.-J. Wu, JHEP 02, 158 (2022), arXiv:2110.09351 [hep-lat]

    2022 arXiv

  40. [48]

    T. D. Blanton and S. R. Sharpe, Phys. Rev. D 104, 034509 (2021), arXiv:2105.12094 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  41. [49]

    A. W. Jackura, Phys. Rev. D 108, 034505 (2023), arXiv:2208.10587 [hep-lat]

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Lellouch and M

    L. Lellouch and M. Luscher, Commun. Math. Phys.219, 31 (2001), arXiv:hep-lat/0003023

    2001 arXiv

  43. [51]

    N. H. Christ, C. Kim, and T. Yamazaki, Phys. Rev. D 72, 114506 (2005), arXiv:hep-lat/0507009

    2005 arXiv

  44. [52]

    M. T. Hansen and S. R. Sharpe, Phys. Rev. D 86, 016007 (2012), arXiv:1204.0826 [hep-lat]

    2012 arXiv

  45. [53]

    R. A. Brice˜ no, M. T. Hansen, and A. Walker-Loud, Phys. Rev. D 91, 034501 (2015), arXiv:1406.5965 [hep- lat]

    2015 arXiv

  46. [54]

    R. A. Brice˜ no and M. T. Hansen, Phys. Rev. D 92, 074509 (2015), arXiv:1502.04314 [hep-lat]

    2015 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Bernard, D

    V. Bernard, D. Hoja, U. G. Meissner, and A. Rusetsky, JHEP 09, 023 (2012), arXiv:1205.4642 [hep-lat]

    2012 arXiv

  48. [56]

    R. A. Brice˜ no and M. T. Hansen, Phys. Rev. D 94, 013008 (2016), arXiv:1509.08507 [hep-lat]

    2016 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Baroni, R

    A. Baroni, R. A. Brice˜ no, M. T. Hansen, and F. G. Ortega-Gama, Phys. Rev. D 100, 034511 (2019), arXiv:1812.10504 [hep-lat]

    2019 arXiv

  50. [58]

    R. A. Brice˜ no, M. T. Hansen, and A. W. Jackura, Phys. Rev. D 100, 114505 (2019), arXiv:1909.10357 [hep-lat]

    2019 arXiv

  51. [59]

    R. A. Brice˜ no, Z. Davoudi, M. T. Hansen, M. R. Schindler, and A. Baroni, Phys. Rev. D 101, 014509 (2020), arXiv:1911.04036 [hep-lat]

    2020 arXiv

  52. [60]

    R. A. Brice˜ no, A. W. Jackura, F. G. Ortega-Gama, 7 and K. H. Sherman, Phys. Rev. D 103, 114512 (2021), arXiv:2012.13338 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  53. [61]

    R. A. Brice˜ no, M. T. Hansen, and A. W. Jackura, Phys. Rev. D 101, 094508 (2020), arXiv:2002.00023 [hep-lat]

    2020 arXiv

  54. [62]

    R. A. Brice˜ no, J. J. Dudek, and L. Leskovec, Phys. Rev. D 104, 054509 (2021), arXiv:2105.02017 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  55. [63]

    K. H. Sherman, F. G. Ortega-Gama, R. A. Brice˜ no, and A. W. Jackura, Phys. Rev. D 105, 114510 (2022), arXiv:2202.02284 [hep-lat]

    2022 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Lozano, U.-G

    J. Lozano, U.-G. Meißner, F. Romero-L´ opez, A. Ruset- sky, and G. Schierholz, JHEP 10, 106 (2022), arXiv:2205.11316 [hep-lat]

    2022 arXiv

  57. [65]

    R. A. Brice˜ no, J. J. Dudek, and R. D. Young, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 025001 (2018), arXiv:1706.06223 [hep-lat]

    2018 arXiv

  58. [66]

    M. T. Hansen and S. R. Sharpe, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 69, 65 (2019), arXiv:1901.00483 [hep-lat]

    2019 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Davoudi, W

    Z. Davoudi, W. Detmold, K. Orginos, A. Parre˜ no, M. J. Savage, P. Shanahan, and M. L. Wagman, Phys. Rept. 900, 1 (2021), arXiv:2008.11160 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  60. [68]

    M. Mai, M. D¨ oring, and A. Rusetsky, Eur. Phys. J. ST 230, 1623 (2021), arXiv:2103.00577 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  61. [69]

    J. R. Green, A. D. Hanlon, P. M. Junnarkar, and H. Wittig, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 242003 (2021), arXiv:2103.01054 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  62. [70]

    J. R. Green, A. D. Hanlon, P. M. Junnarkar, and H. Wittig (Baryon Scattering (BaSc)), PoS LA T- TICE2022, 200 (2023), arXiv:2212.09587 [hep-lat]

    2023 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Padmanath and S

    M. Padmanath and S. Prelovsek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 032002 (2022), arXiv:2202.10110 [hep-lat]

    2022 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Whyte, D

    T. Whyte, D. J. Wilson, and C. E. Thomas, (2024), arXiv:2405.15741 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  65. [73]

    P. Klos, J. E. Lynn, I. Tews, S. Gandolfi, A. Gezerlis, H. W. Hammer, M. Hoferichter, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C 94, 054005 (2016), arXiv:1604.01387 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  66. [74]

    L. Meng, V. Baru, E. Epelbaum, A. A. Filin, and A. M. Gasparyan, Phys. Rev. D 109, L071506 (2024), arXiv:2312.01930 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  67. [75]

    A. B. a. Raposo and M. T. Hansen, JHEP 08, 075 (2024), arXiv:2311.18793 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Bubna, H.-W

    R. Bubna, H.-W. Hammer, F. M¨ uller, J.-Y. Pang, A. Rusetsky, and J.-J. Wu, JHEP 05, 168 (2024), arXiv:2402.12985 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  69. [77]

    M. T. Hansen, F. Romero-L´ opez, and S. R. Sharpe, JHEP 06, 051 (2024), arXiv:2401.06609 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Omnes, Nuovo Cim

    R. Omnes, Nuovo Cim. 8, 316 (1958)

    1958

  71. [79]

    G. F. Chew and S. Mandelstam, Phys. Rev. 119, 467 (1960)

    1960

  72. [80]

    J. D. Bjorken, Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 473 (1960)

    1960

  73. [81]

    A. M. Badalian, L. P. Kok, M. I. Polikarpov, and Y. A. Simonov, Phys. Rept. 82, 31 (1982)

    1982

  74. [82]

    J. A. Oller and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D60, 074023 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9809337

    1999 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Albaladejo and J

    M. Albaladejo and J. A. Oller, Phys. Rev. C 86, 034005 (2012), arXiv:1201.0443 [nucl-th]

    2012 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Jackura et al

    A. Jackura et al. (JPAC, COMPASS), Phys. Lett. B 779, 464 (2018), arXiv:1707.02848 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Li, J.-J

    Y. Li, J.-J. Wu, C. D. Abell, D. B. Leinweber, and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D 101, 114501 (2020), arXiv:1910.04973 [hep-lat]

    2020 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Miyamoto, Y

    T. Miyamoto, Y. Akahoshi, S. Aoki, T. Aoyama, T. Doi, S. Gongyo, and K. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. D 101, 074514 (2020), arXiv:1906.01987 [hep-lat]

    2020 arXiv

  79. [87]

    J. D. Bjorken and M. Nauenberg, Phys. Rev. 121, 1250 (1961)

    1961

  80. [88]

    A. W. Martin and K. C. Wali, Phys. Rev. 130, 2455 (1963)

    1963

  81. [89]

    J. A. Oller, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 110, 103728 (2020), arXiv:1909.00370 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Y. Lyu, S. Aoki, T. Doi, T. Hatsuda, Y. Ikeda, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 161901 (2023), arXiv:2302.04505 [hep-lat]

    2023 arXiv

  83. [91]

    S. Chen, C. Shi, Y. Chen, M. Gong, Z. Liu, W. Sun, and R. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 833, 137391 (2022), arXiv:2206.06185 [hep-lat]

    2022 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Ortiz-Pacheco, S

    E. Ortiz-Pacheco, S. Collins, L. Leskovec, M. Padmanath, and S. Prelovsek, (2023), 10.22323/1.453.0052, arXiv:2312.13441 [hep-lat]

    2023 arXiv

  85. [93]

    M.-L. Du, A. Filin, V. Baru, X.-K. Dong, E. Epel- baum, F.-K. Guo, C. Hanhart, A. Nefediev, J. Nieves, and Q. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 131903 (2023), arXiv:2303.09441 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Collins, A

    S. Collins, A. Nefediev, M. Padmanath, and S. Prelovsek, (2024), arXiv:2402.14715 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Abolnikov, V

    M. Abolnikov, V. Baru, E. Epelbaum, A. A. Filin, C. Hanhart, and L. Meng, (2024), arXiv:2407.04649 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Gel’fand and N

    I. Gel’fand and N. Vilenkin, Generalized Functions: Ap- plications of Harmonic Analysis (Academic Press, New York, 2014)

    2014

  89. [97]

    Maurin, General Eigenfunction Expansions and Uni- tary Representations of Topological Groups (Polish Sci- entific Publishers, Warsaw, 1968)

    K. Maurin, General Eigenfunction Expansions and Uni- tary Representations of Topological Groups (Polish Sci- entific Publishers, Warsaw, 1968)

    1968

  90. [98]

    de la Madrid, European Journal of Physics 26, 287 (2005)

    R. de la Madrid, European Journal of Physics 26, 287 (2005)

    2005

  91. [99]

    Bjorken and A

    J. Bjorken and A. Goldberg, Il Nuovo Cimento (1955-

    1955

  92. [100]

    Aly and H

    H. Aly and H. M¨ uller, Nuclear Physics76, 241 (1966)

    1966

  93. [101]

    Kamal, Il Nuovo Cimento A (1965-1970) 44, 1055 (1966)

    A. Kamal, Il Nuovo Cimento A (1965-1970) 44, 1055 (1966)

    1966

  94. [102]

    L. Kok, F. Van der Ploeg, and J. Greben, Physics Let- ters B 40, 300 (1972)

    1972

  95. [103]

    L. Kok, J. Greben, and F. van der Ploeg, Annals of Physics 79, 386 (1973)

    1973

  96. [104]

    Burkhardt, Dispersion Relation Dynamics: A Phe- nomenological Introduction to S-matrix Theory (North- Holland Publishing Company, 1969)

    H. Burkhardt, Dispersion Relation Dynamics: A Phe- nomenological Introduction to S-matrix Theory (North- Holland Publishing Company, 1969)

    1969

  97. [105]

    Luming, Phys

    M. Luming, Phys. Rev. 136, B1120 (1964)

    1964

  98. [106]

    1 L3 X k −p.v. Z dk (2π)3 # k⋆ p⋆ ℓ′ (4π) Y ∗ ℓ′mℓ′ (ˆk⋆) Yℓmℓ (ˆk⋆) 2ω1(k) 2ω2(P − k) E − ω1(k) − ω2(P − k) k⋆ p⋆ ℓ , (35) where “p.v

    M.-L. Du, F.-K. Guo, and B. Wu, (2024), arXiv:2408.09375 [hep-ph]. 8 SUPPLEMENT AL MA TERIAL In this supplement, we briefly describe the more technical aspects of the presented work. In part A, we discuss the definition of the amplitude through the finite-volume scattering ope...

    2024 arXiv

  99. [107]

    The pole model The simplest non-trivial model for the left-hand singularity structure of a partial-wave amplitude includes a finite number of poles that mimic a branch cut, Im Mℓ(s) = −π X i=0 gi δ(s − si) , (49) where si are (ordered) positions of the poles, si+1 < si, and −π...

  100. [108]

    The one-particle exchange model A more sophisticated choice is to consider a t-channel, one-particle exchange (OPE) amplitude, T (s, t) = g2 t − µ2 + iϵ , (53) where t = −2q⋆ 2(1 − cos θ⋆), g is a coupling, and µ is the exchanged particle mass [104, 105]. Using the completenes...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.