Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 50 references

Measurement of single- and double-polarization observables in the photoproduction of $\pi^+\pi^-$~meson pairs off the proton using CLAS at Jefferson Laboratory

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read First measurements of eight polarization observables in $\gamma p\to p\pi^+\pi^-$ are reported, and a partial-wave analysis including them requires substantial $N^*$ and $\Delta^*$ resonance contributions.

desk verdict First measurements of eight polarization observables for γp→pπ+π−, extracted carefully and worth refereeing; the abstract overclaims resonance evidence and the Q-value background systematic deserves a closure test. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.21119 v1 pith:CIROAHOV submitted 2025-04-29 nucl-ex

P. Roy , S. Cao , V. Crede , E. Klempt , V. A. Nikonov , A. V. Sarantsev , V. D. Burkert , V. Mokeev
show 136 more authors
P. Achenbach J. S. Alvarado W. R. Armstrong H. Atac H. Avakian N. A. Baltzell L. Barion M. Bashkanov M. Battaglieri F. Benmokhtar A. Bianconi A. S. Biselli M. Bondi F. Bossu S. Boiarinov K.-T. Brinkmann W. J. Briscoe W. K. Brooks T. Cao R. Capobianco D. S. Carman P. Chatagnon G. Ciullo P. L. Cole M. Contalbrigo A. D'Angelo N. Dashyan R. DeVita M. Defurne A. Deur S. Diehl C. Djalali M. Dugger R. Dupre H. Egiyan A. El Alaoui L. El Fassi P. Eugenio S. Fegan I. P. Fernando A. Filippi G. Gavalian R. W. Gothe L. Guo K. Hafidi H. Hakobyan M. Hattawy T. B. Hayward D. Heddle A. Hobart M. Holtrop Y. Ilieva D. G. Ireland E. L. Isupov D. Jenkins H. Jiang H. S. Jo K. Joo S. Joosten D. Keller M. Khandaker A. Kim W. Kim F. J. Klein V. Klimenko A. Kripko V. Kubarovsky L. Lanza P. Lenisa X. Li K. Livingston I. J. D. MacGregor D. Marchand D. Martiryan V. Mascagna D. Matamoros M. E. McCracken B. McKinnon T. Mineeva C. Munoz Camacho P. Nadel-Turonski K. Neupane D. Nguyen G. Niculescu M. Osipenko A. I. Ostrovidov M. Ouillon P. Pandey M. Paolone L. L. Pappalardo R. Paremuzyan E. Pasyuk S. J. Paul W. Phelps N. Pilleux S. Polcher Rafael J. Price Y. Prok D. Protopopescu J. Richards M. Ripani B. Ritchie J. Ritman G. Rosner P. Rossi A. A. Rusova C. Salgado S. Schadmand A. Schmidt R. A. Schumacher Y. G. Sharabian E. V. Shirokov S. Shrestha D. Sokhan N. Sparveris M. Spreafico I. I. Strakovsky S. Strauch J. A. Tan M. Tenorio N. Trotta R. Tyson M. Ungaro S. Vallarino L. Venturelli T. Vittorini H. Voskanyan E. Voutier D. P. Watts U. Weerasinghe X. Wei M. H. Wood L. Xu N. Zachariou Z. W. Zhao M. Zurek
This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-ex PACS 13.60.Le13.60.-r14.20.Gk25.20.Lj
keywords photoproductionpion-pairproductionpolarizationobservablesbaryonresonancespartial-waveanalysisfrozen-spintargetbeam-targetasymmetriessingle-spin
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 reports the first measurements of eight polarization observables in the photoproduction of a $\pi^+\pi^-$ pair off the proton: the beam asymmetries $I^s$ and $I^c$, the target asymmetries $P_x$ and $P_y$, and the four beam-target double-polarization observables $P^{s,c}_{x,y}$. The data cover center-of-mass energies from $1.51$ to $2.04$ GeV and are presented as angular distributions of the $\pi^+$ in the $\pi^+\pi^-$ rest frame. When the new observables are included in a coupled-channel partial-wave analysis, the paper finds evidence for significant $s$-channel resonance production in addition to $t$-channel exchange, with substantial $N^*$ and $\Delta^*$ contributions in the third and fourth resonance regions. These are the first such polarization data for the two-charged-pion final state, and they supply constraints that were previously missing for amplitude analyses seeking to pin down baryon-resonance decay branches.

What carries the argument

The central object is the cross-section decomposition for a transversely polarized target and a linearly polarized beam, $$\$\sigma$ = \sigma_0\{ (1+\bar\Lambda_t \cos\$\alpha$\, P_x + \bar\Lambda_t \sin\$\alpha$\, P_y) + \bar\delta_l[ \sin 2\$\beta$ (I^s + \bar\Lambda_t \cos\$\alpha$\, P^s_x + \bar\Lambda_t \sin\$\alpha$\, P^s_y) + \cos 2\$\beta$ (I^c + \bar\Lambda_t \cos\$\alpha$\, P^c_x + \bar\Lambda_t \sin\$\alpha$\, P^c_y)]\},$$ which separates the azimuthal modulation of the $\pi^+$ into eight observables according to the beam-polarization angle $\beta$ and the target-polarization angle $\alpha$. The extraction machinery is an event-based maximum-likelihood method: each event's $Q$ value, from a fit to the missing-mass distribution of its 300 nearest neighbors in five-dimensional phase space, gives its probability of being a free-proton signal, and data sets with opposite beam or target polarizations are combined with flux-ratio normalizations so that only one observable at a time modulates the likelihood.

What would settle it

Recompute all eight observables in one $W$ bin using an independent signal/background separation, for example carbon-target subtraction or analytical sideband fits instead of the $Q$-weighting method; if the asymmetries shift by more than the quoted roughly 10\% systematic, the central claim of reliable first measurements would be compromised.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the reaction $\gamma p\to p\,\pi^+\pi^-$ with a linearly polarized photon beam and a transversely polarized frozen-spin butanol target, the paper extracts eight independent spin observables from the azimuthal modulation of the $\pi^+$ in the laboratory frame. The observables are obtained by event-based maximum-likelihood fits that combine data with opposite beam and target polarization settings so that unwanted polarizations cancel; each event is weighted by a signal probability $Q$ that separates free-proton events from events on bound nucleons. The extracted asymmetries show the expected symmetry under $\phi\to-\phi$ ($I^s$ and $P_x$ odd, $I^c$ and $P_y$ even) and reach large values for the beam asymmetries across a broad energy range, while the double-polarization observables are typically within $\pm0.2$. Including these data in a coupled-channel partial-wave analysis together with existing $\pi\pi$ photoproduction observables requires significant $s$-channel resonance production and points to substantial contributions from $N^*$ and $\Delta^*$ resonances in the third and fourth resonance regions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the $Q$ value assigned to each event—the probability, from a fit to the missing-mass distribution of its 300 nearest neighbors in five-dimensional phase space, that the event is a free-proton signal—is unbiased, since every extracted asymmetry is a weighted function of these $Q$ values and the paper assigns this source alone a 10\% systematic uncertainty.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The eight measured distributions provide the first angular constraints of their kind for $\gamma p\to p\pi^+\pi^-$, so future partial-wave analyses can use them to separate overlapping $N^*$ and $\Delta^*$ amplitudes in the third and fourth resonance regions.
  • The large beam asymmetries across a broad energy range indicate that interference between resonance and non-resonant amplitudes is strong; any successful model of two-pion photoproduction must reproduce these modulations.
  • Because the double-polarization observables are sensitive to the relative phases of interfering amplitudes, the data will help determine branching fractions of baryon resonances into $N\rho$, $N\sigma$, $\Delta(1232)\pi$, and $N^*\pi$ cascade channels, a goal the paper states explicitly.
  • The full set of results is provided as supplemental material, allowing direct re-use in amplitude analyses beyond the one described in this paper.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same event-based likelihood extraction could be applied to other exclusive final states recorded with the same polarized target, such as $p\omega$ or $\pi^0\pi^0$, offering a direct consistency check of the method and a way to fill in observables that remain unmeasured for those channels.
  • A natural next test is to use the eight new angular distributions as a benchmark for model predictions: amplitudes fitted to cross sections alone will not generally reproduce them, so the size of the required deviations indicates how much constraining power the new observables carry.
  • One could test the robustness of the $Q$-weighting assumption by re-extracting a single energy bin with an independent sideband-subtraction or carbon-target-subtraction method; agreement would validate the small systematic, disagreement would localize the sensitivity.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper reports first measurements of eight polarization observables—the beam asymmetries I^s and I^c, the target asymmetries P_x and P_y, and the four beam-target double-polarization observables P^{s,c}_{x,y}—for the reaction γp→pπ+π−. The data were taken with the CLAS detector and the FROST frozen-spin target using a linearly polarized photon beam and a transversely polarized butanol target, covering W = 1.51–2.04 GeV. Events are selected in four topologies (three of which are retained), and the background from bound nucleons is removed by an event-based nearest-neighbor Q-weight method. The observables are extracted from unbinned maximum-likelihood fits to Q-weighted azimuthal distributions of the π+, using flux-ratio normalization factors derived from the polyethylene target. The results are compared with Bonn-Gatchina PWA curves, and the abstract claims significant N* and Δ* resonance contributions in the third and fourth resonance regions.

Significance. Subject to the concerns below, this would be a valuable new dataset. The eight observables are genuinely new for this final state and can provide strong constraints for coupled-channel partial-wave analyses of two-pion photoproduction. The analysis is notably careful in its detector-level corrections: energy-loss and momentum corrections, the holding-field azimuthal-modulation corrections, and the use of the polyethylene target for flux-ratio normalization are all documented, and systematic uncertainties are itemized in Table I. The maximum-likelihood extraction avoids information loss from binning and uses only normalization parameters beyond the observables themselves. However, the central measurement rests on the event-based background-subtraction method whose quoted systematic does not validate its structural assumptions, and the paper's abstract overclaims the PWA resonance evidence.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III, Section V.C, Table I] The 10% systematic assigned to the event-based background subtraction is obtained by shifting each event weight Q_i by its fit uncertainty σ_Q and re-extracting the observables. As the text notes, this is the 100%-correlated case and therefore chiefly probes the statistical sensitivity of the Q fits. It does not test the two structural assumptions on which all eight observables depend: (i) that the local missing-mass distribution is exactly a Gaussian signal plus a second-order Chebychev background, and (ii) that the signal fraction f_s is constant over the 300-neighbor phase-space cell. This matters because φ^lab_{π+} is both one of the five neighbor-selection coordinates and the variable whose modulations define the observables; a φ-dependent f_s or a shape misspecification would bias the extracted asymmetries in a way that the σ_Q shift cannot reveal. I recommend adding a Monte Carlo closure test in which events with a known injected asymmetry are generated from a mixture of signal and bound-nucleon background, passed through the Q-weight procedure, and the extracted observables are compared with the injected values; alternatively, the authors should study the stability of the results under alternative signal/background pdfs and under variation of the number of nearest neighbors.
  2. [Abstract, Section VI, Section VII] The abstract's assertion that "the data indicate significant contributions from N* and Δ* resonances in the third and fourth resonance regions" is not supported by the content of the paper. Section VI only states that the data were included in a Bonn-Gatchina coupled-channel analysis and that the inclusion "provides evidence for new resonances"; no fit results, resonance parameters, branching ratios, or quantitative comparison with and without the new data are shown. Section VII explicitly says that resonance contributions and N* decays into pρ will be discussed in a forthcoming publication. Please either present the quantitative PWA evidence in this paper or revise the abstract and Section VI to state that the data are consistent with, and will be used in, such an analysis.
  3. [Eqs. (22)-(23)] Eqs. (22)-(23) discard the term δ⊥(δ_R−Λ_R)[I^s sin2β + I^c cos2β] with the comment that δ_R and Λ_R are ~1. Their difference is not quantified, and while each ratio is close to unity, the contamination term can be non-negligible relative to the double-polarization signals being extracted: |P^{s,c}_{x,y}| are typically ≤0.2, whereas |I^{s,c}| can approach 1, so a few-percent difference between δ_R and Λ_R could shift the extracted P values by more than the quoted statistical precision. Please estimate the size of this dropped term from the actual measured beam and target polarizations and include it in the systematic budget, or retain the term in the likelihood.
  4. [Eq. (5), Section IV C] The definition of the angle β is internally inconsistent: Eq. (5) gives β = φ^lab_{π+} − π − φ_0, while the double-polarization extraction in Section IV C states β = φ^lab_{π+}. The −π piece is irrelevant for sin2β and cos2β, but the φ_0 = π/2 (perpendicular) beam setting changes the signs of the modulations. Please reconcile the two definitions and confirm that the signs in Eqs. (9), (10), and (22)-(25) are mutually consistent with the adopted convention.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figs. 9-16] The data points are shown with statistical uncertainties only; the total systematic uncertainty of ~13% is not indicated. Please state this explicitly in the captions or add systematic error bars/bands.
  2. [Figs. 9-16] The blue BnGa curves have no uncertainty bands or goodness-of-fit information. Please clarify in the captions or text that these are model predictions and not fits to the displayed data.
  3. [Fig. 14 caption] There is a typo in the caption: "symmtry" should be "symmetry".
  4. [Section V B] The paper would benefit from a table listing the number of events and statistical sensitivity per W bin for the double-polarization observables, as the current figures make it difficult to judge the statistical power of the measurement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the observables are extracted directly from angular distributions via likelihood fits with independent Q-weighting; the resonance interpretation is a fit, not a derivation from the data alone.

full rationale

The paper's central products are eight polarization observables obtained by maximum-likelihood fits to phi^lab_{pi+} distributions, with the observables appearing as free coefficients in the cross-section formula (Eq. 4) and in the asymmetry expressions (Eqs. 11, 19, 25). The only per-event input beyond the measured angles and fluxes is the Q value from the event-based background subtraction (Eqs. 2-3), which is determined from missing-mass fits of 300 nearest neighbors and does not depend on the values of the observables being extracted. The flux ratios are obtained independently from polyethylene-target event counts. Thus the measured asymmetries are not equal by construction to any fitted input or to a self-cited result. The Bonn-Gatchina partial-wave analysis is an interpretive fit that includes the new data; its self-citations describe the framework rather than supplying the measured values. The absence of a Monte Carlo closure test for the Q-value assumptions is a systematic/correctness concern, not a circularity, and no specific equation-level reduction can be quoted. Accordingly, no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central measurement uses no free parameters beyond the per-event background fit and derived flux-ratio normalizations. The resonance interpretation, however, imports the entire BnGa model and its many fitted parameters from companion papers, so the paper's resonance claim is not self-contained.

free parameters (1)
  • Event Q-value fit parameters (signal fraction, Gaussian width, Chebychev coefficients) = Refitted for each event's 300-neighbour sample
    Eq. 2-3 define the per-event signal probability Q used to weight every event in the likelihood fits; the 10% systematic uncertainty assigned to background subtraction reflects the impact of these parameters.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The total cross section for gamma p to p pi+ pi- with transverse target and linear beam polarization is parametrized by Eq. 4 in terms of the eight observables.
    The form is borrowed from single-pseudoscalar photoproduction and assumed to hold for the two-pion final state; Section IV A uses it as the basis for all extractions.
  • ad hoc to paper The event-based nearest-neighbour method yields unbiased signal probabilities Q.
    Section III describes the method; if signal and background distributions vary inside the 300-neighbour region, Q is biased and all observables shift.
  • domain assumption The Bonn-Gatchina framework and its world database correctly describe the data and can separate resonance contributions.
    Section VI relies on BnGa references [47-50] to claim resonance evidence, but no fits or uncertainties are shown in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Measurement of single- and double-polarization observables in the photoproduction of $\pi^+\pi^-$~meson pairs off the proton using CLAS at Jefferson Laboratory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CIROAHOV

@misc{pith2026250421119,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Measurement of single- and double-polarization observables in the photoproduction of $\pi^+\pi^-$~meson pairs off the proton using CLAS at Jefferson Laboratory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CIROAHOV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.21119}
}
abstract

The photoproduction of $\pi^+\pi^-$ meson pairs off the proton has been studied in the reaction $\gamma p\to p\,\pi^+\pi^-$ using the CEBAF Large Acceptance Spectrometer (CLAS) and the frozen-spin target (FROST) in Hall B at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility. For the first time, the beam and target asymmetries, $I^{s,c}$ and $P_{x,y}$, have been measured along with the beam-target double-polarization observables, $P^{s,c}_{x,y}$, using a transversely polarized target with center-of-mass energies ranging from 1.51 GeV up to 2.04 GeV. These data and additional $\pi\pi$ photoproduction observables from CLAS and experiments elsewhere were included in a partial-wave analysis within the Bonn-Gatchina framework. Significant contributions from $s$-channel resonance production are observed in addition to $t$-channel exchange processes. The data indicate significant contributions from $N^\ast$ and $\Delta^\ast$ resonances in the third and fourth resonance regions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.21119 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. An illustration of relevant coordinate systems, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Typical example of a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Left column: Mean values of the ￾ pull distributions versus the lab azimuthal angle from Topology 4 of FROST-g9b (1.5 GeV coherent-edge data set) for the proton (top), ⇡+ (center) and ⇡￾ (bottom) after applying energy-loss and momentum corrections. The modulations obs…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. A typical example of a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Example of a g9b missing-mass distribution for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. A diagram describing the kinematics of the reaction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Results for the beam asymmetry, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Results for the beam asymmetry, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Results for the target asymmetry, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Results for the target asymmetry, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Full results for the beam-target observable, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Full results for the beam-target observable, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Full results for the beam-target observable, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Full results for the beam-target observable, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    F. D. Aaron et al. [H1 Collaboration], JHEP 05, 032 (2010)

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    S. J. Brodsky, L. Frankfurt, J. F. Gunion, A. H. Mueller and M. Strikman, Phys. Rev. D 50, 3134 (1994). 22

    work page 1994

  3. [3]

    A. V. Anisovich, E. Klempt, V. A. Nikonov, A. V. Sarant- sev and U. Thoma, Phys. Lett. B 711, 167 (2012)

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    Sokhoyan et al

    V. Sokhoyan et al. [CBELSA/TAPS Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. A 51, 95 (2015) [erratum: Eur. Phys. J. A 51, 187 (2015)]

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Thiel et al

    A. Thiel et al. [CBELSA/TAPS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 091803 (2015)

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Klempt and J

    E. Klempt and J. M. Richard, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1095 (2010)

    2010

  7. [7]

    Crede and W

    V. Crede and W. Roberts, Rept. Prog. Phys. 76, 076301 (2013)

    2013

  8. [8]

    D. G. Ireland, E. Pasyuk and I. Strakovsky, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 111, 103752 (2020)

    work page 2020

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Thiel, F

    A. Thiel, F. Afzal and Y. Wunderlich, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 125, 103949 (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    Gross, E

    F. Gross, E. Klempt, S. J. Brodsky, A. J. Buras, V. D. Burkert, G. Heinrich, K. Jakobs, C. A. Meyer, K. Orginos and M. Strickland et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 1125 (2023)

    2023

  3. [11]

    R. L. Workman et al. [Particle Data Group], PTEP2022, 083C01 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    A. V. Sarantsev et al. [CLAS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. C 111, 035203 (2025)

    2025

  5. [13]

    Prakhov et al

    S. Prakhov et al. [Crystal Ball Collaboration], Phys. Rev. C 69, 045202 (2004)

    2004

  6. [14]

    Adamczewski-Musch et al

    J. Adamczewski-Musch et al. [HADES Collaboration], Phys. Rev. C 102, 024001 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    K. H. Kaiser, K. Aulenbacher, O. Chubarov, M. Dehn, H. Euteneuer, F. Hagenbuck, R. Herr, A. Jankowiak, P. Jennewein and H. J. Kreidel et al. , Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 593, 159 (2008)

    2008

  8. [16]

    Hillert, Eur

    W. Hillert, Eur. Phys. J. A 28S1, 139 (2006)

    2006

  9. [17]

    Zehr et al

    F. Zehr et al. [The Crystal Ball at MAMI, TAPS, and A2 Collaborations], Eur. Phys. J. A 48, 98 (2012)

    2012

  10. [18]

    Garni et al

    S. Garni et al. [A2 Collaboration], [arXiv:2207.14079 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv

  11. [19]

    Ahrens et al

    J. Ahrens et al. [GDH and A2 Collaborations], Phys. Lett. B 624, 173 (2005)

    2005

  12. [20]

    Ahrens et al

    J. Ahrens et al. [GDH and A2 Collaborations], Eur. Phys. J. A 34, 11 (2007)

    2007

  13. [21]

    Sokhoyan et al

    V. Sokhoyan et al. [CBELSA/TAPS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 746, 127 (2015)

    2015

  14. [22]

    Seifen et al

    T. Seifen et al. [CBELSA/TAPS Collaboration], [arXiv:2207.01981 [nucl-ex]]

    arXiv

  15. [23]

    Strauch et al

    S. Strauch et al. [CLAS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 162003 (2005)

    2005

  16. [24]

    Kohri et al

    H. Kohri et al. [LEPS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 202004 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    C. D. Keith et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A684, 27 (2012)

    2012

  18. [26]

    B. A. Mecking et al. , Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 503, 513 (2003)

    2003

  19. [27]

    Senderovich et al

    I. Senderovich et al. [CLAS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 755, 64 (2016)

    2016

  20. [28]

    Akbar et al

    Z. Akbar et al. [CLAS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. C 96, 065209 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    Roy et al

    P. Roy et al. [CLAS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. C 97, 055202 (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    Roy et al

    P. Roy et al. [CLAS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 162301 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    Timm, Fortsch

    U. Timm, Fortsch. Phys. 17, 765 (1969)

    1969

  24. [32]

    Lohmann et al

    D. Lohmann et al. , Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 343, 494 (1994)

    1994

  25. [33]

    D. I. Sober et al. , Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 440, 263 (2000)

    2000

  26. [34]

    Livingston, Nucl

    K. Livingston, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 603, 205 (2009)

    2009

  27. [35]

    Livingston, Jefferson Lab CLAS-Report 2011-020, https://misportal.jlab.org/ul/Physics/Hall-B/ clas/viewFile.cfm/2011-021.pdf?documentId=657

    K. Livingston, Jefferson Lab CLAS-Report 2011-020, https://misportal.jlab.org/ul/Physics/Hall-B/ clas/viewFile.cfm/2011-021.pdf?documentId=657

    2011

  28. [36]

    Abragam and M

    A. Abragam and M. Goldman, Rep. Prog. Phys. 41, 396 (1978)

    1978

  29. [37]

    C. D. Keith et al. , Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 501, 327 (2003)

    2003

  30. [38]

    Y. G. Sharabian et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 556, 246 (2006)

    2006

  31. [39]

    M. D. Mestayer et al. , Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 449, 81 (2000)

    2000

  32. [40]

    E. S. Smith et al. , Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 432, 265 (1999)

    1999

  33. [41]

    Roy, Doctoral Dissertation (2016), Florida State Uni- versity, https://www.jlab.org/Hall-B/general/clas_ thesis.html

    P. Roy, Doctoral Dissertation (2016), Florida State Uni- versity, https://www.jlab.org/Hall-B/general/clas_ thesis.html

    2016

  34. [42]

    Williams, M

    M. Williams, M. Bellis and C. A. Meyer, JINST 4, P10003 (2009)

    2009

  35. [43]

    Williams et al

    M. Williams et al. [CLAS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. C 80, 065208 (2009)

    2009

  36. [44]

    C. A. Paterson et al. [CLAS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. C 93, 065201 (2016)

    2016

  37. [45]

    MINUIT - Function Minimization and Error Analysis, CERN Program Library entry D506, Copyright CERN, Geneva 1994

    1994

  38. [46]

    Dugger et al

    M. Dugger et al. [CLAS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. C 88, 065203 (2013)

    2013

  39. [47]

    A. V. Anisovich, R. Beck, E. Klempt, V. A. Nikonov, A. V. Sarantsev and U. Thoma, Eur. Phys. J. A 48, 15 (2012)

    2012

  40. [48]

    http://pwa.hiskp.uni-bonn.de/baryon_x.htm

  41. [49]

    A. V. Anisovich and A. V. Sarantsev, Eur. Phys. J. A 30, 427 (2006)

    2006

  42. [50]

    A. V. Sarantsev, E. Klempt, K. V. Nikonov, T. Seifen, U. Thoma, Y. Wunderlich, P. Achenbach, V. D. Burkert, V. Mokeev and V. Crede, [arXiv:2503.16636 [nucl-th]]

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.