Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

$\phi \to 3\pi$ and $\phi\pi^{0}$ transition form factor from Khuri-Treiman equations

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A once-subtracted dispersion relation fits phi to 3pi and its radiative decay.

desk verdict Solid simultaneous KT fit to KLOE phi->3pi and TFF data, but the 'b close to sum rule' claim is overstated by ~4-12 sigma and needs fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.15309 v1 pith:ZXQ6N6GU submitted 2025-05-21 hep-ph hep-exnucl-th

A. Garcia-Lorenzo , M. Albaladejo , S. Gonzlez-Solis , N. Hammoud , V. Mathieu , G. Montana , A. Pilloni , D. Winney
show 1 more author
A.P. Szczepaniak
This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-exnucl-th
keywords Khuri-Treimanequationsphimesondecaythree-bodydecaystransitionformfactordispersionrelationsDalitzplotunitarityOmnesfunction
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 aims to show that a single once-subtracted Khuri-Treiman dispersion relation, with one free complex subtraction constant, describes both the phi -> pi+ pi- pi0 Dalitz plot and the phi -> pi0 gamma* transition form factor measured by KLOE. The authors fit the KLOE data together with the phi -> 3pi and phi -> pi0 gamma* widths, and find chi2 per degree of freedom close to one for each of four pion phase-shift inputs. The fitted subtraction constant b lands close to the sum-rule value bsum that would reduce the once-subtracted equations to unsubtracted ones, in sharp contrast to the analogous omega -> 3pi case. This matters because it suggests the phi amplitude is almost fully fixed by elastic pi pi rescattering and crossed-channel effects, and because it reduces the phi/omega difference to a concrete, testable discrepancy. The same calculation also reproduces the trend of the BaBar data in the e+e- -> phi pi0 scattering region without including those data in the fit.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the once-subtracted Khuri-Treiman decomposition of the isobar amplitude $F(s)=a(F_a(s)+bF_b(s))$, where $F_{a,b}(s)$ are the two independent solutions of the once-subtracted dispersion relation built with the Omnes function $\Omega(s)$. The subtraction constant $b=b'/a$ absorbs effects beyond elastic unitarity, and Eq. (2.39) defines $b_\mathrm{sum}$, the value that would collapse the once-subtracted relation back to the unsubtracted one. The argument also relies on the two-pion unitarity relation, Eq. (2.31), and on approximating the pion vector form factor by $\Omega(s)$ in the transition form-factor unitarity relation, Eq. (2.42). A Breit-Wigner term models $\rho^0$-$\omega$ mixing in the $s$-channel after the iterative Khuri-Treiman solution is obtained.

What would settle it

A high-statistics measurement of phi to pi0 e+e- or phi to 3pi with independent systematics that rules out the predicted Dalitz and form-factor shapes beyond uncertainties would refute the simultaneous description; more directly, computing the same fit with inelastic channels, for example pi pi to K Kbar, included in Eq. (2.31) and finding that b moves far from bsum would show that the closeness to the sum rule is an artifact of the elastic-only assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that once-subtracted Khuri-Treiman equations, in which the isobar amplitude $F(s)$ is written as $F(s)=a(F_a(s)+bF_b(s))$, fit the KLOE $\phi\to3\pi$ Dalitz plot and the KLOE $\phi\to\pi^0\gamma^*$ transition form factor simultaneously with $\chi^2/\mathrm{d.o.f.}$ between 1.01 and 1.03, and that the fitted $b$ is close to the sum-rule value $b_\mathrm{sum}$ of Eq. (2.39). This closeness means that, for the $\phi$, the once-subtracted representation is nearly equivalent to the unsubtracted one, unlike the $\omega$ case analyzed in the same framework, where the fitted $b$ deviates strongly from $b_\mathrm{sum}$. The authors interpret the difference as a real dynamical feature or as a symptom of the $\omega$ transition form-factor data that drive the $\omega$ fit. They also find that the form factor computed from the $\phi$ fit continues reasonably into the $e^+e^-\to\phi\pi^0$ scattering region, matching the trend of BaBar data that were not included in the fit.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that only pi+ pi- intermediate states matter in the fitted energy range, encoded through an elastic P-wave phase shift in Eq. (2.31), and that the pion vector form factor in the transition form-factor unitarity relation can be replaced by the Omnes function built from that same phase shift; if inelastic channels contribute, the fitted b and the predicted form factor would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With one free subtraction parameter, the same Khuri-Treiman framework fits the KLOE Dalitz plot and transition form factor with $\chi^2/\mathrm{d.o.f.}\approx 1$ for all four phase-shift inputs tested.
  • The fitted $b$ lies close to the sum-rule value $b_\mathrm{sum}$, so the once-subtracted equations for $\phi$ are nearly equivalent to unsubtracted ones; the same is not true for $\omega\to3\pi$ in the companion analysis.
  • A simplified Omnes-only amplitude, without the Khuri-Treiman crossed-channel integrals, differs from the full amplitude by up to about 25 percent in Dalitz-bin populations, which is why the framework matters for the Dalitz shape.
  • The predicted $\phi\to\pi^0\gamma^*$ form factor continues into the $e^+e^-\to\phi\pi^0$ scattering region and follows the trend of BaBar data, even though those data were not fitted.
  • The $\phi$ versus $\omega$ difference in the subtraction constant persists across all four phase-shift parameterizations, so it is not an artifact of one phase-shift choice.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the closeness of $b$ to $b_\mathrm{sum}$ survives inelastic corrections, then $\phi\to3\pi$ becomes a nearly parameter-free benchmark: the Dalitz shape would be almost fully predicted by elastic $\pi\pi$ rescattering plus crossed-channel effects, making it a sharper test for lattice QCD and three-body formalisms than $\omega\to3\pi$.
  • The $\phi$-$\omega$ contrast could be resolved by a new measurement of $\omega\to\pi^0 e^+e^-$ in the $0.6$-$0.7$ GeV region with independent systematics; if the high transition form-factor point that drives the omega fit moves downward, the omega subtraction constant would likely approach its sum rule.
  • The present analysis always uses the Omnes approximation for the pion vector form factor; replacing it with the full $F_V^\pi$ or adding inelastic channels in the unitarity relation would reveal how much of the fitted $b$ is an effective absorption of those effects.
  • The BaBar trend agreement hints that the formalism may be extended to the scattering region with a more complete treatment of inelasticities, turning the present qualitative match into a quantitative prediction.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript applies the Khuri-Treiman (KT) formalism to the decay φ→3π and the φ→π0γ* transition form factor, using once-subtracted dispersion relations with a single complex subtraction constant b. The authors perform a simultaneous fit to the KLOE Dalitz plot, the φ→3π partial width, the KLOE TFF data, and the φ→π0γ width, using four different ππ P-wave phase-shift parameterizations as input. They report χ²/dof ≈ 1.01–1.03, compare the fitted b with a sum-rule value bsum, and contrast the φ results with previous ω→3π analyses. They also show that the resulting TFF roughly follows the BaBar scattering-region data and argue that crossed-channel effects are essential by comparing with a simple Omnes-only model.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper would demonstrate that a once-subtracted KT description with essentially one additional parameter can account simultaneously for the φ→3π Dalitz-plot distribution and the φπ0 transition form factor, and that the fitted subtraction constant is much closer to the unsubtracted sum-rule value than in the corresponding ω case. The work also provides a useful comparison with a simplified Omnes-only amplitude, highlighting the numerical importance of the KT inhomogeneity. Strengths include the simultaneous treatment of all available low-energy data, the use of four phase-shift inputs, bootstrap MC uncertainty estimates, and the explicit comparison with the simpler model. The central quantitative claims, however, rest on a few modeling assumptions whose systematic uncertainty is not fully quantified, and the abstract's characterization of the b versus bsum comparison is not supported by the paper's own numbers.

major comments (4)
  1. [Table 2 / Secs. 3.2 and 4] The abstract and Sec. 4 state that the fitted subtraction constant is 'similar to' and 'close to' the sum-rule value bsum, but the numbers in Table 2 do not support this. For δ1, Re(b)−Re(bsum)=0.077±0.019 (≈4σ) and Im(b)−Im(bsum)=−0.194±0.030 (≈6.5σ); for δ4, Re(b)−Re(bsum)=0.198±0.016 (≈12σ). The real-part offset is positive for all four parameterizations, so it is systematic, not a statistical fluctuation. In addition, the spread of b across the four inputs (Re: 0.690–0.819 GeV⁻²; Im: 0.312–0.594 GeV⁻²) is comparable to these offsets, and only statistical MC errors are quoted; no combined systematic+statistical uncertainty is given for b−bsum. Sec. 3.2 itself says the fitted values 'differ sufficiently from bsum, which justifies ... introducing a subtraction,' which contradicts the abstract and Sec. 4. The defensible statement is that the deviation is much smaller than in ω→3π (Ref. [35]), not that b≈bsum. The authors should rephrase the conclusion and provide a systematic error estimate, e.g. from the phase-shift spread and the Omnes/elastic-unitarity choices.
  2. [Eqs. (2.31) and (2.42)] The analysis assumes that only ππ intermediate states contribute to the KT unitarity relation and approximates the pion vector form factor FVπ(s) by the Omnes function Ω(s). These assumptions are not tested by the four phase-shift parameterizations, which vary only the elastic ππ phase input. Since the dispersive integrals extend to high s, where inelastic channels open and FVπ(s) is known to deviate from Ω(s), the systematic uncertainty on b and on the TFF prediction at higher √s (including the BaBar comparison in Fig. 5) is not quantified. The claim of a 'reasonable trend' in the scattering region would be strengthened by estimating the effect of these approximations, e.g. by using a more realistic FVπ(s) in Eq. (2.42) or by including inelasticity in Eq. (2.31) and re-fitting.
  3. [Sec. 3.2, bin selection] The fit uses only bins satisfying φ(s,t)>0 at the four corners and Nev>0, reducing the Dalitz-plot sample to NDP=1860. It is not reported how many bins were excluded or whether the fit results are stable under this cut. Since the χ²/dof is dominated by the 1860 DP bins, a small but coherent bias in the excluded boundary bins could shift b and the TFF parameters. The authors should show a stability test (e.g., varying the cut) or at least quote the original number of bins.
  4. [Sec. 3.1] The branching ratio B(φ→π0γ) is quoted as 0.132±0.05%, but the PDG value is (0.132±0.005)%. If the fit uses the larger error, the constraint from the φ→π0γ width is artificially weakened by a factor of 10, which could affect the determined |fφπ0(0)| and the overall χ² balance. Please correct the typo and re-run the fit, or verify that the results are unchanged under the correct error.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 1] In the sentence 'the data from the MAMI Collaboration show no such enhancement, albeit with larger uncertainties, and was found to be compatible', the plural subject 'data' requires 'were' instead of 'was'.
  2. [Eq. (2.14)] The Gram determinant is typeset with an unusual vertical-bar notation that is confusing; it should be rewritten with a standard determinant expression.
  3. [Sec. 3.2, after Table 1] The claim that 'the values of the parameter b agree with each other for the δ2,3,4 parametrizations' is not supported by the quoted 3σ errors: e.g., Re(b) for δ1=0.690(19) and for δ4=0.819(16) differ by roughly 5σ. Consider a softer wording that acknowledges the tension.
  4. [Sec. 3.2] The statement that 'the results are quite similar across all parameterizations used' (referring to the Dalitz plots in Fig. 2) is in tension with the sizable spread of b in Table 1; it would be clearer to say that the visually accessible DP shapes are similar.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central fit uses external KLOE/PDG data and independent phase shifts; the b/bsum comparison is a consistency check rather than a tautological prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central fit is genuinely data-driven: the once-subtracted KT solution, Eq. (2.36), is fitted to the KLOE Dalitz plot, the KLOE phi->pi0 gamma* TFF, and the PDG decay widths, using P-wave pi-pi phase shifts from independent Roy-equation analyses [46,47]. The fitted parameters (a, b, A, |f_phi pi0(0)|, theta, N) are determined by external experimental data and are not constructed from the quantities they are said to explain. The BaBar TFF points are explicitly excluded from the fit and therefore serve as an out-of-sample check of the model's trend, not as a fitted input rebranded as a prediction. The comparison of the fitted subtraction constant b with the sum-rule value bsum in Eq. (2.39) is not circular by construction: bsum is computed directly from the input phase shift and the KT inhomogeneity, and the fitted b is an independent output of the data fit; the agreement between them is a consistency check of the UDR/ODR equivalence, not an identity imposed by the equations. The quantitative claim that b is 'close to' bsum is indeed fragile: Table 2 shows Re(b-bsum) between about 0.08 and 0.20 GeV^-2, which is several MC-generated sigma from zero, and Sec. 3.2 itself states that the fitted values 'differ sufficiently from bsum'; however, that is a robustness or statistical-interpretation concern, not a circularity. The self-citations [19,32,35] supply prior applications and the omega->3pi comparison, but the present conclusions rest on the external data and independent phase-shift inputs rather than on those citations as load-bearing proof. No specific reduction of a claimed result to its own input can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result depends on inputs the paper does not derive: the elastic pi-pi unitarity assumption, the Omnes approximation for the pion vector form factor, the chosen Roy-equation phase shifts, the J=1 truncation, and the ad hoc rho-omega mixing term. These are listed as axioms rather than outputs of the fit; the free parameters are the eight fitted constants in Table 1.

free parameters (8)
  • a = |a| = 15.60(23) GeV^-3 for delta1; 15.07-15.60 across inputs
    Overall normalization of the phi -> 3pi amplitude; it also enters the width constraint.
  • Re(b) = 0.690(19) GeV^-2 (delta1); range 0.690-0.819
    Real part of the once-subtraction constant; determines shape and closeness to bsum.
  • Im(b) = 0.312(30) GeV^-2 (delta1); range 0.312-0.594
    Imaginary part of the subtraction constant, absorbs inelastic/high-energy effects beyond elastic unitarity.
  • Re(A) = 0.1251(98) GeV^-3
    Real part of the rho-omega mixing amplitude added in Eq. (2.41).
  • Im(A) = 0.025(12) GeV^-3
    Imaginary part of the rho-omega mixing amplitude.
  • N_ev = 6.60(10) million events
    Total number of Dalitz-plot events, adjusted because only 1860 of the KLOE bins are used.
  • |f_phi pi0(0)| = 0.1351(26) GeV^-1
    TFF normalization, tied to the phi -> pi0 gamma width in Eq. (2.44).
  • theta_phi pi0(0) = 0.40(17) rad (delta1); range 0.40-0.50
    Phase of the TFF at zero momentum transfer; cannot vanish because a is chosen real.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Only pi+ pi- intermediate states enter the phi -> 3pi unitarity relation (Eq. 2.31).
    Inelastic channels are neglected; this is standard at low energy but not derived and could affect b and the TFF.
  • domain assumption The pion vector form factor is approximated by the Omnes function in the TFF discontinuity (Eq. 2.42).
    Corrections to FV_pi are not estimated; the approximation is only justified by the low invariant masses explored.
  • domain assumption The P-wave pi-pi phase shift is taken from Roy-equation parameterizations (Refs. 46 and 47) and guided smoothly to pi above their validity range (Sec. 3.2).
    The phase shift is an external input; four variants are used, but the asymptotic behavior above 2 GeV is not data-driven.
  • domain assumption The KT isobar decomposition is truncated at J=1 in each channel (Eq. 2.28).
    Higher odd partial waves are dropped; Bose symmetry and low energy motivate this, but no convergence check is shown.
  • ad hoc to paper The rho-omega mixing enters as a Breit-Wigner-like term added after the KT iteration (Eq. 2.41).
    This term is necessary to describe the DP slices near Y~79 MeV, but its form and post-iteration insertion are model choices.
  • domain assumption The isospin limit m_pi+ = m_pi0 is used for the KT amplitudes (Sec. 2.1).
    The 4.6 MeV pion mass difference is treated as negligible except for effective rho-omega mixing; this could matter at the DP edges.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of $\phi \to 3\pi$ and $\phi\pi^{0}$ transition form factor from Khuri-Treiman equations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZXQ6N6GU

@misc{pith2026250515309,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: $\phi \to 3\pi$ and $\phi\pi^0$ transition form factor from Khuri-Treiman equations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZXQ6N6GU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.15309}
}
abstract

This work studies the $\phi \to 3\pi$ decay and the $\phi \to \pi^0 \gamma^\ast$ transition form factor, utilizing the Khuri-Treiman formalism to account for analyticity, crossing, and unitarity. Using once-subtracted dispersion relations, we perform a simultaneous fit to the $\phi \to 3\pi$ Dalitz plot distribution and the $\phi \to \pi^0 \gamma^\ast$ measurements from the KLOE collaboration, finding good agreement with these experimental data. These results reaffirm the applicability of the Khuri-Treiman approach in the analysis of three-body decays. An interesting result is that the subtraction constant appearing in the equations is similar to a sum rule expectation, in contrast to analogous studies of $\omega \to 3\pi$ decays and $\omega \to \pi^0 \gamma^\ast$, which shows significant deviations. Our results also provide a reasonable description of the trend of the transition form factor data from BaBar in the $e^{+}e^{-}\to\phi\pi^{0}$ scattering region. These intriguing theoretical differences between the decays of $\phi$ and $\omega$ could encourage further experimental measurements to assess the discrepancies and refine the theoretical predictions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Production Effects and Final-state Interactions in $\pi_1 \to 3\pi$

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A Khuri-Treiman model with contact and one-pion-exchange production terms fits COMPASS's π1→3π freed-isobar data and produces a smooth 1.6 GeV structure in the extracted production strengths.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [35]

    Albaladejo, I

    M. Albaladejo, I. Danilkin, S. Gonzalez-Solis, D. Winney, C. Fernandez-Ramirez, A. N. H. Blin, V. Mathieu, M. Mikhasenko, A. Pilloni, and A. Szczepaniak (JPAC), Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 1107 (2020), arXiv:2006.01058 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  2. [1]

    First Results from The GlueX Experiment

    H. Al Ghoul et al. (GlueX), AIP Conf. Proc. 1735, 020001 (2016), arXiv:1512.03699 [nucl-ex]. – 18 –

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  3. [2]

    Study of the decay phi --> pi+pi-pi0 with the KLOE detector

    A. Aloisio et al. (KLOE), Phys. Lett. B 561, 55 (2003), [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 609, 449–450 (2005)], arXiv:hep-ex/0303016

    work page Pith review arXiv 2003

  4. [3]

    Anastasi et al

    A. Anastasi et al. (KLOE-2), Phys. Lett. B 757, 362 (2016), arXiv:1601.06565 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2016

  5. [4]

    Aubert et al

    B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D 77, 092002 (2008), arXiv:0710.4451 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2008

  6. [5]

    Study of the phi-pi0 transition form factor

    S. Pacetti, Nucl. Phys. A 919, 15 (2013), arXiv:0904.3684 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2013

  7. [6]

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

    arXiv 2018

  8. [7]

    A. W. Jackura, S. M. Dawid, C. Fern´ andez-Ram´ ırez, V. Mathieu, M. Mikhasenko, A. Pilloni, S. R. Sharpe, and A. P. Szczepaniak, Phys. Rev. D100, 034508 (2019), arXiv:1905.12007 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2019

Show all 53 references
  1. [8]

    R. A. Brice˜ no, M. T. Hansen, S. R. Sharpe, and A. P. Szczepaniak, Phys. Rev. D100, 054508 (2019), arXiv:1905.11188 [hep-lat]

    2019 arXiv

  2. [9]

    M. Mai, C. Culver, A. Alexandru, M. D¨ oring, and F. X. Lee, Phys. Rev. D100, 114514 (2019), arXiv:1908.01847 [hep-lat]

    2019 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Culver, M

    C. Culver, M. Mai, R. Brett, A. Alexandru, and M. D¨ oring, Phys. Rev. D 101, 114507 (2020), arXiv:1911.09047 [hep-lat]

    2020 arXiv

  4. [11]

    N. N. Khuri and S. B. Treiman, Phys. Rev. 119, 1115 (1960)

    1960

  5. [12]

    P. Guo, I. Danilkin, and A. P. Szczepaniak, Eur. Phys. J. A 51, 135 (2015), arXiv:1409.8652 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  6. [13]

    P. Guo, I. V. Danilkin, D. Schott, C. Fern´ andez-Ram´ ırez, V. Mathieu, and A. P. Szczepaniak, Phys. Rev. D92, 054016 (2015), arXiv:1505.01715 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  7. [14]

    P. Guo, I. V. Danilkin, C. Fern´ andez-Ram´ ırez, V. Mathieu, and A. P. Szczepaniak, Phys. Lett. B771, 497 (2017), arXiv:1608.01447 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Colangelo, S

    G. Colangelo, S. Lanz, H. Leutwyler, and E. Passemar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 022001 (2017), arXiv:1610.03494 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Colangelo, S

    G. Colangelo, S. Lanz, H. Leutwyler, and E. Passemar, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 947 (2018), arXiv:1807.11937 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Albaladejo and B

    M. Albaladejo and B. Moussallam, Eur. Phys. J. C77, 508 (2017), arXiv:1702.04931 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Gasser and A

    J. Gasser and A. Rusetsky, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 906 (2018), arXiv:1809.06399 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Niecknig, B

    F. Niecknig, B. Kubis, and S. P. Schneider, Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 2014 (2012), arXiv:1203.2501 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  13. [20]

    I. V. Danilkin, C. Fern´ andez-Ram´ ırez, P. Guo, V. Mathieu, D. Schott, M. Shi, and A. P. Szczepaniak, Phys. Rev. D91, 094029 (2015), arXiv:1409.7708 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Niecknig and B

    F. Niecknig and B. Kubis, JHEP 10, 142 (2015), arXiv:1509.03188 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Isken, B

    T. Isken, B. Kubis, S. P. Schneider, and P. Stoffer, Eur. Phys. J. C77, 489 (2017), arXiv:1705.04339 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Niecknig and B

    F. Niecknig and B. Kubis, Phys. Lett. B780, 471 (2018), arXiv:1708.00446 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Albaladejo, D

    M. Albaladejo, D. Winney, I. Danilkin, C. Fern´ andez-Ram´ ırez, V. Mathieu, M. Mikhasenko, A. Pilloni, J. Silva-Castro, and A. Szczepaniak (JPAC), Phys. Rev. D 101, 054018 (2020), arXiv:1910.03107 [hep-ph]. – 19 –

    2020 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Mikhasenko et al

    M. Mikhasenko et al. (JPAC), Phys. Rev. D101, 034033 (2020), arXiv:1910.04566 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Gell-Mann, D

    M. Gell-Mann, D. Sharp, and W. G. Wagner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 8, 261 (1962)

    1962

  20. [27]

    U. G. Meissner, Phys. Rept. 161, 213 (1988)

    1988

  21. [29]

    Ananthanarayan, I

    B. Ananthanarayan, I. Caprini, and B. Kubis, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 3209 (2014), arXiv:1410.6276 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Caprini, Phys

    I. Caprini, Phys. Rev. D 92, 014014 (2015), arXiv:1505.05282 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  23. [31]

    M. Dax, T. Isken, and B. Kubis, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 859 (2018), arXiv:1808.08957 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Albaladejo et al

    M. Albaladejo et al. (JPAC), Phys. Rev. D 108, 014035 (2023), arXiv:2304.09736 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Lett. B 710, 594 (2012), arXiv:1202.2048 [hep-ex]

    2012 arXiv

  26. [34]

    S. P. Schneider, B. Kubis, and F. Niecknig, Phys. Rev. D 86, 054013 (2012), arXiv:1206.3098 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  27. [36]

    Arnaldi et al

    R. Arnaldi et al. (NA60), Phys. Lett. B 677, 260 (2009), arXiv:0902.2547 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  28. [38]

    R. R. Akhmetshin et al. (CMD-2), Phys. Lett. B 562, 173 (2003), arXiv:hep-ex/0304009

    2003 arXiv

  29. [39]

    Achasov et al., Phys

    M. Achasov et al., Phys. Rev. D 88, 054013 (2013), arXiv:1303.5198 [hep-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  30. [40]

    Adlarson et al., Phys

    P. Adlarson et al., Phys. Rev. C 95, 035208 (2017), arXiv:1609.04503 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  31. [41]

    K¨ all´ en,Elementary particle physics (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1964)

    G. K¨ all´ en,Elementary particle physics (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1964)

    1964

  32. [42]

    T. W. B. Kibble, Phys. Rev. 117, 1159 (1960)

    1960

  33. [43]

    Mandelstam, Phys

    S. Mandelstam, Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 84 (1960)

    1960

  34. [44]

    Omnes, Nuovo Cim

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

    1958

  35. [45]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  36. [46]

    Garcia-Martin, R

    R. Garcia-Martin, R. Kaminski, J. R. Pelaez, J. Ruiz de Elvira, and F. J. Yndurain, Phys. Rev. D 83, 074004 (2011), arXiv:1102.2183 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  37. [47]

    J. R. Pelaez, A. Rodas, and J. Ruiz De Elvira, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 1008 (2019), arXiv:1907.13162 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  38. [48]

    Gonz` alez-Sol´ ıs and P

    S. Gonz` alez-Sol´ ıs and P. Roig, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 436 (2019), arXiv:1902.02273 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  39. [49]

    Efron and R

    B. Efron and R. Tibshirani, Statist. Sci. 57, 54 (1986)

    1986

  40. [50]

    Albaladejo et al

    M. Albaladejo et al. (JPAC), Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 127, 103981 (2022), arXiv:2112.13436 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  41. [51]

    Adlarson et al

    P. Adlarson et al. (WASA-at-COSY), Phys. Lett. B 770, 418 (2017), arXiv:1610.02187 [nucl-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  42. [52]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. D 98, 112007 (2018), arXiv:1811.03817 [hep-ex]. – 20 –

    2018

  43. [53]

    J. M. Dias, T. Ji, X.-K. Dong, F.-K. Guo, C. Hanhart, U.-G. Meißner, Y. Zhang, and Z.-H. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 111, 014031 (2025), arXiv:2409.13245 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  44. [54]

    Arnaldi et al

    R. Arnaldi et al. (NA60), Phys. Lett. B 757, 437 (2016), arXiv:1608.07898 [hep-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  45. [55]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), (2025), arXiv:2501.04344 [hep-ex]. – 21 –

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.