Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Spectroscopic and femtoscopic insights into vector-baryon interactions in the strangeness $-1$ sector

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single-parameter coupled-channel model generates three Lambda-star and two Sigma-star states and predicts six femtoscopy correlation functions that should expose them.

desk verdict The genuinely new content is the S=-1 vector-baryon correlation functions; the spectroscopy is a transparent revisit, and the main open question is how much the sharp-cutoff off-shell prescription shapes the claimed signatures. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.08466 v1 pith:ZRHDEPVY submitted 2025-07-11 hep-ph nucl-th

P. Encarnación , M. Albaladejo , A. Feijoo , J. Nieves This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phnucl-th
keywords vector-baryoninteractionshiddengaugeformalismdynamicallygeneratedresonancesLambda*andSigma*spectroscopyhadronfemtoscopycorrelationfunctionsstrangeness-1sectorcoupled-channelunitarization
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

Using the hidden gauge formalism—a framework that treats vector mesons as gauge bosons and produces a contact interaction for vector-meson–baryon scattering—the paper tries to show that the strangeness $-1$ sector generates five odd-parity resonances: three $\Lambda^*$ states and two $\Sigma^*$ states. The model has essentially one free parameter, a cutoff set to 830 MeV, and the authors find poles near 1668, 1805 and 2018 MeV in the isoscalar sector and near 1759 and 1900 MeV in the isovector sector. These are argued to be compatible with known resonances listed in the standard particle-data compilation, with the $\Sigma(1900)$–$\Sigma(1910)$ doublet the clearest match. The paper then predicts the two-particle correlation functions for six vector-baryon pairs, computed with production weights from a thermal model, and identifies specific dips, bumps, and threshold cusps where the resonances should show up. This matters because these short-lived hadrons are impractical for traditional scattering experiments, so femtoscopy offers a direct way to test the spectroscopy and, ultimately, to fit the model's low-energy constants to correlation data.

What carries the argument

The hidden gauge formalism—treating vector mesons as gauge bosons of a local hidden symmetry—provides a contact interaction kernel $V_{ij}$ for vector-meson–baryon scattering. That kernel is unitarized through the coupled-channel Bethe-Salpeter equation $T=(1-VG)^{-1}V$, with a dimensionally regularized loop function $G_l$ whose subtraction constants are fixed by a single UV cutoff $\Lambda=830$ MeV; unstable $\rho$ and $K^*$ mesons are treated by convoluting the loop with their mass distributions. The femtoscopy half of the machinery is the generalized Koonin-Pratt formula $C_i(p)=\sum_j w_j\int d^3r\,S_j(r)|\psi_{ji}(p,r)|^2$, with production weights $w_j$ from a thermal model, Gaussian source functions whose radii are borrowed from earlier measurements, and half-off-shell wave functions $\psi_{ji}$ obtained from the $T$-matrix. This converts the five generated poles into concrete dips, bumps, and threshold cusps in six measurable correlation functions.

What would settle it

A measurement of the $\rho^+\Lambda$ correlation function in high-multiplicity $pp$ collisions that shows no low-momentum enhancement and no dip near $p\sim120$ MeV, with the assumed source radius of 1.28 fm, would falsify the predicted $\Sigma(1900^*)$ signature; likewise, a flat $\omega\Lambda$ correlation function with no structure near $p\sim300$ MeV would rule out the $\Lambda(2018^*)$ fingerprint.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the leading-order hidden gauge interaction, solved in coupled channels through the Bethe-Salpeter equation $T=(1-VG)^{-1}V$, produces five dynamically generated states in the $S=-1$ vector-baryon sector: three $I=0$ poles at $1668$, $1805-20.14i$ and $2018-32.90i$ MeV, and two $I=1$ poles at $1759-3.06i$ and $1900-24.72i$ MeV. Because the leading-order kernel is spin independent, each pole appears twice, as a degenerate $J^P=1/2^-$ and $3/2^-$ pair. The authors assign the two isovector poles to the $\Sigma(1670)$–$\Sigma(1750)$ and $\Sigma(1900)$–$\Sigma(1910)$ doublets, and for the isoscalar sector they favor matching the poles to the $\Lambda(1670)$/$\Lambda(1520)$, $\Lambda(1690)$/$\Lambda(1800)$, and $\Lambda(2000)$/$\Lambda(2050)$ pairs. They then compute correlation functions for $\bar K^{*0}p$, $\rho^+\Lambda$, $\rho^0\Sigma^+$, $\omega\Lambda$, $\rho^0\Sigma^0$, and $\phi\Lambda$ using the multichannel Koonin-Pratt formula with realistic production weights, and point to the observables that carry the resonance fingerprints: a low-momentum enhancement in $\bar K^{*0}p$, a dip near $p\sim120$ MeV in $\rho^+\Lambda$, and a structure near $p\sim300$ MeV in $\omega\Lambda$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a single universal Gaussian source, with radii borrowed from earlier kaon-nucleon and kaon-lambda measurements, describes how each vector-baryon pair is emitted; if the source is non-Gaussian or those radii are wrong for these channels, the predicted correlation-function shapes and the resonance signatures can shift or wash out.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the poles are real, the $\Sigma(1900)$–$\Sigma(1910)$ doublet is explained as a vector-baryon molecule coupling predominantly to $\rho\Sigma$ and $K^*\Xi$, and the $\Sigma(1670)$–$\Sigma(1750)$ pair finds a companion pole at 1759 MeV.
  • The $\bar K^{*0}p$ correlation function should show a marked low-momentum enhancement because $\Sigma(1759^*)$ lies about 70 MeV below that threshold, while the $\Sigma(1900^*)$ state should leave a dip near $p\sim120$ MeV in the $\rho^+\Lambda$ correlation function.
  • The $\omega\Lambda$ correlation function should exhibit a structure near $p\sim300$ MeV from the $\Lambda(2018^*)$ state, whereas $\rho^0\Sigma^0$ and $\phi\Lambda$ should stay nearly flat because their elastic kernels vanish and the relevant couplings are small.
  • Inelastic contributions to all six correlation functions are at most about 7 percent, so each predicted shape is dominated by elastic rescattering, with a few specific inelastic transitions, such as $\omega\Lambda\to\phi\Lambda$, contributing identifiable features.
  • The tabulated scattering parameters, such as $a_0=0.711-0.227i$ fm for $\bar K^{*0}p$, provide numerical targets that future model-independent extractions from femtoscopy can confirm or rule out.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If upcoming femtoscopy data reproduce the predicted dip in $\rho^+\Lambda$ and the structure in $\omega\Lambda$, that would substantiate the molecular (vector-baryon) interpretation of the corresponding $\Sigma^*$ and $\Lambda^*$ states; absence of these features would leave room for alternative assignments built on pseudoscalar-baryon or quark-model components.
  • The same machinery could be inverted: rather than fixing the cutoff by the $\Sigma^*$ spectrum, one could fit the cutoff, or low-energy constants, directly to measured correlation functions and sharpen the pole positions, much as the $\bar K\Lambda$ correlation function has been used in the $S=-2$ sector.
  • Because the leading-order model makes the $1/2^-$ and $3/2^-$ poles exactly degenerate, the predicted correlation functions cannot determine the spin of the states; a model that breaks this degeneracy would predict spin-dependent femtoscopy signatures that the current calculation cannot access.
  • The source radii are the main coupling between the model and data; measuring these radii for vector-baryon pairs in the same collision system, rather than borrowing them from kaon-nucleon and kaon-lambda analyses, would provide a sharper test of whether the predicted features survive.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper revisits S=−1 vector-baryon (VB) interactions in the hidden-gauge-symmetry coupled-channel framework. A scale-free dimensional regularization with a single ultraviolet cutoff Λ=830 MeV is used, leading to three isoscalar Λ* poles and two isovector Σ* poles; these are compared with RPP states, with two alternative assignments offered for the isoscalar sector. The authors then compute Koonin–Pratt correlation functions for six physical channels (K̄*0 p, ρ+Λ, ρ0Σ+, ωΛ, ρ0Σ0, φΛ) using production weights from Thermal-FIST and Gaussian sources with radii taken from ALICE analyses, and identify momentum-space signatures of the generated poles. The paper claims compatibility between the poles and some RPP states and predicts CF signatures observable by ALICE.

Significance. If the spectroscopy and CF predictions hold, the paper provides falsifiable tests of the HGS model in a barely explored sector and a concrete link between dynamically generated states and future ALICE measurements. The work is honest about its limitations: footnote 1 discloses that Λ is fitted to the I=1 Σ* positions, and Sec. III A 3 c presents two competing isoscalar assignments. The SU(3) analysis of the pole pattern, the computation of scattering parameters, and the use of realistic production weights are valuable and carefully presented. The independent content is concentrated in the isoscalar poles and in the CF predictions, but the latter rest on an ad hoc off-shell prescription whose scheme dependence is not quantified, and the spectroscopic compatibility claim is weakened by fitted isovector positions and poorly reproduced widths.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III C, Eqs. (18)-(20)] The central CF predictions rest on the half-off-shell T-matrix ansatz T_ji(√s,p,q)=H(Λ−p)T_ji(√s)H(Λ−q), a hard cutoff that is not derived from the HGS Lagrangian. The paper correctly identifies off-shell ambiguities as a central theoretical issue in the Introduction (Refs. [76,77]), but no test of scheme dependence is presented. Since Eq. (19) integrates the wave function over all q and the source size is about 1 fm, different off-shell extensions with identical on-shell amplitudes can change the CF at small r. The claimed signatures, such as the Σ(1900*) depletion in the ρ+Λ CF near p~120 MeV and the Λ(2018*) structure in the ωΛ CF near p~300 MeV in Fig. 5, could shift or wash out. Please repeat the calculation with a smooth regulator or a range of Λ values, and either quantify the resulting uncertainty or explicitly limit the CF claims.
  2. [Footnote 1 and Sec. III A] The single cutoff Λ=830 MeV is fixed "to optimally reproduce the experimental position of the I=1 Σ* resonances," so the reported agreement of those two states with the RPP entries in Table IV is partly by construction. Although this is disclosed, the abstract and conclusions state a general compatibility with RPP states without separating calibrated predictions from genuine predictions. Please state explicitly that the I=1 positions are fitted, and show the sensitivity of the I=0 poles and of the I=1 widths to Λ, so that the reader can assess the independent content of the comparison.
  3. [Table IV and Sec. III A 3 c] The RPP comparison is effectively position-only, because the predicted widths are much smaller than the experimental ones. For example, the Λ(1805*) width is 13.9 MeV versus 150–250 MeV for the Λ(1800), the Λ(2018*) width is 26.7 MeV versus roughly 500 MeV for the Λ(2050), and the Σ(1759*) width is about 6 MeV versus 40–100 MeV for the Σ(1670). The statement that the widths remain in "reasonable agreement with the order of magnitude" is therefore not supported by the table. The compatibility claim should either be restricted to masses or accompanied by a quantitative discussion of the missing decay channels and their expected impact.
  4. [Sec. III A 3 c and Fig. 4] Two mutually incompatible assignments of the I=0 poles to RPP states are presented, with the authors favoring the second. This ambiguity is disclosed, but it means the spectroscopic claim for the Λ* sector is not a unique identification. The conclusions should state this ambiguity prominently rather than presenting the isoscalar compatibility as established.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. II C] The approximation of the ALICE double-Gaussian source by a single Gaussian of radius 1.28 fm is stated without quantitative support; a short fit or comparison would help, since the source shape enters Eq. (18).
  2. [Eq. (20)] There is a typographical extra parenthesis: "T_{ji}(√s,p,q ))" should read "T_{ji}(√s,p,q)".
  3. [Table V] The effective range r0 for ρ+Λ, -6.201+12.76i fm with widths and -41.31-1.460i fm without, is very large and predominantly imaginary; a brief comment on the physical interpretation, or on the reliability of the effective-range expansion in this channel, would be useful.
  4. [References] References [102] and [104] are the same ALICE paper; one entry should be removed or the two citations merged.
  5. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption should state explicitly that the 68% CL bands include only production-weight and source-radius uncertainties, and not the off-shell prescription of Eq. (20) or the model cutoff Λ.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Isovector Sigma* spectroscopy reduces to the tuned cutoff; isoscalar poles and CF predictions retain independent content.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. II A, footnote 1; also Sec. III A 3 c and Table IV caption]
    "This value for the sharp UV cutoff has been fixed to optimally reproduce the experimental position of the I = 1 Σ∗ resonances found in this work, while the isoscalar Λ∗ ones are predicted in consequence."

    The model's only free parameter Λ is chosen to place the I=1 Σ* poles at the experimental RPP masses; the same poles are then reported as "compatible" with RPP and as "an important success" that "supports the choice of 830 MeV for the UV cutoff" (Sec. III A 3 c). Thus the I=1 spectroscopy comparison is enforced by the fit rather than derived independently. The I=0 Λ* poles and the correlation functions are not fitted to the compared data, so they retain predictive content; the circularity is limited to the isovector compatibility claim.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation—HGS coupled-channel BSE with a single UV cutoff—is self-contained: the kernel, loop functions, and pole-search techniques are spelled out (Eqs. 5-17), and the CF formula is explicit (Eqs. 18-20). The only place where the derivation reduces to its input is the I=1 sector: Λ is tuned to the Σ* masses and the resulting poles are then compared to the same RPP states. This is disclosed, not hidden, and the I=0 states are genuinely predicted after the fit. The CF predictions are new observables not used in the fit, though they inherit model dependence from the ad hoc sharp-cutoff half-off-shell T-matrix (Eq. 20); that is a robustness concern, not circularity. Self-citations to Refs. [41,97] supply assumptions and formulas that are also stated in the text, so they are not load-bearing in a circular way. No machine-checked or externally reproduced benchmark is cited, but none is needed for the non-fitted portions. Overall: partial, mild circularity limited to the isovector compatibility claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The calculation rests on one fitted parameter (Lambda=830 MeV), external source radii, and several model assumptions inherited from the hidden gauge and KP formalisms. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Lambda (UV cutoff) = 830 MeV
    Sets the subtraction constants in the loop function; tuned to reproduce the experimental positions of the I=1 Sigma* resonances (footnote 1).
  • R_{Kbar*N} = 1.08 fm
    Source radius for Kbar* N pairs, hypothesized equal to the Kbar N radius from ALICE (Sec II C).
  • R_{VLambda} = R_{VSigma} = 1.28 fm
    Source radius for rho/omega/phi + Lambda/Sigma channels, taken from a single-gaussian approximation to the ALICE Kbar Lambda double gaussian (Sec II C).
  • R_{K*Xi} = 1.0 fm
    Source radius for K* Xi channels, chosen by hand; contributions are small (Sec II C).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Hidden gauge symmetry LO kernel (Eq. 5,6) from Ref [87] is the dominant vector-baryon interaction
    The model is built on this established formalism; NLO and other contributions are neglected.
  • standard math On-shell factorization of the BSE kernel (Eq. 7)
    Standard approximation in unitarized coupled-channel approaches; used to reduce the BSE to algebraic equations.
  • domain assumption Koonin-Pratt formula with a universal Gaussian source (Eq. 18)
    CFs are computed from a single Gaussian source per channel; the source-size universality is debated in the literature.
  • ad hoc to paper Half-off-shell T-matrix approximated by a step-function factor H(Lambda-p)H(Lambda-q) (Eq. 20)
    This prescription makes the momentum integral finite and factorizes the on-shell T-matrix; it is not derived from first principles.
  • domain assumption Neglect of mixing with PB, PB3/2, and VB3/2 channels
    The paper argues the VVP vertex suppresses PB-VB mixing (Ref [112]) and ignores higher thresholds, but this is a model choice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spectroscopic and femtoscopic insights into vector-baryon interactions in the strangeness $-1$ sector." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZRHDEPVY

@misc{pith2026250708466,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spectroscopic and femtoscopic insights into vector-baryon interactions in the strangeness $-1$ sector},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZRHDEPVY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.08466}
}
abstract

We revisit the strangeness $-1$ sector of the interaction between vector mesons of the $\rho-$nonet and $1/2^+$ ground state baryons ($VB$), within the unitary coupled-channel hidden gauge formalism. We adopt a renormalization scheme that induces a reasonable short-distance behavior of the two-hadron wave functions, which is the major limitation of femtoscopy techniques at this time. We perform an exhaustive spectroscopy study, implementing different improvements and considerations, and find compatibilities between the poles extracted from the present approach, and some of the states listed in the Review of Particle Physics. Finally, we predict several correlation functions (CFs) associated with various meson-baryon pairs in this sector, paying special attention to the distinctive and clear signatures produced by the dynamically generated states. To obtain realistic estimates for the CFs, we have calculated the production weights using the Thermal-FIST package. Such studies will shed light into the odd-parity $\Lambda^*$ and $\Sigma^*$ hadron spectra, up to 2 GeV, and will open the strategy to improve effective field theories by using low-energy constants fitted to femtoscopy data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.08466 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Absolute value squared of the elastic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Real part of the pole position of the five found states in terms [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Schematic representation of the odd-parity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. CFs for different physical hadron pairs. Predictions for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Different coupled-channel contributions to the CFs displayed in Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Signatures of the $\Omega(2012)^{-}$ state in $\Xi^*\bar K$ Correlation Functions

    hep-ph 2026-03 accept novelty 6.5 of 10

    Ω(2012) is dynamically generated as a Ξ*K–Ωη molecule; its pole produces pronounced near-threshold structures in the Ξ*0K− correlation function that can be measured at the LHC.

  2. Signatures of Odd-Parity $s$-wave $\Xi^*$ States in Femtoscopic Correlation Functions

    hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Using a unitarized hidden-gauge model, the authors dynamically generate Xi(1950)-like and Xi(2120)-like poles and predict femtoscopic correlation functions for six vector-baryon channels.

  3. Correlation functions for $n\,\bar{D}_{s1}(2460)$ and $n\,\bar{D}_{s1}(2536)$

    hep-ph 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The neutron-D_{s1}(2460) and neutron-D_{s1}(2536) systems are predicted to have bound states, with correlation functions sensitive to the molecular structure of the D_{s1} mesons.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

120 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    1, we display the most relevant elastic amplitudes (|𝑇𝑖𝑖|2) as a function of √𝑠 in the 𝐼 = 0 and 𝐼 = 1 sectors

    Amplitude Signatures In Fig. 1, we display the most relevant elastic amplitudes (|𝑇𝑖𝑖|2) as a function of √𝑠 in the 𝐼 = 0 and 𝐼 = 1 sectors. 7 FIG. 1. Absolute value squared of the elastic ¯𝐾∗𝑁, 𝜌Σ and 𝐾∗Ξ scattering amplitudes for both𝐼 = 1 (top) and𝐼 = 0 (bottom) sectors. Results have been obtained using a sharp UV cutoffΛ= 830 MeV. One should bear in m...

    1964

  2. [2]

    In the present formalism, the SU(3) symmetry is only broken by the meson and baryon masses

    SU(3) limit In the SU(3) limit, states naturally organize into irreducible representations, making the identification of the singlet and two-octet states straightforward. In the present formalism, the SU(3) symmetry is only broken by the meson and baryon masses. To effectively restore SU(3) symmetry, we replace the physical masses of the hadrons ( 𝑀𝑖 and ...

    1900

  3. [3]

    Experimental information

    Spectrum a. Experimental information. In Table IV, we compile the positions of the poles obtained in this work, and their possible associations with the 𝐽𝑃 =(1/2−, 3/2−) Λ∗ andΣ∗ states listed in the RPP [83]. In the isovector sector, we observe in the experimental spectra one(1/2−− 3/2−) pair of quasi- degenerate states, given the current precision, arou...

    1910

  4. [4]

    Pochodzalla et al., Phys

    J. Pochodzalla et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.55, 177 (1985)

    1985

  5. [5]

    Pochodzalla et al., Phys

    J. Pochodzalla et al., Phys. Lett. B 161, 275 (1985)

    1985

  6. [6]

    Pochodzalla, C

    J. Pochodzalla, C. B. Chitwood, D. J. Fields, C. K. Gelbke, W. G. Lynch, M. B. Tsang, D. H. Boal, and J. C. Shillcock, Phys. Lett. B 174, 36 (1986)

    1986

  7. [7]

    C. B. Chitwood, C. K. Gelbke, J. Pochodzalla, Z. Chen, D. J. Fields, W. G. Lynch, R. Morse, M. B. Tsang, D. H. Boal, and J. C. Shillcock, Phys. Lett. B 172, 27 (1986)

    1986

  8. [8]

    Kyanowski et al., Phys

    A. Kyanowski et al., Phys. Lett. B 181, 43 (1986)

    1986

Show all 120 references
  1. [9]

    Pochodzalla et al., Phys

    J. Pochodzalla et al., Phys. Rev. C35, 1695 (1987)

    1987

  2. [10]

    Chen et al., Phys

    Z. Chen et al., Phys. Rev. C36, 2297 (1987)

    1987

  3. [11]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Rev. D 106, 052010 (2022), arXiv:2201.05352 [nucl-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Rev. D 110, 032004 (2024), arXiv:2401.13541 [nucl-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Acharya et al.(ALICE), Phys

    S. Acharya et al.(ALICE), Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 112002 (2019), arXiv:1904.12198 [nucl-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 340 (2023), arXiv:2205.15176 [nucl-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Rev. C 103, 055201 (2021), arXiv:2005.11124 [nucl-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Lett. B 833, 137272 (2022), arXiv:2104.04427 [nucl-ex]. 15 𝑄=+1 ¯𝐾∗0𝑝 𝜌+Λ 𝜌0Σ+ 𝜌+Σ0 𝜔Σ+ 𝜙Σ+ 𝐾∗+Ξ0 ¯𝐾∗0𝑝 1 √︁3/2−√︁1/2 √︁1/2 √︁1/2 −1 0 𝜌+Λ 0 0 0 0 0 √︁3/2 𝜌0Σ+ 0 −2 0 0 √︁1/2 𝜌+Σ0 0 0 0 −√︁1/2 𝜔Σ+ 0 0 √︁1/2 𝜙Σ+ 0 −1 𝐾∗+Ξ0 1 𝑄= 0 ¯𝐾∗0𝑛 𝐾∗−𝑝 𝜌0Λ ...

    2022 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Lett. B 833, 137335 (2022), arXiv:2111.06611 [nucl-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Lett. B 805, 135419 (2020), arXiv:1910.14407 [nucl-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Lett. B 797, 134822 (2019), arXiv:1905.07209 [nucl-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Acharya et al.(ALICE), Phys

    S. Acharya et al.(ALICE), Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 172301 (2021), arXiv:2105.05578 [nucl-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Lett. B 845, 138145 (2023), arXiv:2305.19093 [nucl-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Lett. B 856, 138915 (2024), arXiv:2312.12830 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Rev. C 99, 024001 (2019), arXiv:1805.12455 [nucl-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Y. Yan, Q. Huang, Q. Wu, H. Huang, and J. Ping, (2025), arXiv:2504.21376 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Albaladejo, A

    M. Albaladejo, A. Canoa, J. Nieves, J. R. Pel ´aez, E. Ruiz- Arriola, and J. R. de Elvira, Phys. Lett. B 866, 139552 (2025), arXiv:2503.19746 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Liu, D.-L

    Z.-W. Liu, D.-L. Ge, J.-X. Lu, M.-Z. Liu, and L.-S. Geng, (2025), arXiv:2504.04853 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    G ¨obel and A

    M. G ¨obel and A. Kievsky, (2025), arXiv:2505.13433 [nucl-th]

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Liu and J.-J

    S.-W. Liu and J.-J. Xie, (2025), arXiv:2503.22453 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    L. M. Abreu and J. M. Torres-Rincon, (2025), arXiv:2503.13668 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Ikeno, (2025), arXiv:2502.20020 [nucl-th]

    N. Ikeno, (2025), arXiv:2502.20020 [nucl-th]

    2025

  23. [31]

    Albaladejo, A

    M. Albaladejo, A. Garcia-Lorenzo, and J. Nieves, (2025), arXiv:2503.18710 [hep-ph]

    2025

  24. [32]

    Encarnaci ´on, A

    P. Encarnaci ´on, A. Feijoo, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 111, 114023 (2025), arXiv:2502.19329 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    J. M. Torres-Rincon, A. Ramos, and J. Ruf´ı, Phys. Rev. C111, 044906 (2025), arXiv:2410.23853 [nucl-th]

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Etminan, Phys

    F. Etminan, Phys. Lett. B 866, 139564 (2025), arXiv:2410.22756 [nucl-th]

    2025 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Jinno, Y

    A. Jinno, Y. Kamiya, T. Hyodo, and A. Ohnishi, J. Subatomic Part. Cosmol.1-2, 100005 (2024), arXiv:2410.09390 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Feijoo, V

    A. Feijoo, V. M. Sarti, J. Nieves, A. Ramos, and I. Vida ˜na, Phys. Rev. D111, 014022 (2025), arXiv:2411.10245 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Etminan, Phys

    F. Etminan, Phys. Rev. C 111, 014912 (2025), arXiv:2409.19705 [nucl-th]

    2025 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Kamiya, A

    Y. Kamiya, A. Jinno, T. Hyodo, and A. Ohnishi, (2024), arXiv:2409.13207 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Liu, J.-X

    Z.-W. Liu, J.-X. Lu, M.-Z. Liu, and L.-S. Geng, (2024), arXiv:2404.18607 [hep-ph]

    2024

  32. [40]

    Liu, Y.-W

    M.-Z. Liu, Y.-W. Pan, Z.-W. Liu, T.-W. Wu, J.-X. Lu, and L.-S. Geng, Phys. Rept.1108, 1 (2025), arXiv:2404.06399 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Jinno, Y

    A. Jinno, Y. Kamiya, T. Hyodo, and A. Ohnishi, Phys. Rev. C 110, 014001 (2024), arXiv:2403.09126 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Molina, Z.-W

    R. Molina, Z.-W. Liu, L.-S. Geng, and E. Oset, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 328 (2024), arXiv:2312.11993 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    J. M. Torres-Rincon, A. Ramos, and L. Tolos, Phys. Rev. D 108, 096008 (2023), arXiv:2307.02102 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Vidana, A

    I. Vidana, A. Feijoo, M. Albaladejo, J. Nieves, and E. Oset, Phys. Lett. B846, 138201 (2023), arXiv:2303.06079 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Viviani, S

    M. Viviani, S. K ¨onig, A. Kievsky, L. E. Marcucci, B. Singh, and O. V ´azquez Doce, Phys. Rev. C 108, 064002 (2023), arXiv:2306.02478 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Liu, J.-X

    Z.-W. Liu, J.-X. Lu, M.-Z. Liu, and L.-S. Geng, Phys. Rev. D 108, L031503 (2023), arXiv:2305.19048 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Albaladejo, J

    M. Albaladejo, J. Nieves, and E. Ruiz-Arriola, Phys. Rev. D 108, 014020 (2023), arXiv:2304.03107 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Liu, J.-X

    Z.-W. Liu, J.-X. Lu, and L.-S. Geng, Phys. Rev. D107, 074019 (2023), arXiv:2302.01046 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Kamiya, T

    Y. Kamiya, T. Hyodo, and A. Ohnishi, Eur. Phys. J. A 58, 131 (2022), arXiv:2203.13814 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Kamiya, K

    Y. Kamiya, K. Sasaki, T. Fukui, T. Hyodo, K. Morita, K. Ogata, A. Ohnishi, and T. Hatsuda, Phys. Rev. C105, 014915 (2022), arXiv:2108.09644 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Haidenbauer and U.-G

    J. Haidenbauer and U.-G. Meißner, Phys. Lett. B 829, 137074 (2022), arXiv:2109.11794 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Haidenbauer, Phys

    J. Haidenbauer, Phys. Rev. C 102, 034001 (2020), arXiv:2005.05012 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Haidenbauer, G

    J. Haidenbauer, G. Krein, and T. C. Peixoto, Eur. Phys. J. A 56, 184 (2020), arXiv:2004.08136 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Kamiya, T

    Y. Kamiya, T. Hyodo, K. Morita, A. Ohnishi, and W. Weise, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 132501 (2020), arXiv:1911.01041 [nucl- th]

    2020 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Miyahara, T

    K. Miyahara, T. Hyodo, and W. Weise, Phys. Rev. C98, 025201 (2018), arXiv:1804.08269 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Ikeda, T

    Y. Ikeda, T. Hyodo, and W. Weise, Nucl. Phys. A 881, 98 (2012), arXiv:1201.6549 [nucl-th]

    2012 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Encarnaci ´on, A

    P. Encarnaci ´on, A. Feijoo, V. M. Sarti, and A. Ramos, Phys. Rev. D 111, 114013 (2025), arXiv:2412.20880 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  50. [58]

    D. Jido, J. A. Oller, E. Oset, A. Ramos, and U. G. Meissner, Nucl. Phys. A 725, 181 (2003), arXiv:nucl-th/0303062

    2003 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Oset and A

    E. Oset and A. Ramos, Nucl. Phys. A 635, 99 (1998), arXiv:nucl-th/9711022

    1998 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Feijoo, V

    A. Feijoo, V. Magas, and A. Ramos, Phys. Rev. C 99, 035211 (2019), arXiv:1810.07600 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Li, C.-W

    H.-P. Li, C.-W. Xiao, W.-H. Liang, J.-J. Wu, E. Wang, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 110, 114018 (2024), arXiv:2409.05787 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Li, J.-Y

    H.-P. Li, J.-Y. Yi, C.-W. Xiao, D.-L. Yao, W.-H. Liang, and E. Oset, Chin. Phys. C 48, 053107 (2024), arXiv:2401.14302 [hep-ph]. 16

    2024 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Ikeno, G

    N. Ikeno, G. Toledo, and E. Oset, Phys. Lett. B 847, 138281 (2023), arXiv:2305.16431 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Molina, C.-W

    R. Molina, C.-W. Xiao, W.-H. Liang, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 109, 054002 (2024), arXiv:2310.12593 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Feijoo, L

    A. Feijoo, L. R. Dai, L. M. Abreu, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 109, 016014 (2024), arXiv:2309.00444 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Albaladejo, A

    M. Albaladejo, A. Feijoo, I. Vida ˜na, J. Nieves, and E. Oset, (2023), arXiv:2307.09873 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Feijoo, M

    A. Feijoo, M. Korwieser, and L. Fabbietti, Phys. Rev. D 111, 014009 (2025), arXiv:2407.01128 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  60. [68]

    D. L. Mihaylov, J. Haidenbauer, and V. M. Sarti, Phys. Lett. B 850, 138550 (2024), arXiv:2312.16970 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Chizzali, Y

    E. Chizzali, Y. Kamiya, R. Del Grande, T. Doi, L. Fabbietti, T. Hatsuda, and Y. Lyu, Phys. Lett. B 848, 138358 (2024), arXiv:2212.12690 [nucl-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  62. [70]

    V. M. Sarti, A. Feijoo, I. Vida˜na, A. Ramos, F. Giacosa, T. Hy- odo, and Y. Kamiya, Phys. Rev. D 110, L011505 (2024), arXiv:2309.08756 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Feijoo, V

    A. Feijoo, V. Valcarce Cadenas, and V. K. Magas, Phys. Lett. B 841, 137927 (2023), [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 853, 138660 (2024)], arXiv:2303.01323 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  64. [72]

    S. E. Koonin, Phys. Lett. B 70, 43 (1977)

    1977

  65. [73]

    Pratt, T

    S. Pratt, T. Csorgo, and J. Zimanyi, Phys. Rev. C 42, 2646 (1990)

    1990

  66. [74]

    Bauer, C

    W. Bauer, C. K. Gelbke, and S. Pratt, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 42, 77 (1992)

    1992

  67. [75]

    Albaladejo, A

    M. Albaladejo, A. Feijoo, J. Nieves, E. Oset, and I. Vida ˜na, Phys. Rev. D110, 114052 (2024), arXiv:2410.08880 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Lednicky and V

    R. Lednicky and V. L. Lyuboshits, Yad. Fiz. 35, 1316 (1981)

    1981

  69. [77]

    Lednicky, Phys

    R. Lednicky, Phys. Part. Nucl. 40, 307 (2009), arXiv:nucl- th/0501065

    2009

  70. [78]

    Ohnishi, K

    A. Ohnishi, K. Morita, K. Miyahara, and T. Hyodo, Nucl. Phys. A 954, 294 (2016), arXiv:1603.05761 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Epelbaum, S

    E. Epelbaum, S. Heihoff, U.-G. Meißner, and A. Tscherwon, (2025), arXiv:2504.08631 [nucl-th]

    2025 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Molina and E

    R. Molina and E. Oset, (2025), arXiv:2506.03669 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Kaiser, P

    N. Kaiser, P. B. Siegel, and W. Weise, Phys. Lett. B 362, 23 (1995), arXiv:nucl-th/9507036

    1995 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Kaiser, P

    N. Kaiser, P. B. Siegel, and W. Weise, Nucl. Phys. A 594, 325 (1995), arXiv:nucl-th/9505043

    1995 arXiv

  75. [83]

    J. A. Oller and U. G. Meissner, Phys. Lett. B 500, 263 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0011146

    2001 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Garcia-Recio, J

    C. Garcia-Recio, J. Nieves, E. Ruiz Arriola, and M. J. Vi- cente Vacas, Phys. Rev. D 67, 076009 (2003), arXiv:hep- ph/0210311

    2003

  77. [85]

    Garcia-Recio, M

    C. Garcia-Recio, M. F. M. Lutz, and J. Nieves, Phys. Lett. B 582, 49 (2004), arXiv:nucl-th/0305100

    2004 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Navas et al.(Particle Data Group), Phys

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

    2024

  79. [87]

    Bando, T

    M. Bando, T. Kugo, S. Uehara, K. Yamawaki, and T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev. Lett.54, 1215 (1985)

    1985

  80. [88]

    Bando, T

    M. Bando, T. Kugo, and K. Yamawaki, Phys. Rept. 164, 217 (1988)

    1988

  81. [89]

    Nagahiro, L

    H. Nagahiro, L. Roca, A. Hosaka, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 79, 014015 (2009), arXiv:0809.0943 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Oset and A

    E. Oset and A. Ramos, Eur. Phys. J. A 44, 445 (2010), arXiv:0905.0973 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  83. [91]

    E. J. Garzon and E. Oset, Eur. Phys. J. A 48, 5 (2012), arXiv:1201.3756 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  84. [92]

    K. P. Khemchandani, H. Kaneko, H. Nagahiro, and A. Hosaka, Phys. Rev. D83, 114041 (2011), arXiv:1104.0307 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  85. [93]

    K. P. Khemchandani, A. Martinez Torres, H. Kaneko, H. Na- gahiro, and A. Hosaka, Phys. Rev. D 84, 094018 (2011), arXiv:1107.0574 [nucl-th]

    2011 arXiv

  86. [94]

    K. P. Khemchandani, A. Martinez Torres, H. Nagahiro, and A. Hosaka, Phys. Rev. D88, 114016 (2013), arXiv:1307.8420 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Gamermann, C

    D. Gamermann, C. Garcia-Recio, J. Nieves, and L. L. Salcedo, Phys. Rev. D84, 056017 (2011), arXiv:1104.2737 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Klingl, N

    F. Klingl, N. Kaiser, and W. Weise, Nucl. Phys. A 624, 527 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9704398

    1997 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Koike and A

    Y. Koike and A. Hayashigaki, Prog. Theor. Phys. 98, 631 (1997), arXiv:nucl-th/9609001

    1997 arXiv

  90. [98]

    W. C. Chang et al., Phys. Lett. B 658, 209 (2008), arXiv:nucl- ex/0703034

    2008

  91. [99]

    I. I. Strakovsky, L. Pentchev, and A. Titov, Phys. Rev. C 101, 045201 (2020), arXiv:2001.08851 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Nieves, A

    J. Nieves, A. Feijoo, M. Albaladejo, and M.-L. Du, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 137, 104118 (2024), arXiv:2402.12726 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  93. [101]

    M. A. Lisa, S. Pratt, R. Soltz, and U. Wiedemann, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 55, 357 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0505014

    2005 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Haidenbauer, Nucl

    J. Haidenbauer, Nucl. Phys. A981, 1 (2019), arXiv:1808.05049 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Vovchenko and H

    V. Vovchenko and H. Stoecker, Comput. Phys. Commun.244, 295 (2019), arXiv:1901.05249 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Schnedermann, J

    E. Schnedermann, J. Sollfrank, and U. W. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C 48, 2462 (1993), arXiv:nucl-th/9307020

    1993 arXiv

  97. [106]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 198 (2025), arXiv:2311.14527 [hep-ph]

    2025

  98. [107]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Lett. B 811, 135849 (2020), arXiv:2004.08018 [nucl-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  99. [108]

    J. J. de Swart, Rev. Mod. Phys. 35, 916 (1963), [Erratum: Rev.Mod.Phys. 37, 326–326 (1965)]

    1963

  100. [109]

    Ma et al

    Y. Ma et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 151903 (2023), arXiv:2211.11151 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  101. [110]

    A. S. Carroll, I. H. Chiang, T. F. Kycia, K. K. Li, P. O. Mazur, D. N. Michael, P. M. Mockett, D. C. Rahm, and R. Rubinstein, Phys. Rev. Lett.37, 806 (1976)

    1976

  102. [111]

    E. E. Kolomeitsev and M. F. M. Lutz, Phys. Lett. B 585, 243 (2004), arXiv:nucl-th/0305101

    2004 arXiv

  103. [112]

    Sarkar, E

    S. Sarkar, E. Oset, and M. J. Vicente Vacas, Nucl. Phys. A 750, 294 (2005), [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.A 780, 90–90 (2006)], arXiv:nucl-th/0407025

    2005 arXiv

  104. [113]

    Yoshida, E

    T. Yoshida, E. Hiyama, A. Hosaka, M. Oka, and K. Sadato, Phys. Rev. D92, 114029 (2015), arXiv:1510.01067 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  105. [114]

    Sarkar, B.-X

    S. Sarkar, B.-X. Sun, E. Oset, and M. J. Vicente Vacas, Eur. Phys. J. A 44, 431 (2010), arXiv:0902.3150 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  106. [115]

    J. M. Dias, G. Toledo, L. Roca, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D103, 116019 (2021), arXiv:2102.08402 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  107. [116]

    Cincioglu, J

    E. Cincioglu, J. Nieves, A. Ozpineci, and A. U. Yilmazer, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 576 (2016), arXiv:1606.03239 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  108. [117]

    Guo, U.-G

    F.-K. Guo, U.-G. Meißner, and B.-S. Zou, Commun. Theor. Phys. 65, 593 (2016), arXiv:1603.06316 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  109. [118]

    Albaladejo, J

    M. Albaladejo, J. Nieves, E. Oset, Z.-F. Sun, and X. Liu, Phys. Lett. B 757, 515 (2016), arXiv:1603.09230 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  110. [119]

    Nieves and E

    J. Nieves and E. Ruiz Arriola, Nucl. Phys. A 679, 57 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9907469

    2000 arXiv

  111. [120]

    J.-X. Lin, J. Song, M. Albaladejo, A. Feijoo, and E. Oset, (2025), arXiv:2505.15650 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  112. [121]

    H. Toki, C. Garcia-Recio, and J. Nieves, Phys. Rev. D 77, 034001 (2008), arXiv:0711.3536 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.