Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 64 references

A molecular h1 meson, if real, must decay into K1(1270)Kbar and b1(1235)pi with widths of about 0.5 MeV and several MeV, providing observable signatures.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 09:25 UTC pith:C6OXZHNX

load-bearing objection K1Kbar decay width for the h1(1790) molecule is over-integrated past threshold; b1pi channels look healthier. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2601.13789 v2 pith:C6OXZHNX submitted 2026-01-20 hep-ph

The dynamically generated h₁ state by the K^*bar{K}^* interaction and its K₁(1270)bar{K} and b₁(1235)π decays

Qing-Hua Shen , Li-Sheng Geng , Xiang Liu , Ju-Jun Xie This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords h1 mesonK*Kbar* interactionchiral unitary approachdynamically generated resonancestriangle loop mechanismK1(1270)b1(1235)hadronic molecular states
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper aims to show that the h1 state dynamically generated from K*Kbar* interactions—otherwise difficult to detect because its mass sits near threshold and it lacks accessible two-pseudoscalar decays—should be observable through its decays into K1(1270)Kbar and b1(1235)pi. Using triangle-loop diagrams where the h1 couples to K*Kbar* and pseudoscalar exchange converts the vector pair into an axial-vector plus pseudoscalar, the authors compute partial widths: about 0.5 MeV for the K1(1270)Kbar mode and several MeV for the b1(1235)pi modes. They also show that the ratios of these widths are stable against model uncertainties, offering concrete experimental fingerprints. If these predictions hold, they transform a hidden molecular state into a discoverable one.

Core claim

The paper claims that the h1 state arising from the K*Kbar* interaction in the chiral unitary approach decays via triangle loops into K1(1270)Kbar and b1(1235)pi, with the axial-vector mesons themselves treated as dynamically generated. The partial widths are calculated to be about 0.5 MeV for h1 -> K1L(1270)Kbar -> K*piKbar and of order several MeV for h1 -> b1(1235)pi -> omega(phi)pi pi. The invariant mass distributions of K*pi, omega pi, and phi pi show clear resonance-like bumps. The ratios R1 (K1L Kbar to b1 pi omega pi) and R2 (b1 pi phi pi to omega pi) are approximately 0.3 and 0.53, respectively, and remain stable when the h1 mass and cut-off parameter vary, making them robust predic

What carries the argument

The central object is the dynamically generated h1 state, identified as a pole of the unitarized K*Kbar* scattering amplitude in the chiral unitary approach with hidden-gauge vector interactions. The decay calculation uses a triangular loop in which the h1 couples to K*Kbar*, and the K* and Kbar* exchange pseudoscalar mesons (eta, pi, K) to produce a K1(1270) or b1(1235) plus a pseudoscalar, which subsequently decays into a vector and a pseudoscalar. The axial-vector mesons are described as dynamically generated states with couplings fixed at their poles. The load-bearing identity is the triangle-loop amplitude, which converts the molecular h1 into final states with distinctive invariant mas

Load-bearing premise

The h1 state must actually exist as a pole of the K*Kbar* scattering amplitude, with the coupling to K*Kbar* computed from the model's residue; if that pole is an artifact of the unconstrained subtraction constant or the hidden-gauge kernel, the predicted decay widths vanish.

What would settle it

A search for h1 -> b1(1235)pi -> omega pi pi in experimental data would find no bump in the omega pi invariant mass near 1.25 GeV with a width of several MeV, or the K*pi mass distribution in h1 -> K* pi K would show no structure at the predicted K1L(1270) position. Independently, if the h1 pole itself is absent in lattice QCD or in other analyses of K*Kbar* scattering, the central claim collapses.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If correct, the h1 state should be observable in h1 -> b1(1235)pi -> omega pi pi and phi pi pi decays, with widths of a few MeV, even though it is invisible in the K*Kbar* invariant mass spectrum.
  • The predicted invariant mass distributions of K*pi, omega pi, and phi pi provide line shapes that experiments can directly compare with data.
  • The stable ratios R1 ~ 0.3 and R2 ~ 0.53 offer robust fingerprints to identify the molecular character of the h1, independent of the h1 mass within the allowed model range.
  • The K1(1270)Kbar mode, though weaker (~0.5 MeV), gives a complementary check because its near-threshold phase space shapes the mass distribution distinctively.
  • The results imply that triangle-loop decay mechanisms can reveal molecular states that are otherwise hidden near two-vector thresholds.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the h1 pole is confirmed through these decay channels, it would strengthen the molecular interpretation of the h1 and support the broader chiral unitary approach to generating hadrons from meson interactions.
  • The stability of R1 and R2 suggests they could serve as null tests: a non-molecular h1 or a state with a different internal structure would likely not reproduce these ratios.
  • A testable extension is to measure the polarizations or angular correlations among the final vector and pseudoscalar mesons; the triangle-loop mechanism may imprint characteristic spin patterns.
  • The triangle-loop method could be applied to other near-threshold vector-vector molecular candidates that currently lack accessible two-body decay modes, offering a general pathway to probe them.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies a predicted h1 state with J^P = 1^+ and mass around 1790 MeV, dynamically generated in the K*Kbar* interaction within the chiral unitary approach. Using a triangle-loop mechanism in which h1 couples to K*Kbar* and the intermediate K*/Kbar* pair rescatters via pseudoscalar exchange, the authors compute partial widths for h1 -> K1(1270)Kbar -> K* pi Kbar and h1 -> b1(1235)pi -> omega(phi) pi pi, together with the corresponding invariant mass distributions. The predicted partial width for the K1L(1270) mode is about 0.5 MeV; the b1 modes are of order a few MeV. The ratios R1 = Gamma(h1->K1L Kbar, K1L->K*pi)/Gamma(h1->b1 pi, b1->omega pi) ~ 0.3 and R2 = Gamma(h1->b1 pi, b1->phi pi)/Gamma(h1->b1 pi, b1->omega pi) ~ 0.53 are claimed to be stable against the h1 mass and are proposed as experimental signatures.

Significance. If the calculation is correct, it provides a concrete, falsifiable signature for a predicted molecular h1 state that is otherwise difficult to detect. The use of ratios R1 and R2 is a useful idea because the h1K*Kbar* coupling and the triangle-loop cutoff largely cancel, and the h1 width is not fitted to the decay data considered here. The strength of the paper is that it produces explicit decay channels and line shapes that could be tested in future experiments. The main scientific risk is that the h1 state itself is not experimentally established, and the numerical predictions inherit model dependence from the subtraction constant a(mu), the cutoff Lambda_t, and the AV P couplings. A more serious internal issue is the treatment of the K1L phase space, which is the basis for the requested revision.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. IV, Eqs. (37)-(38) and (23)-(24)] The K1L(1270) decay width is computed by integrating Eq. (37) over M_VfP1 in [mA-2 GammaA, mA+2 GammaA] = [703, 1687] MeV. For h1 -> K1L(1270) Kbar, the physical endpoint is M_h1 - m_K ~ 1296 MeV. Because |k_A| in Eq. (24) is evaluated with the fixed pole mass m_A = 1195 MeV and not with the integration variable M_VfP1, the phase-space factor does not vanish in the forbidden region 1296-1687 MeV. The integral therefore includes kinematically impossible three-body phase space and artificially inflates Gamma(h1->K1L Kbar) and hence R1. The b1(1235) channels are not affected in the same way because their upper endpoint 1359 MeV is below M_h1 - m_pi ~ 1650 MeV. Please either restrict the integration to min(m_A+2 GammaA, M_h1 - m_P2) or, preferably, use the M-dependent momentum |k_A| = lambda^{1/2}(M_h1^2, M^2, m_P2^2)/(2 M_h1) so that the physical threshold is respected automatically.
  2. [Sec. III, Eqs. (21)-(24) and (37)] Related to the above, the invariant-mass distribution in Eq. (37) uses fixed pole-mass kinematics in two places: |k_A| from Eq. (24) and |k'_Vf| from Eq. (21) are both evaluated with the nominal m_A. In a correct three-body decay distribution, both momenta should be functions of the running invariant mass M = M_VfP1: |k_A| = lambda^{1/2}(M_h1^2, M^2, m_P2^2)/(2 M_h1) and |k'_Vf| = lambda^{1/2}(M^2, m_Vf^2, m_P1^2)/(2 M). Since the K1L width is 246 MeV and the available phase space is comparable to this width, the fixed-mass approximation is not justified and can distort the line shape and width. I ask the authors to recompute the distributions and widths with running-mass kinematics, or to justify explicitly why the fixed-mass approximation is accurate for the K1L channel.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (11)] The two propagators in the loop function G(s, m1^2, m2^2) should contain q^2 - m_i^2, not s - m_i^2. This appears to be a typographical error.
  2. [Eq. (28)] The isospin state |K* Kbar + c.c.>^{(1,1)} is written with a term |K*0 K*+>, which contains two vector mesons rather than a K*Kbar pair. Please check and correct this isospin decomposition.
  3. [Sec. IV, Fig. 8] The numerical results are presented only as figures; the axis labels of Fig. 8 are garbled and the values are difficult to read. Since the abstract quotes specific numbers (0.5 MeV, 'order of several MeV'), please provide a table of central values and uncertainties from the ranges of a(mu) and Lambda_t.
  4. [Sec. IV after Eq. (40)] The statement that the coupling constants 'will be cancelled in the ratio between different partial decay widths' is only true for the common factor g_h1K*Kbar*^2. The AV P couplings in Table I do not cancel between R1 and R2, so the ratios still carry model dependence from those couplings. This should be rephrased and the residual sensitivity quantified.
  5. [Various] There are several typographical issues: 'h1 sate' after Fig. 2, 'K_lL(1270)' in Sec. IV, and inconsistent notation M_A vs m_A in Eq. (21). These should be cleaned up.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the decay widths and ratios are genuine outputs of the chiral-unitary calculation, though the central h1 state inherits its existence from the authors' own prior framework.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The h1 pole and its K*Kbar* coupling are computed in Sec. II (Eqs. 4-13, Figs. 2-3) from the hidden-gauge Lagrangian, the unitarized T-matrix, and the convoluted loop function; the decay widths are then obtained in Sec. III from the triangle-loop amplitudes of Eqs. (17)-(38), using the residue couplings of the h1 and the separately computed K1L/b1 couplings listed in Table I. No partial width is fitted to h1 data, and the ratios R1 and R2 are derived quantities whose common couplings cancel; they are not imposed. The subtraction constant a(mu) and cutoff Lambda_t are varied over stated ranges, and results are presented as ranges, which is honest sensitivity analysis rather than post-hoc fitting. The heavy reliance on Refs. [26,43,18,22] is substantial, and several of these are authored by the present authors; however, Ref. [43] confronts the h1 state with external BES data, and the present paper recomputes the pole position rather than merely assuming it. The apparent phase-space concern raised about Eq. (38) is not a circularity issue: for K1L(1270), the integration upper limit mA+2ΓA = 1687 MeV lies just below the h1→K1L Kbar threshold mA+mK ≈ 1689 MeV, so the integral does not enter a kinematically forbidden region. Overall, the central predictions are not equivalent to their inputs by construction; the score of 2 reflects the prominent, but not load-bearing-circular, self-citation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central predictions rest on a chain of model inputs: the existence and coupling of the h1 pole, the dynamically generated K1L/b1 couplings, and the triangle-loop cutoff. None of these is independently measured in this paper; the ratios R1/R2 are the most robust outputs because they cancel most coupling and cutoff factors.

free parameters (4)
  • a(μ): subtraction constant of the K*Kbar* loop function = -2.4 to -1.4 (μ=1000 MeV)
    Introduced in Eq. (12); varied over this range. Controls the h1 pole mass and, strongly, its width and coupling (Figs. 2-3). Taken from prior ChUT works [26,43].
  • Λ_t: triangle-loop cutoff = 1350±100 MeV
    Momentum cutoff in the off-shell form factor Eq. (22); fixed by matching two-pseudoscalar decay data for other dynamically generated states in Ref. [53]. Decay widths are sensitive to Λ_t; ratios cancel it.
  • K1L(1270) and b1(1235) pole masses/widths = m=1195/1247 MeV; Γ=246/56 MeV
    Taken from dynamical-generation pole positions of Refs [18,22], not from PDG. They set the phase-space integration window in Eq. (38) and thus the absolute widths.
  • Complex AV P couplings (Table I) = g_K*π = 4747−i2874 MeV; g_ωπ = −1869+i300 MeV
    These model couplings from Refs [18,22] enter the width squared; absolute widths scale with |g|^2 while ratios R1/R2 are independent of them.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Hidden-gauge Lagrangians (Eqs. 1-2) and the tree-level K*Kbar* potential (Eq. 4) provide the correct leading-order interaction.
    The h1 pole and its coupling follow from this effective theory; other mechanisms (e.g., t-channel pseudoscalar exchange, coupled channels) are neglected.
  • domain assumption The h1(1790) exists as a pole of the unitarized K*Kbar* amplitude.
    This is the prior prediction of Ref [26] that the paper assumes; Sec. II only scans a(μ) and does not establish the state experimentally.
  • domain assumption K1(1270) (lower pole) and b1(1235) are dynamically generated VP states with couplings from Refs [18,22].
    Table I couplings and pole parameters cited from [18,22]; no direct data fitting in this work. K1H is omitted because of phase space.
  • domain assumption The triangle-loop diagram of Fig. 4 is the dominant decay mechanism.
    Only this class of diagrams is computed; background contributions and possible double counting with K*Kbar* rescattering are not estimated.
  • standard math Dimensional regularization and residue/cutoff evaluations of the loop integrals are valid.
    Standard techniques (Eqs. 11-12, 39); no formal proof provided.
invented entities (1)
  • h1(1790) K*Kbar* molecular state independent evidence
    purpose: The unobserved resonance whose decays and invariant mass spectra are predicted.
    Not introduced in this paper (from Ref [26]); prior BES-related analysis in Ref [43] gives phenomenological support, and the present decay predictions provide new falsifiable signals.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 12427 in / 16084 out tokens · 164358 ms · 2026-08-03T09:25:36.212246+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate the dynamically generated $h_1$ state with spin-parity $J^P = 1^+$ and a mass around 1790~MeV, arising from the $K^* \bar{K}^*$ interaction within the chiral unitary approach. The partial decay widths into the $K_1(1270)\bar{K}$ and $b_1(1235)\pi$ channels are calculated via a triangular loop mechanism. In this mechanism, the $h_1$ state couples to $K^* \bar{K}^*$, and final-state interactions between $K^*$ and $\bar{K}^*$ proceed through pseudoscalar-meson exchange, leading to the final states $\bar{K}$ (or $\pi$) and $K_1(1270)$ [or $b_1(1235)$]. We also present the invariant mass distributions of a vector meson and a pseudoscalar meson originating from the decays of $K_1(1270)$ or $b_1(1235)$, along with the corresponding decay widths. Our results show that these decay widths are all of the order of a few MeV. We hope that future experiments can test the predictions presented here, thereby helping to identify this $h_1$ state.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.13789 by Ju-Jun Xie, Li-Sheng Geng, Qing-Hua Shen, Xiang Liu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The mechanisms of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Coupling constant of the dynamically generated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The real (a) and imaginary (b) parts of the pole position [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Diagrammatic representation of the triangular loop mecha [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Diagrammatic representation of the decay mechanisms [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Diagrammatic representation of the decay mechanisms [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The invariant mass distribution of (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The partial decay width for the processes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Theoretical ratios of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 60 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Liu, Chin

    X. Liu, Chin. Sci. Bull.59, 3815 (2014), arXiv:1312.7408 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  2. [2]

    (11) It is convenient to deal with it by the dimensional regulariza- tion method, 16π2G(s, m2 1, m2

    =i Z d4q (2π)4 1 s−m 2 1 +iϵ 1 s−m 2 2 +iϵ . (11) It is convenient to deal with it by the dimensional regulariza- tion method, 16π2G(s, m2 1, m2

  3. [3]

    In addition,µ is the scale of dimensional regularization, and changes in the scale are reabsorbed in the subtraction constanta(µ), so that the results remain scale independent

    =a(µ) + log m1m2 µ2 + ∆ 2s log m2 2 m2 1 + ν 2s log s−∆ +ν −s+ ∆ +ν + log s+ ∆ +ν −s−∆ +ν ,(12) with∆ =m 2 2−m2 1,ν=λ 1 2 (s, m2 1, m2 2), and the K¨allen func- tionλ(x, y, z) =x2+y2+z2−2xy−2yz−2xz. In addition,µ is the scale of dimensional regularization, and changes in the scale are reabsorbed in the subtraction constanta(µ), so that the results remain ...

    2087

  4. [4]

    Hosaka, T

    A. Hosaka, T. Iijima, K. Miyabayashi, Y . Sakai, and S. Yasui, PTEP2016, 062C01 (2016), arXiv:1603.09229 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rept.639, 1 (2016), arXiv:1601.02092 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    R. F. Lebed, R. E. Mitchell, and E. S. Swanson, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.93, 143 (2017), arXiv:1610.04528 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  7. [7]

    F.-K. Guo, C. Hanhart, U.-G. Meißner, Q. Wang, Q. Zhao, and B.-S. Zou, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 015004 (2018), [Erratum: Rev.Mod.Phys. 94, 029901 (2022)], arXiv:1705.00141 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    S. L. Olsen, T. Skwarnicki, and D. Zieminska, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 015003 (2018), arXiv:1708.04012 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  9. [9]

    Brambilla, S

    N. Brambilla, S. Eidelman, C. Hanhart, A. Nefediev, C.-P. Shen, C. E. Thomas, A. Vairo, and C.-Z. Yuan, Phys. Rept. 873, 1 (2020), arXiv:1907.07583 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  10. [10]

    Richard, Few Body Syst.57, 1185 (2016), arXiv:1606.08593 [hep-ph]

    J.-M. Richard, Few Body Syst.57, 1185 (2016), arXiv:1606.08593 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  11. [11]

    L. Meng, B. Wang, G.-J. Wang, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rept. 1019, 1 (2023), arXiv:2204.08716 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, Y .-R. Liu, and S.-L. Zhu, Rept. Prog. Phys.86, 026201 (2023), arXiv:2204.02649 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  13. [13]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Liu, H.-X

    Y .-R. Liu, H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, and S.-L. Zhu, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.107, 237 (2019), arXiv:1903.11976 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  15. [15]

    J. A. Oller and E. Oset, Nucl. Phys. A620, 438 (1997), [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.A 652, 407–409 (1999)], arXiv:hep- ph/9702314

    arXiv 1997

  16. [16]

    Oset and A

    E. Oset and A. Ramos, Nucl. Phys. A635, 99 (1998), arXiv:nucl-th/9711022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  17. [17]

    J. A. Oller, E. Oset, and J. R. Pelaez, Phys. Rev. D59, 074001 (1999), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 60, 099906 (1999), Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 75, 099903 (2007)], arXiv:hep-ph/9804209

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  18. [18]

    Inoue, E

    T. Inoue, E. Oset, and M. J. Vicente Vacas, Phys. Rev. C65, 035204 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0110333

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  19. [19]

    D. Jido, J. A. Oller, E. Oset, A. Ramos, and U. G. Meissner, Nucl. Phys. A725, 181 (2003), arXiv:nucl-th/0303062

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  20. [20]

    L. Roca, E. Oset, and J. Singh, Phys. Rev. D72, 014002 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0503273

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  21. [21]

    Guo, P.-N

    F.-K. Guo, P.-N. Shen, H.-C. Chiang, R.-G. Ping, and B.-S. Zou, Phys. Lett. B641, 278 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0603072

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  22. [22]

    L. Roca, S. Sarkar, V . K. Magas, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. C73, 045208 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0603222

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  23. [23]

    Guo, P.-N

    F.-K. Guo, P.-N. Shen, and H.-C. Chiang, Phys. Lett. B647, 133 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0610008

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  24. [24]

    L. S. Geng, E. Oset, L. Roca, and J. A. Oller, Phys. Rev. D75, 014017 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0610217

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  25. [25]

    Gamermann, E

    D. Gamermann, E. Oset, D. Strottman, and M. J. Vicente Va- cas, Phys. Rev. D76, 074016 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0612179

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  26. [26]

    Gamermann and E

    D. Gamermann and E. Oset, Eur. Phys. J. A33, 119 (2007), arXiv:0704.2314 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  27. [27]

    Molina, D

    R. Molina, D. Nicmorus, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D78, 114018 (2008), arXiv:0809.2233 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  28. [28]

    L. S. Geng and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D79, 074009 (2009), arXiv:0812.1199 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  29. [29]

    Sarkar, B.-X

    S. Sarkar, B.-X. Sun, E. Oset, and M. J. Vicente Vacas, Eur. Phys. J. A44, 431 (2010), arXiv:0902.3150 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  30. [30]

    C. W. Xiao and E. Oset, Eur. Phys. J. A49, 139 (2013), arXiv:1305.0786 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  31. [31]

    W. H. Liang, T. Uchino, C. W. Xiao, and E. Oset, Eur. Phys. J. A51, 16 (2015), arXiv:1402.5293 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  32. [32]

    Zhou, X.-L

    Y . Zhou, X.-L. Ren, H.-X. Chen, and L.-S. Geng, Phys. Rev. D 90, 014020 (2014), arXiv:1404.6847 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  33. [33]

    J. M. Dias, V . R. Debastiani, J. J. Xie, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D98, 094017 (2018), arXiv:1805.03286 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  34. [34]

    Q.-X. Yu, J. M. Dias, W.-H. Liang, and E. Oset, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 1025 (2019), arXiv:1909.13449 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  35. [35]

    Wang and Z.-F

    Z.-Y . Wang and Z.-F. Sun, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 1106 (2023), arXiv:2307.00803 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  36. [36]

    Oset and L

    E. Oset and L. Roca, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 882 (2022), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 82, 1014 (2022)], arXiv:2207.08538 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  37. [37]

    Sun, J.-J

    Z.-F. Sun, J.-J. Xie, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D97, 094031 (2018), arXiv:1801.04367 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  38. [38]

    Sakai, L

    S. Sakai, L. Roca, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D96, 054023 (2017), arXiv:1704.02196 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  39. [39]

    J. M. Dias, F. Aceti, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D91, 076001 (2015), arXiv:1410.1785 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  40. [40]

    Molina, T

    R. Molina, T. Branz, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D82, 014010 (2010), arXiv:1005.0335 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  41. [41]

    Molina and E

    R. Molina and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D80, 114013 (2009), arXiv:0907.3043 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  42. [42]

    E. Oset, A. Ramos, and C. Bennhold, Phys. Lett. B527, 99 (2002), [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 530, 260–260 (2002)], arXiv:nucl-th/0109006

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  43. [43]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  44. [44]

    Ablikimet al.(BES), Phys

    M. Ablikimet al.(BES), Phys. Lett. B685, 27 (2010), arXiv:0909.2087 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  45. [45]

    J.-J. Xie, M. Albaladejo, and E. Oset, Phys. Lett. B728, 319 (2014), arXiv:1306.6594 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  46. [46]

    Ren, L.-S

    X.-L. Ren, L.-S. Geng, E. Oset, and J. Meng, Eur. Phys. J. A 50, 133 (2014), arXiv:1405.0153 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  47. [47]

    Nagahiro, L

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  48. [48]

    Xie, J.-X

    J.-M. Xie, J.-X. Lu, L.-S. Geng, and B.-S. Zou, Phys. Rev. D 108, L111502 (2023), arXiv:2307.11631 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  49. [49]

    Xie, Z.-W

    J.-M. Xie, Z.-W. Liu, J.-X. Lu, H. Liang, R. Molina, and L.-S. Geng, (2025), arXiv:2511.14380 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    L. Roca, A. Hosaka, and E. Oset, Phys. Lett. B658, 17 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0611075

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  51. [51]

    Aceti, J

    F. Aceti, J. M. Dias, and E. Oset, Eur. Phys. J. A51, 48 (2015), arXiv:1501.06505 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  52. [52]

    Aceti, J.-J

    F. Aceti, J.-J. Xie, and E. Oset, Phys. Lett. B750, 609 (2015), arXiv:1505.06134 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  53. [53]

    Xie, Phys

    J.-J. Xie, Phys. Rev. C92, 065203 (2015), arXiv:1509.06196 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  54. [54]

    Molina, M

    R. Molina, M. Doering, W. H. Liang, and E. Oset, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 782 (2021), arXiv:2107.07439 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  55. [55]

    Shen, L.-S

    Q.-H. Shen, L.-S. Geng, and J.-J. Xie, Eur. Phys. J. A61, 42 (2025), arXiv:2409.05302 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    G ¨ulmez, U

    D. G ¨ulmez, U. G. Meißner, and J. A. Oller, Eur. Phys. J. C77, 460 (2017), arXiv:1611.00168 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  57. [57]

    Wang and B.-S

    Z.-L. Wang and B.-S. Zou, Phys. Rev. D104, 114001 (2021), arXiv:2107.14470 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  58. [58]

    Wang and B.-S

    Z.-L. Wang and B.-S. Zou, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 509 (2022), arXiv:2203.02899 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  59. [59]

    A. I. Titov, B. Kampfer, and B. L. Reznik, Eur. Phys. J. A7, 543 (2000), arXiv:nucl-th/0001027

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  60. [60]

    A. I. Titov, B. Kampfer, and B. L. Reznik, Phys. Rev. C65, 9 065202 (2002), arXiv:nucl-th/0102032

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  61. [61]

    L. R. Dai, L. Roca, and E. Oset, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 673 (2020), arXiv:2005.02653 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  62. [62]

    L ¨u and J

    P.-L. L ¨u and J. He, Eur. Phys. J. A52, 359 (2016), arXiv:1603.04168 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  63. [63]

    L. R. Dai, L. Roca, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D99, 096003 (2019), arXiv:1811.06875 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  64. [64]

    Zeng, J.-X

    C.-H. Zeng, J.-X. Lu, E. Wang, J.-J. Xie, and L.-S. Geng, Phys. Rev. D102, 076009 (2020), arXiv:2006.15547 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020