Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Poles of Karlsruhe-Helsinki KH80 and KA84 solutions extracted by using Laurent+Pietarinen method

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1401.1947 v2 pith:6YAFAB7P submitted 2014-01-09 nucl-th

classification nucl-th
keywords partialparameterspolebeenmethodobtainedsolutionswave
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Poles of partial wave scattering matrices have also in hadron spectroscopy recently been established as a sole link between experiment and QCD theories and models [1-4]. We have, however, noticed the fact that Karlsruhe-Helsinki (KH) partial wave analyses, one of the two partial wave analyses which have been "above the line" in PDG [1] for over three decades, does calculate and PDG compiles the abundance of Breit-Wigner (BW) parameters obtained by local BW fit, but has produced only a limited number of pole information obtained by using speed plot (SP) method [5]. We stress the fact that in KH method only Mandelstam analyticity is used as a theoretical constraint, so KH partial wave solutions are as model independent as possible. Therefore, they represent a very confident and valuable input, so it is of extreme importance to extract as many resonance pole parameters from them as possible. In addition, the troubling fact is that BW parameters given in PDG have been obtained from KH80 solution, while pole parameters have been obtained from KA84 version of KH solution. To remedy this, we have used newly developed Laurent+Pietarinen expansion method [6,7] for obtaining pole positions for all partial waves for KH80 and KA84 solutions, compared them, and shown that the differences in pole parameters are, with very few discussed exceptions, negligible for all partial waves. We finally give a full set of pole parameters for both solutions for all partial waves; results which are until now unpublished.

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. Resolving the $\Delta(1232)$ partial width anomaly: Complex pole residue is not a fundamental resonance property

    hep-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Using an improved Breit-Wigner model, the paper argues that complex pole residues are amplitude-level quantities, and shows how multi-resonance interference can make the Delta(1232) partial width appear to exceed its ...

Pith tools