Tensor analyzing power $T_{20}$ in the reaction $\gamma \vec{d}\to pn$ at photon energies 350-680 MeV

A. A. Kovalenko; A. I. Fix; A. N. Zhuravlev; A. V. Bogomyagkov; A. V. Yurchenko; A. Yu. Loginov; D. K. Toporkov; D. M. Nikolenko; D. V. Dorokhova; E. A. Simonov

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 38 references

Tensor analyzing power $T_{20}$ in the reaction $\gamma \vec{d}\to pn$ at photon energies 350-680 MeV

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read New measurements of the tensor analyzing power T20 in gamma-deuteron breakup find it positive from 350 to 680 MeV and broadly consistent with meson-baryon calculations.

desk verdict New T20 data from VEPP-3 fill an energy gap, but the paper leaves background subtraction and the systematic budget underspecified, so the central agreement claim cannot yet be evaluated. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09169 v1 pith:7C4JXKHN submitted 2026-08-10 nucl-ex

V. V. Gauzshtein , A. I. Fix , V. I. Ivanov , D. M. Nikolenko , I. A. Rachek , Yu. V. Shestakov , D. K. Toporkov , A. V. Yurchenko

show 25 more authors

S. A. Zevakov G. N. Baranov A. V. Bogomyagkov V. M. Borin E. M. Darwish D. V. Dorokhova V. L. Dorokhov S. E. Karnaev A. A. Kovalenko V. N. Kudryavtsev M. I. Levchuk E. B. Levichev I. B. Logashenko A. Yu. Loginov T. V. Maltsev R. Z. Mamutov I. N. Okunev P. A. Piminov L. I. Shekhtman E. A. Simonov S. V. Sinyatkin M. A. Skamarokha E. V. Starostina I. A. Ulev A. N. Zhuravlev

This is my paper · ORCID

classification nucl-ex

keywords tensoranalyzingpowerT20deuteronphotodisintegrationpolarizeddeuteriumgastargettaggedphotonbeammeson-baryonmodelpionthreshold

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 measures the tensor analyzing power $T_{20}$ for the photodisintegration of a tensor-polarized deuterium target, $\gamma \vec d \to pn$, at photon energies 350–680 MeV and proton angles 70°–102°. The quantity is positive across the whole range, decreasing from about 0.65 near 150–200 MeV to about 0.35 near 500–600 MeV, and it agrees with modern meson-baryon calculations within the reported uncertainties. The measurement adds a spin observable above the pion-production threshold, where theoretical treatments are complicated by the three-body $\pi NN$ channel and where previous data are sparse. The paper also analyzes which reaction mechanisms drive $T_{20}$, finding that meson-exchange currents and $\Delta(1232)$ excitation dominate and that the observable is most sensitive to low internal deuteron momenta, roughly 70–300 MeV/c.

What carries the argument

The central quantity is the tensor analyzing power $T_{20}$, defined through $d\sigma/d\Omega = (d\sigma_0/d\Omega)(1 + P_{zz}T_{20}/\sqrt{2})$ for a target with tensor polarization $P_{zz}$. It is extracted from the difference of yields in two polarization states with the formula $T_{20} = \sqrt{2}(N^+ - N^-)/(P_{zz}^+ N^- - P_{zz}^- N^+)$, so the experiment reduces to a ratio measurement: the same integrated luminosity for both signs, rapid sign reversal, and a tagged quasi-real photon beam with about 1% energy resolution. The absolute scale rests on the Low-$Q$ polarimeter, which converts the measured elastic electron-deuteron asymmetry into $P_{zz}$ using theoretically calculated values of $T_{20}$ for that calibration reaction. The theoretical analysis then uses a momentum-space meson-baryon amplitude with one-body currents, meson-exchange currents, $\Delta(1232)$ and three higher nucleon resonances, plus final-state $NN$ rescattering, and a momentum-cutoff sensitivity function $R(p_c)$ that maps which internal deuteron momenta contribute to $T_{20}$.

What would settle it

An independent measurement of the tensor polarization $P_{zz}$ of the same target, using a different polarimetry technique that does not rely on theoretical $T_{20}$ values, would settle the central scale question: a disagreement with the Low-$Q$ polarimeter larger than the quoted ~8% uncertainty would require proportional revisions of every reported $T_{20}$. A second check would be a high-statistics measurement at a single energy, where a deviation from the predicted smooth fall would reveal an energy-dependent normalization problem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that $T_{20}$ in $\gamma \vec d \to pn$ is positive and smoothly decreasing over the measured range, and that the measured values are consistent with the predictions of several modern meson-baryon descriptions, especially the coupled-channels model that treats the $\pi NN$ channel with three-body unitarity and the model used in this paper. The extraction uses the ratio of yields for two sign-reversed tensor polarizations, $T_{20} = \sqrt{2}(N^+ - N^-)/(P_{zz}^+ N^- - P_{zz}^- N^+)$, with $P_{zz}$ monitored by a Low-$Q$ polarimeter calibrated on elastic electron-deuteron scattering. The paper further shows that $T_{20}$ is formed mainly by electric dipole transitions from pion-exchange currents and $\Delta(1232)$ excitation, with higher multipoles acting as minor corrections, and that the observable samples nucleon relative momenta of about 70–300 MeV/c. On this basis the paper argues that the meson-baryon picture remains adequate at these energies and that the monotonic decline of $T_{20}$ is a precursor to the asymptotic perturbative-QCD value $-\sqrt{2}$.

Load-bearing premise

The absolute scale of every $T_{20}$ point rests on the Low-$Q$ polarimeter calibration, which infers $P_{zz}$ from elastic electron-deuteron scattering asymmetries using theoretically calculated values of $T_{20}$; if that theoretical input carries an unaccounted error, all reported $T_{20}$ values scale proportionally, and the paper provides no independent cross-check of the polarization scale.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The dataset extends the experimental $T_{20}$ database from below 300 MeV up to 680 MeV, providing new constraints on meson-baryon models above the pion threshold.
The generally satisfactory agreement with the coupled-channels unitary model and with the paper's own model strengthens the case that hadronic degrees of freedom describe deuteron photodisintegration at these energies, while simpler models deviate at forward and backward angles.
The monotonic decrease of $T_{20}$ toward the perturbative-QCD prediction $T_{20} = -\sqrt{2}$ gives a qualitative hint of the approach to the asymptotic regime, even though the current energies are far from it.
The momentum-sensitivity analysis implies $T_{20}$ in this kinematic range probes internucleon distances of roughly 0.7–3 fm, so the measurement constrains reaction mechanisms rather than the short-range high-momentum part of the deuteron wave function.
If the result is correct, future measurements above 1 GeV, which the paper identifies as necessary, would have a baseline from these energies to track where meson-baryon descriptions begin to fail.

Reading between the lines

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

Because $T_{20}$ here is sensitive mainly to low deuteron momenta, a natural extension is to combine this observable with electrodisintegration data at finite $Q^2$, which probe higher momenta; together they could separate wave-function effects from reaction-mechanism effects in the same energy region.
The strongest single systematic check would be an independent calibration of $P_{zz}$; even one cross-check point would convert the result from a shape measurement into an absolute test of the models.
If the same setup with a transversely polarized target can resolve $T_{21}$ and $T_{22}$, those components would probe interference combinations invisible to $T_{20}$ alone, making the identification of the $\Delta$ and resonance contributions more discriminating.
The smooth decline of $T_{20}$ below 680 MeV suggests that the natural place to look for the onset of non-hadronic effects is not the absolute value but the behavior of other spin observables such as recoil polarization, where existing data already show puzzling deviations.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First, the honest take: this is a genuinely new dataset. The VEPP-3 group extended T20 in γd→pn to 680 MeV with an upgraded detector and tagging system, and the points above 600 MeV are new. The paper also includes a careful model comparison and a sensitivity analysis of the deuteron momentum range probed. That is worth something.

The main thing the paper does well is the measurement chain: tagged quasi-real photons, polarized internal target, coincidence proton-neutron detection, and MC validation with GEANT4+GENBOS that reproduces the ΔΦ distributions including the background channels. The model work looks sane, and the authors are honest that the statistical precision is not enough for a sharp test.

The soft spots are real. First, the yields N± in Eq. (3) are never defined as background-subtracted. The text says the ΔΦ cut is the primary criterion and that the blue "background" curve in Figs. 3–4 is an irreducible contribution under the signal peak. If the N± used in Eq. (3) include that background, then the reported T20 is a weighted mixture of photodisintegration and pion-production asymmetries, and the comparison in Fig. 8 is not testing what it claims. The simulation validates the shape of the distribution, but it does not tell the reader how the signal was isolated. This is not a fatal flaw—the authors may have subtracted or fit the background—but it is exactly the missing detail a referee should demand.

Second, there is no systematic uncertainty budget anywhere. Fig. 8 shows only statistical errors; the Pzz calibration from the Low-Q polarimeter rests on theoretical T20 values for elastic ed scattering, and a scale error would shift every point. That is standard practice, but the paper gives no estimate of its contribution. Third, no tabulated data are provided, which will make the dataset hard to use.

The theoretical sensitivity analysis with the momentum cutoff is a secondary contribution. It is model-dependent but clearly explained, and the conclusion that the measurement is sensitive to p ≈ 70–300 MeV/c is useful context.

Who should read this: people working on deuteron photodisintegration and few-body dynamics. It is a specialized but legitimate contribution. My recommendation: send it to review, but with a request for major revision. The authors need to specify exactly how the yields are formed, whether and how the background is subtracted, and provide a systematic error budget plus a data table. If that is done, the paper will be a solid contribution. As written, the central claim is plausible but not fully backed.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a measurement of the tensor analyzing power T20 in the reaction γd → pn using the DEUTERON setup at the VEPP-3 storage ring, with a tagged quasi-real photon beam, an internal tensor-polarized deuterium gas target, and coincidence detection of the proton and neutron. Data cover photon energies Eγ = 350–680 MeV and proton angles Θp = 70°–102°. T20 is extracted from the polarization asymmetry using Eq. (3), with event selection based on the azimuthal opening angle ΔΦ ≈ 180°, validated by GEANT4+GENBOS simulations. The measured T20 is positive and decreases from about 0.65 near 150–200 MeV to about 0.35 near 500–600 MeV, and is compared with several meson-baryon calculations, including a model developed by the authors. A theoretical analysis of the sensitivity of T20 to the deuteron internal momentum is also presented. The paper claims generally satisfactory agreement with modern meson-baryon calculations, while also stating that the current statistical uncertainty does not yet allow an unambiguous quantitative assessment.

Significance. If the measurement is correct, these are the first T20 data for γd → pn in the 350–680 MeV region from the upgraded VEPP-3 setup, and they provide new constraints on deuteron photodisintegration models above the pion threshold, where model predictions start to diverge. The use of a tagged photon beam, the rapid polarization reversal, and the detailed GEANT4+GENBOS validation of the event selection are strengths of the experimental approach. The internal-momentum sensitivity analysis is also a useful model-based contribution. However, the paper's central claims are weakened by the absence of any systematic uncertainty budget, the reliance of the absolute T20 scale on a theoretically calibrated polarimeter without an independent cross-check, and the qualitative, by-eye comparison of data with models. These issues must be addressed before the measurements can be used to discriminate between theoretical predictions.

major comments (4)

[Sec. III, Eq. (3)] The extraction formula (3) uses experimental yields N±, but the paper never specifies whether these yields are background-subtracted or how the signal region is defined. The Monte Carlo comparison in Figs. 3 and 4 shows an irreducible background dominated by γd → π0pn that contributes under the ΔΦ signal peak, and the blue background curves are not removed from the reported yields. If N± include this background, the extracted T20 becomes a weighted mixture of the photodisintegration asymmetry and the background asymmetry, which can bias both the magnitude and the energy dependence shown in Fig. 8. The authors should state the exact definition of N±, provide a background-subtracted extraction or a quantitative estimate of the background asymmetry, and include the resulting systematic uncertainty in the quoted errors.
[Sec. II] The absolute scale of every T20 point rests on the Low-Q polarimeter calibration, which uses theoretically calculated T20 values for elastic ed scattering to convert measured asymmetries into Pzz. The text gives Pzz = 0.39 ± 0.03 and −0.66 ± 0.05 but does not state whether these uncertainties include the theoretical uncertainty of the elastic-scattering T20 input. Since Eq. (3) is linear in Pzz, any error in the polarimeter calibration propagates directly into every extracted T20 value and affects the comparison with the models in Fig. 8. An independent cross-check of the polarization scale, or at least a quantitative estimate of the theoretical polarimeter uncertainty, is needed before the reported absolute T20 values can be used as a stringent test of meson-baryon calculations.
[Sec. V, Fig. 8] The central comparison of the measured T20 with four theoretical models is made by eye, and the figure shows only statistical uncertainties. The paper provides no systematic uncertainty budget, no χ² values for the model-data comparison, and no discussion of which systematic effects were considered (e.g., tagging efficiency, detector acceptance, polarization uncertainty, background contamination, angular resolution). Moreover, the concluding section states that the current statistical uncertainty does not yet allow an unambiguous assessment of quantitative agreement, which is in tension with the abstract's claim of 'generally satisfactory agreement.' The authors should provide a full error budget, quantify the agreement with each model, and either temper the agreement claim or support it with quantitative measures.
[Sec. IV] The model used for the theoretical analysis is based on the separable Paris potential, whose stated range of applicability is limited to NN laboratory energies up to 300 MeV, while the data extend to Eγ = 680 MeV. The paper asserts that the contribution of the region above 300 MeV is insignificant, but no quantitative demonstration is provided. Since this model is used both to generate the comparison curves in Fig. 8 and to compute the internal-momentum sensitivity in Fig. 9, the authors should show convergence by, for example, comparing the full calculation with one truncated in the NN t-matrix energy, or by benchmarking against the coupled-channels model of Ref. [34] in the overlapping kinematics. Without this, the theoretical curves at Eγ > 300 MeV are not demonstrated to be reliable inputs for the conclusion that the data support the meson-baryon picture.

minor comments (4)

[Figs. 6, 7, 9] Several figures contain garbled axis labels and legend text (e.g., the unreadable tokens '/s48 /s46/s53' in Figs. 6 and 7 and the broken axis labels in Fig. 9); these figures must be regenerated with readable labels and legends.
[Eq. (6)] Equation (6) has a formatting problem: the numerator appears to contain an incomplete radical expression with 'Θ2R' and missing integral limits, making the definition of R(pc) ambiguous; please restate it with explicit limits and a properly typeset square root.
[Throughout] The notation for chi-square is inconsistent ('χ2/ndf' in Sec. III versus 'ndf' elsewhere), and there are typographical errors such as 'diﬀiculties' in Sec. V; a careful proofread is needed.
[Fig. 6 caption] The caption for Fig. 6 lists several observables and data references, but the correspondence between panels and Ref. [26]–[32] is not fully explicit; please indicate which data points in each panel are taken from which reference.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: T20 is extracted from measured yields via Eq. (3), the Pzz calibration is an external elastic-ed input, and the model comparison involves no fitted parameters.

full rationale

The central observable, T20 for γ⃗d→pn, is a measured quantity extracted from experimental yields N± using Eq. (3), which algebraically follows from Eq. (2). There is no parameter fitted to the new T20 data and then renamed as a prediction. The target polarization Pzz used in Eq. (3) is determined by the Low-Q polarimeter from elastic ed scattering asymmetries, using theoretically calculated T20 values for elastic ed; this is an external calibration input for a different reaction, not the same observable being derived from itself. The theoretical comparison in Fig. 8 includes independent calculations from Refs. [33] and [34] as well as the authors' own model, whose parameters (meson masses, coupling constants, cutoffs) are adopted from the Bonn potential and the Paris potential, not fitted to the presented data. Self-citations (e.g., Refs. [17], [18], [20], [21]) provide prior data, setup details, and model ancestry, but none are load-bearing circular justifications; the new measurement stands on its own experimental chain. The reader's concern about the absolute scale resting on the elastic-ed theoretical T20 is a calibration-sensitivity issue, not a circularity, since the target observable is not defined in terms of that input. The skeptic's background-subtraction concern is an experimental systematic and validity question, not a reduction of the derivation to its own inputs. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained and no circular step can be exhibited.

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

The central measurement itself uses no free parameters fitted in this paper. The absolute scale relies on three stated assumptions: identical integrated luminosity for the two polarization states, Low-Q polarimeter calibration against theoretical T20 from elastic ed scattering, and Monte Carlo background description. The theoretical model in Sec. IV imports meson masses, coupling constants, cutoffs, and the deuteron wave function from the Bonn and Paris potentials; these are prior-literature inputs rather than parameters fitted here. No new entities are introduced.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Identical integrated luminosity L for both target polarization states due to the 30 s sign reversal.
Used in Eqs. (2) and (3) to cancel L; if false, the extracted T20 is directly biased.
domain assumption Low-Q polarimeter calibration uses theoretically calculated T20 for elastic ed scattering to determine Pzz.
Sec. II; the absolute scale of the measured T20 inherits this theoretical input.
domain assumption GEANT4 and GENBOS correctly model detector response and background channels.
Sec. III; event selection relies on simulation comparison with chi2/ndf < 2, so mismodeled background would shift the yields.
domain assumption Meson-baryon model parameters from the Bonn OBEPQ and Paris PEST4 potentials remain applicable up to Eγ=680 MeV.
Sec. IV; the model is used beyond the strict range of the NN potential (300 MeV lab energy), with the paper arguing that the high-momentum contribution is insignificant.
standard math Equation (1) is the standard cross-section relation for a tensor-polarized target.
Basis for extracting T20; a standard textbook relation not derived in the paper.
domain assumption Tagged photons are quasi-real with Q2≈0 and energy resolution around 1 percent.
Sec. II; defines the kinematics and energy binning of the measurement.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tensor analyzing power $T_{20}$ in the reaction $\gamma \vec{d}\to pn$ at photon energies 350-680 MeV." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7C4JXKHN

@misc{pith2026260809169,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tensor analyzing power $T_20$ in the reaction $\gamma \vecd\to pn$ at photon energies 350-680 MeV},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7C4JXKHN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09169}
}

abstract

We present measurements of the tensor analyzing power $T_{20}$ in the reaction $\gamma {d}\to pn$ at photon energies $E_\gamma = 350$-$680$~MeV. The experiment was performed at the VEPP-3 storage ring using an internal tensor-polarized deuterium gas target and a tagged quasi-real photon beam. The data were obtained for proton emission angles $\Theta_p = 70^\circ$-$102^\circ$. Comparison with modern meson-baryon calculations shows generally satisfactory agreement within the present uncertainties. A theoretical analysis of an extended data set, covering the energy range from threshold to 680~MeV and including both the new data and the previous results from 2007, is presented.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09169 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Schematic view of the detector system used in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Distribution of the azimuthal angle difference [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Same as in Fig. 3, but for the case where the neutron [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Diagrammatic representation of the mechanisms of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Comparison of our model calculations (solid curves) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Tensor analyzing power [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8. Tensor analyzing power [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9. Left panel: Sensitivity function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

[34]

proach [34] more consistently accounts for the opening of the πN N channel above Eγ ≈ 140 MeV, particularly the retardation effects and the gauge invariance of the full current

(blue dashed), and the model used in the present work (pink dash-dotted). proach [34] more consistently accounts for the opening of the πN N channel above Eγ ≈ 140 MeV, particularly the retardation effects and the gauge invariance of the full current. As seen in the figure, in the energy region Eγ ≲ 150 MeV, all the considered models yield similar re- sul...

work page 2023
[1]

Machleidt and I

R. Machleidt and I. Slaus, J. Phys. G 27, R69 (2001)

work page 2001
[2]

V. F. Dmitriev et al. , Phys. Lett. B 157, 143 (1985)

work page 1985
[3]

B. B. Wojtsekhowski et al. , JETP Lett. 43, 733 (1986)

work page 1986
[4]

Gilman et al

R. Gilman et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 1733 (1990)

work page 1990
[5]

Bouwhuis et al

M. Bouwhuis et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 3755 (1999)

work page 1999
[6]

The et al

I. The et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 173 (1991)

1991
[7]

Abbott et al

D. Abbott et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 5053 (2000)

work page 2000

Show all 38 references

[8]

Garçon et al

M. Garçon et al. , Phys. Rev. C 49, 2516 (1994)

1994
[9]

Slifer and E

K. Slifer and E. Long, PoS(PSTP 2013)008 (2013); arXiv:1311.4835 [nucl-ex]

2013 arXiv
[10]

Poudel, A

J. Poudel, A. Bacchetta, J.-P. Chen, and N. Santiesteban, Eur. Phys. J. A 61, 81 (2025)

2025
[11]

Arenhövel and M

H. Arenhövel and M. Sanzone, Few Body Syst. Suppl. 3, 1 (1991)

1991
[12]

Schwamb, H

M. Schwamb, H. Arenhovel and P. Wilhelm, Few Body Syst. 19, 121 (1995)

1995
[13]

S. J. Brodsky and J. R. Hiller, Phys. Rev. D 46, 2141 (1992)

1992
[14]

G. R. Farrar, H. Zhang, and L. L. Frankfurt, Phys. Rev. D 49, 2429 (1994)

1994
[15]

Schulte et al

E. Schulte et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 102302 (2001)

2001
[16]

Wijesooriya et al

K. Wijesooriya et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 2975 (2001)

2001
[17]

I. A. Rachek et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 182303 (2007)

2007
[18]

Yu. V. Shestakov et al., Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 33, 2441023 (2024)

2024
[19]

J. M. Laget, Nucl. Phys. A 312, 265-290 (1978)

1978
[20]

M. I. Levchuk, Few-Body Syst. 19, 77 (1995)

1995
[21]

A. I. Fix, Phys. At. Nucl. 88, 1235 (2025)

2025
[22]

Machleidt, K

R. Machleidt, K. Holinde, and C. Elster, Phys. Rep. 149, 1 (1987)

1987
[23]

D. O. Riska, Phys. Scr. 31, 107 (1985)

1985
[24]

Lacombe et al

M. Lacombe et al. , Phys. Rev. C 21, 861 (1980)

1980
[25]

Haidenbauer and W

J. Haidenbauer and W. Plessas, Phys. Rev. C 30, 1822 (1984)

1984
[26]

Crawford, J

R. Crawford, J. Ahrens, S. Altieri, J. R. M. Annand, I. Anthony, G. Audit, R. Beck, A. Braghieri, N. D’Hose and S. Hall, et al. Nucl. Phys. A 603, 303 (1996)

1996
[27]

K. Baba, I. Endo, H. Fukuma, K. Inoue, T. Kawamoto, T. Ohsugi, Y. Sumi, T. Takeshita, S. Uehara and Y. Yano, et al. Phys. Rev. C 28, 286-293 (1983). [er- ratum: Phys. Rev. C 29, 672-672 (1984)]

1983
[28]

Dougan, V

P. Dougan, V. Ramsay and W. Stiefler, Z. Phys. A 276, 55-64 (1976)

1976
[29]

Bashkanov, S

M. Bashkanov, S. Kay, D. P. Watts, C. Mullen, S. Abt, P. Achenbach, P. Adlarson, F. Afzal, Z. Ahmed and C. S. Akondi, et al. Phys. Lett. B 789, 7-12 (2019)

2019
[30]

K. H. Althoff, G. Anton, B. Bock, D. Bour, P. Erbs, W. Ferber, H. Gelhausen, U. Hartel, W. Havenith and T. Jahnen, et al. Z. Phys. C 26, 175-179 (1984)

1984
[31]

Ikeda, I

H. Ikeda, I. Arai, H. Fujii, T. Fujii, H. Iwasaki, N. Ka- jiura, T. Kamae, K. Nakamura, T. Sumiyoshi and H. Takeda, et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 1321 (1979)

1979
[32]

Kamae, I

T. Kamae, I. Arai, T. Fujii, H. Ikeda, I. Kajiura, S. Kawabata, K. Nakamura, K. Ogawa, T. Takeda and Y. Watase, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 468 (1977)

1977
[33]

Schmitt and H

K.-M. Schmitt and H. Arenhövel, Few-Body Syst. 7, 95 (1989)

1989
[35]

Schwamb, Phys

M. Schwamb, Phys. Rep. 485, 109 (2010). 10

2010
[36]

Kang, Ph.D

Y. Kang, Ph.D. thesis, University of Bonn (1993)

1993
[37]

A. S. Rinat, Y. Starkand, E. Hammel and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Lett. B 80, 166 (1979)

1979
[38]

L. S. Kisslinger and H. Ito, Phys. Rev. C 36, 1747 (1987)

1987

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [34]

proach [34] more consistently accounts for the opening of the πN N channel above Eγ ≈ 140 MeV, particularly the retardation effects and the gauge invariance of the full current

(blue dashed), and the model used in the present work (pink dash-dotted). proach [34] more consistently accounts for the opening of the πN N channel above Eγ ≈ 140 MeV, particularly the retardation effects and the gauge invariance of the full current. As seen in the figure, in the energy region Eγ ≲ 150 MeV, all the considered models yield similar re- sul...

work page 2023

[2] [1]

Machleidt and I

R. Machleidt and I. Slaus, J. Phys. G 27, R69 (2001)

work page 2001

[3] [2]

V. F. Dmitriev et al. , Phys. Lett. B 157, 143 (1985)

work page 1985

[4] [3]

B. B. Wojtsekhowski et al. , JETP Lett. 43, 733 (1986)

work page 1986

[5] [4]

Gilman et al

R. Gilman et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 1733 (1990)

work page 1990

[6] [5]

Bouwhuis et al

M. Bouwhuis et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 3755 (1999)

work page 1999

[7] [6]

The et al

I. The et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 173 (1991)

1991

[8] [7]

Abbott et al

D. Abbott et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 5053 (2000)

work page 2000