Roles of $\Delta(1232)$, $N^*(1520)$, and $N^*(1650)$ resonances in $\gamma p\to \pi^0 \pi^0 p$ reaction within an effective Lagrangian approach

Cheng Chen; De-Min Li; En Wang; Ju-Jun Xie; Meng-Yuan Dai; Si-Wei Liu

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Roles of $\Delta(1232)$, $N^(1520)$, and $N^(1650)$ resonances in $\gamma p\to \pi^0 \pi^0 p$ reaction within an effective Lagrangian approach

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A minimal effective-Lagrangian model with $\Delta(1232)$, $N^*(1520)$, and $N^*(1650)$ reproduces the measured $\gamma p\to\pi^0\pi^0 p$ differential cross sections.

desk verdict Useful but assumption-heavy first fit to new LEPS2/BGOegg data; the extracted rho-N-N* couplings are plausible but not yet secure. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.15153 v1 pith:BK6GZCZI submitted 2025-01-25 hep-ph nucl-th

Meng-Yuan Dai , Si-Wei Liu , Cheng Chen , De-Min Li , En Wang , Ju-Jun Xie This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phnucl-th PACS 13.60.Le25.20.Lj14.20.Gk

keywords gammaptopi0photoproductioneffectiveLagrangianapproachDelta(1232)N*(1520)N*(1650)rhomesonexchangebaryonresonancecouplingsscalarmesonsf0(500)andf0(980)

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

The paper sets out to identify which baryon resonances carry the near-threshold reaction $\gamma p\to\pi^0\pi^0 p$ and through which mechanisms. It claims that the measured $\pi^0 p$ invariant-mass spectrum is well reproduced by a tree-level effective Lagrangian containing only three intermediate resonances: $\Delta(1232)$ produced by an $s$-channel nucleon pole, and $N^*(1520)$ and $N^*(1650)$ produced by $t$-channel $\rho^0$ exchange. If that assignment is right, the reaction becomes a clean place to extract the $\rho N N^*$ couplings and to separate the $\Delta(1232)$ contribution from the excited-nucleon background. The paper also treats its $\pi^0\pi^0$ spectrum as a background against which future data could expose the scalar mesons $f_0(500)$ and $f_0(980)$.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a set of tree-level Feynman diagrams built from effective Lagrangians. The $s$-channel diagram has a nucleon pole emitting a $\pi^0$ and leaving a resonance $R$ that decays to $\pi^0 p$; the $t$-channel diagram exchanges a $\rho^0$ that converts into a $\pi^0$ and a resonance. The vertices are the $\gamma pp$, $\rho\gamma\pi$, $\pi N R$, and $\rho N R$ interactions, with spin-1/2 and spin-3/2 propagators and a contact term $\Gamma_c^\mu=\not p_1\,p_2^\mu/(p_1\cdot p_2)$ that enforces $p_1\cdot M_{\rm total}=0$. Off-shell behavior is controlled by form factors with cutoffs $\Lambda_\rho=1.3$ GeV and $\Lambda=1.0$-$2.0$ GeV. The cross section is the sum of five squared amplitudes plus a fitted constant background $c_2$, with all interference terms set to zero.

What would settle it

Refit the same $\pi^0 p$ invariant-mass data with a model that keeps the interference terms and the $s$-channel $N^*$ amplitudes using the same Lagrangians; if the best-fit $\rho N N^*$ couplings move by more than a few units or the description improves substantially, the paper's neglect of those terms is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the recent differential cross sections for $\gamma p\to\pi^0\pi^0 p$ in the energy range $1898<W<2320$ MeV can be reproduced without invoking scalar mesons. The mechanism is an effective Lagrangian with the $\Delta(1232)$ resonance fed by a nucleon-pole $s$-channel diagram and the $N^*(1520)$ and $N^*(1650)$ resonances fed by $t$-channel $\rho^0$ exchange. Interference between resonances is dropped, the $s$-channel $N^*$ amplitudes are declared negligible, and all remaining contributions are absorbed into a constant background. The fit fixes $g_{\rho N N^*(1520)}=33.34$ and $g_{\rho N N^*(1650)}=30.37$, and the paper asserts that $\Delta(1232)$ production is dominated by the $s$-channel while the two excited nucleons are produced by $\rho$ exchange.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands on the assumption that the contributions left out—interference between the three resonances, the $s$-channel $N^*(1520)$ and $N^*(1650)$ amplitudes, and everything else not captured by the fitted constants—are genuinely small enough to ignore.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The resonance-role assignment can be carried into other $\gamma p$ reactions: $\Delta(1232)$ bumps should appear through nucleon-pole mechanisms, while low-lying $N^*$ bumps should appear through $\rho$ exchange.
The extracted couplings $g_{\rho N N^*(1520)}=33.34$ and $g_{\rho N N^*(1650)}=30.37$ become quantitative inputs or comparison points for models of $\rho$ exchange in pion- and photon-induced reactions.
The $\pi^0\pi^0$ invariant-mass calculation, which contains no scalar mesons, supplies a background estimate; improved data could isolate $f_0(500)$ and $f_0(980)$ signals above it.
Future data in the same energy range will test whether a single constant background remains adequate or whether the missing interference terms appear as visible structure.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: a direct refit that keeps interference among the three resonances would test the uniqueness of the role assignment; if the couplings shift materially, the extracted values are not stable.
Editorial inference: the $\rho N N^*$ couplings could be checked against analyses of $\pi^- p\to\rho^0 n$ or $\gamma p\to\rho^0 p$, where the same vertex appears.
Editorial inference: the two overall factors $C_{\rm low}$ and $C_{\rm high}$ may absorb part of the scalar-meson signals in the $\pi^0\pi^0$ spectrum, so separating $f_0(500)$ and $f_0(980)$ will need data with smaller uncertainties.
Editorial inference: applying the same template to the $\gamma n\to\pi^0\pi^0 n$ channel would test the isospin structure of the $\rho N N^*$ vertices.

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

The genuinely new piece is the extraction of g_rho NN*(1520) ~ 33.3 and g_rho NN*(1650) ~ 30.4 from the pi0p invariant mass spectrum, and I don't think those numbers appear elsewhere. The paper does what it claims at the level of "we can reproduce the measured pi0p distribution with these mechanisms." The formalism is standard but cleanly laid out, the fit captures the three bumps, and the authors are upfront about leaving f0(500)/f0(980) for later work. They also state plainly that c1 and c2 are global scales and that interferences are ignored.

The soft spot is load-bearing and is exactly what the stress test flags. Equation (33) sums five absolute-square terms plus a constant, with all cross terms set to zero, and the text says the s-channel N* contributions are "rather small" without showing any number or plot. Those same amplitudes feed the same final pi0p states, so relative phases can shift line shapes substantially; assuming them away could easily move the extracted couplings by more than their apparent precision. On top of that, the two rhoNN* couplings are the only physically meaningful parameters, and they are fitted to one reaction's shape with no uncertainty estimate. The pi0pi0 spectra are not predictions: Clow and Chigh are tuned to the same data. So the central claim that Delta production is s-channel and N* production is t-channel should be read as a model-dependent suggestion, not a demonstrated result.

Who is this for? Hadron phenomenologists working on two-pion photoproduction and baryon resonance couplings. They will find the calculation useful even if they don't trust the headline numbers. I would send it to a referee, not desk reject, because the calculation is reproducible and the data are new. But I would ask for a quantitative statement of the neglected s-channel and interference terms, and an uncertainty estimate on the couplings, before endorsing the mechanism assignment.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents an effective-Lagrangian calculation of γp→π0π0p in the range 1898<W<2320 MeV, including Δ(1232), N*(1520), and N*(1650) intermediate resonances decaying to π0p through s-channel nucleon-pole and t-channel ρ0-exchange mechanisms. The authors fix several couplings from decay widths, then adjust the ρNN* couplings and normalization/background constants to reproduce the LEPS2/BGOegg π0p invariant-mass distribution. They report good agreement, assign Δ(1232) production mainly to the s-channel nucleon pole and N*(1520)/N*(1650) production mainly to t-channel ρ exchange, and quote g_ρNN*(1520)=33.34 and g_ρNN*(1650)=30.37. A comparison with the π0π0 invariant-mass spectra is also made using separate low- and high-energy normalization factors.

Significance. If the central claims were secure, the extracted ρNN* couplings would be useful quantitative inputs for other reactions, and the paper would strengthen the case that double-pion photoproduction can discriminate reaction mechanisms. The paper has clear strengths: it uses a well-established effective-Lagrangian framework, includes a gauge-invariance-preserving contact term, and confronts a recent experimental data set. However, the central conclusions currently rest on two unquantified model assumptions—zero interference between resonances and negligible s-channel N* contributions—and on parameters fitted to the same data used for the claimed reproduction, with no quoted uncertainties. These issues are load-bearing, so the paper requires substantial revision before the conclusions can be accepted.

major comments (4)

[Section III, Eq. (33)] Equation (33) defines |M_total|^2 as a sum of squares of five amplitudes and states that interference terms between different resonances are ignored. Since all five amplitudes describe the same final π0π0p state, this is a dynamical assumption rather than a kinematic simplification. The extracted couplings and the t-channel-dominance claim depend directly on this assumption. The authors should either justify it numerically by showing that the interference contributions are small, or include them and demonstrate that the conclusions are unchanged.
[Section III, text after Eq. (33)] The statement that the s-channel N*(1520) and N*(1650) contributions are "rather small and can be also ignored" is not supported by any numerical evidence. Moreover, Eq. (33) still contains these terms, so it is unclear whether they were included in or dropped from the fit. This matters because if they are dropped, the model space changes and the fitted g_ρNN* values could absorb the omitted strength. Please report the relative size of each term in Eq. (33) and specify exactly which amplitude was used to produce Figs. 3–5.
[Section III, fitted parameters] The central quantitative outputs, g_ρNN*(1520)=33.34 and g_ρNN*(1650)=30.37, are obtained by adjusting these couplings together with c1 and c2 to the same LEPS2/BGOegg π0p mass distribution that the paper claims to reproduce. No uncertainties, covariance, or goodness-of-fit statistic are given. Without an error estimate, the reader cannot judge whether the extracted couplings are meaningful or whether the agreement in Fig. 3 is a consequence of parameter freedom. Please provide a fit-quality measure and parameter uncertainties, including a study of correlations with the cutoff parameters.
[Section III, Figs. 4–5 and Eq. (35)] The comparison with the π0π0 invariant-mass spectra is not a prediction: the factors Clow=0.68 and Chigh=0.77 are determined from the same experimental spectra through Eq. (35). The abstract's claim that "current experimental measurements can be well reproduced" should therefore be qualified as applying to the π0p spectrum and to a constrained comparison for π0π0. This is an overclaim in the presentation of the results and should be corrected.

minor comments (5)

[General] There are several typographical errors: "usded" in Section II, "One the other hand" and "he values" in Section III, and "Sect ." in the Introduction. These should be corrected.
[Section II, Eq. (14)] The nonlocal γ5(γμ - qμ/q/q^2) term in the N*(1650)ρN vertex is unusual and deserves a reference or a brief justification; as written it is unclear whether this term introduces an additional off-shell dependence that affects the fitted coupling.
[Section III, Eq. (29) and Fig. 2] The phase-space integration variables are not fully defined; in particular, the relation between the solid angles Ω1, Ω*_2 and the Jacobian of the transformation would benefit from an explicit statement.
[Section II, form factors] The cutoff parameters Λρ=1.3 GeV, ΛΔ=1.0 GeV, ΛN*=2.0 GeV, and Λp=1.1 GeV are taken from previous work, but no sensitivity study is presented. A short discussion of how the main results depend on these choices would improve confidence in the extracted couplings.
[Section III, Fig. 3] The 15% experimental uncertainty band is displayed in Fig. 3 but not discussed in the text; the authors should state explicitly whether the theoretical curve lies within this band over the entire fitted range.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the ρNN* couplings are fitted to the same π0p data that are then said to be 'well reproduced', and the claimed s-channel-Δ / t-channel-N* roles are fixed by dropping the s-channel N* amplitudes in the amplitude ansatz.

fitted input called prediction [Sec. II (after Eq. (14)) and Sec. III (after Eq. (33))]
"Since the mass threshold of ρN is higher than the masses of ∆(1232), N ∗(1520), and N ∗(1650) resonances, the coupling constants gρN R can not be extracted from the decay widths, and will be determined with the current experimental data in following. ... The theoretical numerical results are obtained with c1 = 1.08×106, c2 = 5.14 × 102, and the coupling constants gρN N∗(1520) = 33.34 and gρN N∗(1650) = 30.37."

The two quantitative outputs of the paper, gρNN*(1520) and gρNN*(1650), are not derived or predicted: they are fit parameters determined from the LEPS2/BGOegg π0p data. The subsequent statement that 'the current experimental measurements can be well reproduced' is therefore a restatement of the fit to those same data, not an independent validation. The π0π0 spectra provide a partial cross-check from the same reaction, but their comparison is also rescaled by additional data-derived factors c1, c2, Clow, and Chigh.
self definitional [Sec. III, after Eq. (33); Sec. IV Summary]
"where the interference terms between different resonances are ignored. Besides, it is found that the contributions of the N ∗(1520) and N ∗(1650) resonances in the s-channel are rather small and can be also ignored. ... the contributions of the ∆(1232) in the s-channel and the N ∗(1520) and N ∗(1650) in the t-channel are dominated."

The central role-assignment claim is built into the model definition. Equation (33) constructs |Mtotal|2 as a sum of absolute squares with all interference terms set to zero, and the text then drops the N*(1520) and N*(1650) s-channel amplitudes as 'rather small'. Once those terms are removed, the only surviving N* mechanism is t-channel ρ exchange, so the abstract's and Summary's conclusion that N*(1520) and N*(1650) are 'produced from the mechanism of the t-channel ρ exchange' is an input of the calculation, not a result inferred from the data. No numerical comparison that retains the dropped amplitudes is shown.

full rationale

This is not a case of a load-bearing self-citation chain: the effective Lagrangians, propagators, and form factors are standard ingredients cited to the literature, including the authors' previous work, but the key couplings are fitted rather than imported. The circularity is more specific. First, the ρNN* couplings are explicitly said to be 'determined with the current experimental data', and the abstract's claim that the data 'can be well reproduced' is therefore a fit-quality statement for the π0p distribution, not an independent prediction. Second, the paper's headline mechanism claim follows from Eq. (33) plus the unquantified assertion that the s-channel N* contributions are negligible: with interference terms discarded and s-channel N* terms dropped, the only N* mechanism left is t-channel ρ exchange. The π0π0 invariant-mass comparison is a mildly independent projection of the same fitted amplitude, but it is additionally normalized to that data set with Clow and Chigh. Thus the central quantitative outputs and the central mechanism conclusion are substantially imposed by the fit and by the amplitude ansatz, giving partial circularity. The paper is transparent about fitting, but the presentation of fitted agreement and of ansatz-imposed roles as 'found' results is what raises the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a fairly large set of inputs: three resonance masses and widths from the PDG, coupling constants g_pi N R from decay widths, g_rho pi gamma from the rho to pi gamma width, form factor cutoffs from earlier papers, and the fitted parameters listed above. No new entities are invented. The count of free parameters is high relative to the constraining power of the data, and several model assumptions (no interferences, negligible s-channel N* contributions, constant background) are adopted without demonstration.

free parameters (10)

g_rho N N*(1520) = 33.34
Fitted to LEPS2/BGOegg pi0 p invariant mass data; cannot be extracted from decay widths because the rho N threshold is higher than the resonance masses.
g_rho N N*(1650) = 30.37
Fitted to LEPS2/BGOegg pi0 p invariant mass data; same extraction issue as for N*(1520).
c1 = 1.08 x 10^6
Global scale factor introduced in Eq. (33) to match the theoretical differential cross sections to the experimental signal yields.
c2 = 5.14 x 10^2
Constant background term added to |M_total|^2 in Eq. (33) to match the experimental signal yields.
Clow = 0.68
Overall factor for the lower-energy pi0 pi0 invariant mass region, set to reproduce the experimental area ratio 0.75 between high and low energy regions.
Chigh = 0.77
Overall factor for the higher-energy pi0 pi0 invariant mass region, set to reproduce the experimental area ratio.
Lambda_rho = 1.3 GeV
Cutoff for the rho meson exchange form factor, taken from Ref. [84]; chosen by hand but not fitted here.
Lambda_Delta = 1.0 GeV
Cutoff for the Delta(1232) baryon form factor, taken from Ref. [120].
Lambda_N* = 2.0 GeV
Cutoff for the N*(1520) and N*(1650) form factors, taken from Refs. [85, 120].
Lambda_p = 1.1 GeV
Cutoff for the proton pole form factor, taken from Ref. [81].

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The reaction is described by tree-level Feynman diagrams with the given effective Lagrangians and Breit-Wigner propagators for the resonances.
Used throughout Sec. II; no loop or unitarization corrections are considered.
ad hoc to paper Interference terms between different resonances are zero, so |M_total|^2 is a sum of squares.
Stated after Eq. (33): 'the interference terms between different resonances are ignored.' This model assumption affects the shape of the invariant mass spectra.
ad hoc to paper The s-channel N*(1520) and N*(1650) contributions are negligible.
Asserted in Sec. III after Eq. (33): 'it is found that the contributions ... are rather small and can be also ignored', with no numerical demonstration.
ad hoc to paper A constant term c2 accounts for all other background contributions.
Introduced in Eq. (33) to match the experimental signal yields.
domain assumption The form factor parametrizations and cutoffs from Refs. [81, 84, 85, 120] are valid for this reaction.
Used in Eqs. (27)-(28); these are taken from prior literature and not derived or tested here.
domain assumption The experimental counting factors (the 73% event survival and the area ratio 0.75) are correctly propagated into the theoretical comparison.
Used in Sec. III for the pi0 pi0 spectra; the treatment introduces the Clow and Chigh factors.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Roles of $\Delta(1232)$, $N^*(1520)$, and $N^*(1650)$ resonances in $\gamma p\to \pi^0 \pi^0 p$ reaction within an effective Lagrangian approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BK6GZCZI

@misc{pith2026250115153,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Roles of $\Delta(1232)$, $N^*(1520)$, and $N^*(1650)$ resonances in $\gamma p\to \pi^0 \pi^0 p$ reaction within an effective Lagrangian approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BK6GZCZI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.15153}
}

abstract

Roles of the $\Delta (1232)$, ${N}^{*}(1520)$, and ${N}^{*}(1650)$ resonances in the $\gamma p\to{\pi }^{0}{\pi }^{0}p $ reaction near threshold is investigated within an effective Lagrangian approach. We have calculated the differential cross sections of the $\gamma p\to{\pi }^{0}{\pi }^{0}p$ reaction by including the contributions from the $\Delta (1232)$, ${N}^{*}(1520)$, and ${N}^{*}(1650)$ intermediate states decaying into $\pi^0 p$ via the $s$-channel nucleon pole and $t$-channel $\rho$ exchange, and found that the current experimental measurements can be well reproduced. The production of $\Delta(1232)$ is mainly from the mechanism of the $s$-channel nucleon pole, while the ${N}^{*}(1520)$ and ${N}^{*}(1650)$ are produced from the mechanism of the $t$-channel $\rho$ exchange. It is expected that more experimental data on the $\gamma p \to \pi^0 \pi^0 p$ reaction can be used to explore the properties of the low-lying excited baryon states and also the scalar $f_0(500)$ and $f_0(980)$ mesons.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.15153 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: Definitions of the variables in the phase space integration of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: Invariant mass distribution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4: Invariant mass spectra for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5: As in Fig. 4, but for the invariant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

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

Role of $K^*_0(700)$ exchange in the $p \bar{p} \to \Lambda \bar{\Lambda}$ reaction
hep-ph 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Meson-exchange fits of p pbar -> Lambda Lambdabar favor scalar K*_0(700) exchange over K and K*(892) exchange, when combined with a fitted vector resonance.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

130 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Navas et al

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

2024
[2]

Klempt and J.-M

E. Klempt and J.-M. Richard, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1095 (2010), arXiv:0901.2055 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2010
[3]

Crede and W

V . Crede and W. Roberts, Rept. Prog. Phys.76, 076301 (2013), arXiv:1302.7299 [nucl-ex]

arXiv 2013
[4]

Wang, L.-S

E. Wang, L.-S. Geng, J.-J. Wu, J.-J. Xie, and B.-S. Zou, Chin. Phys. Lett. 41, 101401 (2024), arXiv:2406.07839 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2024
[5]

Isgur and G

N. Isgur and G. Karl, Phys. Rev. D 18, 4187 (1978)

1978
[6]

Capstick and N

S. Capstick and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. D 34, 2809 (1986)

1986
[7]

Capstick and W

S. Capstick and W. Roberts, Phys. Rev. D 49, 4570 (1994), arXiv:nucl-th/9310030

arXiv 1994
[8]

Loring, B

U. Loring, B. C. Metsch, and H. R. Petry, Eur. Phys. J. A 10, 395 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0103289

arXiv 2001

Show all 130 references

[9]

Capstick and W

S. Capstick and W. Roberts, Phys. Rev. D 47, 1994 (1993)

1993
[10]

Shrestha and D

M. Shrestha and D. M. Manley, Phys. Rev. C 86, 055203 (2012), arXiv:1208.2710 [hep-ph]

2012 arXiv
[11]

B. S. Zou, Chin. Phys. C 33, 1113 (2009), arXiv:0907.4567 [nucl-th]

2009 arXiv
[12]

Zhong, M.-S

H.-H. Zhong, M.-S. Liu, R.-H. Ni, M.-Y . Chen, X.-H. Zhong, and Q. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 110, 116034 (2024), arXiv:2409.07998 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[13]

Sekihara, T

T. Sekihara, T. Arai, J. Yamagata-Sekihara, and S. Yasui, Phys. Rev. C 93, 035204 (2016), arXiv:1511.01200 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[14]

An and B

C. An and B. Saghai, Phys. Rev. C 84, 045204 (2011), arXiv:1108.3282 [nucl-th]

2011 arXiv
[15]

Abdel-Samad et al

S. Abdel-Samad et al. (COSY-TOF), Phys. Lett. B 632, 27 (2006)

2006
[16]

Abd El-Samad et al

S. Abd El-Samad et al. (TOF), Phys. Lett. B 688, 142 (2010), arXiv:1003.0603 [nucl-ex]

2010 arXiv
[17]

Li, S.-W

Y . Li, S.-W. Liu, E. Wang, D.-M. Li, L.-S. Geng, and J.-J. Xie, Phys. Rev. D 110, 074010 (2024), arXiv:2406.01209 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[18]

Huang, M

F. Huang, M. Doring, H. Haberzettl, J. Haidenbauer, C. Han- hart, S. Krewald, U. G. Meissner, and K. Nakayama, Phys. Rev. C 85, 054003 (2012), arXiv:1110.3833 [nucl-th]

2012 arXiv
[19]

Markov et al

N. Markov et al. (CLAS), Phys. Rev. C 101, 015208 (2020), arXiv:1907.11974 [nucl-ex]

2020
[20]

E. L. Isupov et al. (CLAS), Phys. Rev. C105, L022201 (2022), arXiv:2112.07732 [nucl-ex]

2022 arXiv
[21]

M. Mai, M. D ¨oring, C. Granados, H. Haberzettl, J. Her- genrather, U.-G. Meißner, D. R ¨onchen, I. Strakovsky, and R. Workman (J ¨ulich-Bonn-Washington), Phys. Rev. C 106, 015201 (2022), arXiv:2111.04774 [nucl-th]

2022 arXiv
[22]

Zhong and Q

X.-H. Zhong and Q. Zhao, Phys. Rev. C 84, 045207 (2011), arXiv:1106.2892 [nucl-th]

2011 arXiv
[23]

Suh, S.-H

J.-M. Suh, S.-H. Kim, and H.-C. Kim, Phys. Rev. D 99, 074010 (2019), arXiv:1810.05056 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[24]

Huang and K

F. Huang and K. Nakayama, Chin. Phys. C 33, 1291 (2009)

2009
[25]

Zhong and Q

X.-H. Zhong and Q. Zhao, Phys. Rev. C 84, 065204 (2011), arXiv:1110.5466 [nucl-th]

2011 arXiv
[26]

Huang, H

F. Huang, H. Haberzettl, and K. Nakayama, Phys. Rev. C 87, 054004 (2013), arXiv:1208.2279 [nucl-th]

2013 arXiv
[27]

Williams et al

M. Williams et al. (CLAS), Phys. Rev. C 80, 065209 (2009), arXiv:0908.2911 [nucl-ex]

2009 arXiv
[28]

Williams et al

M. Williams et al. (CLAS), Phys. Rev. C 80, 065208 (2009), arXiv:0908.2910 [nucl-ex]

2009 arXiv
[29]

Denisenko, A

I. Denisenko, A. V . Anisovich, V . Crede, H. Eberhardt, E. Klempt, V . A. Nikonov, A. V . Sarantsev, H. Schmieden, U. Thoma, and A. Wilson, Phys. Lett. B 755, 97 (2016), arXiv:1601.06092 [nucl-ex]

2016 arXiv
[30]

N. C. Wei, F. Huang, K. Nakayama, and D. M. Li, Phys. Rev. D 100, 114026 (2019), arXiv:1908.01139 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[31]

Kiswandhi, J.-J

A. Kiswandhi, J.-J. Xie, and S. N. Yang, Phys. Lett. B 691, 214 (2010), arXiv:1005.2105 [hep-ph]

2010 arXiv
[32]

S. N. Yang, A. Kiswandhi, and J.-J. Xie, AIP Conf. Proc. 1388, 246 (2011), arXiv:1108.1677 [nucl-th]

2011 arXiv
[33]

B. Dey, C. A. Meyer, M. Bellis, and M. Williams (CLAS), Phys. Rev. C 89, 055208 (2014), [Addendum: Phys.Rev.C 90, 019901 (2014)], arXiv:1403.2110 [nucl-ex]

2014 arXiv
[34]

Xie, Few Body Syst

J.-J. Xie, Few Body Syst. 59, 124 (2018)

2018
[35]

S.-H. Kim, T. S. H. Lee, S.-i. Nam, and Y . Oh, Phys. Rev. C 104, 045202 (2021), arXiv:2108.12039 [nucl-th]

2021 arXiv
[36]

S.-M. Wu, F. Wang, and B.-S. Zou, Phys. Rev. C 108, 045201 (2023), arXiv:2306.15385 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[37]

de la Puente, O

A. de la Puente, O. V . Maxwell, and B. A. Raue, Phys. Rev. C 80, 065205 (2009), arXiv:0809.3805 [nucl-th]

2009 arXiv
[38]

A. V . Anisovich, R. Beck, V . Burkert, E. Klempt, M. E. McCracken, V . A. Nikonov, A. V . Sarantsev, R. A. Schu- macher, and U. Thoma, Eur. Phys. J. A 50, 129 (2014), arXiv:1404.4587 [nucl-ex]

2014 arXiv
[39]

A. V . Anisovich et al. , Eur. Phys. J. A 53, 242 (2017), arXiv:1712.07537 [nucl-ex]

2017 arXiv
[40]

B. C. Hunt and D. M. Manley, Phys. Rev. C99, 055204 (2019), arXiv:1804.07422 [nucl-ex]

2019 arXiv
[41]

Kim and H.-C

S.-H. Kim and H.-C. Kim, Phys. Lett. B 786, 156 (2018), arXiv:1806.01992 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[42]

Mart and M

T. Mart and M. J. Kholili, J. Phys. G 46, 105112 (2019)

2019
[43]

Petrellis and D

D. Petrellis and D. Skoupil, Phys. Rev. C 110, 065204 (2024)

2024
[44]

Oh and H

Y . Oh and H. Kim, Phys. Rev. C73, 065202 (2006), arXiv:hep- ph/0602112

2006
[45]

Kim, S.-i

S.-H. Kim, S.-i. Nam, Y . Oh, and H.-C. Kim, Phys. Rev. D 84, 114023 (2011), arXiv:1110.6515 [hep-ph]

2011 arXiv
[46]

Tang et al

W. Tang et al. (CLAS), Phys. Rev. C 87, 065204 (2013), arXiv:1303.2615 [nucl-ex]

2013 arXiv
[47]

S.-H. Kim, A. Hosaka, and H.-C. Kim, Phys. Rev. D 90, 014021 (2014), arXiv:1402.1753 [hep-ph]

2014 arXiv
[48]

A. C. Wang, W. L. Wang, F. Huang, H. Haberzettl, and K. Nakayama, Phys. Rev. C 96, 035206 (2017), arXiv:1704.04562 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[49]

A.-C. Wang, F. Huang, W.-L. Wang, and G.-X. Peng, Phys. Rev. C 102, 015203 (2020), arXiv:1902.05267 [nucl-th]

2020 arXiv
[50]

Kim, S.-i

S.-H. Kim, S.-i. Nam, A. Hosaka, and H.-C. Kim, Phys. Rev. D 88, 054012 (2013), arXiv:1211.6285 [hep-ph]

2013 arXiv
[51]

Wang, W.-L

A.-C. Wang, W.-L. Wang, and F. Huang, Phys. Rev. C 98, 045209 (2018), arXiv:1810.07012 [nucl-th]

2018 arXiv
[52]

Ben, A.-C

D. Ben, A.-C. Wang, F. Huang, and B.-S. Zou, Phys. Rev. C 108, 065201 (2023), arXiv:2302.14308 [nucl-th] . 8

2023 arXiv
[53]

Niiyama et al

M. Niiyama et al. , Phys. Rev. C 78, 035202 (2008), arXiv:0805.4051 [hep-ex]

2008 arXiv
[54]

Kim, S.-i

S.-H. Kim, S.-i. Nam, D. Jido, and H.-C. Kim, Phys. Rev. D 96, 014003 (2017), arXiv:1702.08645 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[55]

Zhang and F

Y . Zhang and F. Huang, Phys. Rev. C 103, 025207 (2021), arXiv:2102.10404 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[56]

Wang, J.-J

E. Wang, J.-J. Xie, W.-H. Liang, F.-K. Guo, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. C 95, 015205 (2017), arXiv:1610.07117 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[57]

Y . Oh, C. M. Ko, and K. Nakayama, Phys. Rev. C77, 045204 (2008), arXiv:0712.4285 [nucl-th]

2008 arXiv
[58]

Gao, J.-J

P. Gao, J.-J. Wu, and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. C 81, 055203 (2010), arXiv:1001.0805 [nucl-th]

2010 arXiv
[59]

Chen and B.-S

Y .-H. Chen and B.-S. Zou, Phys. Rev. C 88, 024304 (2013), arXiv:1302.5466 [nucl-th]

2013 arXiv
[60]

He, Phys

J. He, Phys. Rev. C 89, 055204 (2014), arXiv:1311.0571 [nucl-th]

2014 arXiv
[61]

X.-Y . Wang, J. He, and H. Haberzettl, Phys. Rev. C 93, 045204 (2016), arXiv:1511.04262 [nucl-th]

2016 arXiv
[62]

Wang, W.-L

A.-C. Wang, W.-L. Wang, and F. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 101, 074025 (2020), arXiv:2002.04213 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[63]

Kohri et al

H. Kohri et al. (LEPS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 172001 (2010), arXiv:0906.0197 [hep-ex]

2010 arXiv
[64]

Nam and C.-W

S.-i. Nam and C.-W. Kao, Phys. Rev. C 81, 055206 (2010), arXiv:1003.0700 [hep-ph]

2010 arXiv
[65]

Xie and J

J.-J. Xie and J. Nieves, Phys. Rev. C 82, 045205 (2010), arXiv:1007.3141 [nucl-th]

2010 arXiv
[66]

He and X.-R

J. He and X.-R. Chen, Phys. Rev. C 86, 035204 (2012), arXiv:1209.4138 [nucl-th]

2012 arXiv
[67]

J.-J. Xie, E. Wang, and J. Nieves, Phys. Rev. C 89, 015203 (2014), arXiv:1309.7135 [nucl-th]

2014 arXiv
[68]

J.-J. Xie, E. Wang, B.-C. Liu, and J. Nieves, Int. J. Mod. Phys. Conf. Ser. 29, 1460244 (2014), arXiv:1311.0439 [nucl-th]

2014 arXiv
[69]

Wang, J.-J

E. Wang, J.-J. Xie, and J. Nieves, Phys. Rev. C 90, 065203 (2014), arXiv:1405.3142 [nucl-th]

2014 arXiv
[70]

He, Nucl

J. He, Nucl. Phys. A 927, 24 (2014), arXiv:1405.1145 [nucl- th]

2014 arXiv
[71]

N.-C. Wei, Y . Zhang, F. Huang, and D.-M. Li, Phys. Rev. D 103, 034007 (2021), arXiv:2101.08988 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[72]

Muramatsu et al

N. Muramatsu et al. (LEPS2/BGOegg), Phys. Rev. C 107, L042201 (2023)

2023
[73]

Braghieri et al., Phys

A. Braghieri et al., Phys. Lett. B 363, 46 (1995)

1995
[74]

Harter, J

F. Harter, J. Ahrens, R. Beck, M. Schmitz, H. Stroher, T. Walcher, B. Krusche, V . Metag, and M. Wolf, Phys. Lett. B 401, 229 (1997)

1997
[75]

Wolf et al., Eur

M. Wolf et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 9, 5 (2000)

2000
[76]

Battaglieri et al

M. Battaglieri et al. (CLAS), Phys. Rev. D80, 072005 (2009), arXiv:0907.1021 [hep-ex]

2009 arXiv
[77]

Sokhoyan et al

V . Sokhoyan et al. (CBELSA/TAPS), Eur. Phys. J. A 51, 95 (2015), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.A 51, 187 (2015)], arXiv:1507.02488 [nucl-ex]

2015 arXiv
[78]

C.-R. Ji, R. Kaminski, L. Lesniak, A. Szczepaniak, and R. Williams, Phys. Rev. C 58, 1205 (1998), arXiv:hep- ph/9710510

1998
[79]

Donnachie and Y

A. Donnachie and Y . S. Kalashnikova, Phys. Rev. C 93, 025203 (2016), arXiv:1507.07408 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[80]

Lee, H.-C

J.-H. Lee, H.-C. Kim, S.-H. Kim, H.-Y . Ryu, and B.-G. Yu, PTEP 2017, 093D05 (2017), arXiv:1608.01508 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[81]

Xing, C.-S

H. Xing, C.-S. An, J.-J. Xie, and G. Li, Phys. Rev. D 98, 094007 (2018), arXiv:1807.11151 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[82]

Wei, A.-C

N.-C. Wei, A.-C. Wang, and F. Huang, Phys. Rev. C 110, 025207 (2024), arXiv:2408.11352 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[83]

Xie, B.-S

J.-J. Xie, B.-S. Zou, and B.-C. Liu, Chin. Phys. Lett. 22, 2215 (2005)

2005
[84]

Xie and B.-S

J.-J. Xie and B.-S. Zou, Phys. Lett. B 649, 405 (2007), arXiv:nucl-th/0701021

2007 arXiv
[85]

Xie, B.-S

J.-J. Xie, B.-S. Zou, and H.-C. Chiang, Phys. Rev. C 77, 015206 (2008), arXiv:0705.3950 [nucl-th]

2008 arXiv
[86]

J.-j. Xie, C. Wilkin, and B.-s. Zou, Phys. Rev. C 77, 058202 (2008), arXiv:0802.2802 [nucl-th]

2008 arXiv
[87]

Xie and C

J.-J. Xie and C. Wilkin, Phys. Rev. C 82, 025210 (2010), arXiv:1005.2957 [nucl-th]

2010 arXiv
[88]

Liu and J.-J

B.-C. Liu and J.-J. Xie, Phys. Rev. C 85, 038201 (2012), arXiv:1112.5327 [nucl-th]

2012 arXiv
[89]

Liu and J.-J

B.-C. Liu and J.-J. Xie, Phys. Rev. C 86, 055202 (2012), arXiv:1211.4375 [hep-ph]

2012 arXiv
[90]

Xie and B.-C

J.-J. Xie and B.-C. Liu, Phys. Rev. C 87, 045210 (2013), arXiv:1302.0468 [nucl-th]

2013 arXiv
[91]

Xie, B.-C

J.-J. Xie, B.-C. Liu, and C.-S. An, Phys. Rev. C 88, 015203 (2013), arXiv:1307.3707 [nucl-th]

2013 arXiv
[92]

L ¨u, X.-H

Q.-F. L ¨u, X.-H. Liu, J.-J. Xie, and D.-M. Li, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 29, 1450012 (2014), arXiv:1312.5803 [hep-ph]

2014 arXiv
[93]

L ¨u, J.-J

Q.-F. L ¨u, J.-J. Xie, and D.-M. Li, Phys. Rev. C 90, 034002 (2014), arXiv:1404.6868 [hep-ph]

2014 arXiv
[94]

J.-J. Xie, E. Wang, and B.-S. Zou, Phys. Rev. C 90, 025207 (2014), arXiv:1405.5586 [nucl-th]

2014 arXiv
[95]

Xie, L.-S

J.-J. Xie, L.-S. Geng, and X.-R. Chen, Phys. Rev. C 90, 048201 (2014), arXiv:1407.7403 [nucl-th]

2014 arXiv
[96]

Xie, J.-J

J.-J. Xie, J.-J. Wu, and B.-S. Zou, Phys. Rev. C 90, 055204 (2014), arXiv:1407.7984 [nucl-th]

2014 arXiv
[97]

Wu, Q.-F

C.-Z. Wu, Q.-F. L ¨u, J.-J. Xie, and X.-R. Chen, Commun. Theor. Phys. 63, 215 (2015), arXiv:1409.7242 [nucl-th]

2015 arXiv
[98]

Cao and J.-J

X. Cao and J.-J. Xie, Chin. Phys. C 40, 083103 (2016), arXiv:1411.1493 [nucl-th]

2016 arXiv
[99]

X.-Y . Wang, X. Cao, J.-J. Xie, and X.-R. Chen, Phys. Rev. C 92, 015202 (2015), arXiv:1412.4895 [nucl-th]

2015 arXiv
[100]

Q.-F. L ¨u, R. Wang, J.-J. Xie, X.-R. Chen, and D.-M. Li, Phys. Rev. C 91, 035204 (2015), arXiv:1412.6272 [nucl-th]

2015 arXiv
[101]

Huang, J

Y . Huang, J. He, X.-R. Chen, R. Wang, J.-J. Xie, and H.- F. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 91, 065202 (2015), arXiv:1412.7947 [nucl-th]

2015 arXiv
[102]

Xiao, Q.-F

L.-Y . Xiao, Q.-F. L¨u, J.-J. Xie, and X.-H. Zhong, Eur. Phys. J. A 51, 130 (2015), arXiv:1504.07535 [nucl-th]

2015 arXiv
[103]

Xie, Y .-B

J.-J. Xie, Y .-B. Dong, and X. Cao, Phys. Rev. D 92, 034029 (2015), arXiv:1506.01133 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[104]

E. J. Garzon and J.-J. Xie, Phys. Rev. C 92, 035201 (2015), arXiv:1506.06834 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[105]

Xie, Phys

J.-J. Xie, Phys. Rev. C 92, 065203 (2015), arXiv:1509.06196 [nucl-th]

2015 arXiv
[106]

L ¨u, X.-Y

Q.-F. L ¨u, X.-Y . Wang, J.-J. Xie, X.-R. Chen, and Y .-B. Dong, Phys. Rev. D 93, 034009 (2016), arXiv:1510.06271 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[107]

Huang, J.-J

Y . Huang, J.-J. Xie, J. He, X. Chen, and H.-F. Zhang, Chin. Phys. C 40, 124104 (2016), arXiv:1604.05969 [nucl-th]

2016 arXiv
[108]

Cheng, J.-J

C. Cheng, J.-J. Xie, and X. Cao, Commun. Theor. Phys. 66, 675 (2016), arXiv:1609.00442 [nucl-th]

2016 arXiv
[109]

Huang, J

Y . Huang, J. He, J.-J. Xie, and L.-S. Geng, Phys. Rev. D 99, 014045 (2019), arXiv:1610.06994 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[110]

Zhang and J.-J

X. Zhang and J.-J. Xie, Commun. Theor. Phys.70, 060 (2018), arXiv:1712.05572 [nucl-th]

2018 arXiv
[111]

Zhang and J.-J

X. Zhang and J.-J. Xie, Chin. Phys. C 43, 064104 (2019), arXiv:1812.04242 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[112]

Zhou and J.-J

H. Zhou and J.-J. Xie, Commun. Theor. Phys. 72, 045202 (2020), arXiv:1911.06536 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[113]

H.-N. Wang, Q. Wang, and J.-J. Xie, Phys. Rev. D 106, 056022 (2022), arXiv:2206.14456 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[114]

Wang, L.-J

Y .-Y . Wang, L.-J. Liu, E. Wang, and D.-M. Li, Phys. Rev. D 95, 096015 (2017), arXiv:1701.06007 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[115]

Zhao, G.-Y

C.-G. Zhao, G.-Y . Wang, G.-N. Li, E. Wang, and D.-M. Li, Phys. Rev. D 99, 114014 (2019), arXiv:1904.08569 [hep-ph] . 9

2019 arXiv
[116]

V . E. Tarasov, W. J. Briscoe, W. Gradl, A. E. Kudryavt- sev, and I. I. Strakovsky, Phys. Rev. C 88, 035207 (2013), arXiv:1306.6618 [hep-ph]

2013 arXiv
[117]

Oh and T

Y .-s. Oh and T. S. H. Lee, Phys. Rev. C 69, 025201 (2004), arXiv:nucl-th/0306033

2004 arXiv
[118]

Y .-s. Oh, A. I. Titov, and T. S. H. Lee, Phys. Rev. C63, 025201 (2001), arXiv:nucl-th/0006057

2001 arXiv
[119]

B. S. Zou and F. Hussain, Phys. Rev. C 67, 015204 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0210164

2003 arXiv
[120]

L ¨u and D.-M

Q.-F. L ¨u and D.-M. Li, Chin. Phys. C 39, 113104 (2015), arXiv:1501.06266 [nucl-th]

2015 arXiv
[121]

Matsuyama, T

A. Matsuyama, T. Sato, and T. S. H. Lee, Phys. Rept. 439, 193 (2007), arXiv:nucl-th/0608051

2007 arXiv
[122]

A. Xu, R. Li, X. Luo, and H. Sun, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 1107 (2024), arXiv:2404.17088 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[123]

Tsushima, A

K. Tsushima, A. Sibirtsev, A. W. Thomas, and G. Q. Li, Phys. Rev. C 59, 369 (1999), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 61, 029903 (2000)], arXiv:nucl-th/9801063

1999 arXiv
[124]

Penner and U

G. Penner and U. Mosel, Phys. Rev. C 66, 055211 (2002), arXiv:nucl-th/0207066

2002 arXiv
[125]

Haberzettl, K

H. Haberzettl, K. Nakayama, and S. Krewald, Phys. Rev. C 74, 045202 (2006), arXiv:nucl-th/0605059

2006 arXiv
[126]

Shklyar, H

V . Shklyar, H. Lenske, and U. Mosel, Phys. Rev. C72, 015210 (2005), arXiv:nucl-th/0505010

2005 arXiv
[127]

Feuster and U

T. Feuster and U. Mosel, Phys. Rev. C 58, 457 (1998), arXiv:nucl-th/9708051

1998 arXiv
[128]

Brockmann and R

R. Brockmann and R. Machleidt, Phys. Rev. C 42, 1965 (1990)

1990
[129]

Machleidt, Adv

R. Machleidt, Adv. Nucl. Phys. 19, 189 (1989)

1989
[130]

Machleidt, K

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

1987

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Navas et al

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

2024

[2] [2]

Klempt and J.-M

E. Klempt and J.-M. Richard, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1095 (2010), arXiv:0901.2055 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2010

[3] [3]

Crede and W

V . Crede and W. Roberts, Rept. Prog. Phys.76, 076301 (2013), arXiv:1302.7299 [nucl-ex]

arXiv 2013

[4] [4]

Wang, L.-S

E. Wang, L.-S. Geng, J.-J. Wu, J.-J. Xie, and B.-S. Zou, Chin. Phys. Lett. 41, 101401 (2024), arXiv:2406.07839 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2024

[5] [5]

Isgur and G

N. Isgur and G. Karl, Phys. Rev. D 18, 4187 (1978)

1978

[6] [6]

Capstick and N

S. Capstick and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. D 34, 2809 (1986)

1986

[7] [7]

Capstick and W

S. Capstick and W. Roberts, Phys. Rev. D 49, 4570 (1994), arXiv:nucl-th/9310030

arXiv 1994

[8] [8]

Loring, B

U. Loring, B. C. Metsch, and H. R. Petry, Eur. Phys. J. A 10, 395 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0103289

arXiv 2001