Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 54 references

Bolstering up the existence of $P_s(2080)$

T0 review · 3 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 A hidden-strangeness nucleon resonance, the predicted $P_s(2080)$, is argued to decay most prominently to $K\Lambda(1405)$, with widths to $\pi N^*(1535)$ and $K\Sigma$ comparable to or larger than $\pi N$.

desk verdict A careful, fully detailed loop calculation that produces a concrete, testable signature for the hidden-strangeness partner of the Pc states, though its inputs are all from the authors' own model and it never touches data. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19559 v1 pith:KQFREU5E submitted 2024-12-27 hep-ph nucl-th

Breno Agatão , A. Vertel Nieto , K. P. Khemchandani , A. Martinez Torres , Seung-il Nam This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phnucl-th PACS 13.30.Eg14.20.Gk12.39.Fe
keywords hiddenstrangenesspentaquarkpartnerN*resonancepartialdecaywidthstriangularloopscoupled-channeldynamicsLambda(1405)vector-baryoninteraction
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 argues that the $J^P=3/2^-$ nucleon resonance at about 2070 MeV, predicted as a hidden-strangeness partner of the LHCb pentaquarks and named $P_s(2080)$, should have observable decays to channels that carry an excited baryon rather than a ground-state baryon. Using a triangular-loop mechanism, the authors compute partial widths to $\pi N$, $\eta N$, $K\Lambda$, $K\Sigma$, $\pi N^*(1535)$, $\pi N^*(1650)$, and $K\Lambda(1405)$. They find that the width to $K\Lambda(1405)$ is by far the largest of the pseudoscalar-baryon channels, and that $\pi N^*(1535)$ is comparable to $\pi N$. If correct, reactions whose final states descend from $\Lambda(1405)$, like $K\pi\Sigma$, would be promising search channels for this state, which is currently absent from the Particle Data Group listing.

What carries the argument

The calculation is carried by the triangular-loop amplitude in which $P_s$ first disintegrates into a vector-baryon pair, chiefly $K^*\Sigma$, at a vertex whose coupling is fixed by the dynamically generated pole, and then the vector converts into a pseudoscalar by exchanging a pseudoscalar or vector meson with the baryon before the final state forms. The loop integrals are reduced with Passarino-Veltman decomposition, and the amplitudes are regularized with form factors; the resonance couplings for $N^*(1535)$, $N^*(1650)$, and $\Lambda(1405)$ are taken from earlier coupled-channel studies. This machinery converts the model's vector-baryon pole into a concrete set of predictions for pseudoscalar-baryon and pseudoscalar-baryon-resonance widths.

What would settle it

Measure the ratio of partial widths for a $3/2^-$ nucleon resonance near 2.08 GeV decaying to $K\pi\Sigma$ versus $\pi N$ (for example, in $\gamma p \to K\pi\Sigma$ versus $\gamma p \to \pi N$ data); the paper predicts $K\Lambda(1405)\to K\pi\Sigma$ dominates at roughly four times $\pi N$, so a measured ratio near one or a null $K\pi\Sigma$ signal near threshold would rule out the triangular-loop dominance.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a $3/2^-$ nucleon resonance with hidden strangeness, $P_s(2080)$, generated from s-wave $\rho N$, $\omega N$, $\phi N$, $K^*\Lambda$, and $K^*\Sigma$ dynamics, decays to pseudoscalar-baryon and pseudoscalar-baryon-resonance channels with widths governed by triangular loops. The computed partial widths make $K\Lambda_1(1405)$ the largest pseudoscalar-baryon decay, with $\Gamma\simeq 17$ MeV, while combined $K\Lambda$ and $K\Sigma$ widths (about 3.7 and 4.4 MeV) exceed $\pi N$ (about 1.4 MeV), and $\pi N^*(1535)$ is comparable to $\pi N$. The implication the authors draw is that non-standard final states, especially those involving $\Lambda(1405)$, can serve as alternative probes of a state whose existence is not yet firmly established.

Load-bearing premise

All predicted widths assume that $P_s$ decays to pseudoscalar-baryon and pseudoscalar-resonance channels arise exclusively from triangular loops fed by the vector-baryon vertex, with no direct coupling of $P_s$ to a pseudoscalar and a baryon; if direct couplings exist at any appreciable size, every entry in Table II changes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • $P_s(2080)$ should be searched for in final states like $K\pi\Sigma$ produced through $\Lambda(1405)$, whose partial width is calculated to be about 17 MeV, the largest among pseudoscalar-baryon channels.
  • Non-strange final states such as $\pi N$ are not the dominant pseudoscalar-baryon signature: $K\Lambda$ and $K\Sigma$ widths are each several times larger than $\pi N$.
  • Including only the dominant primary vertex $K^*\Sigma$ reduces the $\pi N$ width by a factor of about 26, so all five vector-baryon channels are needed for reliable predictions.
  • The total width of $P_s(2080)$ receives about 35 MeV from the pseudoscalar-baryon channels studied here, to be added to the roughly 60–70 MeV from vector-baryon channels.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the predicted $K\Lambda(1405)$ dominance is real, then photoproduction or pion-induced reactions producing a $K$ plus a $\pi\Sigma$ pair near threshold should show an enhancement in the $K\pi\Sigma$ invariant mass around 2.08 GeV; this is a testable consequence the paper does not pursue.
  • A natural extension would be to compute cross sections for $\gamma p \to K\pi\Sigma$ and compare with existing CLAS or LEPS data, which would place the model under direct experimental pressure.
  • Because the paper assumes no direct $P_s\to PB$ or $P_s\to PR$ couplings, a lattice QCD calculation of the three-point functions for $\pi N$ and $K\Lambda(1405)$ at a $J^P=3/2^-$ nucleon mass near 2.08 GeV could independently check the dominant mechanism.
  • The method transfers directly to the charm sector: the same triangular-loop machinery could be used to predict decays of $P_c(4450)$-type states to $J/\psi$-like resonance channels, connecting the hidden-strangeness and hidden-charm spectra.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the decay properties of Ps(2080), a J^P = 3/2^- nucleon resonance near 2071 MeV previously obtained as a dynamically generated state from s-wave coupled-channel vector-baryon interactions in Refs. [32,33]. Using the five complex coupling constants of Ps to ρN, ωN, φN, K*Λ and K*Σ (Table I), the authors compute partial widths to vector-baryon channels (Table III) and, through the triangular loops of Fig. 2, to pseudoscalar-baryon and pseudoscalar-baryon-resonance channels (Table II), with both pseudoscalar and vector exchanges. The calculation uses effective Lagrangians based on hidden local symmetry and chiral symmetry, Passarino-Veltman decomposition of loop integrals, and a cutoff/form-factor regularization, with uncertainties estimated from three form factors, cutoffs of 600–850 MeV, and η-η' mixing angles. The central result is that Γ(KΛ1(1405)) is the largest pseudoscalar-baryon/PR width, and that Γ(πN*(1535)), Γ(πN*(1650)), Γ(KΛ) and Γ(KΣ) are comparable to Γ(πN), suggesting KπΣ and related final states as alternative signatures of the hidden-strangeness state.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a concrete and falsifiable experimental handle: final states such as KπΣ through Λ(1405) and πN*(1535) could be used to search for a hidden-strangeness partner of the LHCb Pc states, a direction not currently constrained by the PDG. The calculation is unusually transparent in its presentation of the amplitudes, loop integrals, coefficient definitions, and regularization choices, and the central values and uncertainties in Table II come from explicit averaging over form-factor shapes, cutoffs, and mixing angles. The main caveats are the absence of direct Ps→PB/PR couplings and the incomplete tabulation of some coefficients in Appendix C; both currently limit the confidence one can place in the headline ordering of Table II.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II, Eqs. (17)-(36); Table II] The amplitudes used for Ps→P'B' and Ps→P'R include only the triangular-loop diagrams of Fig. 2, with no direct Ps→PB or Ps→PR contact term. No power-counting or numerical estimate is given to justify that direct short-range amplitudes are subleading; the same hidden-strangeness component that produces the large g_Ps→K*Σ coupling can generate tree-level quark-rearrangement contributions to KΛ, KΣ, and Λ(1405) final states at similar order. Since Table II is ordered by Γ(KΛ1(1405)) ≈ 17 MeV, a few-MeV direct contribution could change the headline conclusion and the proposed KπΣ signature. A concrete test would be to compute the leading tree-level K*Σ→KΛ transition with the same hidden local symmetry Lagrangian used in Ref. [32], or to give a data-based bound on direct couplings; without such an estimate the loop-only assumption is unverified. The sensitivity to which diagrams are included is already significant: Sec. III reports that omitting the smaller VB channels changes Γ(πN) by a factor of about 26.
  2. [Appendix C] Appendix C states that only "some of the elements" of the coefficient vectors ccc(l)_F, ccc(l)_H, ccc(l)_J, ccc(l)_L, ccc(l)_M, and ccc(l)_N are provided, and the displayed entries contain ellipses. These coefficients enter Eqs. (25) and (36) and determine all entries of Table II, so the numerical results are not fully reproducible from the manuscript as it stands. The authors should either tabulate the complete coefficient sets or provide a supplementary file with the full expressions.
  3. [Sec. III, Eq. (7), Table III] The VB partial widths in Table III are presented after assuming a total width Γ_Ps ≈ 100 MeV, while the couplings of Table I were extracted from the model of Refs. [32,33], whose pole width is 60–70 MeV. Because Eq. (4) makes the extracted couplings depend on the assumed total width, the paper should specify whether the g_Ps→VB couplings are re-determined self-consistently when the ~35 MeV from the PB/PR channels is added; otherwise the estimate Γ_tot ≈ 100 MeV is an assumption rather than a derived consequence, and the consistency between Table I and Table III is unclear.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II, Eq. (6); Appendix A, Eq. (A12)] "Heavisde" should be "Heaviside" in both places.
  2. [Fig. 1 caption] "expectators" should be "spectators".
  3. [Sec. III, after Table II] "Using as an estimation" should be "Using as an estimate".
  4. [Abstract and Sec. I] The phrase "a spin-parity resonance J^P = 3/2^- N*" reads awkwardly; suggest "a nucleon resonance with spin-parity J^P = 3/2^-".

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

The partial-width calculation is a new model output built from fixed external inputs; the self-citations are provenance, not circularity.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: (i) take the J^P=3/2^- pole at ~2071 MeV and its vector-baryon couplings from the authors' earlier unitarized Bethe-Salpeter calculations (Refs. [32,33,43]); (ii) evaluate the triangular-loop diagrams of Fig. 2 using those couplings as fixed inputs; (iii) obtain the partial widths in Tables II and III. Each step is a genuine computation: the widths are squared amplitudes built from the stated effective Lagrangians, Passarino-Veltman reduced integrals, and a cut-off/form-factor average. Nothing in the final width table is fitted to the couplings or fed back to redefine the inputs; the couplings are held fixed from the earlier calculation. The paper candidly states that no N*(2080) is listed in the PDG and that the theoretical evidence comes from Ref. [32], so the 'bolstering' is a conditional theoretical consistency check rather than a proof that is secretly assuming its own conclusion. The absence of direct Ps->PB/PR couplings is a dynamical assumption and a genuine correctness risk, but omitting a class of diagrams is not equivalent to defining the output in terms of the input. Likewise, the resonance couplings g_R from Refs. [33,43,44] are external inputs, not fitted to the decay widths presented here, and the earlier predictions are externally testable in reactions like gamma p -> phi p and pi- p -> phi n. No self-definitional step and no fitted-input-called-prediction step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper is a decay-width calculation built on the authors' own prior framework. The central pole (mass, width, and all five VB couplings) and the resonance couplings for Λ(1405), N*(1535), N*(1650) come from Refs. [32,33,43,44]. The genuinely new content is the triangular-loop evaluation and the resulting partial widths, which are not fitted to data. The regularization scheme (cut-off 600-850 MeV, three form factors) and the η-η' mixing range are varied rather than fitted, and their spread is reported as the uncertainties in Table II.

free parameters (7)
  • Cut-off Lambda for loop regularization = varied 600-850 MeV (Appendix A says 600-900)
    Regulates the d3q triangular-loop integrals (Eq. (A12)); the spread across Lambda values is folded into the Table II standard deviations.
  • Form factor shape = Gaussian, Lorentzian, Heaviside
    Vertex regularization choice (Eq. (A12)), each normalized to equal integral (Eq. (A13)); results averaged over the three shapes.
  • eta-eta' mixing angle beta = -15 to -22 degrees
    Enters the pseudoscalar field matrix (Appendix B, Eq. (B1)); range taken from data in Refs. [40-42].
  • Assumed total width of Ps = ~100 MeV
    Used for the spectral-function convolution (Eqs. (7)-(9)) and the VB widths of Table III; the sum of Table III widths is ~65.5 MeV, so 100 MeV is an estimate, stated in Sec. III.
  • Pole mass and width of Ps = m = 2071 MeV, Gamma = 60-70 MeV
    Inputs from the authors' Ref. [32] pole position; not fitted in this paper but entirely model-based.
  • Ps to VB coupling constants = Table I values, e.g., g(K*Sigma) = 2.313 - i0.856
    Residues of the t-matrix of Refs. [32,33] via Eqs. (4)-(5); these carry the model dependence of all decay amplitudes.
  • Resonance couplings for Lambda(1405), N*(1535), N*(1650) = from Refs. [33,43,44]
    Inputs for Eq. (12); eta/eta' couplings rescaled by cos(beta)/sin(beta), an approximation stated in Sec. II.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The hidden local symmetry Lagrangian (Ref. [34]) with g = m_V/(2f_pi) and G = 3g^2/(4 pi^2 f_pi) describes the VB, VPP, PBB, and VVP vertices used in Eq. (10).
    Invoked for all vertices of the triangular loops in Sec. II (Eq. 10); its accuracy at the ~1 GeV scale sets the overall strength of the computed widths.
  • domain assumption The coupled-channel BSE of Refs. [32,33] genuinely produces a physical J^P = 3/2^- pole at ~2071 MeV with width 60-70 MeV, whose residue couplings are those of Table I.
    Everything in the paper hangs on this pole from the group's own earlier calculation; Sec. I states it as fact ('we benefit from the work of Ref. [32]').
  • domain assumption Ps decays to PB and PR final states exclusively through the VB triangular-loop diagrams of Fig. 2; no direct Ps-PB or Ps-PR coupling exists.
    All of Sec. II (Eqs. 17-36) and Table II rest on this; the hidden-strangeness quark content could in principle generate direct couplings.
  • standard math Passarino-Veltman decomposition, Cauchy's theorem for the dq0 integration, and the normalization of Eq. (A13) are valid for these loop integrals.
    The formal reduction in Appendix A; the numerics then depend on the cut-off regularization.
  • domain assumption s-wave dominance of the VB interaction and of the Ps coupling to the VB channels.
    The state is generated from s-wave dynamics (Eq. 3 projects onto S = 3/2, s-wave); all decay amplitudes are built from this assumption.
invented entities (1)
  • Ps(2080), a J^P = 3/2^- hidden-strangeness nucleon resonance at ~2070-2080 MeV. independent evidence
    purpose: Proposed strange analogue of the charmed Pc(4457) pentaquark; the object whose decay widths are computed and whose existence the title claims to bolster.
    Predicted in the authors' Ref. [32]; this paper supplies falsifiable decay signatures (KΛ(1405), πN*(1535), KΣ channels) and cites ambiguous experimental bumps in γp→φp, K+p→K+φp, π-p→φn (Refs. [27-30]), but no confirmed state exists yet.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bolstering up the existence of $P_s(2080)$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KQFREU5E

@misc{pith2026241219559,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bolstering up the existence of $P_s(2080)$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KQFREU5E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19559}
}
abstract

We present a detailed study of the partial decay widths of a spin-parity resonance $J^P=3/2^-$ $N^*$ with a mass of $\simeq$ 2070 MeV obtained from the coupled channel s wave vector-baryon $\rho N$, $\omega N$, $\phi N$, $K^*\Lambda$ and $K^*\Sigma$ dynamics. This state, which couples strongly to the $K^*\Sigma$ channel, corresponds to a nucleon with a hidden strange quark content, in analogy to the $P_c$ states discovered by the LHCb collaboration, and we denote it as $P_s(2080)$. A state with such a nature can decay to vector-baryon, pseudoscalar-baryon, and pseudoscalar-baryon resonance channels, involving triangular loops in the latter two cases. As we will show, the partial decay widths to pseudoscalar-baryon resonance channels, like $\pi N^*(1535)$, $\pi N^*(1650)$, $K\Lambda(1405)$, are comparable to those related to ground state baryons in the final state, like $\pi N$, $\eta N$, $K\Lambda$. In this way, reactions involving such lighter baryon resonances in the final state can be used as an alternative source of information on the properties of a $N^*$ with hidden strangeness.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.19559 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (Left) Vector exchange in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Decay mechanisms for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [17]

    De- cay behavior of the strange and beauty partners of Pc hadronic molecules

    Yong-Hui Lin, Chao-Wei Shen, and Bing-Song Zou. De- cay behavior of the strange and beauty partners of Pc hadronic molecules. Nucl. Phys. A , 980:21–31, 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [32]

    K. P. Khemchandani, H. Kaneko, H. Nagahiro, and A. Hosaka. Vector meson-Baryon dynamics and genera- tion of resonances. Phys. Rev. D , 83:114041, 2011

    work page 2011

  3. [1]

    Observation of J/ψp Resonances Consis- tent with Pentaquark States in Λ 0 b → J/ψK −p Decays

    Roel Aaij et al. Observation of J/ψp Resonances Consis- tent with Pentaquark States in Λ 0 b → J/ψK −p Decays. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 115:072001, 2015

    work page 2015

  4. [2]

    Model-independent evidence for J/ψp contributions to Λ0 b → J/ψpK − decays

    Roel Aaij et al. Model-independent evidence for J/ψp contributions to Λ0 b → J/ψpK − decays. Phys. Rev. Lett., 117(8):082002, 2016

    work page 2016

  5. [3]

    Observation of a narrow pentaquark state, Pc(4312)+, and of two-peak structure of the Pc(4450)+

    Roel Aaij et al. Observation of a narrow pentaquark state, Pc(4312)+, and of two-peak structure of the Pc(4450)+. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 122(22):222001, 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [4]

    Maiani, A

    L. Maiani, A. D. Polosa, and V. Riquer. The New Pen- taquarks in the Diquark Model. Phys. Lett. B , 749:289– 291, 2015

    work page 2015

  7. [5]

    L. Roca, J. Nieves, and E. Oset. LHCb pentaquark as a ¯D∗Σc − ¯D∗Σ∗ c molecular state. Phys. Rev. D , 92(9):094003, 2015

    work page 2015

  8. [6]

    Meißner, Wei Wang, and Zhi Yang

    Feng-Kun Guo, Ulf-G. Meißner, Wei Wang, and Zhi Yang. How to reveal the exotic nature of the P c(4450). Phys. Rev. D , 92(7):071502, 2015

    work page 2015

Show all 54 references
  1. [7]

    Understand- ing the newly observed heavy pentaquark candidates

    Xiao-Hai Liu, Qian Wang, and Qiang Zhao. Understand- ing the newly observed heavy pentaquark candidates. Phys. Lett. B , 757:231–236, 2016

    2016

  2. [8]

    Hidden-charm pentaquarks and Pc states

    Xin-Zhen Weng, Xiao-Lin Chen, Wei-Zhen Deng, and Shi-Lin Zhu. Hidden-charm pentaquarks and Pc states. Phys. Rev. D , 100(1):016014, 2019

    2019

  3. [9]

    Emergence of a complete heavy-quark spin symmetry multiplet: seven molecular pentaquarks in light of the latest LHCb analysis

    Ming-Zhu Liu, Ya-Wen Pan, Fang-Zheng Peng, Mario S´ anchez S´ anchez, Li-Sheng Geng, Atsushi Hosaka, and Manuel Pavon Valderrama. Emergence of a complete heavy-quark spin symmetry multiplet: seven molecular pentaquarks in light of the latest LHCb analysis. Phys. Rev. Lett., 12...

    2019

  4. [10]

    T. J. Burns and E. S. Swanson. Molecular interpreta- tion of the Pc(4440) and Pc(4457) states. Phys. Rev. D , 100(11):114033, 2019

    2019

  5. [11]

    Study of Pc(4457), Pc(4440), and Pc(4312) in a quasipotential Bethe-Salpeter equation approach

    Jun He. Study of Pc(4457), Pc(4440), and Pc(4312) in a quasipotential Bethe-Salpeter equation approach. Eur. Phys. J. C , 79(5):393, 2019

    2019

  6. [12]

    Exploring the molecular scenario of Pc(4312) , Pc(4440) , and Pc(4457)

    Cheng-Jian Xiao, Yin Huang, Yu-Bing Dong, Li-Sheng Geng, and Dian-Yong Chen. Exploring the molecular scenario of Pc(4312) , Pc(4440) , and Pc(4457). Phys. Rev. D, 100(1):014022, 2019

    2019

  7. [13]

    Zhi-Hui Guo and J. A. Oller. Anatomy of the newly observed hidden-charm pentaquark states: Pc(4312), Pc(4440) and Pc(4457). Phys. Lett. B, 793:144–149, 2019

    2019

  8. [14]

    Fern´ andez-Ram ´ ırez, A

    C. Fern´ andez-Ram ´ ırez, A. Pilloni, M. Albaladejo, A. Jackura, V. Mathieu, M. Mikhasenko, J. A. Silva- Castro, and A. P. Szczepaniak. Interpretation of the LHCb Pc(4312)+ Signal. Phys. Rev. Lett., 123(9):092001, 2019

    2019

  9. [15]

    Molina, E

    Jia-Jun Wu, R. Molina, E. Oset, and B. S. Zou. Predic- tion of narrow N ∗ and Λ∗ resonances with hidden charm above 4 GeV. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 105:232001, 2010

    2010

  10. [16]

    Nucleon resonances N (1875) and N (2100) as strange partners of LHCb pentaquarks

    Jun He. Nucleon resonances N (1875) and N (2100) as strange partners of LHCb pentaquarks. Phys. Rev. D , 95(7):074031, 2017

    2017

  11. [18]

    Evidence That the Deuteron Is Not an Elementary Particle

    Steven Weinberg. Evidence That the Deuteron Is Not an Elementary Particle. Phys. Rev., 137:B672–B678, 1965

    1965

  12. [19]

    Ramos and E

    A. Ramos and E. Oset. The role of vector-baryon chan- nels and resonances in the γp → K 0Σ+ and γn → K 0Σ0 reactions near the K ∗Λ threshold. Phys. Lett. B , 727:287–292, 2013

    2013

  13. [20]

    Is the nonmonotonic behavior in the cross section of phi pho- toproduction near threshold a signature of a resonance? Phys

    Alvin Kiswandhi, Ju-Jun Xie, and Shin Nan Yang. Is the nonmonotonic behavior in the cross section of phi pho- toproduction near threshold a signature of a resonance? Phys. Lett. B , 691:214–218, 2010

    2010

  14. [21]

    Ju-Jun Xie and J. Nieves. The role of the N ∗(2080) resonance in the ⃗ γp→ K +Λ(1520) reaction. Phys. Rev. C, 82:045205, 2010

    2010

  15. [22]

    Role of the N ∗(2080) in pp → pK +Λ(1520) and π−p → K 0Λ(1520) reactions

    Ju-Jun Xie and Bo-Chao Liu. Role of the N ∗(2080) in pp → pK +Λ(1520) and π−p → K 0Λ(1520) reactions. Phys. Rev. C , 87(4):045210, 2013

    2013

  16. [23]

    Near-threshold incoherent ϕ photoproduction on the deuteron: Searching for traces of a resonance

    Alvin Kiswandhi, Shin Nan Yang, and Yu Bing Dong. Near-threshold incoherent ϕ photoproduction on the deuteron: Searching for traces of a resonance. Phys. Rev. C, 94(1):015202, 2016

    2016

  17. [24]

    Search for a hidden strange baryon-meson bound state fromϕ production in a nuclear medium

    Haiyan Gao, Hongxia Huang, Tianbo Liu, Jialun Ping, Fan Wang, and Zhiwen Zhao. Search for a hidden strange baryon-meson bound state fromϕ production in a nuclear medium. Phys. Rev. C , 95(5):055202, 2017

    2017

  18. [25]

    Mibe et al

    T. Mibe et al. Diffractive phi-meson photoproduction on proton near threshold. Phys. Rev. Lett., 95:182001, 2005

    2005

  19. [26]

    B. Dey, C. A. Meyer, M. Bellis, and M Williams. Data analysis techniques, differential cross sections, and spin density matrix elements for the reaction γp → ϕp. Phys. Rev. C, 89(5):055208, 2014. [Addendum: Phys.Rev.C 90, 019901 (2014)]

    2014

  20. [27]

    Studies on the K ∗Σ bound-state via K +p → K +ϕ p

    Seung-Il Nam. Studies on the K ∗Σ bound-state via K +p → K +ϕ p. Phys. Rev. D , 103(5):054040, 2021

    2021

  21. [28]

    Strange molecular partners of Pc states in the γp → ϕp reaction

    Shu-Ming Wu, Fei Wang, and Bing-Song Zou. Strange molecular partners of Pc states in the γp → ϕp reaction. Phys. Rev. C , 108(4):045201, 2023

    2023

  22. [29]

    Prospects for detecting the hidden-strange pentaquark- like state N ∗(2080) in the π−p → ϕn reaction

    Xiao-Yun Wang, Hui-Fang Zhou, and Xiang Liu. Prospects for detecting the hidden-strange pentaquark- like state N ∗(2080) in the π−p → ϕn reaction. Phys. Rev. D, 110(1):014026, 2024

    2024

  23. [30]

    Effects of N (2080)3/2− and N (2270)3/2− molecules on K ∗Σ photoproduction

    Di Ben, Ai-Chao Wang, Fei Huang, and Bing-Song Zou. Effects of N (2080)3/2− and N (2270)3/2− molecules on K ∗Σ photoproduction. Phys. Rev. C , 108(6):065201, 2023

    2023

  24. [31]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. Review of particle physics. Phys. Rev. D , 110(3):030001, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    K. P. Khemchandani, A. Martinez Torres, H. Nagahiro, and A. Hosaka. Role of vector and pseudoscalar mesons in understanding 1/2−N ∗ and ∆ resonances. Phys. Rev. D, 88(11):114016, 2013

    2013

  26. [34]

    Nonlinear Realization and Hidden Local Symmetries

    Masako Bando, Taichiro Kugo, and Koichi Yamawaki. Nonlinear Realization and Hidden Local Symmetries. Phys. Rept., 164:217–314, 1988

    1988

  27. [35]

    Oset and A

    E. Oset and A. Ramos. Dynamically generated reso- nances from the vector octet-baryon octet interaction. Eur. Phys. J. A , 44:445–454, 2010

    2010

  28. [36]

    Sang-Ho Kim, K. P. Khemchandani, A. Martinez Torres, Seung-il Nam, and Atsushi Hosaka. Photoproduction of Λ∗ and Σ ∗ resonances with J P = 1 /2− off the proton. Phys. Rev. D , 103(11):114017, 2021

    2021

  29. [37]

    On a theory of particles with half integral spin

    William Rarita and Julian Schwinger. On a theory of particles with half integral spin. Phys. Rev., 60:61, 1941. 19

    1941

  30. [38]

    G. Ecker. Chiral perturbation theory. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 35:1–80, 1995

    1995

  31. [39]

    Bernard, Norbert Kaiser, and Ulf-G

    V. Bernard, Norbert Kaiser, and Ulf-G. Meissner. Chiral dynamics in nucleons and nuclei. Int. J. Mod. Phys. E , 4:193–346, 1995

    1995

  32. [40]

    Gilman and Russel Kauffman

    Frederick J. Gilman and Russel Kauffman. The eta Eta- prime Mixing Angle. Phys. Rev. D , 36:2761, 1987. [Er- ratum: Phys.Rev.D 37, 3348 (1988)]

    1988

  33. [41]

    Akhoury and J

    R. Akhoury and J. M. Frere. η, η′ Mixing and Anomalies. Phys. Lett. B , 220:258–264, 1989

    1989

  34. [42]

    Bramon, R

    A. Bramon, R. Escribano, and M. D. Scadron. Mixing of eta - eta-prime mesons in J / psi decays into a vector and a pseudoscalar meson. Phys. Lett. B , 403:339–343, 1997

    1997

  35. [43]

    K. P. Khemchandani, A. Martinez Torres, H. Kaneko, H. Nagahiro, and A. Hosaka. Coupling vector and pseu- doscalar mesons to study baryon resonances. Phys. Rev. D, 84:094018, 2011

    2011

  36. [44]

    K. P. Khemchandani, A. Mart ´ ınez Torres, and J. A. Oller. Hyperon resonances coupled to pseudoscalar- and vector-baryon channels. Phys. Rev. C , 100(1):015208, 2019

    2019

  37. [45]

    Passarino and M

    G. Passarino and M. J. G. Veltman. One Loop Correc- tions for e+ e- Annihilation Into mu+ mu- in the Wein- berg Model. Nucl. Phys. B , 160:151–207, 1979

    1979

  38. [46]

    Norbert Kaiser, P. B. Siegel, and W. Weise. Chiral dy- namics and the low-energy kaon - nucleon interaction. Nucl. Phys. A , 594:325–345, 1995

    1995

  39. [47]

    Oset and A

    E. Oset and A. Ramos. Nonperturbative chiral approach to s wave anti-K N interactions. Nucl. Phys. A , 635:99– 120, 1998

    1998

  40. [48]

    D. Jido, J. A. Oller, E. Oset, A. Ramos, and U. G. Meiss- ner. Chiral dynamics of the two Lambda(1405) states. Nucl. Phys. A , 725:181–200, 2003

    2003

  41. [49]

    Inoue, E

    T. Inoue, E. Oset, and M. J. Vicente Vacas. Chiral uni- tary approach to S wave meson baryon scattering in the strangeness S = O sector. Phys. Rev. C, 65:035204, 2002

    2002

  42. [50]

    Nieves and E

    J. Nieves and E. Ruiz Arriola. The S(11) - N(1535) and - N(1650) resonances in meson baryon unitarized cou- pled channel chiral perturbation theory. Phys. Rev. D , 64:116008, 2001

    2001

  43. [51]

    Bruns, Maxim Mai, and Ulf G

    Peter C. Bruns, Maxim Mai, and Ulf G. Meissner. Chi- ral dynamics of the S11(1535) and S11(1650) resonances revisited. Phys. Lett. B , 697:254–259, 2011

    2011

  44. [52]

    E. J. Garzon and E. Oset. Effects of pseudoscalar-baryon channels in the dynamically generated vector-baryon res- onances. Eur. Phys. J. A , 48:5, 2012

    2012

  45. [53]

    E. J. Garzon and E. Oset. Mixing of pseudoscalar- baryon and vector-baryon in the J P = 1/2− sector and the N ∗(1535) and N ∗(1650) resonances. Phys. Rev. C , 91(2):025201, 2015

    2015

  46. [54]

    Malabarba, K

    Brenda B. Malabarba, K. P. Khemchandani, and A. Mar- tinez Torres. ϕ(2170) decaying to ϕη and ϕη’. Phys. Rev. D, 108(3):036010, 2023

    2023

Pith tools

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