Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 43 references

Revisiting the $\Lambda_c^+ \to n\pi^+\eta$ decay in light of the BESIII measurement

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The missing $a_0(980)$ peak in $\Lambda_c^+\to n\pi^+\eta$ is explained by destructive interference, and the 1160 MeV bump is traced to the $N(1440)$ nucleon excitation.

desk verdict Competent chiral-unitary study of Lambda_c decay with a genuinely new model comparison, but the central N(1440) claim is not supported by the fit statistics. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05629 v1 pith:WQ2CV4A3 submitted 2026-08-06 hep-ph

Meng-Yuan Li , Jing Tang , Wen-Tao Lyu , Shi-Chen Xue , En Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords charmedbaryondecayLambda_c+->npi+etaa0(980)N(1535)N(1440)chiralunitaryapproachfinal-stateinteractionsCabibbo-suppressed
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 explain two features of the BESIII measurement of $\Lambda_c^+\to n\pi^+\eta$: the absence of a clear $a_0(980)$ signal where theory expects one, a tentative bump near 1160 MeV in the $\pi^+\eta$ mass spectrum, and a measured branching fraction roughly half of the SU(3) prediction. Using the chiral unitary approach, the authors fit three models to the BESIII data, combining a tree-level production term with dynamically generated $N(1535)$ and $a_0(980)$ resonances and, optionally, the explicit $a_2(1320)$ and $N(1440)$ states. They conclude that $a_0(980)$ is produced with significant strength but is hidden by destructive interference, which is why the coarsely binned experiment sees no peak, and that the spectrum is only reproduced in both the low- and high-mass regions once the $N(1440)$ nucleon excitation is included. The 1160 MeV bump is therefore interpreted as a kinematic reflection of the $N(1440)$ in the $\pi^+n$ channel rather than a new meson, and the paper calls for higher-precision measurements to quantify the $a_0(980)$ contribution.

What carries the argument

The carrying machinery is the unitarized coupled-channel amplitude of the chiral unitary approach, solved through the Bethe-Salpeter equation. Meson-baryon channels $\pi N$, $\eta N$, $K\Lambda$, and $K\Sigma$, regularized with a cutoff $q_{\rm max}=1150$ MeV, dynamically generate the $N(1535)$; meson-meson channels $K^+\bar K^0$ and $\pi^+\eta$, with a 600 MeV cutoff, generate the $a_0(980)$. All production is collapsed into a single strength $V_p$ multiplying SU(3) hadronization weights, so the three model amplitudes are $M_A=M_{\rm Tree}+M_{N(1535)}+M_{a_0(980)}$, $M_B=M_A+M_{a_2(1320)}e^{i\phi_1}$, and $M_C=M_A+M_{N(1440)}e^{i\phi_2}$, where the two relative phases are fitted. The destructive interference that hides the $a_0(980)$ lives in those fitted phases together with the relative signs of the hadronization weights.

What would settle it

Re-measure $\Lambda_c^+\to n\pi^+\eta$ with roughly 5 MeV bins and high statistics: the central claim fails if the $\pi^+\eta$ spectrum shows a resolved peak rather than a cusp near 1 GeV, or if the $\pi^+n$ spectrum shows no $N(1440)$ band near 1440 MeV. A complementary, theory-free check is the predicted near-threshold $N(1535)$ enhancement in the $\eta n$ spectrum.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the $\pi^+\eta$ invariant mass distribution of $\Lambda_c^+\to n\pi^+\eta$ is controlled by three dynamical ingredients acting together: the $N(1535)$ resonance generated dynamically by $S$-wave pseudoscalar meson–octet baryon interactions, the $a_0(980)$ generated by $S$-wave meson-meson interactions, and the explicit nucleon excitation $N(1440)$. The $a_0(980)$ enters with a substantial amplitude, but the interference among the tree-level, $N(1535)$, and $a_0(980)$ contributions is destructive in the 1 GeV region, so the resonance manifests as a small cusp that disappears at the experimental bin size of 33 MeV, consistent with the BESIII upper limit of 0.27 on the $a_0(980)$ fraction. The $N(1440)$ contribution is what allows the model to reproduce the low- and high-energy parts of the spectrum at once: adding it improves the $\chi^2$ per degree of freedom from 0.49 (Model A) to 0.34 (Model C), whereas adding the tensor meson $a_2(1320)$ does not help, with its fitted strength vanishingly small ($2.55\times 10^{-14}$) and the fit quality slightly worse (0.54). The authors further predict the $\eta n$ and $\pi^+n$ spectra and the Dalitz plots, and explicitly state that the current statistics and binning do not allow a reliable extraction of the $a_0(980)$ contribution fraction.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that all relevant production proceeds through one energy-independent strength $V_p$ multiplying fixed hadronization weights, with all energy dependence supplied by unitarized final-state amplitudes whose cutoffs are taken from earlier studies; if production varies with energy or other weak-emission diagrams contribute, the fitted phases and the inferred roles of $a_0(980)$ and $N(1440)$ are not uniquely determined.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The absence of a visible $a_0(980)$ peak in the current BESIII data should not be read as evidence against $a_0(980)$ production: on this model the resonance is produced with significant strength and is hidden by destructive interference.
  • The 1160 MeV bump in the $\pi^+\eta$ spectrum is a kinematic reflection of the $N(1440)$ resonance in the $\pi^+n$ channel, not a new meson decaying to $\pi^+\eta$.
  • The tensor meson $a_2(1320)$ is essentially irrelevant to this decay; its $D$-wave $\pi^+\eta$ contribution does not improve the description of the data.
  • The $\eta n$ invariant mass spectrum should show a near-threshold enhancement around 1535 MeV from $N(1535)$, and the $\pi^+n$ spectrum a clear $N(1440)$ band near 1440 MeV.
  • At higher statistics and finer binning, the $a_0(980)$ should appear as a cusp-like structure near 1 GeV, making its production fraction extractable and opening a window on the intrinsic nature of the $a_0(980)$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same recipe, a dynamically generated scalar resonance whose peak is erased by phase-adjusted interference, could explain missing scalar signals in other multibody charmed-baryon decays, where the fitted relative phase would carry information about the production mechanism.
  • If the predicted cusp is confirmed at fine binning, the $a_0(980)$ production fraction would likely sit near the value $R\approx 0.313$ from the authors' earlier paper, meaning the resonance is produced about as expected and only its visibility is suppressed, a statement future data can test against the BESIII bound of 0.27.
  • A re-analysis of the already-published BESIII events binned in $\pi^+n$ mass, even at 33 MeV resolution, could check the $N(1440)$ assignment, because the kinematic-reflection explanation predicts a specific correlation between the 1160 MeV bump and the $\pi^+n$ peak position.
  • The predicted near-threshold $N(1535)$ enhancement in $\eta n$ is a sharp, theory-free observational target: any experiment that reconstructs the $n\eta$ invariant mass can confirm or rule it out without additional modeling.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper revisits the weak decay Lambda_c+ -> n pi+ eta using the chiral unitary approach. The authors include a tree-level term, final-state interactions that dynamically generate N(1535) and a0(980), and explicit intermediate-resonance contributions from N(1440) and a2(1320). Three models are fitted to the 19 BESIII data points of the pi+eta invariant mass spectrum: Model A (tree plus final-state interactions), Model B (Model A plus a2(1320)), and Model C (Model A plus N(1440)). The authors claim that a0(980) contributes significantly, that a2(1320) does not improve the fit, and that N(1440) plays a crucial role, explaining the 1160 MeV bump as a kinematic reflection of N(1440) and the absence of a clear a0(980) peak through destructive interference. The paper also presents predictions for the eta n and pi+ n mass distributions and Dalitz plots.

Significance. If the central interpretation is correct, the paper would explain why BESIII sees no pronounced a0(980) signal in Lambda_c+ -> n pi+ eta and would attribute the 1160 MeV bump to the kinematic reflection of N(1440), with testable Dalitz-plot predictions. The model construction is clearly laid out, the three-model comparison is a sensible way to isolate the role of each resonance, and the paper is honest about the limited statistics and coarse bin size. However, the key comparative claim that N(1440) is crucial is not statistically supported by the reported fit quality, and one of the central amplitudes appears to have inconsistent arguments. The conclusions are therefore not yet established at the level claimed.

major comments (4)
  1. [§III, Table I] Table I reports chi2/d.o.f. = 0.49, 0.54, and 0.34 for Models A, B, and C, but the paper never reports the absolute chi2 values or a significance test for the model differences. With 19 data points, Model A has chi2 approximately 8.8 for 18 degrees of freedom, while Model C has chi2 approximately 5.4 for 16 degrees of freedom, so adding V_N(1440) and phi2 improves chi2 by only about 3.4 for two additional parameters, corresponding to p approximately 0.18. Information criteria do not favor Model C (AIC: 10.8 vs 11.4; BIC: 11.8 vs 14.3). Moreover, all three fits have chi2/d.o.f. below unity, which suggests that the experimental uncertainties are conservative or the bins are correlated, making raw chi2 differences even less interpretable. The statement that N(1440) plays a crucial role, and the attribution of the 1160 MeV bump to its kinematic reflection, therefore rest on a statistically insignificant improvement. Please report absolute chi2 values, parameter uncertainties, and a formal model-comparison test such as a likelihood-ratio test or information criteria.
  2. [Eq. (5), §II.A] Equation (5) evaluates the meson-baryon loop functions G at M_eta N but evaluates the transition amplitudes t_piN->etaN and t_KLambda->etaN at M_piN. Since the interacting meson-baryon pair has the same total four-momentum as the final eta n pair, the invariant mass of the rescattering chain is M_eta N, and the same argument should appear in G and t. As written, the amplitude is internally inconsistent, and the numerical results obtained from this model depend on this choice. Please correct the arguments or justify explicitly if a different evaluation point is intended.
  3. [§II.A, Eqs. (4)–(6)] The production amplitude is taken as a single constant V_p multiplying all tree and final-state-interaction contributions, with no energy dependence in the production vertex, no internal W-emission diagrams, and no other production mechanisms. The cutoffs q_max = 1150 MeV and q'_max = 600 MeV are imported from Refs. [35,39,40], and no sensitivity study of these choices is presented. Because the inferred destructive interference that suppresses the a0(980) signal and the attribution of the 1160 MeV bump to N(1440) depend on the relative sizes of the interfering amplitudes, these conclusions could be artifacts of the assumed production model and regularization. Please provide a robustness check, for example varying the cutoffs or adding an energy-dependent production factor, and demonstrate that the qualitative conclusions are stable under such changes.
  4. [Abstract and §III, Fig. 4(c)] The abstract states that a0(980) provides a significant contribution, but the paper does not quantify this contribution or its uncertainty. In Fig. 4(c) the a0(980) contribution appears as a small cusp largely washed out by destructive interference, and the abstract itself concedes that the precise contribution fraction cannot be extracted with the current bin size. Please provide the fitted contribution fraction, such as Gamma(Lambda_c+ -> n a0(980)+) / Gamma(Lambda_c+ -> n pi+ eta), with its uncertainty, or soften the significance claim to match what is actually demonstrated by the data.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§III] The text says that Model A cannot satisfactorily reproduce the low-energy region and that Model C yields a substantially better fit, but no per-bin residuals, pulls, or local chi2 contributions are shown. Please support these qualitative statements with quantitative diagnostics.
  2. [Table I] The fitted phases are reported as -0.68 pi and 0.47 pi, but the text does not state whether the phases are constrained to a particular interval or whether the sign convention has physical meaning. Please clarify the convention.
  3. [Figs. 5 and 6] The predictions for the eta n and pi+ n invariant mass distributions and the Dalitz plots are shown without any uncertainty bands from the fitted parameters. Adding such bands would make the predictions more useful for future experimental comparisons.
  4. [§III] The sentence introducing five free parameters is slightly misleading because no single model uses all five parameters at once; please rephrase to indicate that the parameters are introduced across the three models.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the model is fitted to external BESIII data and its unitarized amplitudes come from previously published, externally constrained work.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The only parameter fitted to the BESIII π+η spectrum is the overall production strength Vp, together with the production strengths and phases of the explicit N(1440) and a2(1320) contributions. The relative weights among the tree term, the dynamically generated N(1535), and a0(980) are fixed by SU(3) hadronization coefficients and by unitarized Bethe-Salpeter amplitudes whose cutoffs (qmax = 1150 MeV and q′max = 600 MeV) are imported from Refs. [35,39,40] rather than fitted here. These cutoffs were established in prior analyses against other hadronic data, so they constitute standard model input rather than an output of the present fit. Although Ref. [35] shares authors with this paper, it made a quantitative prediction (R ≈ 0.313) for this very decay before the BESIII measurement, and the BESIII upper limit is consistent with it; that is externally falsifiable evidence, not circular support. The claim that N(1440) plays a crucial role is a post-fit model comparison among Models A, B, and C using the same experimental spectrum; it is not a prediction of that spectrum. Even if the χ2 improvement is statistically marginal, that weakness concerns evidence strength and robustness, not circularity. The paper explicitly acknowledges the limitation that the 33 MeV binning and limited statistics prevent reliable extraction of the a0(980) contribution fraction, which further indicates that the fitted content is not being disguised as an independent derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central fit depends on the unitarized amplitudes generating N(1535) and a0(980) with cutoffs from prior self-cited analyses, a single global production strength Vp fitted to the same π+η spectrum being interpreted, and Breit-Wigner models for N(1440) and a2(1320) with RPP parameters. No genuinely new particles or entities are introduced; all states are known resonances.

free parameters (7)
  • V_p (production strength) = 0.072 (Model A), 0.070 (Model B), -0.097 (Model C)
    Overall normalization for all tree-level and FSI amplitudes; absorbs the weak decay dynamics. Fitted to the BESIII Mπ+η spectrum, so all quoted contributions inherit its fitted value.
  • V_a2(1320) = 2.55e-14 (Model B)
    Production strength of the D-wave a2(1320) amplitude; fitted value is effectively zero, supporting the conclusion that a2 does not improve the fit.
  • V_N(1440) = 0.17 (Model C)
    Production strength of the N(1440) amplitude; the key ingredient that improves the low- and high-energy description.
  • φ1 (phase of a2 term) = -0.68π (Model B)
    Relative phase between the a2 amplitude and the rest of the total amplitude; fit parameter.
  • φ2 (phase of N(1440) term) = 0.47π (Model C)
    Relative phase between N(1440) amplitude and the rest; fitted parameter.
  • qmax (meson-baryon cutoff) = 1150 MeV
    Regularization cutoff for the meson-baryon loop function; fixed to Ref. [39] (a prior fit by overlapping authors), not refit here, but controls the dynamically generated N(1535).
  • q'_max (meson-meson cutoff) = 600 MeV
    Regularization cutoff for the meson-meson loop function; taken from Refs [35,40]; controls the dynamically generated a0(980).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The N(1535) and a0(980) are dynamically generated by the unitarized Bethe-Salpeter amplitudes in the stated channels, with cutoffs qmax=1150 MeV and 600 MeV.
    The resonance interpretation of the fit is inherited from the chiral unitary framework, not derived in this paper; the cutoffs come from Refs [35,39,40].
  • domain assumption The weak decay amplitude is dominated by external W-emission hadronization with SU(3)-fixed weight coefficients, absorbed into one constant Vp (Eqs. (1)-(4)).
    Internal W-emission, penguin, and other production mechanisms are not included; if they contribute with different energy dependence, the decomposition fails.
  • domain assumption The N(1440) and a2(1320) amplitudes are modeled by the imaginary part of Breit-Wigner propagators with RPP masses and widths, using phase-space-averaged momenta (Eqs. (7)-(8)).
    These are compact ad hoc parameterizations taken from Refs [41,42], not derived from the unitary framework.
  • domain assumption The BESIII background-subtracted π+η spectrum from Ref. [36] is an unbiased representation of the signal distribution.
    The fit and all conclusions depend on the experimental spectrum as reported, including its limited statistics and 33 MeV binning.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Revisiting the $\Lambda_c^+ \to n\pi^+\eta$ decay in light of the BESIII measurement." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WQ2CV4A3

@misc{pith2026260805629,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Revisiting the $\Lambda_c^+ \to n\pi^+\eta$ decay in light of the BESIII measurement},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WQ2CV4A3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05629}
}
abstract

Motivated by the latest BESIII measurements on $\Lambda_c^+\to n\pi^+\eta$, we perform a systematic theoretical study of this decay. We take into account contributions from the $N(1535)$ state dynamically generated by $S$-wave pseudoscalar meson-octet baryon interactions, the $a_0(980)$ resonance originating from the $S$-wave pseudoscalar meson-pseudoscalar meson interactions, together with the intermediate states $N(1440)$ and $a_2(1320)$. Our results indicate that $a_0(980)$ provides a significant contribution to this process. The inclusion of $a_2(1320)$ hardly improves the fitting quality, while the nucleon resonances play a crucial role in describing the experimental behavior of the $\pi^+\eta$ invariant mass spectrum in both low and high energy regions. Restricted by insufficient experimental statistics and a coarse bin size of 33 MeV, the precise contribution fraction of $a_0(980)$ cannot be reliably extracted. We propose future higher-precision and higher-statistics experimental measurements of $\Lambda_c^+\to n\pi^+\eta$, which can help reveal the intrinsic nature of $a_0(980)$ and quantify the roles of different excited nucleon states in this decay.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05629 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Quark-level diagrams for the processes (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Mechanisms for the tree-level and rescattering processes in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Mechanisms for intermediate states: (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    F. E. Close and N. A. Tornqvist, J. Phys. G28(2002), R249-R267 doi:10.1088/0954-3899/28/10/201 [arXiv:hep- ph/0204205 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2002

  2. [2]

    Amsler and N

    C. Amsler and N. A. Tornqvist, Phys. Rept.389(2004), 61-117 doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2003.09.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2003.09.003 2004

  3. [3]

    Klempt and A

    E. Klempt and A. Zaitsev, Phys. Rept.454(2007), 1-202 doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2007.07.006 [arXiv:0708.4016 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2007

  4. [4]

    R. L. Jaffe, Phys. Rev. D15(1977), 267 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.15.267

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.15.267 1977

  5. [5]

    N. N. Achasov, Nucl. Phys. A675(2000), 279C-284C doi:10.1016/S0375-9474(00)00266-9 [arXiv:hep-ph/9910540 [hep-ph]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2000

  6. [6]

    Strong and electromagnetic decays of the light scalar mesons interpreted as tetraquark states

    F. Giacosa, Phys. Rev. D74(2006), 014028 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.014028 [arXiv:hep-ph/0605191 [hep-ph]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2006

  7. [7]

    C. J. Morningstar and M. J. Peardon, Phys. Rev. D60 (1999), 034509 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.60.034509 [arXiv:hep- lat/9901004 [hep-lat]]

    work page arXiv 1999

  8. [8]

    Y . Chen, A. Alexandru, S. J. Dong, T. Draper, I. Hor- vath, F. X. Lee, K. F. Liu, N. Mathur, C. Morningstar and M. Peardon,et al.Phys. Rev. D73(2006), 014516 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.014516 [arXiv:hep-lat/0510074 [hep-lat]]

    arXiv 2006

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    H. Y . Cheng, Conf. Proc. C060726(2006), 960-963 [arXiv:hep-ph/0609229 [hep-ph]]

    2006 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Janssen, B

    G. Janssen, B. C. Pearce, K. Holinde and J. Speth, Phys. Rev. D52(1995), 2690-2700 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.52.2690 [arXiv:nucl-th/9411021 [nucl-th]]

    1995 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Kaiser, P

    N. Kaiser, P. B. Siegel and W. Weise, Nucl. Phys. A594(1995), 325-345 doi:10.1016/0375-9474(95)00362-5 [arXiv:nucl-th/9505043 [nucl-th]]

    1995 arXiv

  4. [12]

    J. A. Oller and E. Oset, AIP Conf. Proc.432(1998) no.1, 824- 827 doi:10.1063/1.55984 [arXiv:hep-ph/9710554 [hep-ph]]

    1998 arXiv

  5. [13]

    J. R. Pel ´aez, A. Rodas and J. Ruiz de Elvira, Eur. Phys. J. ST230(2021) no.6, 1539-1574 doi:10.1140/epjs/s11734-021- 00142-9 [arXiv:2101.06506 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  6. [14]

    M. Y . Duan, J. Y . Wang, G. Y . Wang, E. Wang and D. M. Li, Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) no.11, 1041 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052- 020-08630-3 [arXiv:2008.10139 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  7. [15]

    X. C. Feng, L. L. Wei, M. Y . Duan, E. Wang and D. M. Li, Phys. Lett. B846(2023), 138185 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023.138185 [arXiv:2009.08600 [hep-ph]]

    2023

  8. [16]

    Z. Wang, Y . Y . Wang, E. Wang, D. M. Li and J. J. Xie, Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) no.9, 842 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020- 8347-2 [arXiv:2004.01438 [hep-ph]]. 7

    2020 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Black, A

    D. Black, A. H. Fariborz and J. Schechter, Phys. Rev. D61 (2000), 074001 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.61.074001 [arXiv:hep- ph/9907516 [hep-ph]]

    2000

  10. [18]

    Aaijet al.[LHCb], JHEP04(2019), 063 doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2019)063 [arXiv:1902.05884 [hep-ex]]

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], JHEP04(2019), 063 doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2019)063 [arXiv:1902.05884 [hep-ex]]

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    J. Y . Leeet al.[Belle], Phys. Rev. D103(2021) no.5, 052005 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.052005 [arXiv:2008.11575 [hep- ex]]

    2021 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys

    M. Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys. Rev. Lett.132(2024) no.13, 131903 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.131903 [arXiv:2309.05760 [hep-ex]]

    2024

  13. [21]

    Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys

    M. Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys. Rev. D110(2024) no.11, L111102 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.L111102 [arXiv:2404.09219 [hep-ex]]

    2024

  14. [22]

    Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys

    M. Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Phys. Rev. Lett.134(2025) no.2, 021901 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.021901 [arXiv:2407.12270 [hep-ex]]

    2025

  15. [23]

    Wuet al.[BESIII], [arXiv:2505.12086 [hep-ex]]

    J. Wuet al.[BESIII], [arXiv:2505.12086 [hep-ex]]

  16. [24]

    W. T. Lyu, S. W. Liu, J. J. Wu, D. M. Li and E. Wang, [arXiv:2606.04690 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    W. T. Lyu, L. L. Wei, D. M. Li and E. Wang, [arXiv:2508.04936 [hep-ph]]

  18. [26]

    X. H. Zhang, J. Y . Zhu, L. J. Liu and E. Wang, Phys. Rev. D112(2025) no.7, 074004 doi:10.1103/2nqy-k5lq [arXiv:2508.03493 [hep-ph]]

    2025

  19. [27]

    Ikeno, J

    N. Ikeno, J. M. Dias, W. H. Liang and E. Oset, Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024) no.5, 469 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12844-0 [arXiv:2402.04073 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    M. Y . Duan, W. T. Lyu, C. W. Xiao, E. Wang, J. J. Xie, D. Y . Chen and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D111(2025) no.1, 016004 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.016004 [arXiv:2410.16078 [hep- ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    J. J. Xie and L. S. Geng, Phys. Rev. D95(2017) no.7, 074024 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.074024 [arXiv:1703.09502 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  22. [30]

    J. J. Xie and L. S. Geng, Eur. Phys. J. C76(2016) no.9, 496 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4342-z [arXiv:1604.02756 [nucl-th]]

    2016 arXiv

  23. [31]

    G. Y . Wang, N. C. Wei, H. M. Yang, E. Wang, L. S. Geng and J. J. Xie, Phys. Rev. D106(2022) no.5, 056001 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.056001 [arXiv:2206.01425 [hep- ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    W. T. Lyu, S. C. Zhang, G. Y . Wang, J. J. Wu, E. Wang, L. S. Geng and J. J. Xie, Phys. Rev. D110(2024) no.5, 054020 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.054020 [arXiv:2405.09226 [hep- ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    E. Wang, L. S. Geng, J. J. Wu, J. J. Xie and B. S. Zou, Chin. Phys. Lett.41(2024) no.10, 101401 doi:10.1088/0256- 307X/41/10/101401 [arXiv:2406.07839 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    C. Q. Geng, C. W. Liu and S. L. Liu, Phys. Rev. D109(2024) no.9, 093002 [arXiv:2403.06469 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    M. Y . Li, W. T. Lyu, L. J. Liu and E. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 111(2025) no.3, 034046 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.034046 [arXiv:2501.02859 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Ablikimet al.[BESIII], [arXiv:2603.28232 [hep-ex]]

    M. Ablikimet al.[BESIII], [arXiv:2603.28232 [hep-ex]]

  29. [37]

    R. P. Pavao, W. H. Liang, J. Nieves and E. Oset, Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) no.4, 265 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-4836-3 [arXiv:1701.06914 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Miyahara, T

    K. Miyahara, T. Hyodo, M. Oka, J. Nieves and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. C95(2017) no.3, 035212 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.95.035212 [arXiv:1609.00895 [nucl- th]]

    2017 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Y . Li, S. W. Liu, E. Wang, D. M. Li, L. S. Geng and J. J. Xie, Phys. Rev. D110(2024) no.7, 074010 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.074010 [arXiv:2406.01209 [hep- ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    J. J. Xie, L. R. Dai and E. Oset, Phys. Lett. B742(2015), 363-369 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015.02.006 [arXiv:1409.0401 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  33. [41]

    E. Wang, H. X. Chen, L. S. Geng, D. M. Li and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D93(2016) no.9, 094001 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.094001 [arXiv:1512.01959 [hep- ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Y . Li, E. Wang, L. S. Geng and J. J. Xie, Phys. Rev. D113(2026) no.5, 054039 doi:10.1103/7tbd-7krm [arXiv:2601.13668 [hep-ph]]

    2026

  35. [43]

    Navaset al.[Particle Data Group], Phys

    S. Navaset al.[Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D110(2024) no.3, 030001 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.