Study of $\eta$ and $\eta'$ photoproduction at MAMI
V. L. Kashevarov, P. Ott, S. Prakhov, P. Adlarson, F. Afzal, Z. Ahmed,, C. S. Akondi, J. R. M. Annand, H. J. Arends, R. Beck, A. Braghieri, W. J., Briscoe, F. Cividini, R. Codling, C. Collicott, S. Costanza, A. Denig, E. J., Downie, M. Dieterle, M. I. Ferretti Bondy

TL;DR
This study measures $ o$ and $ o'$ photoproduction reactions at MAMI with high precision, revealing a cusp near the $ o'$ threshold and providing insights into the $N(1895)1/2^-$ resonance.
Contribution
It offers the first high-accuracy differential cross sections for these reactions and constrains the properties of the $N(1895)1/2^-$ resonance through a revised isobar model.
Findings
Observation of a cusp at the $ o'$ threshold
Confirmation of the $N(1895)1/2^-$ resonance's decay channels
Enhanced understanding of $ o$ and $ o'$ production mechanisms
Abstract
The reactions and have been measured from their thresholds up to the center-of-mass energy GeV with the tagged-photon facilities at the Mainz Microtron, MAMI. Differential cross sections were obtained with unprecedented accuracy, providing fine energy binning and full production-angle coverage. A strong cusp is observed in the total cross section and excitation functions for photoproduction at the energies in vicinity of the threshold, MeV (MeV). This behavior is explained in a revised MAID isobar model by a significant branching of the nucleon resonance to both, and , confirming the existence and constraining the properties of this poorly known state.
| Resonance | MBW[MeV] | [MeV] | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N(1535) | ||||
| *** | ||||
| N(1650) | ||||
| *** | ||||
| N(1895) | ||||
| * |
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
††thanks: [email protected]
A2 Collaboration at MAMI
Study of and photoproduction at MAMI
V. L. Kashevarov
Institut für Kernphysik, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, D-55099 Mainz,Germany
Lebedev Physical Institute, 119991 Moscow, Russia
P. Ott
Institut für Kernphysik, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, D-55099 Mainz,Germany
S. Prakhov
Institut für Kernphysik, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, D-55099 Mainz,Germany
The George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052-0001, USA
University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California 90095-1547, USA
P. Adlarson
Institut für Kernphysik, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, D-55099 Mainz,Germany
F. Afzal
Helmholtz-Institut für Strahlen- und Kernphysik, Universität Bonn, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
Z. Ahmed
University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan S4S 0A2, Canada
C. S. Akondi
Kent State University, Kent, Ohio 44242-0001, USA
J. R. M. Annand
SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, United Kingdom
H. J. Arends
Institut für Kernphysik, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, D-55099 Mainz,Germany
R. Beck
Helmholtz-Institut für Strahlen- und Kernphysik, Universität Bonn, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
A. Braghieri
INFN Sezione di Pavia, I-27100 Pavia, Italy
W. J. Briscoe
The George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052-0001, USA
F. Cividini
Institut für Kernphysik, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, D-55099 Mainz,Germany
R. Codling
SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, United Kingdom
C. Collicott
Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia B3H 4R2, Canada
Department of Astronomy and Physics, Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, Nova Scotia B3H 3C3, Canada
S. Costanza
INFN Sezione di Pavia, I-27100 Pavia, Italy
Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Pavia, I-27100 Pavia, Italy
A. Denig
Institut für Kernphysik, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, D-55099 Mainz,Germany
E. J. Downie
Institut für Kernphysik, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, D-55099 Mainz,Germany
The George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052-0001, USA
M. Dieterle
Departement für Physik, Universität Basel, CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland
M. I. Ferretti Bondy
Institut für Kernphysik, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, D-55099 Mainz,Germany
L. V. Fil’kov
Lebedev Physical Institute, 119991 Moscow, Russia
A. Fix
Laboratory of Mathematical Physics, Tomsk Polytechnic University, 634034 Tomsk, Russia
S. Gardner
SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, United Kingdom
S. Garni
Departement für Physik, Universität Basel, CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland
D. I. Glazier
SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, United Kingdom
SUPA School of Physics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, United Kingdom
D. Glowa
SUPA School of Physics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, United Kingdom
W. Gradl
Institut für Kernphysik, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, D-55099 Mainz,Germany
G. Gurevich
Institute for Nuclear Research, 125047 Moscow, Russia
D. J. Hamilton
SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, United Kingdom
D. Hornidge
Mount Allison University, Sackville, New Brunswick E4L 1E6, Canada
D. Howdle
SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, United Kingdom
G. M. Huber
University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan S4S 0A2, Canada
A. Käser
Departement für Physik, Universität Basel, CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland
S. Kay
SUPA School of Physics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, United Kingdom
I. Keshelashvili
Departement für Physik, Universität Basel, CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland
R. Kondratiev
Institute for Nuclear Research, 125047 Moscow, Russia
M. Korolija
Rudjer Boskovic Institute, HR-10000 Zagreb, Croatia
B. Krusche
Departement für Physik, Universität Basel, CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland
J. Linturi
Institut für Kernphysik, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, D-55099 Mainz,Germany
V. Lisin
Lebedev Physical Institute, 119991 Moscow, Russia
K. Livingston
SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, United Kingdom
I. J. D. MacGregor
SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, United Kingdom
R. MacRae
SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, United Kingdom
J. Mancell
SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, United Kingdom
D. M. Manley
Kent State University, Kent, Ohio 44242-0001, USA
P. P. Martel
Institut für Kernphysik, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, D-55099 Mainz,Germany
Mount Allison University, Sackville, New Brunswick E4L 1E6, Canada
J. C. McGeorge
SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, United Kingdom
E. McNicol
SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, United Kingdom
D. G. Middleton
Institut für Kernphysik, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, D-55099 Mainz,Germany
Mount Allison University, Sackville, New Brunswick E4L 1E6, Canada
R. Miskimen
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts 01003, USA
E. Mornacchi
Institut für Kernphysik, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, D-55099 Mainz,Germany
C. Mullen
SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, United Kingdom
A. Mushkarenkov
INFN Sezione di Pavia, I-27100 Pavia, Italy
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts 01003, USA
A. Neiser
Institut für Kernphysik, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, D-55099 Mainz,Germany
M. Oberle
Departement für Physik, Universität Basel, CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland
M. Ostrick
Institut für Kernphysik, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, D-55099 Mainz,Germany
P. B. Otte
Institut für Kernphysik, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, D-55099 Mainz,Germany
B. Oussena
Institut für Kernphysik, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, D-55099 Mainz,Germany
The George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052-0001, USA
D. Paudyal
University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan S4S 0A2, Canada
P. Pedroni
INFN Sezione di Pavia, I-27100 Pavia, Italy
V. V. Polyanski
Lebedev Physical Institute, 119991 Moscow, Russia
A. Rajabi
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts 01003, USA
G. Reicherz
Institut für Experimentalphysik, Ruhr-Universität , D-44780 Bochum, Germany
J. Robinson
SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, United Kingdom
G. Rosner
SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, United Kingdom
T. Rostomyan
Departement für Physik, Universität Basel, CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland
A. Sarty
Department of Astronomy and Physics, Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, Nova Scotia B3H 3C3, Canada
D. M. Schott
The George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052-0001, USA
S. Schumann
Institut für Kernphysik, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, D-55099 Mainz,Germany
C. Sfienti
Institut für Kernphysik, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, D-55099 Mainz,Germany
V. Sokhoyan
Institut für Kernphysik, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, D-55099 Mainz,Germany
The George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052-0001, USA
K. Spieker
Helmholtz-Institut für Strahlen- und Kernphysik, Universität Bonn, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
O. Steffen
Institut für Kernphysik, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, D-55099 Mainz,Germany
B. Strandberg
SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, United Kingdom
I. I. Strakovsky
The George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052-0001, USA
Th. Strub
Departement für Physik, Universität Basel, CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland
I. Supek
Rudjer Boskovic Institute, HR-10000 Zagreb, Croatia
M. F. Taragin
The George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052-0001, USA
A. Thiel
Helmholtz-Institut für Strahlen- und Kernphysik, Universität Bonn, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
M. Thiel
Institut für Kernphysik, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, D-55099 Mainz,Germany
L. Tiator
Institut für Kernphysik, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, D-55099 Mainz,Germany
A. Thomas
Institut für Kernphysik, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, D-55099 Mainz,Germany
M. Unverzagt
Institut für Kernphysik, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, D-55099 Mainz,Germany
S. Wagner
Institut für Kernphysik, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, D-55099 Mainz,Germany
D. P. Watts
SUPA School of Physics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, United Kingdom
D. Werthmüller
SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, United Kingdom
Departement für Physik, Universität Basel, CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland
J. Wettig
Institut für Kernphysik, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, D-55099 Mainz,Germany
L. Witthauer
Departement für Physik, Universität Basel, CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland
M. Wolfes
Institut für Kernphysik, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, D-55099 Mainz,Germany
R. L. Workman
The George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052-0001, USA
L. Zana
SUPA School of Physics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, United Kingdom
Abstract
The reactions and have been measured from their thresholds up to the center-of-mass energy GeV with the tagged-photon facilities at the Mainz Microtron, MAMI. Differential cross sections were obtained with unprecedented accuracy, providing fine energy binning and full production-angle coverage. A strong cusp is observed in the total cross section and excitation functions for photoproduction at the energies in vicinity of the threshold, MeV ( MeV). This behavior is explained in a revised MAID isobar model by a significant branching of the nucleon resonance to both, and , confirming the existence and constraining the properties of this poorly known state.
pacs:
25.20.Lj, 13.60.Le, 14.20.Gk
The photo-induced production of and mesons is a selective probe to study excitations of the nucleon. The and the represent the isoscalar members of the fundamental pseudoscalar-meson nonet and, in contrast to the isovector , excitations with isospin ( resonances) do not decay into and final states. Several single and double-spin observables of the reaction have recently been measured CLAS_2016 ; A2MAMI_2014 ; McNicoll2010 ; CLAS_2009 ; CBELSA_2009 ; GRAAL_2007 . A review of the experimental and phenomenological progress can be found in Ref. Krusche2014 . All model calculations BnGa11 ; SAID ; Giessen2012 ; Kamano2013 ; BnJue ; etaMAID_2003 agree in the dominance of the multipole amplitude, which is populated by the well established and resonances. The existence of a third nucleon resonance, however, is still under discussion. The is presently listed by the PDG with only two stars PDG . The experimental data for production is much more scarce. The most recent measurements by CLAS CLAS_2006 ; CLAS_2009 and CBELSA/TAPS CBELSA_2009 decreased uncertainties in the differential cross sections, leaving, however, the near-threshold region still unexplored. Recently, this threshold region attracted additional attention, after the first results for the beam asymmetry were presented by GRAAL GRAAL_2015 which, although limited in statistics, could not be reproduced by any of the existing models describing photoproduction Nakayama_2006 ; Nakayama_2013 ; etaMAIDr_2003 ; Zhong_2011 ; Tryasuchev_2013 . The threshold for the reaction at MeV is located in a mass region that plays a key role for our understanding of the nucleon spectrum. Presently, there are no well established (four stars) states between MeV. However, there are many state candidates and an even larger number of states predicted by quark-models CapRob ; Bonn or lattice QCD Lattice .
This work contributes to the study of and photoproduction by presenting new, high-statistics measurements of the and differential cross sections from reaction thresholds up to MeV ( MeV). The data were obtained with a fine binning in and cover the full range of the production angles.
The experiments were conducted using the Crystal Ball (CB) CB as a central calorimeter and TAPS TAPS as a forward calorimeter. These detectors were installed at the energy-tagged bremsstrahlung-photon beam produced from the electron beam of the Mainz Microtron (MAMI) MAMIC . The beam photons were incident on a liquid hydrogen target located in the center of the CB. The energies of bremsstrahlung photons, , produced by the electrons in a m copper radiator, were analyzed by detecting postbremsstrahlung electrons in tagging spectrometers (taggers). The Glasgow-Mainz tagger TAGGER was used in the major part of the experiments. In order to tag the high-energy part of the bremsstrahlung spectrum, a dedicated end-point tagging spectrometer (EPT) pi0_a2_2015 was used, especially designed for measurements.
In this letter, we present the analysis of three independent data sets from different periods of data taking. The first data set (Run-I) was taken in 2007 with the 1508-MeV electron beam and the bremsstrahlung photons analyzed by the Glasgow-Mainz tagger up to an energy of 1402 MeV. All details on the experimental resolution of the detectors and other conditions during these measurements are given in Refs. etaslope2009 ; McNicoll2010 and references therein. In Ref. McNicoll2010 , the total and differential cross sections for the reaction were obtained by identifying the meson via its decay mode. This analysis was repeated with an improved cluster algorithm, better separating electromagnetic showers partially overlapping in the calorimeters. The second important neutral decay mode was analyzed as well. The second data set (Run-II) was taken in 2009 with the 1557-MeV electron beam and the bremsstrahlung photons analyzed up to 1448 MeV. The trigger conditions for this run required more than two clusters to be detected in the CB, which suppressed severely the detection of decays, and only decays were reconstructed in the analysis. More details on the Run-II conditions can be found in Ref. K0Sigpl2013 . The third data set (Run-III) was taken in 2014 with the 1604-MeV electron beam and the bremsstrahlung photons analyzed by the EPT spectrometer from 1426 MeV up to 1576 MeV. In this run, the energy of the production threshold was covered, and both neutral decay modes as well as the and decays were reconstructed. More details on the Run-III conditions can be found in Ref. pi0_a2_2015 .
The selection of event candidates and the reconstruction of the outgoing particles was based on the kinematic-fit technique. Details on the kinematic-fit parametrization of the detector information and resolutions are given in Ref. etaslope2009 . The determination of the experimental acceptance for each decay mode of and was based on a Monte Carlo (MC) simulation of all processes . The generated events were propagated through a GEANT simulation of the experimental setup. To reproduce resolutions of the experimental data, the GEANT output was subject to additional smearing, thus allowing both the simulated and experimental data to be analyzed in the same way.
A possible background was investigated via Monte Carlo simulation of competing reactions. For both the decay modes of no background sources were found that could produce a peak in the and invariant-mass distributions at the position of the mass. However, the selection of event candidates with the kinematic fit was not sufficient to eliminate all background in vicinity of the . Thus, the number of decays observed in every energy-angle bin was obtained by fitting experimental and spectra with a function, describing the peak above a smooth background. This procedure is illustrated for one energy-angle bin in Fig. 1, showing a typical invariant-mass distribution and the background shape. In total, all selected events were divided into 10 bins, where is the meson production angle in the c.m. frame. The covered energy range, 1447–1577 MeV, was divided into 12 intervals, with the first four 6.5-MeV wide and next eight 13-MeV wide.
For the differential cross sections, all selected events were divided into 24 bins. For energies below GeV, the present analysis of the process was very similar to the method described in detail in Ref. McNicoll2010 . At higher energies, as in the case of , the background under the decays could not be fully eliminated, and the same fitting procedure, as described above for , was applied.
The and differential cross sections were obtained by taking into account the values for the corresponding and branching ratios PDG , the number of protons in the hydrogen target, and the photon-beam flux from the tagging facilities, corrected by the fraction rejected by the collimator. For the cross sections, the overall systematic uncertainty due to the calculation of the detection efficiency and the photon-beam flux was estimated similar to our previous analyses McNicoll2010 ; A2MAMI_2014 as 4% for the data taken in Run-I and Run-II, and as 5% for the data taken in Run-III. Similar systematic uncertainty for the cross sections from Run-III is also 5%.
In Fig. 2, the results from Run-I for both decay modes are compared to the previous analysis of Ref. McNicoll2010 .
A comparison of the differential cross sections from Run-I and Run-II for two selected energy bins, where the largest discrepancies are observed, is illustrated in Fig. 3. Finally, Fig. 4 checks Run-II against Run-III, which used a different tagging spectrometer.
In general, the different data sets are in agreement within the given uncertainties. To reflect small discrepancies, which can be observed in particular regions with larger background, an additional 3% systematic uncertainty reflecting uncertainties in the angular dependence of the reconstruction efficiency was added in quadrature to all statistical uncertainties in the and results of Run-I and Run-II above GeV, and 5% for Run III. These uncertainties were then used to combine the and results together. Similar systematic uncertainties were estimated as 5% for and 6% for . The agreement of our differential cross section measurements with previous data was already demonstrated in McNicoll2010 . At high energies, the results from CLAS CLAS_2009 are in a better agreement with our present data than those from CBELSA/TAPS CBELSA_2009 .
The new results for the differential cross sections are illustrated in Fig. 5 for four energy bins which overlap with the data from CLAS CLAS_2009 and CBELSA/TAPS CBELSA_2009 . Our results are in agreement with the previous data within the error bars, but have a much superior statistical accuracy.
The total cross sections were obtained by integrating the corresponding differential cross sections. The results obtained for the and reactions are shown in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7, respectively. The comparison with previous data in the figures clearly demonstrates the high accuracy of our new measurements.
Besides the distinct dip at MeV McNicoll2010 , our new data for the reaction show another pronounced feature at higher energies. At the position of the threshold at MeV, marked by the vertical line in Fig. 6, a clear cusp is observed. The sharpness of this cusp is strongly dependent on the polar angle of the meson, as shown in Fig. 8. While the dip at MeV is more pronounced at forward angles, the cusp effect is stronger around .
One of the first dedicated models for photoproduction of and mesons was the Mainz isobar model MAID etaMAID_2003 ; etaMAIDr_2003 , which was fitted to data available in 2003. These fits are shown as dotted lines in Figs. 6 and 7, and there is no surprise that they fail to reproduce the current measurements. However, even the more recent analyses by SAID-GE09 SAID and BG2014-2 BnGa11 , are still far from agreement with the new precision data.
To interpret the new data we have developed a model based on the ideas of MAID etaMAID_2003 ; etaMAIDr_2003 . This new MAID2016 model includes a non-resonant background, which consists of the vector ( and ) and axial-vector () exchange in the channel, and -channel resonance excitations. Regge trajectories for the meson exchange in the channel were used to provide correct asymptotic behavior at high energies. In addition to the Regge trajectories, Regge cuts with natural and un-natural parities were included according to the ideas developed in Ref. DoKa for pion photoproduction. Nucleon resonances in the channel were parameterized with Breit-Wigner shapes. The new model was fitted to data from both and photoproduction on protons. In addition to the new cross sections presented in this letter, data from GRAAL_2007 ; CLAS_2009 ; CBELSA_2009 ; A2MAMI_2014 ; GRAAL_2015 ; CLAS_2016 were used. A detailed publication of the model including a quantitative comparison to all available data is in preparation. Here we concentrate on the comparison to the new cross section data. A key role for the description is played by the three -wave resonances, N(1535), N(1650), and N(1895). The importance of the first two resonances in photoproduction is well known from previous analyses. In our model, the third resonance, N(1895), is crucial in order to describe the cusp observed in photoproduction around MeV as well as the fast rise of the total cross section of the reaction near the threshold. Presently, this resonance has only an overall two-star status according to the PDG review PDG . The present data and our analysis clearly confirm the existence of this state. We find a mass slightly below the threshold and a significant coupling to both, and . The parameters of all s-wave resonances are presented in Table I. As the N(1895) mass is below threshold, an effective branching ratio of was determined by integrating the decay spectrum above threshold according to pdg2012 . The contributions of this and the other two important resonances, the and the , are shown in Fig. 7.
In summary, photoproduction reactions and have been measured from their thresholds up to the center-of-mass energy GeV with the A2 tagged-photon facilities at the Mainz Microtron, MAMI. Differential cross sections were obtained with unprecedented statistical accuracy, providing fine energy binning and full production-angle coverage. The total cross section and the excitation functions for photoproduction demonstrate a strong cusp in the vicinity of the threshold, MeV. The analysis of the present data with the revised MAID model explains such a behavior by the strong coupling of the resonance to both channels. The new data and our analysis clearly confirm the existence of this two-star state and allow significant improvements in the determination of its parameters.
The authors wish to acknowledge the excellent support of the accelerator group of MAMI. This material is based upon work supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB 1044), the European Community Research Activity under the FP7 program (Hadron Physics, Contract No. 227431), Schweizerischer Nationalfonds, the UK Sciences and Technology Facilities Council (STFC 57071/1, 50727/1), the U.S. Department of Energy (Offices of Science and Nuclear Physics, Award Nos. DE-FG02-99-ER41110, DE-FG02-88ER40415, DE-FG02-01-ER41194 and DE-FG02-SC0016583) and National Science Foundation (Grant No. PHY-1039130, IIA-1358175), NSERC FRN: the MSE Program “Nauka” (Project 3.1113.2017/pp).
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1(1) I. Senderovich et al. , Phys. Lett. B 755 , 64 (2016).
- 2(2) J. Akondi et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 , 102001 (2014).
- 3(3) E. F. Mc Nicoll et al. , Phys. Rev. C 82 , 035208 (2010).
- 4(4) M. Williams et al. , Phys. Rev. C 80 , 045213 (2009).
- 5(5) V. Crede et al. , Phys. Rev. C 80 , 055202 (2009).
- 6(6) O. Bartalini et al. , Eur. Phys. J. A 33 , 169 (2007).
- 7(7) V. Krusche and C. Wilkin, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 80 , 43 (2014).
- 8(8) A. V. Anisovich, E. Klempt, V. A. Nikonov, A. V. Sarantsev, U. Thoma, Eur. Phys. J. A 47 , 153 (2011); A. V. Anisovich, R. Beck, E. Klempt, V. A. Nikonov, A. V. Sarantsev, U. Thoma, Eur. Phys. J. A 48 , 15 (2012).
