Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

ϕ→3π and ϕπ0 transition form factor from Khuri-Treiman equations

A. G. Lorenzo1,*, M. Albaladejo1,†, S. Gonzàlez-Solís2,3,‡, N. Hammoud2,3, V. Mathieu2,3, G. Montaña2,3,4, A. Pilloni5,6, D. Winney7,8, A. P. Szczepaniak4,9,10 et al. (JPAC Collaboration)

A. P. Szczepaniak4,9,10 (JPAC Collaboration)

  • *Contact author: Amador.Garcia@ific.uv.es
  • †Contact author: Miguel.Albaladejo@ific.uv.es
  • ‡Contact author: sergig@icc.ub.edu

Phys. Rev. D 114, 034036 – Published 18 August, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/3v66-pg1l

Abstract

This work studies the ϕ→3π decay and the ϕ→π0γ* transition form factor, utilizing the Khuri-Treiman formalism to account for analyticity, crossing, and unitarity. Using once-subtracted dispersion relations, we perform a simultaneous fit to the ϕ→3π Dalitz plot distribution and the ϕ→π0γ* measurements from the KLOE collaboration, finding good agreement with these experimental data. These results reaffirm the applicability of the Khuri-Treiman approach in the analysis of three-body decays. An interesting result is that the subtraction constant appearing in the equations is similar to a sum rule expectation, in contrast to analogous studies of ω→3π decays and ω→π0γ*, which shows significant deviations. Our results also provide a reasonable description of the trend of the transition form factor data from BABAR in the e+e−→ϕπ0 scattering region. These intriguing theoretical differences between the decays of ϕ and ω could encourage further experimental measurements to assess the discrepancies and refine the theoretical predictions.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (64)

  1. H. Al Ghoul et al. (GlueX Collaboration), AIP Conf. Proc. 1735, 020001 (2016).
  2. A. Aloisio et al. (KLOE Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 561, 55 (2003); 609, 449(E) (2005).
  3. A. Anastasi et al. (KLOE-2 Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 757, 362 (2016).
  4. B. Aubert et al. (BABAR Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 77, 092002 (2008).
  5. S. Pacetti, Nucl. Phys. A919, 15 (2013).
  6. R. A. Briceño, J. J. Dudek, and R. D. Young, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 025001 (2018).
  7. A. W. Jackura, S. M. Dawid, C. Fernández-Ramírez, V. Mathieu, M. Mikhasenko, A. Pilloni, S. R. Sharpe, and A. P. Szczepaniak, Phys. Rev. D 100, 034508 (2019).
  8. R. A. Briceño, M. T. Hansen, S. R. Sharpe, and A. P. Szczepaniak, Phys. Rev. D 100, 054508 (2019).
  9. M. Mai, C. Culver, A. Alexandru, M. Döring, and F. X. Lee, Phys. Rev. D 100, 114514 (2019).
  10. C. Culver, M. Mai, R. Brett, A. Alexandru, and M. Döring, Phys. Rev. D 101, 114507 (2020).
  11. N. N. Khuri and S. B. Treiman, Phys. Rev. 119, 1115 (1960).
  12. P. Guo, I. Danilkin, and A. P. Szczepaniak, Eur. Phys. J. A 51, 135 (2015).
  13. P. Guo, I. V. Danilkin, D. Schott, C. Fernández-Ramírez, V. Mathieu, and A. P. Szczepaniak, Phys. Rev. D 92, 054016 (2015).
  14. P. Guo, I. V. Danilkin, C. Fernández-Ramírez, V. Mathieu, and A. P. Szczepaniak, Phys. Lett. B 771, 497 (2017).
  15. G. Colangelo, S. Lanz, H. Leutwyler, and E. Passemar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 022001 (2017).
  16. G. Colangelo, S. Lanz, H. Leutwyler, and E. Passemar, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 947 (2018).
  17. M. Albaladejo and B. Moussallam, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 508 (2017).
  18. J. Gasser and A. Rusetsky, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 906 (2018).
  19. F. Niecknig, B. Kubis, and S. P. Schneider, Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 2014 (2012).
  20. I. V. Danilkin, C. Fernández-Ramírez, P. Guo, V. Mathieu, D. Schott, M. Shi, and A. P. Szczepaniak, Phys. Rev. D 91, 094029 (2015).
  21. F. Niecknig and B. Kubis, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2015) 142.
  22. T. Isken, B. Kubis, S. P. Schneider, and P. Stoffer, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 489 (2017).
  23. F. Niecknig and B. Kubis, Phys. Lett. B 780, 471 (2018).
  24. M. Albaladejo, D. Winney, I. Danilkin, C. Fernández-Ramírez, V. Mathieu, M. Mikhasenko, A. Pilloni, J. Silva-Castro, and A. Szczepaniak (JPAC Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 101, 054018 (2020).
  25. M. Mikhasenko et al. (JPAC Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 101, 034033 (2020).
  26. M. Gell-Mann, D. Sharp, and W. G. Wagner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 8, 261 (1962).
  27. U. G. Meissner, Phys. Rep. 161, 213 (1988).
  28. R. Garcia-Martin, R. Kaminski, J. R. Pelaez, J. Ruiz de Elvira, and F. J. Yndurain, Phys. Rev. D 83, 074004 (2011).
  29. B. Ananthanarayan, I. Caprini, and B. Kubis, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 3209 (2014).
  30. I. Caprini, Phys. Rev. D 92, 014014 (2015).
  31. M. Dax, T. Isken, and B. Kubis, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 859 (2018).
  32. M. Albaladejo et al. (JPAC Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 108, 014035 (2023).
  33. M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 710, 594 (2012).
  34. S. P. Schneider, B. Kubis, and F. Niecknig, Phys. Rev. D 86, 054013 (2012).
  35. M. Albaladejo, I. Danilkin, S. Gonzalez-Solis, D. Winney, C. Fernandez-Ramirez, A. N. H. Blin, V. Mathieu, M. Mikhasenko, A. Pilloni, and A. Szczepaniak (JPAC Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 1107 (2020).
  36. R. Arnaldi et al. (NA60 Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 677, 260 (2009).
  37. R. Arnaldi et al. (NA60 Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 757, 437 (2016).
  38. R. R. Akhmetshin et al. (CMD-2 Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 562, 173 (2003).
  39. M. Achasov et al., Phys. Rev. D 88, 054013 (2013).
  40. P. Adlarson et al., Phys. Rev. C 95, 035208 (2017).
  41. G. Källén, Elementary Particle Physics (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1964).
  42. T. W. B. Kibble, Phys. Rev. 117, 1159 (1960).
  43. S. Mandelstam, Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 84 (1960).
  44. R. Omnes, Nuovo Cimento 8, 316 (1958).
  45. G. Koepp, Phys. Rev. D 10, 932 (1974).
  46. G. Colangelo, Nucl. Phys. B, Proc. Suppl. 162, 256 (2006).
  47. C. Hanhart, Phys. Lett. B 715, 170 (2012).
  48. J. T. Daub, C. Hanhart, and B. Kubis, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2016) 009.
  49. S. Holz, C. Hanhart, M. Hoferichter, and B. Kubis, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 434 (2022); 82, 1159(A) (2022).
  50. P. Sanchez-Puertas and E. Ruiz Arriola, Proc. Sci. QNP2024 (2025) 078 [arXiv:2410.17804].
  51. X.-H. Cao, F.-K. Guo, C. Hanhart, and B. Kubis, Phys. Rev. D 113, 074030 (2026).
  52. S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024).
  53. R. R. Akhmetshin et al. (CMD-2 Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 527, 161 (2002).
  54. R. Aliberti et al., Phys. Rep. 1143, 1 (2025).
  55. R. Garcia-Martin, R. Kaminski, J. R. Pelaez, J. Ruiz de Elvira, and F. J. Yndurain, Phys. Rev. D 83, 074004 (2011).
  56. J. R. Pelaez, A. Rodas, and J. Ruiz De Elvira, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 1008 (2019).
  57. S. Gonzàlez-Solís and P. Roig, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 436 (2019).
  58. B. Efron and R. Tibshirani, Stat. Sci. 1, 54 (1986).
  59. M. Albaladejo et al. (JPAC Collaboration), Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 127, 103981 (2022).
  60. P. Adlarson et al. (WASA-at-COSY Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 770, 418 (2017).
  61. M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 98, 112007 (2018).
  62. M. Fujikawa et al. (Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 78, 072006 (2008).
  63. R. Arnaldi et al. (NA60 Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 757, 437 (2016).
  64. M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 112, L011101 (2025).

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation