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

Dispersive and nondispersive K-matrix formalisms

Nils Hüsken1,*, Eric S. Swanson2,†, and Adam Szczepaniak3,4,5

  • *Contact author: nhuesken@uni-mainz.de
  • †Contact author: swansone@pitt.edu

Phys. Rev. D 113, 116021 – Published 15 June, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/qcgk-rtkb

Abstract

The modeling of coupled-channel effects has become increasingly important due to the availability of highly precise data for a large variety of hadronic (re)scattering processes. The K-matrix is a powerful, yet comparatively simple, method to describe scattering amplitudes, including coupled-channel effects, with the aim of interpreting experimental data. Throughout the literature, a range of dispersive and nondispersive K-matrix methods are employed. Here, we compare the dispersive and nondispersive formulations in the context of the N/D method. It is shown that the methods are equivalent in the physical region under K-matrix reparametrization. Differences away from the physical region are examined. Applications to synthetic data are used to illustrate the effects of model choices concerning form factors and the application of dispersion relations, with the goal of clarifying best practices. We find no clear preference with regard to dispersive modeling. In contrast, we find that interpretational ambiguity of the bare model parameters—and even of the form of the bare model—is endemic, and recommend a thorough sampling of data and model spaces to assess conclusion robustness.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (16)

  1. R. H. Dalitz and S. F. Tuan, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 10, 307 (1960).
  2. I. J. R. Aitchison, Nucl. Phys. A189, 417 (1972).
  3. A. M. Badalian, L. P. Kok, M. I. Polikarpov, and Y. A. Simonov, Phys. Rep. 82, 31 (1982).
  4. S. U. Chung, J. Brose, R. Hackmann, E. Klempt, S. Spanier, and C. Strassburger, Ann. Phys. (Berlin) 4, 404 (1995).
  5. K. L. Au, D. Morgan, and M. R. Pennington, Phys. Rev. D 35, 1633 (1987).
  6. S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024).
  7. A. D. Martin and T. D. Spearman, Elementary Particle Theory (North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1970).
  8. V. N. Gribov, Strong Interactions of Hadrons at High Energies: Gribov Lectures on Theoretical Physics, edited by Y. L. Dokshitzer and J. Nyiri (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2012).
  9. S. Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields. Vol. 1: Foundations (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2005).
  10. G. F. Chew and S. Mandelstam, Phys. Rev. 119, 467 (1960).
  11. W. R. Frazer and A. W. Hendry, Phys. Rev. 134, B1307 (1964).
  12. C. Hanhart, S. Kürten, M. Reboud, and D. van Dyk, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 483 (2024).
  13. M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 081901 (2024).
  14. N. Hüsken, R. F. Lebed, R. E. Mitchell, E. S. Swanson, Y.-Q. Wang, and C.-Z. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 109, 114010 (2024).
  15. Z.-Y. Lin, J.-Z. Wang, J.-B. Cheng, L. Meng, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 241903 (2024).
  16. J. L. Basdevant and E. L. Berger, Phys. Rev. D 19, 239 (1979).

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation