text:
Premier de cordée est un film français réalisé par Louis Daquin, sorti en 1944, adapté du roman éponyme de Roger Frison-Roche.

Synopsis

Pierre Servettaz est un jeune aspirant guide, mais un accident va contrarier ses projets de carrière. Malgré cela, il fera tout pour arriver à ses fins...

Fiche technique
 Titre : Premier de cordée
 Réalisateur : Louis Daquin, assisté de Guy Decomble
 Scénario : Jacqueline Jacoupy, Paul Leclerc, d'après le roman éponyme de Roger Frison-Roche, Premier de cordée
 Dialogue : Alexandre Arnoux
 Photographie : Philippe Agostini
 Décors : Lucien Aguettand
 Son : Pierre-Louis Calvet
 Musique : Henri Sauguet
 Montage : Suzanne de Troye
 Société de production : Pathé Cinéma
 Directeur de production : Louis Wipf
 Tournage : été 1943, massif du Mont-Blanc
 Pays d'origine :
 Genre : Drame
 Durée : 106 minutes
 Date de sortie :

Distribution

Autour du film
 Bien que non crédités, Roger Frison-Roche a travaillé à la réalisation de ce film comme assistant technique, de même que le réalisateur et alpiniste Georges Tairraz comme photographe en second.
 Roger Frison-Roche a découvert le film caché dans la cabine du projectionniste, alors qu'il avait rejoint la résistance
 Le rôle de Pierre Servettaz, d'abord destiné à Roger Pigaut, dut être réattribué, à la suite d'un accident, à André Le Gall.
 .
Alain Pol réalise un court-métrage de 20 minutes sur le tournage du film, nommé Autour d'un film de montagne.

Lieux de tournage

 Chamonix
 Massif du Mont-Blanc

Notes et références

Voir aussi

Bibliographie
 Le Versant du soleil, autobiographie de Roger Frison-Roche, Flammarion, 1981

Liens externes

Recueil de critiques d'époque sur Gallica

Film français sorti en 1944
Film dramatique français
Film réalisé par Louis Daquin
Adaptation d'un roman français au cinéma
Film sur l'alpinisme
Film tourné en Haute-Savoie


text:
Q: Cython way slower than corresponding C++ function I'm confused with which the Cython C++ compilation.
I have an algorithm that I have implemented in C++, I either call it from C++ or from python through a Cython wrapper.
The wrapping part of the code takes a negligible amount of time,
but the algorithm runs ~10x faster if I don't use Cython.
The Cython running time is very similar to the C++ time without optimization.
I compile my program like this:
setup(ext_modules = cythonize(Extension(
           "max_depth_cpp",
           sources=["cpp/wrap.pyx", "cpp/count_inliers.cpp",
                    "cpp/max_depth.cpp", "cpp/misc.cpp", "cpp/solver.cpp",
                    "cpp/vec3.cpp" , "cpp/wrapper.cpp"],
           language="c++",
           extra_compile_args=["-O3","-std=c++17"],
           extra_link_args = ["-std=c++17"]
      )))

Removing the -O3 option does not changing the running time.
wrap.pyx
import numpy as np
cimport numpy as np  # for np.ndarray
np.import_array() #verk important (seg faults)

cdef extern from "wrapper.h":
    void wrapper(double*, double*, int,  double, double*)

    cpdef max_depth_cpp(np_v1, np_v2, eps):
        cdef np.ndarray[double, ndim=2, mode='c'] v1 = np_v1
        cdef np.ndarray[double, ndim=2, mode='c'] v2 = np_v2
        cdef np.ndarray[double, ndim=1, mode='c'] t
        t = np.zeros(3, dtype=np.double)

        wrapper(&v1[0,0], &v2[0,0], len(v1), eps, &t[0])
        return t

wrapper.cpp
#include "wrapper.h"
#include "solver.h"

void wrapper(double* v1_in, double* v2_in, int N,  double eps, double* t){
    solver(v1_in, v2_in, N, eps, t);   //changes t
}

Solver just calls my calls my C++ method. It copies all the data from the numpy arrays first, but that takes very little of the total time

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Cruz mark levin. Prix carte modalis jeune. Bailando tony dark eyes xookwankii. Pedeset nijansi mracnije pdf hrvatski. Mappy carte de loise. Tariffe traduzione per pagina . Turtles candy calories. Xtorm power bank free 15000 . Itawamba county tax assessor. Schema therapy for anxiety disorders. Ralphs isnt that far nor Smart and final. Sortmethod - pq priority queue set by default or kbuffer gives faster sorting for already pre-sorted data eg. Karen told me it would cost me 400 for her to do this but go on line and do it. Die Methode ist einfach und erfordert keine aufwndigen Instrumente. - Celebrazione delle grandi strutture processionali a spalla la Macchina di Santa Rosa Viterbo. Traghetti decongestionando il porto e le Rive. Deciso ao interessado concedendo-lhe o prazo regulamentar para. Duz dwalen verdwalen Dwal-licht dwalmen dwerken dwars dwaseln ver-dwenen Dyk Dynamit Dynamithtchen. Vain tiettyj piilevi vikoja eik. Tieto motory toti spravidla vyaduj isto horiace paliv najlepie v kvapalnej forme a najlepie aj s potlaenm plynnm skupenstvom. The furniture of each sword changed over the decades as fashion and style dictated. Developing and implementing a security plan in a non-typical healthcare facility Ernie Sandoval CHPA. Well-trained professionals known as facilitators or change. Grand fan du jeu je voulais un film intimiste sobre lgant relativement lent proche dun film dauteur. 202 Natsu then accepts Jellals flames and thanks him for the meal and consumes them granting him a large boost in all his physical abilities Natsu enters Dragon Force once again. Some trips operate from Brookland-CUA station to Avondale during weekday PM peak hours. Festgenagelt Keine faulen Besenstiele keine faulen Kompromisse Zumindest nicht bei uns. Essere un toro o un torello significa infine essere forte e resistente. Was sagst du zu meiner Methode. Interessadssimo em exercer atividades na rea jurdica e afins eis que est em busca de novos desafios profissionais objetivando ampliar e renovar experincias. Innovation has the ability to enhance our sustainable. I have just proved above under the name Veda that vegetarians do NOT have any B12-problem so-called vitamin problem. Makan terlalu banyak bisa memicu lemahnya lingkar otot lambung oleh karena itu yang berisiko tinggi mengalami penyakit asam lambung ialah seseorang yang obesitas. Half as long as those not exposed. Written by David Freddoso its headlined Feds. Weekdaycom and in 140 markets at. Home galleries pictures of the day cam. Once he leaned over she was done. This leads into Jimmy telling us about some of Starbucks new employee policies. Whats been your best experience with VR.


text:
Journey to Freedom — Allan Withington unlocks conductor potential
4BR Editor Iwan Fox enjoys a trip behind bars to see how Allan Withington is helping to unlock international conducting potential in Holland.
Rafa (left) and Borja smile for the camera....
Borja Martinez-Alegre and Rafael Gonzalez sit together behind the back row cornets.
They whisper quietly in Spanish to each other as Allan Withington instructs the players of Soli Brass Leeuwarden.
The universal language of music making is clearly understood by the personable duo, yet there is still a need to fully comprehend the exact meaning of his precise intentions.
Both have very little experience of conducting a brass band, yet the opportunity to work with Allan Withington on his recent Conductor School in Leeuwarden in Holland has opened up new musical horizons.
"It has been a great course for us," 24 year old Borja explains in his excellent English.
"I come from a small village called Siete Aguas just outside Valencia where I conduct, teach and play trumpet. It has a population of around 1000 people but over 90 of them are in my wind band.
Now I want to try and create a brass band too."
27 year old Rafael from Ori Huela near Alicante is also a recent convert.
He took part in the European Conductor Competition in Oslo in May and is now keen to explore more brass band repertoire as well as improve as a conductor.
"I had never heard, or conducted a brass band before I went to Oslo," he admits.
"It was a wonderful experience for me, and now I want to find out more about the music and how to conduct as brass band successfully."
He added: "I teach 85 students aged up to 18 at the moment and have studied orchestral conducting; but the brass band fascinates me."
Course Director Allan Withington takes to the mike...
The Spaniards wait patiently as some of the other 11 conductors on the course direct Soli Brass through repertoire to be used in their end of course concert.
This year Course Directors Allan Withington and Robin Dewhurst have used the innovative theme of 'Journey to Freedom' as their musical key – and have even been rehearsing at the town's historic jail to ensure inspiration.
Borja strides to the conductor's stand: He is compact in stature and exudes intense emotion. His beat patterns are broad and elegant, but evoke deliberate purpose in the opening section to 'Henry V'.
"I love this music," he says afterwards. "It is so beautifully written and it brings out such warm sounds from the heart of the band."
The taller Rafa is equally free flowing and expansive; his articulate baton work accompanied by a flashing smile as he encourages the Soli players to play with pulse and drive on the Freddie Mercury hit, 'I Want to Break Free'.
The tricky closing section is handled with real aplomb – with the other 11 delegates generously acknowledging his show of skill with warm applause.
As he returns to his seat behind the back row cornets, Borja gives his friend a hearty slap on the back.
A familar musical title to take inspiration from...
That open display of communal encouragement is a feature of the week long course that sees the conductors work for up to 10 hours a day before they can sit back and enjoy a drink in the welcoming bar of the Soli Brass bandroom.
The Spaniards are joined by a trio of British conductors, four Norwegians, two Danes, an Irishman and a Swiss.
Meanwhile, Allan Withington and Robin Dewhurst are helped with their lectures on conducting technique, effective rehearsal planning, score reading, creative programme planning, people management, performance psychology and lots and lots of conducting in front of a top flight brass band by the organisational expertise of the indefatigable Anja Abma.
13 good men and true...
Each delegate takes their turn at the Soli Brass helm – some more experienced than others, but all eager to learn and improve under Allan's expert direction and clear cut analyses.
"They all have the talent, skill and desire," he says. "The trick is to mould it together, so that they understand what they are doing and why they are doing it.
Building up confidence is key – but that comes by getting the basics right."
27 year old Henrik Naeser has experience from conducting a National Guard Band and at third tier contesting level in Denmark, whilst 20 year old Norwegian Hakon Strandlie is a clarinet player who has only conducted a school brass band.
"The course has been very inspiring," Henrik says. "I like to observe and get a lot of input from just watching Allan conduct.
This is the second time I have been on the course, and each time I return home, I know I have become a better conductor."
Hakon agrees. "I want to be able to become a much better, more efficient conductor – especially as I work with young children in my school band.
There are so many new skills I have learnt. I cannot wait to get home and put them into practice."
Hakon Strandlie in action
The trio of British conductors are an eclectic mix, led by former Black Dyke and YBS baritone player Rob Richardson, who has been taking the first steps on what he hopes is a new musical direction with Fulham Brass in London.
Eye opening
Meanwhile, the popular Wesley Thompson has been a respected conductor in Ireland for some years, whilst David Boorer recently took up the baton with Tiverton Band in the West of England – after a remarkable musical career as a bassoon player in the British Army.
All three have found the week an eye opening experience.
"I was lucky to have been in bands directed by some great conductors over the years," Rob says. "But gaining the first hand experience from Allan has shown me that conducting requires such a different skill set – and one you must be prepared to work long and hard at."
Wesley agrees: "I have thoroughly enjoyed the week – and will return to my band a better conductor."
David meanwhile is also hoping some of Allan's methods will lead to him being able to successfully harness the enthusiasm and commitment of his Fourth Section band on the contest as well as concert stage.
"After a career as an army musician it's remarkable to see a conductor like Allan in action.
You can see why he has been so successful, so learning from him should benefit my band immensely and hopefully lead to success."
Young inmates - the wonderful dancers who helped on the jailbreak theme
That will certainly be the case if the evidence of the end of course concert was anything to go by.
Inventive
Held in the picturesque town centre of Leeuwarden, the conductors led Soli Brass as a group of young dancers provided inventive choreography to the music behind the bars of an impromptu jail yard – complete with chains, prison rations and vicious yard 'Boss'.
Over 500 people stayed to watch and listen on a busy late night shopping evening – as the story of their 'Journey to Freedom' unfolded, backed by music as diverse as 'Born Free' and Robin Dewhurst's 'Break Out' to 'Henry V' and that touch of Freddie Mercury.
As the last note of the encore rang out, the 13 conductors lined up to take the generous applause of an audience who had certainly enjoyed and appreciated their efforts.
And as Allan Withington congratulated each conductor in turn, you could see he was very pleased with his protégé's efforts too.
"Looking at them in action today, you can see how they have grown in confidence as their technique and understanding has become better," he says.
"That's the essence of this course – and why I am so committed to it. The success is down to the people who come along and want to learn and improve.
I'm very proud of them all – and we will be keeping in touch with them all in the coming months to ensure that if they need any extra help both Robin and myself can be contacted to give it to them."
Rob Richardson gains his freedom...
At the end of course presentations later that night, e-mail addresses are exchanged, whilst the relaxed atmosphere is interspersed with the animated sound of conductors of different nationalities all talking about the one thing that now unites them – brass band music making.
You don't need an interpreter to understand that.
Chris Wormald
B.Mus (Hons), LTCL, PGCE
Conductor, adjudicator, arranger

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


The N.S.S.Units and Youth Red Cross Unit of S.N.M.Polytechnic organized a Blood Donation Camp in our Polytechnic on 29th September 2015, in association with Blood bank, K.M.C. Mangalore, Red Cross Society, Moodbidri and Rotary Club of Moodbidri.
Participation of students in the camp was very encouraging. 210 sachet of blood was collected from staff and student donors. Mr. Mohammed Isaac, Tahsildar, Moodbidri along with Sri. Rajendra Pai, Vice-President, Red Cross Society Moodbidri visited the camp.
President of Rotary Club Moodbidri Rtn. P K Thomas, Rtn. Govindan P.,Mr. AbulAla Puttige also visited the camp.


LOS ANGELES (CelebrityAccess MediaWire) — The Firm has announced that CEO Jeff Kwatinetz has agreed to manage Britney Spears.
The singer has been without a manager for some time while her career has been, perhaps unintentionally, on hiatus. Kwatinetz would appear to have his work cut out for him in light of the as in recent years, the troubled singer has been attracting media attention for her troubled marriage and controversial public behavior instead of her music.


text:
Le parc national des Monts tabulaires (en ), est des 23 parcs nationaux de Pologne, créé le . Situé dans le sud-ouest de la Pologne, il comprend la section polonaise des Monts tabulaires (Góry Stołowe), également connues sous le nom de montagnes de la Table en anglais, qui font partie de la chaîne des Sudètes. Il est situé à la frontière avec la République tchèque. Créé en 1993, le parc couvre une superficie de 63,39 kilomètres carrés, dont 57,79 km² de forêts. La zone de protection stricte est de 3,76 km².

Description
Actuellement, la vie végétale est principalement composée d'épicéas, qui ont été introduits dans la région au tournant du 19ème siècle pour remplacer les forêts vierges de hêtres et de sapins, qui avaient été coupées. Les forêts naturelles sont rares et ne couvrent qu'environ 3 % des zones boisées. Il y a des tourbières, dont l'une (superficie 393 000 m²) a été classée comme zone strictement protégée en 1959 : la flore caractéristique du Grand Tourbbog Batorowski, l'une des rares tourbières surélevées en Pologne, est représentée par des espèces telles que le pin des marais. Dans les zones boisées du parc, il y a des chevreuils, des cerfs élaphes, des cochons sauvages, des écureuils, des hérissons, de nombreux oiseaux et reptiles, dont des lézards et des vipères..

Galerie

Voir aussi

Liens internes

Liens externes

  Site officiel du Parc PNGS
  Carte desMonts tabulaires
  Musée de la grenouille

Notes et références

Forêt en Pologne
Parc national en Pologne
Parc national créé en 1993

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Enjoy the rich flavor and texture of eggplant parmesan with less work and fat. The eggplant are broiled then baked with a layer of cheese, sauce, and breadcrumbs, making this a healthier dish you can whip up on a busy night.
1. Preheat the broiler on your oven to high and place an oven rack in the highest position.
2. Remove the ends of the eggplant and cut them into slices about 1/4-inch thick. Arrange the slices in a single layer on a large baking sheet and brush both sides lightly with olive oil or spray with cooking spray.
3. Broil 5-7 minutes per side or until soft and just beginning to brown. When the eggplant is done, move the oven rack down to the middle position and heat the oven to bake at 425ºF.
4. Thoroughly combine bread crumbs, Parmesan, and 1 tablespoon olive oil in a medium bowl. Set aside.
5. Coat a 9x13 inch baking dish with cooking spray. Pour a little marinara in the bottom of the pan and spread around evenly. Arrange the eggplant slices in the dish. They will be slightly overlapping.
6. Cover with remaining marinara sauce. Arrange mozzarella slices on top of the sauce.
7. Sprinkle bread crumb mixture evenly over the top and sprinkle with salt and pepper to taste.
8. Bake for 25-30 minutes or until bubbly and beginning to brown.
9. Meanwhile, bring a large pot of water to a boil.
10. Cook spaghetti according to package directions and drain.
11. Serve spaghetti topped with a scoop of the eggplant and sprinkled with chopped parsley, if desired. Makes about six servings.
Lindsay is a food blogger and stay-at-home mom of three small children. She's all about doing what needs to be done to keep everyone fed, happy, and healthy.


With technology becoming ever-more prevalent in our society through the evolution of countless devices and incredible software, it's no wonder why this year's Met Gala decided to go with the theme "Manus x Machina: Fashion in an Age of Technology." Check out how celebrities rocked the red carpet with their tech-inspired outfits, and which ones our stylists found most electrifying.
Brooke describes the outfit as "vintage & classy" and loves that Ross decided to use a headpiece to further accessorize the dress.
The dress that stole the show and clearly represents the theme of this year's Gala has to go to CLAIRE DANES. Her glow in the dark, Cinderella-inspired gown is a perfect representation of Fashion in an Age of Technology.


text:
\section{Introduction}
In low-energy $e^+e^-$ collision experiments, the vector mesons
$\rho$, $\omega$, and $\phi$ and their low lying excited states can be
produced abundantly.  The Particle Data Group (PDG)~\cite{PDG} has
tabulated experimental results for these states. However, some of
the higher lying excitations are not fully identified yet. It is
especially in the region around 2~GeV where further experimental
insight is needed to resolve the situation involving resonances such
as the $\rho(2000)$, $\rho(2150)$ and $\phi(2170)$ states.

Considerable efforts have been made theoretically to understand the
nature of the $\phi(2170)$ resonance, and several interpretations have
been proposed, such as an $s\bar s g$ hybrid~\cite{ssg_phi2170, ssg2_phi2170},
an $s\bar s$ meson~\cite{ssbar_phi2170, ssbar2_phi2170, ssbar3_phi2170, ssbar4_phi2170},
an $s\bar s s\bar s$ tetraquark
state~\cite{sssbarsbar1_phi2170,sssbarsbar2_phi2170,sssbarsbar3_phi2170, sssbarsbar4_phi2170, sssbarsbar5_phi2170, sssbarsbar6_phi2170}, a $\Lambda\bar
\Lambda$ bound state~\cite{Lambda1_phi2170,Lambda2_phi2170,
  Lambda3_phi2170}, as well as $\phi K\bar K$~\cite{phiKK_phi2170} and
$\phi f_0(980)$~\cite{phif02_phi2170} resonances.  These models differ
in their predictions of the branching fractions of the $\phi(2170)$ to
decay channels such as $\phi\eta$ or $K^{(*)}\bar{K}^{(*)}$ as certain
decay modes can either be suppressed or favored depending on its
nature~\cite{ssg_phi2170, ssbar_phi2170, quarkonia, LLbarbound,
  phietatheory}.  It is therefore of great importance to measure the
branching fractions for a variety of different decay channels in order
to help in discriminating between different models.

The $\phi(2170)$ state was first observed by the BaBar experiment in
the initial state radiation (ISR) process
$e^+e^-\to\gamma_\mathrm{ISR}\phi f_0(980)$~\cite{BABAR_phi2170} and
later confirmed by the BESII and BESIII experiments in
$J/\psi\to\eta\phi f_0(980)$~\cite{BESII_phi2170, BESIII_phi2170} as
well as by both the BaBar and Belle experiments in the aforementioned
ISR process~\cite{BABAR2_phi2170, Belle_phi2170}.  The observed masses
and widths of the $\phi(2170)$ range from
$(2079\pm13^{+79}_{-28})MeV/c^2$~\cite{BABAR2_phi2170} to
$(2200\pm6\pm5)MeV/c^2$~\cite{BESIII_phi2170} and
$(58\pm16\pm20)\,\mbox{MeV}$~\cite{BABAR_phi2170} to
$(192\pm23^{+25}_{-61})\,\mbox{MeV}$~\cite{Belle_phi2170}, respectively.

Several studies of the properties of the $\phi(2170)$ resonance have
recently been made by the BESIII experiment.  A partial-wave analysis
was performed for the $e^+e^- \to K^+K^-\pi^0\pio$
process~\cite{BESKKpipi}, in which indications for sizable partial
widths of the $\phi(2170)$ resonance to the $K^+(1460)K^-$,
$K_1^+(1270)K^-$ and $K_1^+(1400)K^-$ channels (here,
charge-conjugation is implied) were found.  Attempts were also made to
study channels with simpler topologies, including
$e^{+}e^{-}\to K^{+}K^{-}$, where a resonance with mass
$(2239.2\pm7.1\pm11.3 )MeV/c^2$ and width $(139.8\pm12.3\pm20.6)\,\mbox{MeV}$
was found~\cite{BESKK, BESKKTheory}, and
$e^{+}e^{-}\to\phi\eta^\prime$~\cite{BESphietap}, where a resonance
with mass $(2177.5~\pm~5.1~\pm~18.6)MeV/c^2$ and width
$(149.0~\pm~15.6~\pm~8.9)\,\mbox{MeV}$ was found, In $e^{+}e^{-}\to\phi
K^{+}K^{-}$, a sharp enhancement is observed in the Born cross
section at $\sqrt{s}=2.2324$ GeV, which is close to the mass of the $
\phi(2170)$ resonance~\cite{BESphiKK}, however its width seems to be
incompatible with that of the $\phi(2170)$.

A comparison of decay channels without hidden or open strangeness such as $e^+e^- \to \omega \eta$ to those observed thus far can provide additional information about the properties of the $\phi(2170)$ resonance.
In addition, this process can also be used to study excited $\omega$ resonances appearing as $\omega^*\to\omega\eta$~\cite{omegafamily},
which is expected to be one of the dominant decay channels for excited $\omega$ mesons and a benchmark process to study their properties.

In contrast to the $e^+e^- \to \omega \eta$ process, the reaction
$e^+e^-\to\omega\pi^0$ allows the study of the isovector vector mesons
and their excited states. Generally, the excited $\rho$ states around
$2~GeV/c^2$ are not well understood.  Although there are two results on the
so-called $\rho(2000)$~\cite{rho1, rho2}, its existence is not
well-established.
Furthermore, several experiments have claimed the observation of the
$\rho(2150)$ state with mass and width lying in the range of
$1.990$ to $2.254GeV/c^2$ and $70$ to $389\,\mbox{MeV}$,
respectively~\cite{babar2020, rho3, rho4, rho5, rho6}.

In an approach based on the quark-pair-creation model,
the $\rho(2150)$ state is identified as a candidate for the $4^3S_1$
state~\cite{Rhoresonance2,Rhoresonance}.
The Born cross section of $e^+e^-\to\omega\pi^0$ in the
energy region below 2~GeV has been measured by several
experiments~\cite{SND2000,SND2003,SND2016,ND,CMD1,CMD2,BABAR,DM2},
while the data above 2~GeV is rather scarce.
Thus, more measurements of $e^+e^-\to\omega\pi^0$ above 2~GeV are of
high interest to study the properties of excited $\rho$
states.

In this letter, we present Born cross section measurements of the processes $e^+e^- \to \omega\eta$ and $e^+e^- \to \omega\pi^{0}$ with subsequent  $\omega \to \pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$, $\pi^0 \to \gamma\gamma$ and $\eta \to \gamma \gamma$ decays.

\section{Detector and data sample}
The BESIII detector is a magnetic spectrometer~\cite{Ablikim:2009aa} located at the Beijing Electron
Position Collider (BEPCII)~\cite{Yu:IPAC2016-TUYA01}. The cylindrical core of the BESIII detector consists of a helium-based
 multilayer drift chamber (MDC), a plastic scintillator time-of-flight system (TOF), and a CsI(Tl) electromagnetic calorimeter (EMC),
which are all enclosed in a superconducting solenoidal magnet providing a 1.0~T
magnetic field. The solenoid is supported by an octagonal flux-return yoke with resistive plate counter muon identifier modules interleaved with steel.
The acceptance of charged particles and photons is 93\% over $4\pi$ solid angle. The charged-particle momentum resolution at $1~{\rm GeV}/c$ is $0.5\%$, and the $dE/dx$ resolution is $6\%$ for the electrons from Bhabha scattering. The EMC measures photon energies with a resolution of $2.5\%$ ($5\%$) at $1$~GeV in the barrel (end cap) region. The time resolution of the TOF barrel part is 68~ps, while that of the end cap part is 110~ps.

The data samples used in this letter have been collected with the BESIII detector at 22 center-of-mass (c.m.) energies from 2.000 to 3.080 $\,\mbox{GeV}$, corresponding to a total integrated luminosity of 651 pb$^{-1}$.

The {\sc geant4} based~\cite{geant4} simulation software {\sc boost}~\cite{boost} is used to produce Monte Carlo (MC) simulation samples.
Events are generated using the \textsc{ConExc} generator~\cite{ConExc} with ISR and vacuum polarization (VP) taken into account.
Inclusive hadron production of the type $e^+e^- \to$ hadrons is simulated to estimate possible background processes and to optimize event selection criteria.
Exclusive MC samples are generated to determine the detection efficiencies of the signal processes.
Since the beam energy spread of BEPCII is less than 1~MeV at $\sqrt{s}< 3~{\rm GeV}$, it is much smaller than the experimental resolution of the BESIII detector and can thus be ignored in the simulation.

\section{Event selection and determination of the Born cross section}
\subsection{Analysis of $e^+e^- \to \omega \eta$ }
\label{selomegaeta}
For $e^+e^- \to \omega \eta$ (with subsequent $\omega \to
\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$, $\pi^0 \to \gamma\gamma$ and $\eta \to \gamma
\gamma$ decays), candidate events are required to have at least two
reconstructed charged tracks and at least four reconstructed photons.
Each charged track is required to be located within the MDC
acceptance, $|\cos\theta| < 0.93$, where $\theta$ is the polar angle
of the charged track, and to originate from a cylinder around the
interaction point of 1 cm radius and extending $\pm10$~cm along the detector axis.
Information from TOF and $dE/dx$
measurements is combined to form particle identification (PID)
likelihoods for the $\pi$, $K$, and $p$ hypotheses.  Each track is
assigned a particle type corresponding to the hypothesis with the
highest PID likelihood.  Exactly two oppositely charged pions are
required in each event.  Photon candidates are reconstructed using
clusters of energy deposited in the EMC crystals.  The energy is
required to be larger than $25\,\mbox{MeV}$ in the barrel region
($|\cos\theta| < 0.80$) and larger than $50\,\mbox{MeV}$ in the end cap region
($0.86< |\cos\theta| < 0.92$).  The energy deposited in nearby TOF
counters is included to improve the reconstruction efficiency and
energy resolution.  The difference of the EMC time from the event
start time is required to be within [0,700] ns to suppress electronic
noise and showers unrelated to the event.

To improve the momentum and energy resolution and to suppress
background events, a four-constraint (4C) kinematic fit imposing
four-momentum conservation is performed under the hypothesis $e^+e^-
\to \pi^{+}\pi^{-}4\gamma$. For the goodness of the kinematic fit,
$\chi^{2}_{\rm 4C} < 70$ is required.  For events with more than four
photon candidates, the combination with the smallest $\chi^{2}_{\rm
  4C}$ is retained.  In addition, a kinematic fit for the alternative
hypothesis $e^+e^- \to \pi^{+}\pi^{-}5\gamma$ is performed and only
those events that satisfy $\chi_{\rm 4C}^{2}(\pi^{+}~\pi^{-}4\gamma) <
\chi_{\rm 4C}^{2}(\pi^{+}\pi^{-}5\gamma)$ are retained in order to
suppress backgrounds from $e^+e^- \to \omega\pi^{0}\pi^{0}$ events.  Two
photon pairs corresponding to the best $\pi^{0}\eta$, $\pi^{0}\pi^{0}$
and $\eta\eta$ candidates are selected separately by choosing the
combination with the smallest value of
$\chi^{2}_{\alpha\beta}=(M(\gamma_1\gamma_2)-m_{\alpha})^{2}/\sigma^{2}_{12}
+ (M(\gamma_3\gamma_4)-m_{\beta}^{2})/\sigma^{2}_{34}$, where $\alpha$
and $\beta$ represent either $\pi^0$ or $\eta$, and the mass
resolution $\sigma_{12(34)}$ in the invariant mass region of the
$\pi^0$ or $\eta$ meson is obtained from MC simulations.  Only
combinations with $\chi^{2}_{\pi^{0}\eta} < \chi^{2}_{\pi^{0}\pi^{0}}$
and $\chi^{2}_{\pi^{0}\eta} < \chi^{2}_{\eta\eta}$ are retained.  The
$\pi^{0}$ and $\eta$ candidates are selected by requiring
$|M(\gamma_1\gamma_2)-m_{\pi^{0}}|< 0.02GeV/c^2$ and
$|M(\gamma_3\gamma_4)-m_{\eta}|< 0.03GeV/c^2$, corresponding to about
$3\sigma$ intervals around the respective nominal masses of $\pi^{0}$
and $\eta$, $m_{\pi^{0}}$ and $m_{\eta}$~\cite{PDG}.  Events with
$|E_{\gamma_{3}} - E_{\gamma_{4}}|/p_{\eta} > 0.9$, where $p_{\eta}$
is the momentum of the $\eta$ meson in the laboratory system, are
rejected to suppress background events from the $e^+e^- \to
\omega\gamma_{\rm ISR}$ and $e^+e^- \to \omega\pi^{0}\pi^{0}$ processes.

\end{multicols}

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\begin{overpic}[width=0.46\textwidth]{graph/Omega_eta/2D_Omegaeta}
\put(75,64){(a)}
\end{overpic}
\begin{overpic}[width=0.46\textwidth]{graph/Omega_eta/2125Eta_Mass_Omegapi0pi0}
\put(28,64){(b)}
\end{overpic}

\begin{overpic}[width=0.46\textwidth]{graph/Omega_eta/2125_Mgg}
\put(80,64){(c)}
\end{overpic}
\begin{overpic}[width=0.46\textwidth]{graph/Omega_eta/2125Peak_Mgg}
\put(80,64){(d)}
\end{overpic}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{(Color online) Invariant mass distributions for data taken at
  $\sqrt{s}=2.125$ GeV. (a) Distribution of the $\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$
  invariant mass versus the two-photon invariant mass. The
  area marked in red corresponds to the signal region.  (b) Fit to the
  $M(\gamma\gamma)$ distribution, where the (black) dots with error
  bars are data, the (blue) solid curve is the total fit result, the
  (green) dashed curve indicates background described by a second
  order Chebychev polynomial, the (red) dotted curve is the
  $\eta\to\gamma\gamma$ signal shape described by a Voigt function and
  the (green) histogram is the $e^+e^-\to\omega\pi^0\pi^0$ MC sample
  scaled to the integral of the background function in the fit.  The
  vertical lines indicate the signal (red) and sideband regions
  (blue).  (c) and (d) represent the $M(\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^{0})$
  invariant mass distributions in the $\eta$ signal and sideband
  region, respectively.  The dots with error bars are data, the solid
  curves are the total fit results, the dashed curves indicate the
  background described by a second order Chebychev polynomial and the
  dotted curves are the $\omega$ signal shapes determined from MC
  simulations convolved with a Gaussian accounting for a potential
  difference in resolution between data and MC simulation.}
\label{OmegaFit}
\end{figure}

\begin{multicols}{2}

The distribution of the $\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^0$ invariant mass versus the two-photon invariant mass of the selected events at
$\sqrt{s}=2.125$ GeV is shown as an example in Fig.~\ref{OmegaFit}(a), where an $\omega$ signal around the nominal $\omega$ meson mass
is visible.
Potential background reactions to the $e^+e^- \to \omega \eta$ process
are studied using both inclusive $e^+e^- \to$ hadrons and exclusive MC
samples.  Simulated events are subject to the same selection procedure
as that applied to the experimental data.  According to MC
simulations, the dominant background stems from $e^+e^- \to
\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0\eta$, which contains the same final state particles as
the signal reaction.  The $e^+e^-\to\omega\pi^0\pi^0$ and
$e^+e^-\to\omega\gamma_{\rm ISR}$ processes form a peaking background
contribution in the $\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^0$ invariant mass distribution.
The total peaking background from $e^+e^-\to\omega\gamma_{\rm ISR}$ is
estimated by MC simulations normalized to the experimental luminosity
and is found to be negligible.  The peaking background from
$e^+e^-\to\omega\pi^0\pi^0$ is inferred from the $\eta$
sidebands, which are defined as $0.400 < M(\gamma_3\gamma_4) <
0.508 GeV/c^2$ and $0.588 < M(\gamma_3\gamma_4) < 0.700 GeV/c^2$ as
shown in Fig.~\ref{OmegaFit}(b).

To determine the signal yield of the $e^+e^- \to \omega\eta$ process, a simultaneous unbinned maximum likelihood fit is performed to the $M(\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0)$ spectra in both the $\eta$ signal and background regions at each energy, where the shapes of signal and background are shared.
Figure~\ref{OmegaFit}~(c) and (d) show the fit results in signal and sideband regions at 2.125 GeV.
The signal is modeled with the peak shape obtained from MC simulation convolved with a Gaussian function allowing for a potential resolution difference between data and MC simulation.
The background is described with a second-order Chebychev polynomial.
In the fit, peaking background is automatically subtracted by constructing the number of $\omega$ events in the $\eta$ signal region as $N_{\rm obs}=N_{\rm sig}+f_{\rm scale}\cdot N_{\rm bkg}$, where $N_{\rm sig}$ is the number of $\omega\eta$ signal events, $N_{\rm bkg}$ is the number of $\omega$ events in the $\eta$ sideband region, and
$f_{\rm scale}$ is the normalization factor
$f_{\rm scale} = N^{{\eta}_{\rm sig}}/N^{{\eta}_{\rm sideband}}$
where $N^{{\eta}_{\rm sig}}$($N^{{\eta}_{\rm sideband}}$) is the number of background events falling into the signal (sideband)
region as shown in Fig.~\ref{OmegaFit}(b).

The Born cross section of the $e^+e^- \to \omega\eta$ process is calculated according to

\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&\sigma = \frac{N_{\rm sig}}{\mathcal{L}\cdot\varepsilon\cdot(1+\delta)\cdot\mathcal{B}},\\
\end{split}
\label{CXOE}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{L}$ is the integrated luminosity of the individual dataset, ($1 +\delta$) is the radiative correction factor accounting for both ISR and VP, and $\epsilon$ is the product of geometrical acceptance and selection efficiency obtained from MC simulation.
The total branching fraction $\mathcal{B}$ is the product of the branching fractions for the decays contained in the full decay chain $\mathcal{B}=\mathcal{B}(\omega \to \pi^+\pi^-\pi^0)\cdot\mathcal{B}(\pi^0 \to \gamma\gamma)\cdot\mathcal{B}(\eta \to \gamma\gamma)=34.7\%$.
The Born cross sections as well as upper limits at the 90\% confidence level are given for all 22 energy points together with all values used in the calculation in Table~\ref{crossOmegaEta}.
VP factors are also listed for the convenience of calculating dressed cross sections.
The results are consistent with previous measurements~\cite{SND2016omegaeta, CMD2017omegaeta, BaBarOmegaEta} but with improved precision.
A comparison to the previous results is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:comparison}(a).

Various sources of systematic uncertainties concerning the measurement
of the Born cross sections are investigated, including integrated luminosity,
branching fractions, ISR and VP correction factors, event selection
criteria, the fit procedure of the signal, and the contributions from
peaking background processes.

\end{multicols}

\begin{table}[H]
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{10pt}
  \centering
  \footnotesize
  \caption{The Born cross sections of the $e^{+}e^{-} \to \omega \eta$ process. In addition, upper limits are given at 90\% confidence level. All symbols defined are the same as those in Eq.~(\ref{CXOE}).
In the column of Born cross section $\sigma$, the first uncertainty is statistical, and the second one is systematic.
Sig. is the significance of the observed signal. VP lists the vacuum polarization factor.
}
    \label{crossOmegaEta}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c}
  \hline
  \hline
$\sqrt{s}$ (GeV) &$N_{\rm sig}$ & $N^{\rm up}_{\rm sig}$  &$\mathcal{L}$ (${\rm pb}^{-1}$)  &$\varepsilon\cdot(1+\delta)$ &$\sigma$ (pb) & $\sigma^{\rm up}$ (pb) & Sig. ($\sigma$) & VP\\
\hline
2.0000 & 19.3$^{+5.9}_{-5.2}$  &  $<$27.3 & 10.1 & 0.158 & 34.7$^{+10.6}_{-9.3}\pm2.9$ & $<$49.3 &  4.5 & 1.037  \\
2.0500 & 2.3$^{+2.6}_{-1.9}$  &  $<$7.0 & 3.34 & 0.161 & 12.6$^{+13.7}_{-10.1}\pm1.0$ & $<$37.5 &  1.4 & 1.038  \\
2.1000 & 1.9$^{+3.8}_{-1.9}$  &  $<$8.2 & 12.2 & 0.162 & 2.8$^{+5.6}_{-2.8}\pm0.2$ & $<$11.9 &  0.5 & 1.039  \\
2.1250 & 17.2$^{+8.2}_{-7.5}$  &  $<$26.0 & 108 & 0.163 & 2.8$^{+1.3}_{-1.2}\pm0.3$ & $<$4.3 &  2.2 & 1.039  \\
2.1500 & 2.3$^{+2.3}_{-1.6}$  &  $<$6.0 & 2.84 & 0.151 & 15.6$^{+15.7}_{-11.0}\pm0.7$ & $<$40.3 &  1.1 & 1.040  \\
2.1750 & 9.2$^{+4.1}_{-3.4}$  &  $<$14.9 & 10.6 & 0.156 & 16.0$^{+7.1}_{-6.0}\pm1.0$ & $<$25.9 &  3.0 & 1.040  \\
2.2000 & 16.5$^{+5.5}_{-4.8}$  &  $<$25.0 & 13.7 & 0.153 & 22.7$^{+7.5}_{-6.5}\pm1.7$ & $<$34.3 &  4.3 & 1.040  \\
2.2324 & 22.9$^{+5.8}_{-5.1}$  &  $<$30.9 & 11.9 & 0.161 & 34.4$^{+8.7}_{-7.7}\pm2.2$ & $<$46.4 &  $>$5 & 1.041  \\
2.3094 & 11.9$^{+5.3}_{-4.6}$  &  $<$22.6 & 21.1 & 0.178 & 9.1$^{+4.1}_{-3.5}\pm0.7$ & $<$17.3 &  3.7 & 1.041  \\
2.3864 & 8.2$^{+3.9}_{-3.3}$  &  $<$14.5 & 22.5 & 0.173 & 6.1$^{+2.9}_{-2.4}\pm0.4$ & $<$10.7 &  2.6 & 1.041  \\
2.3960 & 20.6$^{+6.3}_{-5.6}$  &  $<$29.6 & 66.9 & 0.172 & 5.2$^{+1.6}_{-1.4}\pm0.4$ & $<$7.4 &  3.5 & 1.041  \\
2.5000 & 2.6$^{+2.4}_{-1.7}$  &  $<$6.3 & 1.10 & 0.175 & 39.3$^{+35.7}_{-25.0}\pm3.5$ & $<$94.2 &  1.6 & 1.041  \\
2.6444 & 17.7$^{+5.2}_{-4.5}$  &  $<$23.3 & 33.7 & 0.174 & 8.7$^{+2.6}_{-2.2}\pm0.5$ & $<$11.4 &  $>$5 & 1.039  \\
2.6464 & 18.8$^{+5.1}_{-4.4}$  &  $<$26.0 &  34.0 & 0.173 & 9.2$^{+2.5}_{-2.2}\pm0.6$ & $<$12.7 &  $>$5 & 1.039  \\
2.7000 & 1.2$^{+1.9}_{-1.0}$  &  $<$2.2 & 1.03 & 0.177 & 19.6$^{+29.3}_{-15.2}\pm0.9$ & $<$34.7 &  1.1 & 1.039  \\
2.8000 & 1.2$^{+1.9}_{-1.0}$  &  $<$2.2 & 1.01 & 0.177 & 20.0$^{+29.8}_{-15.5}\pm0.9$ & $<$35.4 &  1.1 & 1.037  \\
2.9000 & 27.0$^{+6.0}_{-5.3}$  &  $<$30.3 & 105 & 0.182 & 4.1$^{+0.9}_{-0.8}\pm0.3$ & $<$4.6 &  $>$5 & 1.033  \\
2.9500 & 1.8$^{+2.1}_{-1.8}$  &  $<$5.0 & 15.9 & 0.184 & 1.8$^{+2.1}_{-1.7}\pm0.1$ & $<$4.9 &  0.7 & 1.029  \\
2.9810 & 0.7$^{+1.8}_{-0.7}$  &  $<$4.4 & 16.1 & 0.187 & 0.7$^{+1.8}_{-0.7}\pm0.1$ & $<$4.2 &  0.2 & 1.025  \\
3.0000 & 0.0$^{+0.5}_{-0.0}$  &  $<$2.2 & 15.9 & 0.186 & 0.0$^{+0.5}_{-0.0}\pm0.0$ & $<$2.1 &  0.0 & 1.021  \\
3.0200 & 0.3$^{+1.4}_{-0.3}$  &  $<$2.2 & 17.3 & 0.184 & 0.3$^{+1.3}_{-0.3}\pm0.0$ & $<$2.0 &  0.3 & 1.014  \\
3.0800 & 9.2$^{+4.5}_{-3.8}$  &  $<$15.8 & 126 & 0.172 & 1.2$^{+0.6}_{-0.5}\pm0.1$ & $<$2.1 &  2.8 & 0.915  \\
\hline
\hline
    \end{tabular}
\end{table}

\begin{multicols}{2}

The integrated luminosity at each energy point is measured using large
angle Bhabha events with an uncertainty of 1\% following the method in
Ref.~\cite{Luminosity}.  The uncertainties associated with the
branching fractions of intermediate states are taken from the
PDG~\cite{PDG}.
The uncertainty of the ISR and VP correction factors is obtained from the accuracy of radiation function, which is about 0.5\%~\cite{ConExc}, and has an additional contribution from the cross section lineshape,
which is estimated by varying the model parameters of the fit to the cross sections. All parameters are randomly varied within their uncertainties and the resulting parametrization of the lineshape is used to recalculate $(1+\delta)$, $\epsilon$ and the corresponding cross sections. This procedure is repeated 1000 times and the standard deviation of the resulting cross sections is taken as a systematic uncertainty.
Differences between the data and MC simulation for the tracking efficiency and PID
of charged pions are investigated using the high-purity control sample
of $e^{+}e^{-} \to K^{+}K^{-}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$~\cite{Tracking, BESKK}.  The photon
detection efficiency is studied with a sample of $e^{+}e^{-} \to
K^{+}K^{-}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^{0}$
with similar method for tracking uncertainty~\cite{Tracking}.
The result shows that the
difference in detection efficiency between data and MC simulation is
1\% per photon.
The uncertainties associated with the kinematic fit
are studied with the track helix parameter correction method, as
described in Ref.~\cite{4C}.

\end{multicols}

\begin{table}[H]
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{6.6pt}
  \centering
  \scriptsize
  \caption{
  Summary of relative systematic uncertainties (in \%) associated with the luminosity ($\mathcal{L}$),  the tracking efficiency (Track), the photon detection efficiency (Photon), PID, Branching fraction (Br), $\chi^2$ requirement, 4C kinematic fit (4C),  $|E_{\gamma_{3}} - E_{\gamma_{4}}|/p_{\eta} <0.9$ (Angle), background shape (Bkg), signal shape (Sig), fit range (Range), $\eta$ and $\pi^0$ mass windows (m($\eta$) and m($\pi^0$)), peaking background (Peak), the initial state radiation and the vacuum polarization correction factor ($1+\delta$) in the measurement of the Born cross section of the  $e^{+}e^{-} \to \omega \eta$ process.}
 \label{UncertaintyOE}
  \begin{tabular}{ccccc ccccc ccccc cc}
  \hline
  \hline
Energies &$\mathcal{L}$ &Track &Photon &PID &Br &$\chi^{2}$ &4C &Angle  &Bkg &Sig  &Range   & m($\eta$)    &m($\pi^{0}$)    &Peak & $1+\delta$  &Total    \\
\hline
 2.0000  & 1.0  & 2.0  & 4.0  & 2.0  & 0.9  & 0.5  & 0.6  & 1.1  & 0.1  & 2.5  & 0.2  & 0.4  & 3.0  & 4.8  & 0.5  & 8.1  \\
 2.0500  & 1.0  & 2.0  & 4.0  & 2.0  & 0.9  & 0.5  & 0.6  & 1.1  & 0.1  & 2.5  & 0.2  & 0.4  & 3.0  & 4.8  & 0.6  & 8.2  \\
 2.1000  & 1.0  & 2.0  & 4.0  & 2.0  & 0.9  & 0.5  & 0.6  & 1.1  & 0.1  & 2.5  & 0.2  & 0.4  & 3.0  & 4.8  & 2.7  & 8.6  \\
 2.1250  & 1.0  & 2.0  & 4.0  & 2.0  & 0.9  & 0.5  & 0.5  & 1.1  & 1.9  & 2.5  & 2.2  & 0.4  & 3.0  & 9.6  & 1.1  & 12  \\
 2.1500  & 1.0  & 2.0  & 4.0  & 2.0  & 0.9  & 0.5  & 0.6  & 1.1  & 0.1  & 2.5  & 0.2  & 0.4  & 3.0  & 4.8  & 1.5  & 8.3  \\
 2.1750  & 1.0  & 2.0  & 4.0  & 2.0  & 0.9  & 0.5  & 0.7  & 1.1  & 0.5  & 2.5  & 0.5  & 0.4  & 3.0  & 3.7  & 1.2  & 7.7  \\
 2.2000  & 1.0  & 2.0  & 4.0  & 2.0  & 0.9  & 0.5  & 0.5  & 1.1  & 0.3  & 1.6  & 0.2  & 0.4  & 3.0  & 2.6  & 1.8  & 7.0  \\
 2.2324  & 1.0  & 2.0  & 4.0  & 2.0  & 0.9  & 0.5  & 0.7  & 1.1  & 0.2  & 0.8  & 0.7  & 0.4  & 3.0  & 1.6  & 1.5  & 6.5  \\
 2.3094  & 1.0  & 2.0  & 4.0  & 2.0  & 0.9  & 0.5  & 0.7  & 1.1  & 0.0  & 2.0  & 0.1  & 0.4  & 3.0  & 2.1  & 0.7  & 6.8  \\
 2.3864  & 1.0  & 2.0  & 4.0  & 2.0  & 0.9  & 0.5  & 0.6  & 1.1  & 1.0  & 1.6  & 1.2  & 0.4  & 3.0  & 2.3  & 0.5  & 6.9  \\
 2.3960  & 1.0  & 2.0  & 4.0  & 2.0  & 0.9  & 0.5  & 0.5  & 1.1  & 0.0  & 2.2  & 0.2  & 0.4  & 3.0  & 2.6  & 0.5  & 7.0  \\
 2.5000  & 1.0  & 2.0  & 4.0  & 2.0  & 0.9  & 0.5  & 0.6  & 1.1  & 0.1  & 2.5  & 0.2  & 0.4  & 3.0  & 4.8  & 0.5  & 8.1  \\
 2.6444  & 1.0  & 2.0  & 4.0  & 2.0  & 0.9  & 0.5  & 0.6  & 1.1  & 0.2  & 1.4  & 0.6  & 0.4  & 3.0  & 1.6  & 0.5  & 6.5  \\
 2.6464  & 1.0  & 2.0  & 4.0  & 2.0  & 0.9  & 0.5  & 0.6  & 1.1  & 0.1  & 0.8  & 0.8  & 0.4  & 3.0  & 1.7  & 0.5  & 6.4  \\
 2.7000  & 1.0  & 2.0  & 4.0  & 2.0  & 0.9  & 0.5  & 0.6  & 1.1  & 0.1  & 2.5  & 0.2  & 0.4  & 3.0  & 4.8  & 0.5  & 8.1  \\
 2.8000  & 1.0  & 2.0  & 4.0  & 2.0  & 0.9  & 0.5  & 0.6  & 1.1  & 0.1  & 2.5  & 0.2  & 0.4  & 3.0  & 4.8  & 0.5  & 8.1  \\
 2.9000  & 1.0  & 2.0  & 4.0  & 2.0  & 0.9  & 0.5  & 0.5  & 1.1  & 0.2  & 0.4  & 0.8  & 0.4  & 3.0  & 1.7  & 0.5  & 6.4  \\
 2.9500  & 1.0  & 2.0  & 4.0  & 2.0  & 0.9  & 0.5  & 0.6  & 1.1  & 0.1  & 2.5  & 0.2  & 0.4  & 3.0  & 4.8  & 0.5  & 8.1  \\
 2.9810  & 1.0  & 2.0  & 4.0  & 2.0  & 0.9  & 0.5  & 0.6  & 1.1  & 0.1  & 2.5  & 0.2  & 0.4  & 3.0  & 4.8  & 0.5  & 8.1  \\
 3.0000  & 1.0  & 2.0  & 4.0  & 2.0  & 0.9  & 0.5  & 0.6  & 1.1  & 0.1  & 2.5  & 0.2  & 0.4  & 3.0  & 4.8  & 0.5  & 8.1  \\
 3.0200  & 1.0  & 2.0  & 4.0  & 2.0  & 0.9  & 0.5  & 0.6  & 1.1  & 0.1  & 2.5  & 0.2  & 0.4  & 3.0  & 4.8  & 0.5  & 8.1  \\
 3.0800  & 1.0  & 2.0  & 4.0  & 2.0  & 0.9  & 0.5  & 0.7  & 1.1  & 0.4  & 1.6  & 0.9  & 0.4  & 3.0  & 2.7  & 0.5  & 6.9  \\
 \hline
  \hline
    \end{tabular}
\end{table}

\begin{figure}[H
\begin{center}
\begin{overpic}[width=0.492\textwidth]{updateplots/OmegaEta/BES_SND_BABAR_CMD_subpad}
\put(22,63){(a)}
\end{overpic}
\begin{overpic}[width=0.492\textwidth]{updateplots/OmegaPi0/Omegapi0_Comparison1_subpad}
\put(22,63){(b)}
\end{overpic}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{(Color online) Dressed cross sections for the processes (a) $e^+e^-\to\omega\eta$ and (b) $e^+e^-\to\omega\pi^0$. In comparison to the data presented in this work (red dots), in (a) the data from the CMD3~\cite{CMD2017omegaeta} (brown open circles), SND~\cite{SND2016omegaeta} (green open crosses) and BaBar~\cite{BaBarOmegaEta} (blue open triangles) experiments are shown. In (b), our data is compared to the results of the CMD2~\cite{CMD1,CMD2} (green open upward triangles and green open circles), SND~\cite{SND2000,SND2016} (green filled crosses and brown filled triangles), BaBar~\cite{BABAR} (blue filled X crosses), DM2~\cite{DM2} (magenta open stars) and ND~\cite{ND} (cyan filled downward triangles) experiments. }\label{fig:comparison}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\begin{multicols}{2}

\noindent
 Due to the limited statistics in the
data samples, a control sample of the $J/\psi \to \omega\eta$ decay is
used to estimate the uncertainties arising from the selection
conditions $\chi_{\rm 4C}^{2}(\pi^{+}~\pi^{-}4\gamma) < \chi_{\rm
  4C}^{2}(\pi^{+}~\pi^{-}5\gamma)$, $\chi_{\pi^{0}\eta}^{2} <
\chi_{\pi^{0}\pi^{0}}^{2}$, $\chi_{\pi^{0}\eta}^{2} <
\chi_{\eta\eta}^{2}$, $|M(\gamma_1\gamma_2)-m_{\pi^{0}}|< 0.02GeV/c^2$,
$|M(\gamma_3\gamma_4)-m_{\eta}|< 0.03GeV/c^2$ and $|E_{\gamma_{3}} -
E_{\gamma_{4}}|/p_{\eta} <0.9$.
 For this, the single-requirement
efficiency is studied, removing one of the selection conditions at a
time and studying the change in the number of observed events. In case
a significant difference is found between the data control sample and
a MC simulation of the $J/\psi \to \omega\eta$ decay, this difference
is taken as the systematic uncertainty.

Due to large statistical fluctuations in the data, toy MC samples are used to estimate the systematic uncertainties stemming from the description of the signal and background shape as well as from the fit range when determining $N_{\text{obs}}$.
A total of 500 sets of toy MC samples are generated according to the final fit result shown in Fig.~\ref{OmegaFit}(c) with the same statistics as in data.
For each toy MC sample,
the following procedure is performed:
the $\omega$ signal shape is changed to a Breit-Wigner function convolved with a Gaussian,
the background shape is varied from a second to a third order Chebychev polynomial and the fit range is varied by $\pm10 MeV/c^2$.
The mean value of the differences of the signal yield between the nominal and the alternative fits is taken
as the systematic uncertainty.
The uncertainty of peaking background is related to the uncertainty of $N_{\text{bkg}}$ and $f_{\text{scale}}$.
We estimate uncertainty of $N_{\text{bkg}}$ with the same method for $N_{\text{obs}}$, and that of $f_{\text{scale}}$ by considering the fit uncertainty of the non-$\eta$ background at 2.125 GeV.

The total systematic uncertainty for the Born cross section measurement is determined to be 12\% for the $e^+e^- \to \omega\eta$ process at $\sqrt{s}=2.125$ GeV. The uncertainties at the other c.m. energies are determined accordingly and are summarized in Table~\ref{UncertaintyOE}.

\subsection{Analysis of $e^+e^- \to \omega \pi^0$}
The event selection criteria for the $e^+e^- \to \omega \pi^0$ process are mostly the same as described in Sec.~\ref{selomegaeta}.
The $\pi^{0}\pi^{0}$ candidate pairs are selected by minimizing $\chi^{2}_{\pi^0\pi^0}=(M(\gamma_1\gamma_2)-m_{\pi^0})^{2}/\sigma^{2}_{12} + (M(\gamma_3\gamma_4)-m_{\pi^0})^{2}/\sigma^{2}_{34}$. These $\pi^{0}$ candidates are required to be in a mass window of $(m_{\pi^{0}}- 0.02GeV/c^2, m_{\pi^{0}}+ 0.02GeV/c^2)$.
Since there are two $\pi^{0}$ candidates, the $\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^0$ combination whose invariant mass is closest to $m_{\omega}$ is retained as the $\omega$ candidate, where the $\pi^0$ is denoted as $\pi^0_\omega$ to distinguish it from the bachelor pion $\pi^0_\mathrm{bach}$.

Using the above selection criteria, the distribution of the invariant mass of $\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^0_\omega$ versus the two-photon invariant mass for $\pi^0_\mathrm{bach}$ candidates is depicted in Fig.~\ref{OPomegaFit}(a). The $\omega$ signal is clearly evident.

\end{multicols}

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\begin{overpic}[width=0.46\textwidth]{graph/Omega_pi0/Before_c7}
\put(28,60){(a)}
\end{overpic}
\begin{overpic}[width=0.46\textwidth]{graph/Omega_pi0/pi0mass}
\put(28,60){(b)}
\end{overpic}

\begin{overpic}[width=0.46\textwidth]{graph/Omega_pi0/Omega_2125}
\put(28,60){(c)}
\end{overpic}
\begin{overpic}[width=0.46\textwidth]{graph/Omega_pi0/Omega_2125pi0side}
\put(28,60){(d)}
\end{overpic}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{(Color online) Invariant mass distributions at $\sqrt{s}=2.125$ GeV. (a) Distribution of the $\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0_\omega$ invariant mass versus the two-photon invariant mass corresponding to the $\pi^0_{\mathrm{bach}}\to\gamma\gamma$ decay.
The red box indicates the signal region.
(b) Distribution of the two-photon invariant mass $M(\gamma\gamma)$ corresponding to the $\pi^0_{\mathrm{bach}}\to\gamma\gamma$ decay,
where the (black) dots with error bars are data, the (red) solid histogram and the (red) dashed histogram is the signal MC before and after $\pi^0_{\mathrm{bach}}$ matching with the MC truth information. The red and blue vertical lines indicate the signal and sideband regions, respectively.
(c) and (d) represent the $M(\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^{0}_\omega)$ distribution corresponding to $\pi^{0}_{\mathrm{bach}}$ signal and sideband regions, respectively. The (black) dots with error bars are data, the (blue) solid curves are the total fit results, the (green) dashed curves indicate the background contributions described by a second order Chebychev polynomial and the (red) dotted curves show the $\omega$ signal shapes described by the MC lineshape convolved with a Gaussian function.}\label{OPomegaFit}
\end{figure}

\begin{multicols}{2}

A method similar to that described in Sec.~\ref{selomegaeta} is used
to study possible background contributions.  According to the study,
the dominant background stems from the four body process $e^+e^- \to
\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0\pi^0$, which has the same final state particles as the
signal channel.  In a similar way as in the $e^+e^-\to\omega\eta$ case,
possible peaking background contributions are inferred from the
$\pi^0_\mathrm{bach}$ sideband regions defined as $0.055 <
|M(\gamma_1\gamma_2)-m_{\pi^0}| < 0.095 GeV/c^2$ (as illustrated in
Fig.~\ref{OPomegaFit}(b)).  Note that due to mis-combination of
photons, a large fraction of the $\pi^0$ sideband is composed of
signal reactions.  Still, while a peaking sideband contribution is
found, its fraction is negligible (and would still have to be scaled
down in a similar procedure as described for the $\omega\eta$ process)
compared to the signal region as shown in Figs.~\ref{OPomegaFit} (c)
and (d).

The signal yield is determined using the $M(\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0_\omega)$
mass spectra (as shown in Fig.~\ref{OPomegaFit}(c)) with a similar method as
described in Sec.~\ref{selomegaeta}, with the difference being that peaking backgrounds are neglected, so that the fit reduces to a one-dimensional unbinned likelihood fit.
The fit yields $N_{\rm sig} = 22627\pm180$ events.

The Born cross section of the $e^+e^- \to \omega\pi^0$ process is
calculated using Eq.~(\ref{CXOE}), with the product of the branching
fractions determined by $\mathcal{B}=\mathcal{B}(\omega \to
\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0)\cdot\mathcal{B}^2(\pi^0 \to \gamma\gamma)=87.1\%$.
The values used in the calculation of the Born cross section of the
$e^+e^- \to \omega \pi^0$ process are listed in
Table~\ref{crossOmegaPi0}, together with the results at all
c.m. energies.  The results are consistent with most of the previous
measurements~\cite{SND2000,SND2003,SND2016, ND, CMD1,CMD2, DM2} but
with improved precision, however, there exists a small difference with
the BaBar measurement \cite{BABAR} at center-of-mass energies around
$2.1$ GeV.  A comparison is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:comparison}(b).

Concerning the systematic uncertainties, the contribution stemming
from the luminosity determination is common for the $e^+e^-\to\omega\eta$
and $e^+e^-\to\omega\pi^0$ reactions. Furthermore, for the
uncertainties relating to the detection efficiencies, the radiative
corrections, the fitting procedure and the branching fractions taken
from the literature, the same method is applied as previously stated
in Sec.~\ref{selomegaeta}.  In addition, the uncertainty arising from
the $\pi^{0}$ selection is obtained by varying the mass window
requirements for both $\pi^{0}_\omega$ and $\pi^{0}_\mathrm{bach}$ and
examining the changes in the resulting cross sections.  The total
systematic uncertainty of the determination of the Born cross section
is determined to be 6.7\% for $e^+e^- \to \omega\pi^{0}$ at
$\sqrt{s}=2.125$ GeV. The uncertainties at the other c.m. energies are
determined accordingly and are summarized in
Table~\ref{UncertaintyOP}.

\begin{table}[H]
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{3pt}
\footnotesize
  \centering
  \caption{ The Born cross sections of the $e^{+}e^{-} \to \omega \pi^0$ process.
The symbols are the same as those in Eq.~(\ref{CXOE}).
In the column of the Born cross section $\sigma$, the first uncertainty is statistical and the second one is systematic.}
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
  \hline
  \hline
$\sqrt{s}$ (GeV) &$N_{\rm sig}$  &$\mathcal{L}$ (${\rm pb}^{-1}$)    &$\varepsilon\cdot(1+\delta)$ &$\sigma$ (pb)\\
\hline
2.0000  &1677   $\pm$50       &10.1   &0.202    & 946  $\pm$28   $\pm$ 70   \\
2.0500  &652    $\pm$31       &3.34   &0.205    &1086  $\pm$52   $\pm$ 73   \\
2.1000  &2614   $\pm$62       &12.2   &0.209    &1181  $\pm$28   $\pm$ 80   \\
2.1250  &22627  $\pm$180      &108    &0.211    &1136  $\pm$ 9   $\pm$ 76   \\
2.1500  &539    $\pm$28       &2.84   &0.213    &1021  $\pm$52   $\pm$ 55   \\
2.1750  &1840   $\pm$51       &10.6   &0.217    & 914  $\pm$26   $\pm$ 59   \\
2.2000  &2064   $\pm$54       &13.7   &0.218    & 791  $\pm$21   $\pm$ 54   \\
2.2324  &1508   $\pm$46       &11.9   &0.222    & 659  $\pm$20   $\pm$ 43   \\
2.3094  &1846   $\pm$51       &21.1   &0.223    & 452  $\pm$13   $\pm$ 30   \\
2.3864  &1601   $\pm$48       &22.5   &0.222    & 366  $\pm$11   $\pm$ 26   \\
2.3960  &4553   $\pm$80       &66.9   &0.222    & 352  $\pm$ 6   $\pm$ 19   \\
2.5000  &53.8   $\pm$8.2      &1.10   &0.228    & 247  $\pm$38   $\pm$ 18   \\
2.6444  &1335   $\pm$42       &33.7   &0.234    & 195  $\pm$ 6   $\pm$ 11   \\
2.6464  &1274   $\pm$41       &34.1   &0.233    & 184  $\pm$ 6   $\pm$ 12   \\
2.7000  &34.9   $\pm$6.5      &1.03   &0.238    & 163  $\pm$30   $\pm$ 10   \\
2.8000  &21.2   $\pm$6.3      &1.01   &0.239    & 101  $\pm$30   $\pm$ 7.0   \\
2.9000  &2096   $\pm$54       &105    &0.243    &  93.8$\pm$ 2.4 $\pm$ 5.3  \\
2.9500  &302    $\pm$20       &15.9   &0.244    &  89.0$\pm$ 5.8 $\pm$ 5.2  \\
2.9810  &254    $\pm$19       &16.0   &0.246    &  74.0$\pm$ 5.5 $\pm$ 4.1  \\
3.0000  &256    $\pm$18       &15.9   &0.244    &  76.1$\pm$ 5.3 $\pm$ 4.1  \\
3.0200  &268    $\pm$18       &17.3   &0.242    &  73.3$\pm$ 5.0 $\pm$ 4.3  \\
3.0800  &1513   $\pm$40       &126  &0.223    &  61.8$\pm$ 1.7 $\pm$ 4.1  \\
\hline
\hline
    \end{tabular}
    \label{crossOmegaPi0}
\end{table}

\end{multicols}

\begin{table}[H]
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{9pt}
  \centering
  \scriptsize
  \caption{  Summary of relative systematic uncertainties (in \%) associated with the luminosity ($\mathcal{L}$),  the tracking efficiency (Track), the photon detection efficiency (Photon), PID, branching fraction (Br), 4C kinematic fit (4C), background shape (Bkg), signal shape (Sig), fit range (Range), $\pi^0$ mass windows (m($\pi^0$) and m($\pi^0_{\omega}$)), the initial state radiation and the vacuum polarization correction factor ($1+\delta$) in the measurement of the Born cross section of the  $e^{+}e^{-} \to \omega \pi^{0}$ process.}
  \label{UncertaintyOP}
  \begin{tabular}{ccccc ccccc cccc}
  \hline
  \hline
   Ecm  &   $\mathcal{L}$   &    Track & Photon  &  PID   &  Br    &  4C  &    Bkg   &     Sig  &    Range   &    $m(\pi^0)$   & $m(\pi^0_\omega)$  &   $(1+\delta)$  &   Total \\
\hline
 2.0000  & 1.0  & 2.0  & 4.0  & 2.0  & 0.7  & 0.2  & 0.4  & 1.4  & 5.1  & 0.1  & 0.3  & 0.7  & 7.4  \\
 2.0500  & 1.0  & 2.0  & 4.0  & 2.0  & 0.7  & 0.3  & 0.4  & 0.3  & 4.4  & 0.4  & 0.4  & 0.6  & 6.8  \\
 2.1000  & 1.0  & 2.0  & 4.0  & 2.0  & 0.7  & 0.3  & 0.4  & 1.6  & 4.2  & 0.1  & 0.1  & 0.5  & 6.8  \\
 2.1250  & 1.0  & 2.0  & 4.0  & 2.0  & 0.7  & 0.3  & 0.2  & 1.1  & 4.2  & 0.1  & 0.1  & 0.5  & 6.7  \\
 2.1500  & 1.0  & 2.0  & 4.0  & 2.0  & 0.7  & 0.4  & 0.9  & 1.5  & 0.7  & 0.4  & 0.2  & 0.5  & 5.4  \\
 2.1750  & 1.0  & 2.0  & 4.0  & 2.0  & 0.7  & 0.4  & 0.0  & 0.4  & 4.1  & 0.0  & 0.2  & 0.5  & 6.6  \\
 2.2000  & 1.0  & 2.0  & 4.0  & 2.0  & 0.7  & 0.4  & 0.1  & 0.8  & 4.4  & 0.1  & 0.2  & 0.5  & 6.8  \\
 2.2324  & 1.0  & 2.0  & 4.0  & 2.0  & 0.7  & 0.4  & 0.1  & 0.8  & 3.9  & 0.2  & 0.3  & 0.5  & 6.5  \\
 2.3094  & 1.0  & 2.0  & 4.0  & 2.0  & 0.7  & 0.3  & 0.5  & 0.4  & 4.1  & 0.2  & 0.4  & 0.5  & 6.6  \\
 2.3864  & 1.0  & 2.0  & 4.0  & 2.0  & 0.7  & 0.3  & 1.4  & 0.9  & 4.7  & 0.3  & 0.4  & 0.5  & 7.1  \\
 2.3960  & 1.0  & 2.0  & 4.0  & 2.0  & 0.7  & 0.3  & 0.4  & 1.4  & 1.5  & 0.1  & 0.4  & 0.5  & 5.5  \\
 2.5000  & 1.0  & 2.0  & 4.0  & 2.0  & 0.7  & 0.4  & 0.4  & 2.4  & 4.2  & 1.3  & 1.0  & 0.5  & 7.2  \\
 2.6444  & 1.0  & 2.0  & 4.0  & 2.0  & 0.7  & 0.3  & 0.6  & 0.6  & 2.6  & 0.3  & 0.2  & 0.5  & 5.8  \\
 2.6464  & 1.0  & 2.0  & 4.0  & 2.0  & 0.7  & 0.1  & 0.9  & 1.4  & 3.4  & 0.5  & 0.3  & 0.5  & 6.4  \\
 2.7000  & 1.0  & 2.0  & 4.0  & 2.0  & 0.7  & 0.6  & 2.7  & 1.5  & 2.9  & 1.2  & 1.4  & 0.5  & 6.9  \\
 2.8000  & 1.0  & 2.0  & 4.0  & 2.0  & 0.7  & 0.1  & 0.2  & 1.6  & 2.1  & 0.7  & 0.9  & 0.5  & 5.8  \\
 2.9000  & 1.0  & 2.0  & 4.0  & 2.0  & 0.7  & 0.6  & 1.1  & 1.7  & 1.2  & 0.2  & 0.6  & 0.5  & 5.7  \\
 2.9500  & 1.0  & 2.0  & 4.0  & 2.0  & 0.7  & 0.2  & 0.5  & 1.2  & 2.3  & 0.7  & 0.2  & 0.5  & 5.8  \\
 2.9810  & 1.0  & 2.0  & 4.0  & 2.0  & 0.7  & 0.3  & 0.4  & 1.9  & 0.5  & 0.1  & 0.8  & 0.5  & 5.5  \\
 3.0000  & 1.0  & 2.0  & 4.0  & 2.0  & 0.7  & 0.4  & 0.3  & 0.5  & 1.4  & 0.7  & 0.6  & 0.5  & 5.4  \\
 3.0200  & 1.0  & 2.0  & 4.0  & 2.0  & 0.7  & 0.2  & 0.6  & 1.2  & 2.1  & 1.2  & 0.8  & 0.5  & 5.8  \\
 3.0800  & 1.0  & 2.0  & 4.0  & 2.0  & 0.7  & 0.5  & 0.8  & 1.7  & 3.5  & 1.1  & 0.8  & 0.5  & 6.6  \\
  \hline
  \hline
    \end{tabular}
\end{table}

\begin{multicols}{2}

\section{Line shape analysis}
\subsection{Analysis of the $e^+e^- \to \omega\eta$ process}
\label{fitomegaeta}
To study possible resonant structures in $e^+e^- \to \omega\eta$,
 a maximum likelihood fit of the type used in Ref.~\cite{pipihc}
is performed to the dressed cross sections, which are the products of Born cross sections and VP factors.
Previous results from the SND~\cite{SND2016omegaeta} and CMD3~\cite{CMD2017omegaeta} collaborations are also included to be able to describe the low-energy behavior of the cross section, while BaBar's result is not used due to their large uncertainties or non-observation without uncertainty.
In the fit, a possible resonant amplitude is parameterized using a Breit-Wigner function with a mass-independent width.
The flat contribution in the c.m. energy region between $2$ and $3$ GeV dominantly stems from tails of the $\omega(1420)$ and $\omega(1650)$ (or $\phi(1680)$) resonances.
Following Ref.~\cite{SND2016omegaeta}, the dressed cross section is modeled as

\begin{equation}
\sigma(s)= \frac{12\pi}{s^{\frac{3}{2}}}\left| f_{1} - f_{2} + e^{i\varphi}f_{3} \right|^{2}P_{f}(s),\\
\label{eqOEcx}
\end{equation}

\noindent
where $f_{R} = \sqrt{\frac{\Gamma^{ee}_{R}\cdot B^{\omega\eta}_{R}}{P_{f}(m_{R})}}\frac{m_{R}^{3/2}\sqrt{\Gamma_{R}}}{s - m^{2}_{R} + i\sqrt{s}\Gamma_{R}}$ (here $R=1,2,3$ is an index for the resonance) describes the resonant contributions from the $\omega(1420)$, $\omega(1650)$ (or $\phi(1680)$) and $Y(2180)$ (referring to the structure around $\sqrt{s}=2.2$ GeV) and
$\Gamma^{ee}_{R}\cdot B^{\omega\eta}_{R}$ is the product of the electronic width of the resonance $R$ and the branching fraction of the $R\to \omega\eta$ decay.
Furthermore, $m_{R}$ and $\Gamma_{R}$ are the mass and width of the resonance $R$, and
$\varphi$ is the relative phase angle of the $f_{3}$ contribution relative to the $f_1-f_2$ contribution.
The phase space factor $P_{f}(s)$ is given by $P_{f}(s) = q^{3}$,
where $q$ is the $\omega$ momentum in the $e^+e^-$ c.m. frame
calculated for the mass value $m(\omega)=0.78265GeV/c^2$ given in Ref.~\cite{PDG}.
The free fit parameters are taken as $\Gamma^{ee}\cdot B_{1}^{\omega\eta}$, $m_{2}$, $\Gamma_{2}$, $\Gamma^{ee}\cdot B_{2}^{\omega\eta}$, $m_{3}$, $\Gamma_{3}$,  $\Gamma^{ee}\cdot B_{3}^{\omega\eta}$ and ${\varphi}$.
The $m_{1}$ and $\Gamma_{1}$ values are fixed to the values determined by the SND Collaboration~\cite{SND2016omegaeta},
since the significance of the $\omega(1420)$ resonance is not large enough at the given c.m. energies.
In the fit,
uncertainties from previous experiments are considered uncorrelated, while
the uncertainties derived in this work are split into the uncorrelated and the correlated contributions. The former contributions include those stemming from the choice of signal and background shape as well as fit range and the treatment of peaking backgrounds whereas the latter include the remaining systematic uncertainties.
Figure \ref{OmegaEtaFit} and Table~\ref{Table-TwoSol} show the results from our fit. Two solutions are found with the same fit quality of $\chi^2/\text{ndf} = 78/67$, where ndf is the number of degrees of freedom.
Solution I corresponds to constructive interference between the $f_3$ amplitude and the remaining $f_1-f_2$ contribution, while solution II corresponds to the case of destructive interference.
The two solutions share all parameters other than those given in Table~\ref{Table-TwoSol}.
Among the other free parameters, the mass and width of $f_2$ are determined to be $1670\pm 4~\text{MeV}/c^2$ and $129\pm 7~\text{MeV}$, respectively, with $\Gamma^{ee}\cdot B_{f_2}^{\omega\eta}$ equal to $59\pm2~\text{eV}$.

\begin{table}[H]
\footnotesize
\centering
\caption{Resonance parameters of the $Y(2180)$ as obtained in the fit to the $e^+e^- \to \omega \eta$ dressed cross section.}
  \begin{tabular}{p{2.8cm}cc}
  \hline
  \hline
  parameters
                                               & solution I  & solution II \\
  \hline
  $m_{Y(2180)} (MeV/c^2)$                       &\multicolumn{2}{c}{ $2179 \pm 21 $}    \\
  $\Gamma_{Y(2180)} (\,\mbox{MeV})$                    &\multicolumn{2}{c}{ $89   \pm 28 $}    \\
  $\Gamma^{ee}\cdot B^{\omega\eta} (\,\mbox{eV})$              & $0.50 \pm 0.16$   & $1.50 \pm 0.44 $ \\
  $\varphi$                                    & $2.7 \pm 0.3$  & $1.9 \pm 0.2$ \\
   significance                       &\multicolumn{2}{c}{ 6.1$\sigma$}    \\
   \hline
  \hline
    \end{tabular}
    \label{Table-TwoSol}
\end{table}

\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\begin{overpic}[width=0.47\textwidth]{graph/Omega_eta/Omegaeta_Fit_2results_dressed}
\put(15,90){(a)}
\put(15,40){(b)}
\end{overpic}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.5 cm}
\caption{(Color online) Fit to the dressed cross sections of $e^+e^- \to \omega \eta$. (a) Solution I. (b) Solution II. (Red) filled circles represent the data from this work, whereas (brown) open circles show the data from CMD3 and the (green) open crosses the data from SND. The (black) solid curves are the total fit results, the (red) long-dashed curves indicate the $Y(2180)$ resonance contribution, the (blue) short-dashed curves represent the $\omega(1650)$ or $\phi(1680)$ contribution, the (green) dotted curves display the $\omega(1420)$ contribution and (magenta) dotted-dashed curves show the interference contribution. In the upper right panel of both (a) and (b), a zoom into the region of the $Y(2180)$ resonance is shown.}\label{OmegaEtaFit}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Analysis of the $e^+e^- \to \omega\pi^0$ process}
A fit is performed to the dressed cross sections of $e^+e^- \to
\omega\pi^0$ using a similar method as described in
Sec.~\ref{fitomegaeta}.
Previous results from the SND collaboration~\cite{SND2003,SND2016} are included in order to provide the low-energy contributions that will only appear as tails in the energy region under study.
BaBar's result is not used since there is an obvious bias compared to the result in this work in the overlap region, and others are not used due to their large uncertainties.
Here, the fit model is parameterized as a
coherent sum of four Breit-Wigner functions,

\begin{equation}
\sigma(s)= \frac{12\pi}{s^{\frac{3}{2}}}\left| f_{1} + e^{i\varphi_{1}}f_{2} + e^{i\varphi_{2}}f_{3}  + e^{i\varphi_{3}}f_{4}  \right|^{2}P_{f}(s),\\
\end{equation}

\noindent
where $f_{R}$ (with $R = $ 1, 2, 3, 4) are the Breit-Wigner functions
for the $\rho(770)$, $\rho(1450)$, $\rho(1700)$ and $Y(2040)$
(referring to the structure around $\sqrt{s}=2.040$ GeV) resonances,
which take the the same form as described in Eq.~(\ref{eqOEcx}) except
for the $\rho(770)$.  Since the mass of the $\rho(770)$ resonance is
below the $\omega \pi^{0}$ threshold, we instead use $f_{\rho(770)} =
\frac{A}{s - m^{2}_{\rho(770)} + i\sqrt{s}\Gamma_{\rho(770)}(s)}$.
The formula for the energy-dependent width $\Gamma_{\rho(770)}(s)$ is
given in Ref.~\cite{SND2000}.  The free fit parameters are taken as
$A$, $\Gamma_{\rho(1450)}$, $\Gamma_{\rho(1700)}$, $m_{Y(2040)}$,
$\Gamma_{Y(2040)}$, $\Gamma^{ee}_{R}\cdot B^{\omega\eta}_{R}$ and
$\varphi_{R}$.

The masses of the $\rho(1450)$ and $\rho(1700)$ resonances are fixed to the average values as given by the PDG~\cite{PDG}.
In the fit,
a possible effect of omitting other data available in the literature on the results obtained in this work is studied and will be discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:sys}.
Correlated and uncorrelated uncertainties of the present work are incorporated in the same way as described in Sec.~\ref{fitomegaeta}, while the uncertainties of the previous experiments are considered uncorrelated.

The fit shown in Fig.~\ref{OmegaPi0Fit} finds a resonance with a mass of $(2034 \pm 13) MeV/c^2$, width of $(234 \pm 30)\,\mbox{MeV}$ and
 $\Gamma^{ee}\cdot B^{\omega\pi^0}$ of $(34\pm11)~\text{eV}$
with a fit quality  of $\chi^{2}/\text{ndf} = 128/90$.
The significance of the $Y(2040)$ contribution is found to be larger than 10$\sigma$.

\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\begin{overpic}[width=0.49\textwidth]{graph/Omega_pi0/Combine_Fit_dressed}
\end{overpic}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.7 cm}
\caption{(Color online) Fit to the dressed cross sections of the $e^+e^- \to \omega \pi^0$ process. (Red) filled circles correspond to the data obtained in this work, while (brown) filled triangles and (green) filled crosses are the data from SND. The (black) solid curve is the total fit result, the (red) dashed curve is the $Y(2040)$ contribution, the (blue) long-dashed curve is the contribution from the $\rho(1700)$, the (light blue) dotted-dotted-dashed curve stems from the $\rho(1450)$, the (green) dotted-dashed curve corresponds to the $\rho(770)$ and the (magenta) dotted curve is the interference contribution.}\label{OmegaPi0Fit}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Systematic uncertainties} \label{sec:sys}
The systematic uncertainties of the resonant parameters in the fit to the Born cross sections of $e^+e^- \to \omega\eta$ include contributions from the determination of the c.m. energy and the energy spread, fixed parameters in the fit, and the data from other experiments that is included in the fit.
The uncertainty of the c.m. energy from BEPCII is small and found to be negligible comparing to the statistic uncertainty in the determination of the resonance parameters.
The effect resulting from fixing the parameters of the $\omega(1420)$ resonance is studied by varying the mass and width within the uncertainties quoted in the PDG~\cite{PDG} and yields an uncertainty of $\Delta m=3$ $MeV/c^2$, $\Delta \Gamma =$ 5 $\,\mbox{MeV}$ and $\Delta(\Gamma^{ee}\cdot B^{\omega\eta})$ equal to $0.03~\mbox{\rm eV}$ for solution I and $0.16~\mbox{\rm eV}$ for solution II.

We distinguish between two different types of systematic uncertainties, those that are uncorrelated between the different center-of-mass energies and those that are correlated.
While the uncorrelated uncertainties are included in the fit to the cross section, the correlated uncertainties that are common for all center-of-mass energies ($\sim 6\%$) only affect the $\Gamma^{ee}\cdot B^{\omega\eta}$ measurement and we find a resulting systematic uncertainty of $0.03~\mbox{\rm eV}$ for solution I and $0.09~\mbox{\rm eV}$ for solution II.
Assuming all sources of systematic uncertainties are uncorrelated and thus adding them in quadrature, the total systematic uncertainty is $3MeV/c^2$ for the mass, $5\,\mbox{MeV}$ for the width, $0.04~\mbox{\rm eV}$ (solution I) or $0.18~\mbox{\rm eV}$ (solution II) for $\Gamma^{ee}\cdot B^{\omega\eta}$ of the $Y(2180)$.

For the systematic uncertainties of the resonant parameters of the $Y(2040)$ in $e^+e^- \to \omega\pi^{0}$,
the contribution introduced by taking the data points of other experiments into account in the fit is significant.
It is investigated by including all available measurements~\cite{SND2000,SND2003,SND2016,ND,CMD1,CMD2,BABAR,DM2} and comparing with the nominal fit result above.
Other uncertainties are considered in the same way as stated before for the $Y(2180)\to\omega\eta$ case.
All sources of systematic uncertainties are added in quadrature, obtaining the total systematic uncertainty of $9MeV/c^2$ for the mass, $25\,\mbox{MeV}$ for the width and $16~\text{eV}$ for $\Gamma^{ee}\cdot B^{\omega\pi^0}$ of the observed $Y(2040)$.

\section{Summary and discussion}
The Born cross sections of the $e^+e^- \to \omega\eta$ and $e^+e^- \to \omega\pi^{0}$ processes have been measured at $\sqrt{s}$ from 2.000 to 3.080$\,\mbox{GeV}$.
They are consistent with most of previous measurements in the overlap region, but deviate with BaBar's results, especially in the $\omega\pi^{0}$ process.
Two resonant structures are observed in the measured line shapes.
One resonant structure is observed with a significance of 6.1$\sigma$ in the cross section of the $e^+e^- \to \omega\eta$ process,
with mass $m = (2179 \pm21 \pm3)MeV/c^2$, width $\Gamma = (89 \pm 28 \pm5)\,\mbox{MeV}$,
and $\Gamma^{ee}\cdot B^{\omega\eta} = (0.50 \pm 0.16 \pm 0.04)~{\rm eV}$ or $(1.50 \pm 0.44 \pm 0.18)~{\rm eV}$, depending on the choice between two ambiguous fit solutions.
The observed structure agrees well with the properties of the $\phi(2170)$ resonance, which indicates the first observation of the decay $\phi(2170)\to\omega\eta$.

Another structure is observed in the $\omega\pi^0$ cross section with a significance of more than 10$\sigma$ and
with a mass of $m = (2034 \pm 14 \pm 9)MeV/c^2$, width of $\Gamma = (234 \pm 30 \pm 25)\,\mbox{MeV}$ and $\Gamma^{ee}\cdot B^{\omega\pi^0}$ of $(34\pm11\pm16)~\text{eV}$.
This structure could either be the $\rho(2000)$ or the $\rho(2150)$ state.
However, the mass and width of the observed resonance is closer to the $\rho(2000)$ resonance, which is suggested to be the $2^{3}D_{1}$ state~\cite{Rhoresonance}.

\section*{Acknowledgements}

The BESIII collaboration thanks the staff of BEPCII, the IHEP computing center and the supercomputing center of USTC for their strong support.
This work is supported in part by National Key Basic Research Program of China under Contract No. 2015CB856700;
National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) under Contracts Nos. 11335008, 11375170, 11475164, 11475169, 11625523, 11605196, 11605198, 11635010, 11705192, 11735014, 11822506, 11835012, 11935015, 11935016, 11935018, 11950410506, 11961141012, 12035013;
the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) Large-Scale Scientific Facility Program;
Joint Large-Scale Scientific Facility Funds of the NSFC and CAS under Contracts Nos. U1532102, U1732263, U1832103, U1832207, U2032111;
CAS Key Research Program of Frontier Sciences under Contracts Nos. QYZDJ-SSW-SLH003, QYZDJ-SSW-SLH040;
100 Talents Program of CAS;
INPAC and Shanghai Key Laboratory for Particle Physics and Cosmology;
ERC under Contract No. 758462;
German Research Foundation DFG under Contracts Nos. Collaborative Research Center CRC 1044, FOR 2359;
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Italy;
Ministry of Development of Turkey under Contract No. DPT2006K-120470;
National Science and Technology fund;
STFC (United Kingdom);
The Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation (Sweden) under Contract No. 2016.0157;
The Royal Society, UK under Contracts Nos. DH140054, DH160214;
The Swedish Research Council;
U. S. Department of Energy under Contracts Nos. DE-FG02-05ER41374, DE-SC-0012069.

\section*{References}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaArXiv


text:
Rare scorers lift Lightning
The first one is always the best.
Sunday, for defensemen Cory Sarich and Pavel Kubina, it was particularly sweet considering what it meant to the Lightning.
Sarich scored his first goal after a 150-game drought 3:45 into overtime to beat Carolina 2-1 after Kubina, returning from a two-game exile by coach John Tortorella, scored his first of the season midway through the third to tie it.
Both goals were set up by Vinny Prospal, who extended his point-scoring streak to seven games.
The Lightning opened a three-point lead over Carolina in the Southeast with its third victory in a row.
It has beaten the defending East champions twice this season. This one was a milder version of the brawl-filled 5-1 victory Oct. 12.
Sarich's goal was doubly sweet; not just because it won the game, but because the puck went into the net off of his stick.
The only other goal of his 226-game career came Nov. 24, 2000, against Florida, when defenseman Brad Ference deflected the puck into the goal.
"It feels great to get the monkey off my back," Sarich said. "I don't think I've ever been so excited in my whole career. Winning the World Juniors (championship) with Team Canada was great.
"Scoring my first NHL goal was great. But I think the second one was even better because it came off my own stick."
Thanks to Prospal, who set up Sarich alone in front of former Lightning goalie Kevin Weekes with a cross-ice pass from the right side.
"I just made an outlet pass to Nolan (Pratt)," Sarich said. "It wasn't the best pass, but he made a great play getting his stick on it and deflecting it right to Vinny. When that happened, the whole (Carolina) team seemed to focus on (Prospal).
"So I took off, and Vinny made an incredible pass right on the tape. I knew I couldn't mess that up because I don't get that close very often."
Kubina's goal, his first since April 7, came at the end of a give-and-go with Prospal. Brad Richards started the play on the right side of the blue line. His shot was blocked by Bates Battaglia, but Richards managed to kick the puck through Battaglia's legs.
Kubina picked it up and passed to Prospal on the right side then headed toward the net, took the return pass and shot the puck over Weekes' left shoulder. A Lightning power play had just ended after defenseman Aaron Ward was sent off for throwing an elbow at Ben Clymer's head.
"It's a great feeling," Kubina said. "I hadn't scored in a while, and it's my game to get some offense going."
Dave Andreychuk, one goal shy of 600, was parked alone at the left side of the crease.
"I never saw him," Kubina said. "I always look to pass the puck, and sometimes I get in trouble for that. I know I've got to shoot more."
Prospal doesn't talk much about his passing, preferring to pass the kudos back from whence they came.
"It's always nice when we can get contributions from different men scoring big goals like that in a tight-checking game," he said.
"I guess it means a lot for both of the guys."
Nikolai Khabibulin stopped 35 shots, the most this season and one more than Monday against Phoenix. Some were spectacular, close-in shots by Rod Brind'Amour.
"He gave us the chance to stay in the game," Prospal said.
The only goal Khabibulin allowed came 14:23 into the second period on a power play.
Andre Roy and the 'Canes Jeff O'Neill took unsportsmanlike conduct penalties at the end of a rumble along the boards. But the Lightning also was hit with a bench minor for too many men on the ice.
Jaroslav Svoboda passed from the right faceoff circle to Ron Francis, alone in front of Khabibulin. And he slipped it between the goalie's pads. It was Francis' 41st point in 51 games against the Lightning, the most by any player.
Up next:Bulls get a little respect in polls


text:
The Cut's take on Team Kavanaugh's 'excuses'
John SextonPosted at 7:21 pm on September 18, 2018
The Cut is a vertical connected to New York magazine, one that focuses on style and celebrity news about Beyonce and Justin Bieber but which also includes pieces on politics. Today the Cut published a piece titled "A Running List of Excuses Team Kavanaugh Has Tried Out."
This is a garbage headline for at least two reasons. First, calling Kavanaugh's response to the allegations "excuses" suggests he's trying to offer some lame mitigation for his behavior, i.e. the dog ate my homework. That's an excuse you offer when you didn't do your work. But as the Cut's own story points out, what Kavanaugh has actually done is offer a flat denial of the accusation.
Kavanaugh denied these claims, telling The New Yorker, "I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time."
He issued another denial on Monday, after Ford came forward as the author of the letter, writing:
This is a completely false allegation. I have never done anything like what the accuser describes — to her or to anyone. Because this never happened, I had no idea who was making this accusation until she identified herself yesterday. I am willing to talk to the Senate Judiciary Committee in any way the Committee deems appropriate to refute this false allegation, from 36 years ago, and defend my integrity.
The second reason that headline is junk is that saying these excuses were "tried out" suggests this is a list of failed excuses that haven't stood up to scrutiny. In fact, the only reason to make a list like this is to point out that someone has told a series of shifting stories that, usually, get less absolute each time a new one if offered. It's a way to combat the modified limited hangout strategy often employed by politicians like Hillary Clinton.
But that's not what the actual body of the article shows. In fact, Kavanaugh's denials don't vary at all. One is slightly more fleshed out because Christine Blasey Ford had come forward, but the denial itself is still absolute. So the suggestion in the headline that "Team Kavanaugh" has tried out a list of excuses is bogus. He has offered one flat statement which has not changed. The Cut gets around this by pointing to statements made by others on Kavanaugh's behalf:
The "Some of My Best Friends Are Women"
Hours after The New Yorker report came out, Senator Chuck Grassley shared a letter sent to him by 65 women who went to high school with Brett Kavanaugh, in which they said that in the 35 years they've known him, "he has behaved honorably and treated women with respect."
Again, this isn't an excuse and it wasn't made by Kavanaugh. He didn't claim some of his best friends are women. These women came forward on their own after one classmate sent a letter around to other women. Nothing about this changes Kavanaugh's flat denial. All it shows is that he had a pretty good reputation among women who knew him long ago.
The "I Wasn't Even There"
On CNN on Monday, Senator Orrin Hatch insisted that Ford is "mistaken," adding, "I talked to [Kavanaugh] on the phone today … [he said] he didn't do that, and he wasn't at the party. So, you know, clearly, somebody's mixed up."
Is this a new excuse? When Kavanaugh said, "This is a completely false allegation" that would seem to cover the allegation as a whole, not just the groping part. The only way this is a new excuse is if you read his earlier denial narrowly, i.e. I was there but I didn't touch anyone. But he never said that. He said it was completely false and he hasn't changed his tune or backed away from it even a little.
The Mauras
Later on Monday, two of Kavanaugh's ex-girlfriends — Maura Kane, who dated him in high school, and Maura Fitzgerald, who dated him in college — issued statements vouching for Kavanaugh's character.
One of the things Ronan Farrow has consistently relied on in his excellent #MeToo reporting is multiple accusations. Guys who behave like this tend not to do it just once. It's usually a pattern. So it does count for something when two women Kavanaugh dated at around the time of the accusation says he did not behave that way. Does it prove Christine Blasey Ford's allegation is false? No, I don't think it does, but it certainly should be weighed as a factor in Kavanaugh's favor.
The "Rough Horseplay"
On Tuesday, Carrie Severino, spokesperson for the Judicial Crisis Network — the organization that runs the campaigns for Republican judicial nominees — said on CNN that Ford's allegations "cover a whole range of conduct, from boorishness, to rough horseplay, to actual attempted rape."
Finally, we get to something that does sound a bit like an excuse. But even here, Severino is clear the allegation includes "attempted rape." As excuses go, this doesn't seem to mitigate very much. And of course, this isn't coming from Kavanaugh himself.
Maybe Kavanaugh will change his tune next week under hostile questioning. Maybe another accuser will come forward. But at this moment in time, the accused hasn't "tried out" a list of excuses. In fact, he has only said one thing from the beginning: This is completely false.
Tags: Brett Kavanaugh christine blasey ford excuses New York Magazine
Second look at polyamory?


text:
Rate Double Fine Games... in the style of 90s videogame websites/magazines.
By KestrelPi, October 20, 2014 in Let's Talk About Double Fine
KestrelPi
There's something comforting (if somewhat naive) about those more innocent old days where reviewing a game came down to a final verdict examining graphics, sound, gameplay, replayability and boiling it down to a final score. So I'd like to do that for all the Double Fine games I've played (enough of). I chose to summarise each with a sentence, too, but just the ratings will do!
Graphics: 9/10 With a great variety of environments and sense of style, there's a timeless quality to this art.
Sound: 10/10 A fantastic score is complemented with some of the finest voice work ever heard in a platformer.
Gameplay: 8/10 Very competent 3D platforming mechanics, although suffers from some camera issues and a few unfortunate difficulty spikes.
Story: 9/10 Some of the most charming storytelling to be found in the genre, this story has wit and heart in equal measure.
Lasting Appeal: 8/10 Collectibles and fun gameplay might keep things interesting for repeat plays, while the world is interesting enough to warrant revisits on its own.
Final Score (not an average): 9/10
Brütal Legend:
Graphics: 9/10 The goal of making a world that looked like heavy metal album covers is very well realised.
Sound:10/10 Heavy metal licensed music with Peter McConnell filling in the blanks suits this game perfectly, and the rest of the audio complements well.
Gameplay: 7/10 Admittedly some poor tutorialising of stage battles made them more frustrating than they needed to be. The 3rd person action is consistently fun.
Story: 8/10 Good as we expect from Tim Schafer, but some story beats felt a little glossed over.
Lasting Appeal: 7/10 Multiplayer adds to the replay value - if you can find an opponent. Otherwise, collectibles give a decent enough reason to keep exploring the open world.
Graphics: 8/10 A charming visual style, well realised, but perhaps with not enough variety in what you see.
Sound: 8/10 Peter McConnell impresses as usual, and the rest of the sound design is ...well, sound.
Gameplay: 6/10 Great for kids, but anyone seeking more engaging battle mechanics may find the combat tiresome after a while.
Story: 8/10 Funny, well written, and somehow evoking a nostalgia for Halloween that I've never really felt before.
Lasting Appeal: 6/10 Always nice to revisit on a rainy day close to Halloween, and DLC extends the life. Still, I wouldn't want to revisit regularly.
Graphics: 7/10 The wonderfully realised russian dolls are the main attraction; the rest of the environments are perfectly functional.
Sound: 8/10 The soundtrack suits the visuals very well, but didn't stay with me in the same way many Double Fine games did. The sound effects are frequently hilarious.
Gameplay: 8/10 Simple puzzles made much more interesting by offering multiple solutions to encourage creativity.
Story: 7/10 I never found myself particularly attached to any of the characters, but the story served the job of framing the puzzles.
Lasting Appeal: 8/10 With multiple ways to solve each puzzle, someone could easily get something new out of multiple play-throughs.
Graphics: 7/10 The world didn't quite come alive for me in the same way many Double Fine games have, but they work well. Also, salutes.
Sound: 7/10 Weapon and enemey sounds are suitably meaty, but soundtrack and voice work felt unmemorable compared to your average DF game.
Gameplay: 8/10 It's fun third person shooting mixed in with tower defense that stayed interesting until the end. The only criticism I have is that I found the DLC impossible to solo.
Story: 6/10 The story of Iron Brigade is... there, and it's fine.
Lasting Appeal: 8/10 Some of the most fun mechanics in a Double Fine game mean that I can revisit this game any time and be sure to have a fun time.
The Cave:
Graphics: 8/10 Characters and environments are well varied and well realised, animate well and lend the game charm.
Sound: 8/10 I'd have liked characters to have voices of their own, to give them more personality, but this is basically good work.
Gameplay: 4/10 Some fun puzzles are made hard to swallow by being constantly hampered and slowed down by platforming combined with character-switching. Unfortunate.
Story: 6/10 I never found myself particularly attached to any of the characters, but the story served the job of framing the puzzles well enough.
Lasting Appeal: 8/10 Multiple characters mean that the game is worth a few playthroughs if one is more tolerant than me of the mechanics.
Broken Age Act 1:
Graphics: 10/10 Full of detail and unique in style, this is exactly the sort of thing I love to see in a Double Fine game.
Sound: 10/10 Wonderful voice acting combines with, well, Peter McConnell does it again.
Gameplay: 7/10 A little too much hinting and some overly simplistic solutions, but this is essentially familiar adventure game territory so far.
Story: 8/10 I'd like to know more about Vella's motivations, and see more from several characters, but this is an intriguing start.
Lasting Appeal: 6/10 Typically for an adventure game, mainly re-playable just to enjoy the story and world again - which I do.
Hack 'n' Slash:
Graphics: 7/10 I love the characters, though sometimes the background art feels a little less crisp.
Sound: 9/10 Sadly no voice, but an excellent soundtrack makes up for it.
Gameplay: 9/10 Definitely not for everyone, but I loved the unique, creative puzzle solving of the game, and how much it let me tinker with by the end.
Story: 8/10 Competently written and with a few fun twists on existing tropes. I would have liked to see a few more story beats to flesh things out before the climax.
Lasting Appeal: 7/10 There are sure reasons to jump back in, with secrets and challenges and things to mess-with beyond the critical path
Final Score (not an average): 8/10 says my head, but my heart says 9/10
Costume Quest 2:
Graphics: 9/10 A lovely coat of paint on some already charming graphics. I love the environments, and the animations are superb.
Sound: 9/10 One of my favourite Peter McConnell sountracks, I'd just love to hear these characters voiced, though!
Gameplay: 7/10 Smart tweaks make this a sure step up from the first game, but still simplistic as far as turn-based battles go.
Story: 8/10 What can I say? I'm a sucker for time travel plots.
Lasting Appeal: 4/10 Not a ton of reasons to go back, but that feels okay for a holiday game. Will likely revisit on another Halloween.
ThunderPeel
$20 Bill in an Old Coat
Nice reviews! Pretty interesting to read, actually. But shouldn't that be "80s video game magazines"?
Most of the magazines I read were in the 90s and while some followed that format, I'd say most just tended to put a % score at the end. I distinctly remember 90s websites loving this sort of breakdown, though. But I suppose it could apply to some 80s magazines too!
Ah, yes, that's true, but I was mostly referring to "websites" over "magazines" in the title
This is an interesting idea. It'll be interesting to see how everyone's reviews stack up for the games. I always find it interesting how different reviews can have such different views of the same thing. Because, ultimately, no matter how objective the reviewer tries to be, they are after all human, and reviews are ultimately just one person's opinion.
For me, I'd rate The Cave much higher as I thought it was one of Double Fine's best games and I enjoyed the platforming and switching between characters (although Maniac Mansion is one of my first and favorite adventure games, and platformers are my second favorite genre after adventure games, so that probably has a lot to do with it). I still have to finish Brutal Legend (I got stuck at the final battle and haven't yet finished it), but I'd likely rank it slightly lower because I thought that the switch between action and strategy was too abrupt and the increase in difficulty in the strategy sections was too steep towards the end. I do like this idea, and I'll do a list of my own up some time (probably after October, as I'm trying to do a review a day on my blog, and I don't want to get sidetracked and burned out on reviews ).
I'm being a little harsh on The Cave. I think it has a lot going for it but I ended up thoroughly frustrated by the platforming. It wasn't good enough to be fun in its own right and so just, for me, provided this layer of molasses between knowing what to do and pulling it off. Also I feel like the game didn't do enough to make me care about the characters which sort of left it as a series of puzzles without motivation.
Made a change to the title. I'll also be adding ratings for upcoming games once I get to play them. I'll definitely change Broken Age to review the whole game once Act 2 is released, too.
I did play quite a bit of MMOJ too, but I didn't include it here as honestly I just don't know what I think about it. Free to Play games don't seem to be my thing, and it seemed like a competent one, but I don't know. I tried to review it and put it at about 6/10 but I'm honestly not sure if that's fair or not. I also played Dropchord, but not enough to feel comfortable rating it.
The Milkman™
Total Action Forum Master
Great thread, but I don't recall 'story' being a rating field in those magazines/websites.
I added it! DF tend to make story driven games with strong writing, so I thought it was worth including. Otherwise it felt like something was missing.
Gamespot used to have the categories of: Gameplay, Graphics, Sound, Value, and Reviewer's Tilt - the latter was, I think, because the review was an average, so sometimes when you rate a game but decide the game was worth more than the sum of its parts, you could bump it up and say 'despite all my feelings about these individual bits, I still like this game more for less-tangible reasons. I decided to leave out 'Value' because it's really difficult for me personally to put a number on that.
IGN had a policy of (from Wikipedia): The score is given according to the "individual aspects of a game, like presentation, graphics, sound, gameplay and lasting appeal." Each game is given a score in each of these categories, but the overall score for the game is an independent evaluation, not an average of the scores in each category.
Thinking about it, 'lasting appeal' is broader than 'replayability' as a category, so I'll switch to that.


text:
Home / Cheats / Star Wars Force Unleashed Cheats
Star Wars Force Unleashed Cheats
You will find all the information you need about Star Wars Force Unleashed cheats codes and hacks in this article. Star Wars Force Unleashed cheats are available if you're looking for cheat codes ...
You will find all the information you need about Star Wars Force Unleashed cheats codes and hacks in this article. Star Wars Force Unleashed cheats are available if you're looking for cheat codes or cheat codes. Get Star Wars Force Unleashed Hacks for free! This guide will teach you how to make the most of these hacks. Enjoy the full game experience with these cheats. This cheat code guide will teach you how to get all information.
1 Star Wars Force unleashed cheats
2 What does it mean to cheat?
3 Star Wars Force unleashed cheats download
4 Star Wars Force Unleashed Cheats: How To Use
Star Wars Force Unleashed Hacks can increase the enjoyment of your game and allow you to use it at the best level. Learn how to use Star Wars Force Unleashed cheats and the details for active cheats within the game. You can use cheats and get the priority in the games you play and enjoy the game more.
What does it mean to cheat?
Cheats for video games can help unlock new abilities and weapon upgrades as well as funny animations within your favourite games. This content contains Star Wars Force Unleashed Hacks. These cheats are also included in many popular video games.
Some games contain secret levels, or features that cannot be unlocked without cheats. These cheats are dependent on the game's hardware (such as its processor) and unlock hidden areas. You can gain access to items and weapons that are not accessible to the rest of the game, as well as expert level levels. If you don't want to share your secret inputs with anyone, however, consider using a video game cheat.
See also Gta San Andreas Cheats Xbox One Definitive Edition
Star Wars Force unleashed cheats download
If you're stuck in the middle of a game, Star Wars Force Unleashed Cheats could be just what you need. Cheats enable players to alter variables instantly to increase their advantage. This can help you speed up your progress or make things happen in the game that you wouldn't be able to otherwise. Whether you're stuck in an endless dungeon or stuck on an insurmountable boss, these cheats can make your life a little easier.
Star Wars Force Unleashed cheats can be used to unlock many of the most popular Star Wars Force Unleashed features. Use these to make your gaming experience even more enjoyable.
Star Wars Force Unleashed Cheats: How To Use
You can find Star Wars Force Unleashed cheats on Cheats.is. Here you will be able to check out the codes and cheats that are working. Click the Download button to get the cheats.
Check first if cheats and codes are available below.
Download the Star Wars Force Unleashed cheats by clicking on "Download".
On the Download page, check out Install Information.
Check out Kotor Cheats
Gta 5 Cheats Invincibility