Consistent with the publication in JHEP02(2025)212

## Partial wave analysis of ψ (3686) → Λ ¯ 0 Σ π 0 + c.c.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00495v2-figure-38db45da-073a-439e-b968-edb8acdf265e.jpg)

## The BESIII collaboration

E-mail: besiii-publications@ihep.ac.cn

Abstract: Based on a sample of (2712 4 . ± 14 3) . × 10 6 ψ (3686) events collected with the BESIII detector, a partial wave analysis of the decay ψ (3686) → Λ ¯ Σ 0 π 0 + c.c. is performed to investigate Λ ∗ and Σ ∗ resonances in the π 0 ¯ Σ 0 and π 0 Λ invariant mass distributions. Significant contributions are found from the Λ(1405) , Λ(1520) , Λ(1600) , Λ(1670) , Λ(1690) , Λ(1800) , Λ(1890) , Λ(2325) , Σ(1385) , Σ(1660) , Σ(1670) , Σ(1750) , and Σ(1910) . The masses, widths, and production branching fractions for each component are determined. In addition, the branching fraction of ψ (3686) → Λ ¯ Σ 0 π 0 + c.c. is measured to be (1 544 . ± 0 013 . ± 0 071) . × 10 -4 for the first time, where the first uncertainty is statistical and the second systematic.

## Contents

| 1   | Introduction                               | Introduction                                      |   1 |
|-----|--------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|-----|
| 2   | BESIII detector and Monte Carlo simulation | BESIII detector and Monte Carlo simulation        |   2 |
| 3   | Event Selection                            | Event Selection                                   |   2 |
| 4   | Background study                           | Background study                                  |   4 |
| 5   | Branching fraction                         | Branching fraction                                |   4 |
| 6   | Partial wave analysis                      | Partial wave analysis                             |   6 |
|     | 6.1                                        | Helicity formalism                                |   6 |
|     | 6.2                                        | Nominal fit model                                 |   8 |
| 7   | Systematic uncertainties                   | Systematic uncertainties                          |   9 |
|     | 7.1                                        | Systematic uncertainties on branching fraction    |   9 |
|     | 7.2                                        | Systematic uncertainties on partial wave analysis |  11 |
| 8   | Results and interpretation                 | Results and interpretation                        |  11 |
| 9   | Summary                                    | Summary                                           |  14 |

## 1 Introduction

The baryons, composed of three quarks, offer the simplest system in which the three colors of quantum-chromodynamics (QCD) neutralize into colorless objects. Therefore, baryon spectroscopy can be used to shed light on QCD. Although the quark model and lattice QCD have achieved significant success in the interpretation of many properties of baryons and their excited states [1], our current knowledge of baryon spectroscopy is still limited as many fundamental issues are not well understood [2, 3]. In recent years, there have been many studies of excited states of the nucleons, but there are few results on baryons with a strange quark, namely the Λ and Σ hyperons [4]. In studies of the excited baryons, major difficulties arise from their broad widths and nearby masses, causing a significant amount of overlap between the various excited states [5-7]. The partial wave analysis (PWA) technique helps to overcome these difficulties by disentangling different resonances using their spin-parity. In the process, their masses, widths, and partial decay widths can be measured.

The large data samples of J/ψ and ψ (3686) events produced from e + e -annihilation at BESIII provide excellent opportunities to study different excited baryons. In particular,

the ψ (3686) , which benefits from having a higher mass than the J/ψ , has more phase space available in its decays and thus higher mass resonances can be observed. At present, (2712 4 . ± 14 3) . × 10 6 ψ (3686) events [8] are now available, which allows us to perform extensive studies of baryon spectroscopy. In this paper, a PWA of the decay ψ (3686) → Λ ¯ Σ 0 π 0 + c.c. is performed to investigate potential excited states of the Λ and Σ hyperons. Throughout this paper, the charge-conjugate process is always implied.

## 2 BESIII detector and Monte Carlo simulation

The BESIII detector [9] records symmetric e + e -collisions provided by the BEPCII storage ring [10] in the center-of-mass energy range from 2.0 to 4.95 GeV, with a peak luminosity of 1 1 . × 10 33 cm -2 s -1 achieved at √ s = 3 773 . GeV. BESIII has collected large data samples in this energy region [11, 12]. The cylindrical core of the BESIII detector covers 93% of the full solid angle and 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 identification modules interleaved with steel. The charged-particle momentum resolution at 1 GeV /c is 0 5% . , and the d E/ x d resolution is 6% for 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 in the TOF barrel region is 68 ps , while that in the end cap region was 110 ps . The end cap TOF system was upgraded in 2015 using multigap resistive plate chamber technology, providing a time resolution of 60 ps , which benefits 83.3% of the data used in this analysis [13-15].

Simulated data samples produced with a geant4 -based [16] Monte Carlo (MC) package, which includes the geometric description of the BESIII detector and the detector response, are used to determine detection efficiencies and to estimate backgrounds. The simulation models the beam energy spread and initial state radiation (ISR) in the e + e -annihilations with the generator kkmc [17, 18]. The inclusive MC sample includes the production of the ψ (3686) resonance, the ISR production of the J/ψ , and the continuum processes incorporated in kkmc [17, 18]. All particle decays are modelled with evtgen [19, 20] using branching fractions either taken from the Particle Data Group (PDG) [4], when available, or otherwise estimated with lundcharm [21, 22]. Final state radiation from charged final state particles is incorporated using the photos package [23].

## 3 Event Selection

The decay ψ (3686) → Λ ¯ Σ 0 π 0 is reconstructed using the decays Σ 0 → Λ γ , Λ → pπ -, and π 0 → γγ . Since the final state of the signal decay is ppπ ¯ + π -γγγ , the number of charged tracks is required to be four with zero net charge. Each charged track must satisfy | cos θ | &lt; 0 93 . , where θ is the polar angle of the track measured by the MDC with respect to the direction of the positron beam. Each of the photon candidates is required to have an energy deposited in the EMC of more than 25 MeV in the barrel ( cos | θ | &lt; 0 80) . or 50

Figure 1 . The distributions of M γγ ( ) and M pπ ( -) . The dots with error bars represent data and the blue histograms are the normalized signal MC sample. The signal regions of π 0 and Λ are shown with the red arrows.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00495v2-figure-a510181f-8b10-4473-aae9-91a666e75a9d.jpg)

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00495v2-figure-3de1d848-da91-4eb4-8fa2-c5bd2808060c.jpg)

MeV in the end-caps (0 86 . &lt; | cos θ | &lt; 0 92) . . To eliminate showers from charged tracks, the opening angle between the position of each shower in the EMC and any charged track must be greater than 10 degrees. To suppress electronic noise and showers unrelated to the event, the EMC time difference from the event start time is required to be within [0 , 700] ns . At least three photon candidates are required.

The Λ and ¯ Λ candidates are reconstructed by combining pairs of oppositely charged tracks with pion and proton mass hypotheses, fulfilling a secondary vertex constraint [2427]. Events with at least one Λ( pπ -) candidate and one ¯ (¯ Λ pπ + ) candidate are selected. In the case of multiple Λ ¯ Λ pair candidates, the one with the minimum value of χ 2 svtx (Λ) + χ 2 svtx ( ¯ ) Λ is chosen, where χ 2 svtx (Λ) and χ 2 svtx ( ¯ ) Λ are the fit χ 2 of the secondary vertex fits for the Λ and ¯ Λ , respectively. To improve the momentum and energy resolution and reduce background, a four-constraint (energy-momentum conservation, 4C) kinematic fit is applied under the hypothesis of ψ (3686) → Λ ¯ Λ γγγ , and the corresponding fit χ 2 ( χ 2 4C ) is required to be less than 40. For events with more than three photon candidates, the combination with the least χ 2 4C is selected from all possible combinations. To reject possible background events from ψ (3686) → Λ ¯ Λ γγ and ψ (3686) → Λ ¯ Λ γγγγ , we further require that the χ 2 4C for the ψ (3686) → Λ ¯ Λ γγγ hypothesis is less than those of both the ψ (3686) → Λ ¯ Λ γγ and ψ (3686) → Λ ¯ Λ γγγγ hypotheses. In the case of multiple π 0 candidates, the one with the minimum of ∆ M π ( 0 ) is chosen. The ∆ M π ( 0 ) is defined as ∆ M π ( 0 ) = ∣ ∣ M γ γ ( a b ) -M PDG ( π 0 ) ∣ ∣ , where M γ γ ( a b ) is the invariant mass of two photon candidates from the 4C kinematic fit and M PDG ( π 0 ) is the nominal π 0 mass [4]. The final distributions of M γγ ( ) and M pπ ( -) are shown in figure 1, where clear π 0 and Λ signals are observed. The invariant mass of the chosen π 0 candidate is required to be in the π 0 signal region, 0 115 . &lt; M π ( 0 ) &lt; 0 155 GeV . /c 2 ; and the invariant mass of pπ -is required to be in the Λ signal region, 1 111 . &lt; M( pπ -) &lt; . 1 121 GeV /c 2 .

To suppress mis-combination from the conjugated channel, the invariant mass of γ Λ from ψ (3686) → Λ ¯ Σ 0 π 0 is required to not be in the Σ 0 signal region M γ ( Λ) &lt; 1 179 GeV . /c 2 or M γ ( Λ) &gt; 1 204 . GeV /c 2 . To reject the peaking background in the Σ 0 signal region

from ψ (3686) → γχ cJ , χ cJ → Σ ¯ 0 Σ 0 , the requirement ∆ M π ( 0 ¯ Σ ) 0 &lt; ∆ M (Σ Σ ) 0 ¯ 0 is imposed. Here, ∆ M π ( 0 ¯ Σ ) 0 is defined as ∆ M π ( 0 ¯ Σ ) = 0 | ( M π ( 0 ) -M PDG ( π 0 )) | + ( | M ( ¯ Σ ) 0 -M PDG (Σ )) 0 | , where M π ( 0 ) and M ( ¯ Σ ) 0 are the invariant masses of the reconstructed π 0 and ¯ Σ 0 , respectively. The M PDG (Σ ) 0 is the Σ 0 nominal mass [4]. The ∆ M π ( 0 ¯ Σ ) 0 is examined by looping over all three photons to reconstruct the π 0 , and the remaining photon is used to reconstruct the ¯ Σ 0 . The ∆ M (Σ Σ ) 0 ¯ 0 is defined as ∆ M (Σ Σ ) = 0 ¯ 0 | ( M (Σ ) 0 -M PDG (Σ )) 0 | + ( | M ( ¯ Σ ) 0 -M PDG (Σ )) 0 | , where M (Σ ) 0 and M ( ¯ Σ ) 0 are the invariant masses of the reconstructed Σ 0 and ¯ Σ 0 ; respectively. The ∆ M (Σ Σ ) 0 ¯ 0 is examined by looping over all three photons to reconstruct the Σ 0 and ¯ Σ 0 simultaneously. After applying all the selection criteria mentioned above, around 17,000 events in data remain.

## 4 Background study

To investigate the possible background contributions, the same selection criteria are applied to the inclusive MC sample of 2.7 billion ψ (3686) events. An analysis of the surviving events is performed with the generic tool TopoAna [28]. It is found that the background peaking around the ¯ Σ 0 nominal mass mainly comes from ψ (3686) → γχ cJ , χ cJ → Σ ¯ 0 Σ 0 , while the mis-combination and other background sources form a flat distribution. The fraction of the background events from ψ (3686) → γχ cJ , χ cJ → Σ ¯ 0 Σ 0 , estimated by using the π 0 sideband events, is determined to be 0 8% . .

To estimate the background due to continuum production, the same procedure is performed on the data taken at √ s = 3 773 GeV . with an integrated luminosity of 7 9 fb . -1 [2931]. The background yield is extracted by an extended unbinned maximum likelihood fit to the M γ ( ¯ ) Λ distribution, and normalized to the ψ (3686) data taking into account the luminosity and energy-dependent cross section. The normalization factor f c is calculated as

$$f _ { c } = \frac { N _ { \psi ( 3 6 8 6 ) } ^ { \exp } } { N _ { \psi ( 3 7 7 0 ) } ^ { \text{obs} } } = \frac { \mathcal { L } _ { \psi ( 3 6 8 6 ) } } { \mathcal { L } _ { \psi ( 3 7 7 0 ) } } \cdot \frac { \sigma _ { \psi ( 3 6 8 6 ) } } { \sigma _ { \psi ( 3 7 7 0 ) } } \cdot \frac { \epsilon _ { \psi ( 3 6 8 6 ) } } { \epsilon _ { \psi ( 3 7 7 0 ) } },$$

where N exp ψ (3686) and N obs ψ (3770) are the number of expected events at the ψ (3686) energy point and the number of observed events at the ψ (3770) energy point. The L , σ , and ϵ quantities represent the luminosity of data, cross-section, and detection efficiency at each energy point, respectively. The details of the cross-section values can be found in ref. [32]. The ratio of detection efficiencies, ϵ ψ (3686) /ϵ ψ (3770) , is determined by MC simulation. The N obs ψ (3770) parameter is determined to be 465 9 . ± 22 5 . , where the uncertainty is statistical only. The scale factor is calculated to be f c = 0 502 . ± 0 002 . , combining the uncertainties from the crosssection, detection efficiency, and integrated luminosity. After normalization, the background yield from e + e -→ Λ ¯ Σ 0 π 0 in the ψ (3686) data is determined to be N exp ψ (3686) = 235 2 . ± 11 3 . .

## 5 Branching fraction

To determine the signal yield, an extended unbinned maximum likelihood fit is performed on the M γ ( ¯ ) Λ distribution. In the fit, the ¯ Σ 0 is described by the signal MC shape convolved with a Gaussian function. The non-peaking and mis-combination backgrounds are

Figure 2 . The distribution of M γ ( ¯ ) Λ with the result of the fit overlaid. The ¯ Σ 0 signal region is shown with the high yellow arrows and the ¯ Σ 0 sideband ranges are shown with the short orange arrows.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00495v2-figure-87e8a5f3-31f3-4a05-b54d-48e8d92b7935.jpg)

parameterized by a first-order Chebychev polynomial function. The continuum background shape is derived from the data taken at √ s = 3 773 GeV . . The peaking background from χ cJ → Σ ¯ 0 Σ 0 is estimated by the π 0 sideband defined as M γγ ( ) ∈ (0 08 . , 0 1) . GeV /c 2 or (0 17 . , 0 19) . GeV /c 2 . The number of π 0 sideband events is estimated to be N side π 0 = 126 0 . ± 11 2 . , where the uncertainty is statistical only. The fit results are shown in figure 2, from which we obtain 15560 9 . ± 131 2 . signal events.

With the detection efficiency obtained from the signal MC sample generated with the PWA results, the branching fraction of ψ (3686) → Λ ¯ Σ 0 π 0 is determined from

$$\mathcal { B } ( \psi ( 3 6 8 6 ) \to \Lambda \bar { \Sigma } ^ { 0 } \pi ^ { 0 } + c. c. ) = \frac { N ^ { o b s } } { N _ { \psi ( 3 6 8 6 ) } \cdot \mathcal { B } ^ { 2 } ( \Lambda \to p \pi ^ { - } ) \cdot \mathcal { B } ( \pi ^ { 0 } \to \gamma \gamma ) \cdot \mathcal { B } ( \Sigma ^ { 0 } \to \gamma \Lambda ) \cdot \epsilon } }$$

where N obs is the number of signal events in data, N ψ (3686) is the number of ψ (3686) events in data determined with inclusive hadronic events [8], ϵ is the detection efficiency obtained to be 9 15% . from MC simulation, and B (Λ → pπ -) , B ( π 0 → γγ ) , and B (Σ 0 → γ Λ) are the corresponding branching fractions quoted from the PDG [4]. The branching fraction B ( ψ (3686) → Λ ¯ Σ 0 π 0 + c.c. ) is measured to be (1 544 . ± 0 013 . ± 0 071) . × 10 -4 , where the first uncertainty is statistical and the second systematic. The systematic uncertainty estimation is detailed in section 7.

## 6 Partial wave analysis

Figure 2 presents the reconstructed mass distribution of the γ ¯ Λ system. To improve the signal purity, an additional requirement on the γ ¯ Λ invariant mass, 1 184 GeV . /c 2 &lt; M γ ( ¯ ) Λ &lt; 1 199 GeV . /c 2 , is applied. After applying all the selection criteria mentioned above, 14,414 events from the ψ (3686) data are selected for the PWA. The ¯ Σ 0 sidebands (defined as M γ ( ¯ ) Λ within (1 157 1 164) GeV . , . /c 2 or (1 219 1 226) GeV . , . /c 2 ) and the data at √ s = 3 773 GeV . are used to estimate the yields of the mis-combination and continuum background events, respectively. As the contribution from nonπ 0 background is small, the π 0 sidebands are excluded from the PWA. The numbers of ¯ Σ 0 sideband and continuum background events are estimated to be N side ¯ Σ 0 = 320 0 . ± 17 9 . and N cont . = 208 9 . ± 10 1 . , respectively. Here, the uncertainties are statistical only. The number of ¯ Σ 0 sideband events is fixed with the normalization factor 1 0 . . Finally, the signal purity is estimated to be 96 3% . . The backgroundsubtraction procedure in the PWA is implemented within the negative log-likelihood ( NLL ) value, which can be expressed as follows:

$$N L L = N L L ( \text{data} ) - \sum _ { i } N L L ( \text{bkg} _ { i } ),$$

$$N L L ( \mathrm b k { g } _ { i } ) = \sum _ { j } \left ( N L L _ { j } ( \mathrm b k { g } _ { i } ) \times W _ { j } ( \mathrm b k { g } _ { i } ) \right ),$$

where NLL (data) represents the NLL value of the observed data, and NLL (bkg ) i denotes the NLL value for the i th background category. The background samples used in the NLL (bkg ) i calculation are those from which their respective yields in the signal region are derived. The terms NLL j (bkg ) i and W j (bkg ) i correspond to the NLL value and normalization factor associated with the j th background events of the i th background category, respectively. No mass constraint is applied for the final state particles Λ Σ ¯ , 0 , and π 0 in the PWA. The decay amplitude is constructed using the helicity amplitude formalism, and the full procedure is implemented based on the open-source framework TF-PWA [33].

## 6.1 Helicity formalism

To construct the full decay amplitude of ψ (3686) → Λ ¯ Σ 0 π 0 , the helicity formalism is used in conjunction with the isobar model, where the three-body decay is described as a two-step sequential quasi-two-body decay. For each two-body decay 0 → 1+2 , the helicity amplitude can be written as

$$A _ { \lambda _ { 0 }, \lambda _ { 1 }, \lambda _ { 2 } } ^ { 0 \to 1 + 2 } = H _ { \lambda _ { 1 }, \lambda _ { 2 } } ^ { 0 \to 1 + 2 } D _ { \lambda _ { 0 }, \lambda _ { 1 } - \lambda _ { 2 } } ^ { J _ { 0 } * } ( \phi, \theta, 0 ),$$

where the amplitude H 0 → 1+2 λ ,λ 1 2 is given by the LS coupling formula [34] along with the barrier factor terms

$$H _ { \lambda _ { 1 }, \lambda _ { 2 } } ^ { 0 \to 1 + 2 } = \sum _ { l s } g _ { l s } \sqrt { \frac { 2 l + 1 } { 2 J _ { 0 } + 1 } } \langle l 0 ; s \delta | J _ { 0 } \delta \rangle \langle J _ { 1 } \lambda _ { 1 } ; J _ { 2 } - \lambda _ { 2 } | s \delta \rangle q ^ { l } B _ { l } ^ { \prime } ( q, q _ { 0 }, d ), \quad \ ( 6. 4 )$$

where l is the orbital angular momentum, g ls are the fit parameters, J 0 1 2 , , are the spins of particles 0, 1, and 2, λ 1 2 , are the helicities for particles 1 and 2, and δ = λ 1 -λ 2 is the

helicity difference. Here, q is the three-momentum modulus of particle 1 in the rest frame of particle 0, which is calculated as

$$q = \frac { \sqrt { [ m ^ { 2 } - ( m _ { 1 } + m _ { 2 } ) ^ { 2 } ] [ m ^ { 2 } - ( m _ { 1 } - m _ { 2 } ) ^ { 2 } ] } } { 2 m },$$

where m m , 1 , and m 2 are the masses of particles 0, 1, and 2, respectively. The normalization factor q 0 is calculated at the nominal resonance mass. The factor B q,q , d ′ l ( 0 ) is the reduced Blatt-Weisskopf barrier factor [35]. In the Wigner D -function, D J 0 ∗ λ ,λ 0 1 -λ 2 ( ϕ, θ, 0) , ϕ and θ are the helicity angles. The definitions can be found in ref. [36]. The radius d is chosen as d = 0 73 fm . following ref. [37].

The amplitude for a complete decay chain is constructed as the product of each two body decay amplitude and the resonant propagator R . For example, in the sequential decay ψ (3686) → Σ ∗ 0 ¯ Σ 0 , Σ ∗ 0 → Λ π 0 , the amplitude is written as

$$A _ { \lambda _ { \psi } ( 3 6 8 6 ), \lambda _ { \Lambda }, \lambda _ { \Sigma } 0, \lambda _ { \pi } 0 } ^ { \psi ( 3 6 8 6 ) \to \Sigma ^ { * 0 } \Sigma ^ { 0 } } = \sum _ { \lambda _ { \Sigma ^ { * } } 0 } A _ { \lambda _ { \psi } ( 3 6 8 6 ), \lambda _ { \Sigma ^ { * } } 0, \lambda _ { \Sigma ^ { 0 } } } ^ { \psi ( 3 6 8 6 ) \to \Sigma ^ { * 0 } \Sigma ^ { 0 } } R ( m _ { \Sigma ^ { * 0 } } ) A _ { \lambda _ { \Sigma ^ { * } } 0, \lambda _ { \lambda }, \lambda _ { \pi ^ { 0 } } } ^ { \Sigma ^ { * 0 } \to \Lambda \pi ^ { 0 } }.$$

The propagator R includes different models. For all resonances except Λ(1405) , the relativistic Breit-Wigner formula with mass dependent width is taken as

$$R ( m ) \equiv \frac { 1 } { m _ { 0 } ^ { 2 } - s - i \sum _ { j } g _ { j } ^ { 2 } \rho _ { j } ( m ) },$$

which iterates over the j decay channels that the resonance may decay into with coupling g j and phase-space factor ρ j . Then in the case where only decays into the final state are being considered, the imaginary part reduces to

$$\sum _ { j } g _ { j } ^ { 2 } \rho _ { j } ( m ) = m _ { 0 } \Gamma ( m ) = m _ { 0 } \Gamma _ { 0 } \left ( \frac { q } { q _ { 0 } } \right ) ^ { 2 l + 1 } \frac { m _ { 0 } } { m } B _ { l } ^ { \prime 2 } ( q, q _ { 0 }, d )$$

where Γ 0 is the width of the resonance, and q and q 0 are the momenta in the m and m 0 center-mass-system. The radius d is also chosen as d = 0 73 fm . following ref. [37].

We describe the two-pole structure of the Λ(1405) using the chiral dynamics model [38], which is parameterized as

$$R ( m ) = & \frac { 1 } { | I - V G | },$$

$$V _ { i j } ( m ) = & - C _ { i j } \frac { 1 } { 4 f ^ { 2 } } ( 2 m - M _ { i } - M _ { j } ) \sqrt { \frac { M _ { i } - E _ { i } } { M _ { i } } } \sqrt { \frac { M _ { j } - E _ { j } } { M _ { j } } },$$

$$4 J \kappa \quad \forall \quad \iota \iota _ { i } \quad \forall \quad \iota _ { j } \\ G _ { k } ( m ; \mu ) = & \frac { 1 } { ( 4 \pi ) ^ { 2 } } \left \{ a _ { k } ( \mu ) + \ln \frac { M _ { k } ^ { 2 } } { \mu } + \frac { m _ { k } ^ { 2 } - M _ { k } ^ { 2 } + m ^ { 2 } } { 2 m ^ { 2 } } \ln \frac { m _ { k } ^ { 2 } } { M _ { k } ^ { 2 } } \\ & + \frac { q _ { k } } { m } \left [ \ln ( m ^ { 2 } - ( M _ { k } ^ { 2 } - m _ { k } ^ { 2 } ) + 2 q _ { k } m ) + \ln ( m ^ { 2 } + ( M _ { k } ^ { 2 } - m _ { k } ^ { 2 } ) + 2 q _ { k } m ) \\ & - \ln ( - m ^ { 2 } + ( M _ { k } ^ { 2 } - m _ { k } ^ { 2 } ) + 2 q _ { k } m ) - \ln ( - m ^ { 2 } - ( M _ { k } ^ { 2 } - m _ { k } ^ { 2 } ) + 2 q _ { k } m ) \right ] \right \}, \ \ ( 6. 1 1 )$$

where I is the unit matrix, m = √ s is the mass of the event, the C ij coefficients are given in ref. [39], an averaged meson decay constant f = 1 123 . f π is used [40], with f π = 92 4 MeV . being the weak pion decay constant, and M i and E i are the physical mass and energy of the baryon. The µ is the scale of dimensional regularization fixed to be 630 MeV [40], the subtraction constant a k ( µ ) is quoted from ref. [40], m i is the physical mass of the meson, and q k is the momentum in the rest frame of Λ(1405) .

The construction of the probability density function, the calculation of the fit fraction, and the corresponding statistical uncertainty for each component follow ref. [41]. To consider the effect of mass resolution, we use the method from the TF-PWA documentation [33].

## 6.2 Nominal fit model

To determine the nominal fit hypothesis of the PWA, the statistical significance of each potential component is evaluated based on the change of the NLL value when that component is included, taking into account the change of the number of degrees of freedom ( N dof ). The components considered are excited Λ and Σ states, including the Λ(1405) , Λ(1520) , Λ(1600) , Λ(1670) , Λ(1690) , Λ(1800) , Λ(1810) , Λ(1890) , Λ(2325) , Σ(1385) , Σ(1660) , Σ(1670) , Σ(1750) and Σ(1910) (considered as established by the PDG [4] with a status of at least three-star of existence 1 and a spin less than 5 / 2 ), as well as the ρ 3 (2250) , ρ 5 (2350) , and S -wave non-resonant component ( NR 1 -) in the M (Λ ¯ Σ ) 0 distribution. In addition, an extra Λ state, the Λ(2325) , is taken into account to describe the high side of the M π ( 0 ¯ Σ ) 0 distribution. The results show that the resonances Λ(1405) , Λ(1520) , Λ(1600) , Λ(1670) , Λ(1690) , Λ(1800) , Λ(1890) , Λ(2325) , Σ(1385) , Σ(1660) , Σ(1670) , Σ(1750) , and Σ(1910) have statistical significance greater than 5 σ , while none of the other tested contributions exceed this threshold.

Based on the MC simulation, the mass resolution for the M π ( 0 ¯ Σ ) 0 distribution is estimated to be 4 8 MeV . . The widths of the Λ(1520) and Λ(1670) states from the PDG [4] are 15 ∼ 17 MeV and 25 ∼ 35 MeV , respectively, which are close to the mass resolution. Therefore, the mass resolution on the M π ( 0 ¯ Σ ) 0 distribution is taken into account in the nominal fit hypothesis. In the fit, the masses and widths of all resonances are left as free parameters.

A resonance of one-star of existence, the Λ(2325) , is also added to the nominal fit. It was first reported in ref. [44] with J P = 3 2 / -. A check on the spin-parity of the Λ(2325) has been performed. A comparison of the statistical significance with the different spin-parity hypotheses ( 1 2 / -, 1 2 / + , 3 2 / -and 3 2 / + ) is shown in table 1. The statistical significance is calculated based on the change of the NLL values with and without including the component, by taking into account the change of the number of degrees of freedom. Based on the comparison, the spin-parity of the Λ(2325) is most likely J P = 3 2 / -, which is consistent with the PDG [4].

1 The overall states for existence of baryon resonances [4]: ****: Existence is certain; ***: Existence is very likely; **: Evidence of existence is fair; *: Evidence of existence is poor.

,

Table 1 . Comparison of the different quantum numbers for the spin-parity of the Λ(2325) .

| J P     |   ∆ NLL |   ∆ N dof |   Significance ( σ ) |
|---------|---------|-----------|----------------------|
| 1 / 2 - |   188   |         6 |                 18.7 |
| 1 / 2 + |   186.8 |         6 |                 18.6 |
| 3 / 2 - |   208.3 |         8 |                 19.5 |
| 3 / 2 + |   198.8 |         8 |                 19.1 |

The branching fractions of the intermediate states i , are determined by

$$\mathcal { B } _ { i } = \mathcal { B } ( \psi ( 3 6 8 6 ) \to \Lambda \bar { \Sigma } ^ { 0 } \pi ^ { 0 } + c. c. ) F F _ { i },$$

where FF i is the fit fraction of the i th intermediate state.

## 7 Systematic uncertainties

## 7.1 Systematic uncertainties on branching fraction

The systematic uncertainties on the branching fraction measurement as listed in table 2 are discussed in detail below. Assuming all sources are independent, the total systematic uncertainty is determined by adding them in quadrature.

- 1. The efficiency of the Λ( ¯ ) Λ reconstruction, incorporating both the MDC tracking and the Λ( ¯ ) Λ mass window requirement, is studied using a control sample of ψ (3686) → Λ ¯ Λ decays, and a correction factor of 0 980 . ± 0 011 . [45] is applied to the detection efficiencies obtained from MC simulation.
- 2. For photons directly detected by the EMC, the detection efficiency is studied using a control sample of e + e -→ γ ISR µ + µ -, where ISR stands for initial state radiation. The systematic uncertainty, defined as the relative difference in efficiencies between data and MC simulation, is observed to be up to 0 5% . per photon in both the barrel and end-cap regions. Thus, the total systematic uncertainty of the three photons is 1 5% . .
- 3. The uncertainty associated with the 4C kinematic fit is due to the inconsistency between data and MC simulation. This difference has been reduced by correcting the track helix parameters in the MC simulation, with parameters taken from refs. [46, 47]. Following the method described in ref. [48], the difference between the corrected and uncorrected efficiencies, 1 4% . , is assigned as the systematic uncertainty due to the 4C kinematic fit.
- 4. The uncertainty associated with the π 0 signal region is assessed by evaluating the proportional impact the constraint has on the number of π 0 candidates remaining in both the data and signal MC samples. The difference in the branching fraction, 1 2% . , is assigned as the systematic uncertainty due to the π 0 signal region.

Table 2 . The systematic uncertainties for the branching fraction.

| Source                          |   Uncertainty (%) |
|---------------------------------|-------------------|
| Λ(Λ) ¯ reconstruction           |               2.2 |
| Photon reconstruction           |               1.5 |
| Kinematic fit                   |               1.4 |
| π 0 signal region               |               1.2 |
| Signal shape                    |               2.5 |
| Background shape                |               0.4 |
| MC model                        |               1.1 |
| Quoted branching fractions      |               1.6 |
| Total number of ψ (3686) events |               0.5 |
| Total                           |               4.6 |

- 5. In order to evaluate the systematic uncertainty due to the signal shape, an alternative fit is performed to determine the number of signal events. The simulated signal shape is replaced with a Crystal-ball function convolved with a Gaussian function. The maximum difference in branching fraction, 2 5% . , is assigned as the corresponding systematic uncertainty.
- 6. To estimate the uncertainty of the shape of the non-peaking and mis-combination, π 0 sideband and continuum backgrounds, we perform alternative fits by replacing the shape of each background. The first-order Chebychev polynomial function is replaced with a second-order Chebychev polynomial function for the non-peaking and miscombination background. The shape of the π 0 sideband and continuum background is replaced with a Crystal-ball function convolved with a Gaussian function, whose parameters are extracted from the fit to data. The uncertainty associated with the normalization factor f c for the continuum background is estimated to be less than 0 1% . , which can be considered negligible. The difference in branching fraction is combined to be 0 4% . , which is assigned as the systematic uncertainty due to the background shape.
- 7. The uncertainty due to the MC model is evaluated by comparing the efficiencies between the nominal and alternative amplitude models. The efficiency difference between different models is taken as the systematic uncertainty.
- 8. The uncertainties from the quoted branching fractions of the intermediate decays of Λ → pπ -and π 0 → γγ are taken from the PDG [4]. Since the branching fraction of Σ 0 → γ Λ is equal to 100% with no uncertainty, it is not considered in the systematic uncertainty.
- 9. The total number of ψ (3686) events in data is determined using inclusive hadronic decays. Its uncertainty, 0 5% . [8], is taken as a systematic uncertainty.

## 7.2 Systematic uncertainties on partial wave analysis

The systematic uncertainties on the PWA as listed in tables 3, 4, and 5 are discussed in detail below. Assuming all sources are independent, the total systematic uncertainty is determined by adding them in quadrature.

- 1. To evaluate the effect on the PWA results from other possible components (EX-RES), the PWA is re-performed by adding extra resonances ( Λ(1810) , Λ(1820) , Λ(1830) , Σ(1775) , Σ(1915) , ρ 3 (2250) , ρ 5 (2350) ) one at a time. The largest changes of the masses, widths, and fit fractions of resonances are taken as the systematic uncertainties.
- 2. The uncertainty associated with the background estimation (BKG) is assessed using two distinct methods. The first method involves varying the yields of the ¯ Σ 0 sideband and continuum production within ± 1 σ of their statistical uncertainties. The second method incorporates the π 0 sidebands, as defined in Sec. 5, to estimate the background while fixing the yields of both sidebands with a normalization factor of 0 5 . . The largest difference observed for each result is considered as the systematic uncertainty.
- 3. The uncertainty due to the Λ(1405) parameterization (PARAM) is evaluated by replacing the nominal formula by the Flatté-like formula. The differences of the masses, widths, and fit fractions of resonances are taken as the systematic uncertainties.
- 4. In the PWA, the radius d in the Blatt-Weisskopf barrier factors [35] (BW-BF) is chosen as d = 0 73 fm . ≈ 3 7 GeV . -1 following ref. [37]. The associated systematic uncertainty is evaluated by varying the radius d in the range d ∈ [1 , 5] GeV -1 [4]. The largest differences of the masses, widths, and fit fractions of resonances are taken as the systematic uncertainties.

## 8 Results and interpretation

The obtained masses, widths and branching fractions of each resonance are listed in table 7, where the first uncertainty is statistical and the second systematic, the systematic uncertainty estimation is detailed in section 7. The fit fractions and phases of each resonance are shown in table 6 with the statistical uncertainties only. The Dalitz plots of ( M π ( 0 ¯ Σ )) 0 2 versus ( M π ( 0 Λ)) 2 of data and the PWA fit result are shown in figure 3. The invariant mass distributions of Λ ¯ Σ 0 , π 0 Λ , and π 0 ¯ Σ 0 are shown in figure 4. The helicity angular distributions are shown in figure 5. From the π 0 Λ mass spectrum, it is observed that the fit quality is suboptimal in the region of 1 8 . ∼ 1 95 GeV . /c 2 , motivating theoretical studies into the physical soundness of the lineshapes selected for resonant baryonic decays.

In chiral SU(3) dynamics, the existence of two poles in the Λ(1405) region was first reported in ref. [42]. This indicates that the Λ(1405) resonance is not a single state but is instead a superposition of two eigenstates. The two-pole structure has a significant impact on hadron spectroscopy since it is related to the number of eigenstates in this sector. In

Figure 3 . The Dalitz plots of ( M π ( 0 ¯ Σ )) 0 2 versus ( M π ( 0 Λ)) 2 of data (left) and the PWA fit result (right).

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00495v2-figure-aeca8fa6-fbfe-4c9b-ad88-d71265df784a.jpg)

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00495v2-figure-0d4bda14-a7b6-471d-a5b4-2dd9e9230ca1.jpg)

Figure 4 . The distributions of M (Λ ¯ Σ ) 0 , M π ( 0 Λ) , and M π ( 0 ¯ Σ ) 0 .

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00495v2-figure-7412a769-faa4-40b5-b758-7533a68e8abc.jpg)

Table 3 . The systematic uncertainty sources for the masses in units of MeV /c 2 .

| Resonance   | EX-RES   | BKG    | PARAM   | BW-BF   | Total   |
|-------------|----------|--------|---------|---------|---------|
| Λ(1520)     | 4 . 1    | 2 . 4  | 0 . 1   | 0 . 5   | 4 . 8   |
| Λ(1600)     | 8 . 8    | 6 . 4  | 2 . 8   | 4 . 2   | 12 . 1  |
| Λ(1670)     | 1 . 2    | 3 . 2  | 0 . 6   | 0 . 8   | 3 . 6   |
| Λ(1690)     | 7 . 7    | 13 . 3 | 2 . 2   | 2 . 2   | 15 . 7  |
| Λ(1800)     | 2 . 2    | 2 . 9  | 8 . 6   | 8 . 5   | 12 . 6  |
| Λ(1890)     | 1 . 9    | 2 . 6  | 2 . 1   | 4 . 9   | 6 . 2   |
| Λ(2325)     | 10 . 4   | 10 . 4 | 1 . 9   | 8 . 5   | 17 . 1  |
| Σ(1385)     | 1 . 5    | 2 . 0  | 0 . 3   | 2 . 1   | 3 . 3   |
| Σ(1660)     | 4 . 7    | 5 . 4  | 2 . 6   | 0 . 5   | 7 . 6   |
| Σ(1670)     | 1 . 8    | 2 . 3  | 3 . 1   | 0 . 5   | 4 . 3   |
| Σ(1750)     | 6 . 0    | 2 . 0  | 1 . 0   | 3 . 5   | 7 . 3   |
| Σ(1910)     | 23 . 7   | 5 . 8  | 9 . 8   | 21 . 0  | 33 . 6  |

Table 4 . The systematic uncertainty sources for the widths in units of MeV .

| Resonance   | EX-RES   | BKG    | PARAM   | BW-BF   | Total   |
|-------------|----------|--------|---------|---------|---------|
| Λ(1520)     | 0 . 2    | 0 . 3  | 0 . 3   | 0 . 4   | 0 . 6   |
| Λ(1600)     | 30 . 3   | 12 . 2 | 9 . 1   | 8 . 2   | 34 . 8  |
| Λ(1670)     | 5 . 0    | 6 . 7  | 0 . 1   | 2 . 5   | 8 . 7   |
| Λ(1690)     | 9 . 8    | 15 . 3 | 1 . 7   | 0 . 9   | 18 . 3  |
| Λ(1800)     | 35 . 2   | 4 . 1  | 3 . 7   | 9 . 0   | 36 . 7  |
| Λ(1890)     | 2 . 0    | 2 . 7  | 1 . 7   | 1 . 6   | 4 . 1   |
| Λ(2325)     | 47 . 5   | 2 . 9  | 1 . 7   | 4 . 1   | 47 . 8  |
| Σ(1385)     | 5 . 2    | 0 . 6  | 0 . 8   | 3 . 4   | 6 . 3   |
| Σ(1660)     | 39 . 2   | 5 . 1  | < 0 . 1 | 11 . 6  | 41 . 1  |
| Σ(1670)     | 4 . 5    | 6 . 0  | 3 . 7   | 2 . 9   | 8 . 9   |
| Σ(1750)     | 8 . 3    | 3 . 7  | 2 . 5   | 2 . 2   | 9 . 7   |
| Σ(1910)     | 37 . 5   | 23 . 7 | 5 . 5   | 10 . 6  | 46 . 0  |

general, a resonance state can have different coupling strengths to various channels. It was shown in ref. [38] that the high-mass pole of the Λ(1405) strongly couples to ¯ KN and the low-mass pole has a large coupling to π Σ , as expected from their origin in the isospin basis.

To test the stability of the chiral dynamics model, an alternative fit is performed using a Flatté-like formula [43] in place of the chiral dynamics model. The Flatté-like formula, as shown in eq. (6.7), is operated by coupling the π Σ and ¯ KN channels, where the masses of the Λ(1405) and the final state particles are quoted from the PDG [4]. The ∆ NLL , ∆ N dof , statistical significance and fit fraction of the Λ(1405) are 68 0 . , 4 , 11 1 . σ and (3 0 . ± 0 3)% . in nominal fit, or 73 1 . , 6 , 11 2 . σ and (6 7 . ± 0 9)% . in alternative fit with the Flatté-like formula, respectively. Due to the similar statistical significance of the Λ(1405) with the two different

Table 5 . The systematic uncertainty sources for the fit fractions in percentage.

| Resonance   | EX-RES   | BKG    | PARAM   | BW-BF   | Total   |
|-------------|----------|--------|---------|---------|---------|
| Λ(1405)     | 21 . 0   | 8 . 9  | 11 . 8  | 0 . 8   | 25 . 7  |
| Λ(1520)     | 19 . 9   | 7 . 9  | 12 . 9  | 8 . 3   | 26 . 3  |
| Λ(1600)     | 21 . 2   | 5 . 0  | 15 . 3  | 4 . 5   | 27 . 0  |
| Λ(1670)     | 21 . 9   | 16 . 9 | 0 . 7   | 5 . 7   | 28 . 3  |
| Λ(1690)     | 14 . 3   | 8 . 0  | 4 . 9   | 5 . 9   | 18 . 1  |
| Λ(1800)     | 24 . 2   | 15 . 2 | 3 . 4   | 8 . 3   | 30 . 0  |
| Λ(1890)     | 8 . 5    | 13 . 6 | 2 . 3   | 7 . 4   | 17 . 8  |
| Λ(2325)     | 2 . 5    | 5 . 9  | 2 . 4   | 3 . 2   | 7 . 6   |
| Σ(1385)     | 11 . 7   | 4 . 8  | 4 . 5   | 4 . 9   | 14 . 2  |
| Σ(1660)     | 13 . 6   | 7 . 8  | 5 . 3   | 4 . 2   | 17 . 1  |
| Σ(1670)     | 17 . 5   | 8 . 3  | 11 . 9  | 4 . 9   | 23 . 3  |
| Σ(1750)     | 19 . 4   | 5 . 4  | 6 . 4   | 8 . 9   | 22 . 9  |
| Σ(1910)     | 22 . 0   | 3 . 9  | 9 . 9   | 9 . 9   | 26 . 3  |

Table 6 . The fit fractions and phases of each component in the nominal PWA fit. The uncertainties are statistical only.

| Resonance   | Fit fraction   | (%) Phase (rad)   |
|-------------|----------------|-------------------|
| Λ(1405)     | 2 . 9 ± 0 . 3  | 0.0 (fixed)       |
| Λ(1520)     | 1 . 2 ± 0 . 3  | - 1 . 16 ± 0 . 48 |
| Λ(1600)     | 29 . 1 ± 1 . 6 | 3 . 79 ± 0 . 18   |
| Λ(1670)     | 2 . 1 ± 0 . 5  | 6 . 36 ± 0 . 28   |
| Λ(1690)     | 3 . 6 ± 0 . 7  | - 8 . 79 ± 0 . 34 |
| Λ(1800)     | 3 . 9 ± 1 . 0  | - 1 . 65 ± 0 . 36 |
| Λ(1890)     | 3 . 1 ± 0 . 7  | 0 . 47 ± 0 . 33   |
| Λ(2325)     | 18 . 9 ± 1 . 3 | 1 . 61 ± 0 . 23   |
| Σ(1385)     | 8 . 4 ± 0 . 7  | 5 . 24 ± 0 . 26   |
| Σ(1660)     | 22 . 9 ± 1 . 8 | 9 . 14 ± 0 . 23   |
| Σ(1670)     | 10 . 3 ± 1 . 6 | 6 . 62 ± 0 . 29   |
| Σ(1750)     | 9 . 0 ± 1 . 5  | 3 . 73 ± 0 . 21   |
| Σ(1910)     | 1 . 5 ± 0 . 6  | 0 . 27 ± 0 . 75   |

parameterizations and the chiral dynamics model being well established in the literature, the parameterization of the chiral dynamics is found to be reasonable and is used in the nominal PWA fit.

## 9 Summary

Based on a sample of (2712 4 . ± 14 3) . × 10 6 ψ (3686) events [8] collected with the BESIII detector, a PWA of ψ (3686) → Λ ¯ Σ 0 π 0 is performed for the first time to investigate possible

Figure 5 . The distributions of cos Λ ¯ Σ 0 ( θ Λ ) , cos π 0 ¯ Σ 0 ( θ ¯ Σ 0 ) , and cos π 0 Λ ( θ π 0 ) .

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00495v2-figure-f7716b2e-44b2-4b49-850e-78e99deadf12.jpg)

Λ ∗ and Σ ∗ states. The measured masses, widths, and branching fractions for each component are summarized in table 7. In addition to the well established Λ ∗ and Σ ∗ states, including the Λ(1405) , Λ(1520) , Λ(1600) , Λ(1670) , Λ(1690) , Λ(1800) , Λ(1890) , Σ(1385) , Σ(1660) , Σ(1670) , Σ(1750) , and Σ(1910) , the PWA results indicate that the Λ(2325) is necessary to better describe data. It is found that both the chiral dynamics model and the Flatté-like formula for the parameterization of the Λ(1405) can describe the data well. Due to the low statistics of the data, the two models are not distinguishable. Although the Λ(2325) is a state of one-star of existence in the PDG [4], it is also one of the dominant contributions in ψ (3686) → Λ ¯ Σ 0 π 0 , which provides further proof of the existence of the Λ(2325) . We also perform a check on its spin-parity and find that its spin-parity favors J P = 3 2 / -, which is consistent with that in the PDG [4]. In addition, the branching fraction of ψ (3686) → Λ ¯ Σ 0 π 0 + c.c. is measured to be (1 544 . ± 0 013 . ± 0 071) . × 10 -4 for the first time.

Table 7 . The masses, widths, and branching fractions of each component in the nominal PWA fit. The first uncertainties are statistical and the second systematic.

| Resonance   | Mass (MeV /c 2 )           | Width ( MeV )             | B ( × 10 - 5 )           |
|-------------|----------------------------|---------------------------|--------------------------|
| Λ(1405)     | ...                        | ...                       | 0 . 44 ± 0 . 05 ± 0 . 12 |
| Λ(1520)     | 1519 . 9 ± 1 . 6 ± 4 . 8   | 20 . 6 ± 1 . 9 ± 0 . 6    | 0 . 19 ± 0 . 05 ± 0 . 05 |
| Λ(1600)     | 1570 . 5 ± 4 . 6 ± 12 . 1  | 228 . 1 ± 11 . 9 ± 34 . 8 | 4 . 49 ± 0 . 25 ± 1 . 23 |
| Λ(1670)     | 1667 . 5 ± 2 . 3 ± 3 . 6   | 30 . 2 ± 4 . 2 ± 8 . 7    | 0 . 33 ± 0 . 07 ± 0 . 09 |
| Λ(1690)     | 1691 . 1 ± 4 . 4 ± 15 . 7  | 72 . 3 ± 4 . 7 ± 18 . 3   | 0 . 55 ± 0 . 11 ± 0 . 10 |
| Λ(1800)     | 1800 . 9 ± 13 . 3 ± 12 . 6 | 208 . 8 ± 14 . 5 ± 36 . 7 | 0 . 60 ± 0 . 15 ± 0 . 18 |
| Λ(1890)     | 1897 . 2 ± 9 . 6 ± 6 . 2   | 149 . 2 ± 13 . 5 ± 4 . 1  | 0 . 47 ± 0 . 10 ± 0 . 09 |
| Λ(2325)     | 2306 . 5 ± 6 . 3 ± 17 . 1  | 227 . 1 ± 12 . 2 ± 47 . 8 | 2 . 93 ± 0 . 20 ± 0 . 26 |
| Σ(1385)     | 1388 . 2 ± 1 . 9 ± 3 . 3   | 60 . 5 ± 3 . 6 ± 6 . 3    | 1 . 30 ± 0 . 11 ± 0 . 19 |
| Σ(1660)     | 1643 . 2 ± 4 . 5 ± 7 . 6   | 221 . 3 ± 13 . 1 ± 41 . 1 | 3 . 53 ± 0 . 29 ± 0 . 63 |
| Σ(1670)     | 1679 . 7 ± 3 . 4 ± 4 . 3   | 87 . 0 ± 6 . 4 ± 8 . 9    | 1 . 60 ± 0 . 25 ± 0 . 38 |
| Σ(1750)     | 1714 . 9 ± 4 . 2 ± 7 . 3   | 97 . 2 ± 9 . 8 ± 9 . 7    | 1 . 39 ± 0 . 23 ± 0 . 32 |
| Σ(1910)     | 1912 . 1 ± 10 . 6 ± 33 . 6 | 225 . 1 ± 24 . 5 ± 46 . 0 | 0 . 23 ± 0 . 10 ± 0 . 06 |

## Acknowledgments

The BESIII Collaboration thanks the staff of BEPCII and the IHEP computing center for their strong support. This work is supported in part by National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) under Contracts Nos. 12075107, 12075250, 12075252, 12175244, 12247101, 12465015 11635010, 11735014, 11935015, 11935016, 11935018, 12025502, 12035009, 12035013, 12061131003, 12192260, 12192261, 12192262, 12192263, 12192264, 12192265, 12221005, 12225509, 12235017, 12361141819; National Key R&amp;D Program of China under Contracts Nos. 2020YFA0406300, 2020YFA0406400, 2023YFA1606000; the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities under Contracts No. lzujbky-2024-jdzx06; the Natural Science Foundation of Gansu Province under Contracts No. 22JR5RA389; the '111 Center' under Contracts No. B20063; the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) Large-Scale Scientific Facility Program; the CAS Center for Excellence in Particle Physics (CCEPP); Joint Large-Scale Scientific Facility Funds of the NSFC and CAS under Contract Nos. U2032110, U1832207; 100 Talents Program of CAS; The Institute of Nuclear and Particle Physics (INPAC) and Shanghai Key Laboratory for Particle Physics and Cosmology; German Research Foundation DFG under Contracts Nos. 455635585, FOR5327, GRK 2149; Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Italy; Ministry of Development of Turkey under Contract No. DPT2006K-120470; National Research Foundation of Korea under Contract No. NRF-2022R1A2C1092335; National Science and Technology fund of Mongolia; National Science Research and Innovation Fund (NSRF) via the Program Management Unit for Human Resources &amp; Institutional Development, Research and Innovation of Thailand under Contract No. B16F640076; Polish National Science Centre under Contract No. 2019/35/O/ST2/02907; The Swedish Research Council; U. S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-FG02-05ER41374

## References

- [1] R. G. Edwards, J. J. Dudek, D. G. Richards and S. J. Wallace, Excited state baryon spectroscopy from lattice QCD , Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 074508 [arXiv:1104.5152] [ inSPIRE ].
- [2] E. Klempt and J. M. Richard, Baryon spectroscopy , Rev. Mod. Phys. 82 (2010) 1095-1153 [arXiv:0901.2055] [ inSPIRE ].
- [3] E. Wang, L. S. Geng, J. J. Wu, J. J. Xie and B. S. Zou, Review of the low-lying excited baryons Σ (1 2 ∗ / -) , [arXiv:2406.07839].
- [4] Particle Data Group collaboration, Review of Particle Physics , PTEP 2022 (2022) 083C01 [ inSPIRE ].
- [5] E. Wang, J. J. Xie and E. Oset, χ c 0 (1 P ) decay into ¯ Σ Σ π in search of an I = 1 , 1 / 2 -baryon state around ¯ KN threshold , Phys. Lett. B 753 (2016) 526-532 [arXiv:1509.03367] [ inSPIRE ].
- [6] L. J. Liu, E. Wang, J. J. Xie, K. L. Song and J. Y. Zhu, Λ(1405) production in the process χ c 0 (1 P ) → ¯ Σ Λ π , Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 114017 [arXiv:1712.07469] [ inSPIRE ].
- [7] Y. B. He, X. H. Liu, L. S. Geng, F. K. Guo and J. J. Xie, Identifying the two-pole structure of the Λ(1405) using an SU(3) flavor filter , [arXiv:2407.13486] [ inSPIRE ].
- [8] BESIII collaboration, Determination of the number of ψ (3686) events taken at BESIII , [arXiv:2403.06766] [ inSPIRE ].
- [9] BESIII collaboration, Design and Construction of the BESIII Detector , Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 614 (2010) 345-399 [arXiv:0911.4960] [ inSPIRE ].
- [10] C. Yu et al., BEPCII Performance and Beam Dynamics Studies on Luminosity , in the proceedings of the 7 th International Particle Accelerator Conference , (2016), p. TUYA01 [DOI:10.18429/JACoW-IPAC2016-TUYA01] [ inSPIRE ].
- [11] BESIII collaboration, Future Physics Programme of BESIII , Chin. Phys. C 44 (2020) 040001 [arXiv:1912.05983] [ inSPIRE ].
- [12] J.-W. Zhang et al., Suppression of top-up injection backgrounds with offline event filter in the BESIII experiment , Radiat. Detect. Technol. Methods 6 (2022) 289-293 [ inSPIRE ].
- [13] X. Li et al., Study of MRPC technology for BESIII endcap-TOF upgrade , Radiat. Detect. Technol. Methods 1 (2017) 13 [ inSPIRE ].
- [14] Y.-X. Guo et al., The study of time calibration for upgraded end cap TOF of BESIII , Radiat. Detect. Technol. Methods 1 (2017) 15 [ inSPIRE ].
- [15] P. Cao et al., Design and construction of the new BESIII endcap Time-of-Flight system with MRPC Technology , Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 953 (2020) 163053 [ inSPIRE ].
- [16] GEANT4 collaboration, GEANT4-a simulation toolkit , Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250-303 [ inSPIRE ].
- [17] S. Jadach, B. F. L. Ward and Z. Was, Coherent exclusive exponentiation for precision Monte Carlo calculations , Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001) 113009 [hep-ph/0006359] [ inSPIRE ].
- [18] S. Jadach, B. F. L. Ward and Z. Was, The Precision Monte Carlo event generator K K for two fermion final states in e + e -collisions , Comput. Phys. Commun. 130 (2000) 260-325 [hep-ph/9912214] [ inSPIRE ].
- [19] D. J. Lange, The EvtGen particle decay simulation package , Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 462 (2001) 152-155 [ inSPIRE ].

- [20] R.-G. Ping, Event generators at BESIII , Chin. Phys. C 32 (2008) 599 [ inSPIRE ].
- [21] J. C. Chen, G. S. Huang, X. R. Qi, D. H. Zhang and Y. S. Zhu, Event generator for J/ψ and ψ (3686) decay , Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 034003 [ inSPIRE ].
- [22] R.-L. Yang, R.-G. Ping and H. Chen, Tuning and Validation of the Lundcharm Model with J/ψ Decays , Chin. Phys. Lett. 31 (2014) 061301 [ inSPIRE ].
- [23] E. Richter-Was, QED bremsstrahlung in semileptonic B and leptonic tau decays , Phys. Lett. B 303 (1993) 163-169 [ inSPIRE ].
- [24] M. Xu et al., Decay vertex reconstruction and 3-dimensional lifetime determination at BESIII , Chin. Phys. C 33 (2009) 428-435 [ inSPIRE ].
- [25] BESIII collaboration, Measurement of the cross section for e + e -→ Ξ -¯ Ξ + and observation of an excited Ξ baryon , Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 (2020) 032002 [arXiv:1910.04921] [ inSPIRE ].
- [26] BESIII collaboration, Measurement of the cross section for e + e -→ Λ ¯ Λ and evidence of the decay ψ (3770) → Λ ¯ Λ , Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) L091104 [arXiv:2108.02410] [ inSPIRE ].
- [27] BESIII collaboration, Measurement of Λ baryon polarization in e + e -→ Λ ¯ Λ at √ s = 3 773 . GeV Phys. Rev. D , 105 (2022), L011101 [arXiv:2111.11742] [ inSPIRE ].
- [28] X. Zhou, S. Du, G. Li and C. Shen, TopoAna: A generic tool for the event type analysis of inclusive Monte-Carlo samples in high energy physics experiments , Comput. Phys. Commun. 258 (2021) 107540 [arXiv:2001.04016] [ inSPIRE ].
- [29] BESIII collaboration, Measurement of the integrated luminosities of the data taken by BESIII at √ s = 3.650 and 3.773 GeV , Chin. Phys. C 37 (2013) 123001 [arXiv:1307.2022] [ inSPIRE ].
- [30] BESIII collaboration, Measurement of the e + e -→ π + π -cross section between 600 and 900 MeV using initial state radiation , Phys. Lett. B 753 (2016) 629-638 [Erratum: Phys. Lett. B 812 (2021) 135982] [arXiv:1507.08188] [ inSPIRE ].
- [31] BESIII collaboration, Measurement of the integrated luminosity of the data collected at 3.773 GeV by BESIII from 2021 to 2024 , [arXiv:2406.05827] [ inSPIRE ].
- [32] D. M. Asner et al., Physics at BES-III , Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 24 , S1-794 (2009) [arXiv:0809.1869] [ inSPIRE ].
- [33] Y. Jiang et al., Open-source framework TF-PWA package , GitHub link: https://github.com/jiangyi15/tf-pwa (2020).
- [34] S. U. Chung, A General formulation of covariant helicity coupling amplitudes , Phys. Rev. D 57 (1998) 431-442 [ inSPIRE ].
- [35] S. U. Chung, Helicity coupling amplitudes in tensor formalism , Phys. Rev. D 48 (1993) 1225-1239 [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 56 (1997) 4419] [ inSPIRE ].
- [36] M. Wang, Y. Jiang, Y. Liu, W. Qian, X. Lyu and L. Zhang, A novel method to test particle ordering and final state alignment in helicity formalism , Chin. Phys. C 45 (2021) 063103 [arXiv:2012.03699] [ inSPIRE ].
- [37] BESIII collaboration, Partial wave analysis of ψ (3686) → K K η + -, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 032008 [arXiv:1912.08566] [ inSPIRE ].
- [38] D. Jido, J. A. Oller, E. Oset, A. Ramos and U. G. Meissner, Chiral dynamics of the two Lambda(1405) states , Nucl. Phys. A 725 (2003) 181-200 [nucl-th/0303062] [ inSPIRE ].

- [39] E. Oset and A. Ramos, Nonperturbative chiral approach to s-wave ¯ KN interactions , Nucl. Phys. A 635 (1998) 99-120 [nucl-th/9711022] [ inSPIRE ].
- [40] E. Oset, A. Ramos and C. Bennhold, Low lying S = -1 excited baryons and chiral symmetry , Phys. Lett. B 527 (2002) 99-105 [nucl-th/0109006] [ inSPIRE ].
- [41] BESIII collaboration, Partial wave analysis of the charmed baryon hadronic decay Λ + c → Λ π + π 0 , JHEP 12 (2022) 033 [arXiv:2209.08464] [ inSPIRE ].
- [42] J. A. Oller and U. G. Meissner, Chiral dynamics in the presence of bound states: Kaon nucleon interactions revisited , Phys. Lett. B 500 (2001) 263-272 [hep-ph/0011146] [ inSPIRE ].
- [43] S. U. Chung, J. Brose, R. Hackmann, E. Klempt, S. Spanier and C. Strassburger, Partial wave analysis in K matrix formalism , Annalen Phys. 4 (1995) 404-430 [ inSPIRE ].
- [44] B. Baccari et al., New Data on K- p → omega Lambda from 1 934 . -GeV /c to 2 516 . -GeV /c and Partial Wave Analyses from Threshold Up to 2436 -MeV CMS Energy , Nuovo Cim. A 41 (1977) 96 [ inSPIRE ].
- [45] BESIII collaboration, Study of J/ψ and ψ (3686) decay to Λ ¯ Λ and Σ ¯ 0 Σ 0 final states , Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 052003 [arXiv:1701.07191] [ inSPIRE ].
- [46] BESIII collaboration, Search for η c (2 S h ) c → pp ¯ decays and measurements of the χ cJ → pp ¯ branching fractions , Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 112001 [arXiv:1310.6099] [ inSPIRE ].
- [47] BESIII collaboration, Cross section measurements of e + e -→ ωχ c 0 form √ s = 4.178 to 4.278 GeV , Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 091103 [arXiv:1903.02359] [ inSPIRE ].
- [48] BESIII collaboration, Search for hadronic transition χ cJ → η π c + π -and observation of χ cJ → KKπππ ¯ , Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 012002 [arXiv:1208.4805] [ inSPIRE ].

## The BESIII collaboration

,

M. Ablikim , M. N. Achasov 1 4 ,c , P. Adlarson 76 , O. Afedulidis 3 , X. C. Ai 81 , R. Aliberti 35 , A. Amoroso 75 A, 75 C Q. An 72 58 , ,a , Y. Bai 57 , O. Bakina 36 , I. Balossino 29 A , Y. Ban 46 ,h , H.-R. Bao 64 , V. Batozskaya 1 44 , , K. Begzsuren 32 , N. Berger 35 , M. Berlowski 44 , M. Bertani 28 A , D. Bettoni 29 A , F. Bianchi 75 A, 75 C , E. Bianco 75 A, 75 C , A. Bortone 75 A, 75 C , I. Boyko 36 , R. A. Briere , 5 A. Brueggemann 69 , H. Cai 77 , X. Cai 1 58 , , A. Calcaterra 28 A , G. F. Cao 1 64 , , N. Cao 1 64 , , S. A. Cetin 62 A , X. Y. Chai 46 ,h , J. F. Chang 1 58 , , G. R. Che 43 , G. Chelkov 36 ,b , C. Chen 43 , C. H. Chen , Chao Chen 9 55 , G. Chen , H. S. Chen 1 1 64 , , H. Y. Chen 20 , M. L. Chen 1 58 64 , , , S. J. Chen 42 , S. L. Chen 45 , S. M. Chen 61 , T. Chen 1 64 , , X. R. Chen 31 64 , , X. T. Chen 1 64 , , Y. B. Chen 1 58 , , Y. Q. Chen 34 , Z. J. Chen 25 ,i , Z. Y. Chen 1 64 , , S. K. Choi 10 , G. Cibinetto 29 A , F. Cossio 75 C , J. J. Cui 50 , H. L. Dai 1 58 , , J. P. Dai 79 , A. Dbeyssi 18 , R. E. de Boer , 3 D. Dedovich 36 , C. Q. Deng 73 , Z. Y. Deng , 1 A. Denig 35 , I. Denysenko 36 , M. Destefanis 75 A, 75 C , F. De Mori 75 A, 75 C , B. Ding 67 1 , , X. X. Ding 46 ,h , Y. Ding 34 , Y. Ding 40 , J. Dong 1 58 , , L. Y. Dong 1 64 , , M. Y. Dong 1 58 64 , , , X. Dong 77 , M. C. Du , S. X. Du 1 81 , Y. Y. Duan 55 , Z. H. Duan 42 , P. Egorov 36 ,b , Y. H. Fan 45 , J. Fang 59 , J. Fang 1 58 , , S. S. Fang 1 64 , , W. X. Fang , 1 Y. Fang , 1 Y. Q. Fang 1 58 , , R. Farinelli 29 A , L. Fava 75 B, 75 C , F. Feldbauer 3 , G. Felici 28 A , C. Q. Feng 72 58 , , J. H. Feng 59 , Y. T. Feng 72 58 , , M. Fritsch 3 , C. D. Fu 1 , J. L. Fu 64 , Y. W. Fu 1 64 , , H. Gao 64 , X. B. Gao 41 , Y. N. Gao 46 ,h , Yang Gao 72 58 , , S. Garbolino 75 C , I. Garzia 29 A, 29 B , L. Ge 81 , P. T. Ge 19 , Z. W. Ge 42 , C. Geng 59 , E. M. Gersabeck 68 , A. Gilman 70 , K. Goetzen 13 , L. Gong 40 , W. X. Gong 1 58 , , W. Gradl 35 , S. Gramigna 29 A, 29 B , M. Greco 75 A, 75 C , M. H. Gu 1 58 , , Y. T. Gu 15 , C. Y. Guan 1 64 , , A. Q. Guo 31 64 , , L. B. Guo 41 , M. J. Guo 50 , R. P. Guo 49 , Y. P. Guo 12 ,g , A. Guskov 36 ,b , J. Gutierrez 27 , K. L. Han 64 , T. T. Han , F. Hanisch , X. Q. Hao 1 3 19 , F. A. Harris 66 , K. K. He 55 , K. L. He 1 64 , , F. H. Heinsius , 3 C. H. Heinz 35 , Y. K. Heng 1 58 64 , , , C. Herold 60 , T. Holtmann , P. C. Hong 3 34 , G. Y. Hou 1 64 , , X. T. Hou 1 64 , , Y. R. Hou 64 , Z. L. Hou , 1 B. Y. Hu 59 , H. M. Hu 1 64 , , J. F. Hu 56 ,j , S. L. Hu 12 ,g , T. Hu 1 58 64 , , , Y. Hu , G. S. Huang 1 72 58 , , K. X. Huang 59 , L. Q. Huang 31 64 , , X. T. Huang 50 , Y. P. Huang , Y. S. Huang 1 59 , T. Hussain 74 , F. Hölzken , N. Hüsken 3 35 , N. in der Wiesche 69 , J. Jackson 27 , S. Janchiv 32 , J. H. Jeong 10 , Q. Ji 1 , Q. P. Ji 19 , W. Ji 1 64 , , X. B. Ji 1 64 , , X. L. Ji 1 58 , , Y. Y. Ji 50 , X. Q. Jia 50 , Z. K. Jia 72 58 , , D. Jiang 1 64 , , H. B. Jiang 77 , P. C. Jiang 46 ,h , S. S. Jiang 39 , T. J. Jiang 16 , X. S. Jiang 1 58 64 , , , Y. Jiang 64 , J. B. Jiao 50 , J. K. Jiao 34 , Z. Jiao 23 , S. Jin 42 , Y. Jin 67 , M. Q. Jing 1 64 , , X. M. Jing 64 , T. Johansson 76 , S. Kabana 33 , N. Kalantar-Nayestanaki 65 , X. L. Kang 9 , X. S. Kang 40 , M. Kavatsyuk 65 , B. C. Ke 81 , V. Khachatryan 27 , A. Khoukaz 69 , R. Kiuchi , 1 O. B. Kolcu 62 A , B. Kopf , M. Kuessner , X. Kui 3 3 1 64 , , N. Kumar 26 , A. Kupsc 44 76 , , W. Kühn 37 , J. J. Lane 68 , L. Lavezzi 75 A, 75 C , T. T. Lei 72 58 , , Z. H. Lei 72 58 , , M. Lellmann 35 , T. Lenz 35 , C. Li 47 , C. Li 43 , C. H. Li 39 , Cheng Li 72 58 , , D. M. Li 81 , F. Li 1 58 , , G. Li , H. B. Li 1 1 64 , , H. J. Li 19 , H. N. Li 56 ,j , Hui Li 43 , J. R. Li 61 , J. S. Li 59 , K. Li , K. L. Li 1 19 , L. J. Li 1 64 , , L. K. Li 1 , Lei Li 48 , M. H. Li 43 , P. R. Li 38 ,k,l , Q. M. Li 1 64 , , Q. X. Li 50 , R. Li 17 31 , , S. X. Li 12 , T. Li 50 , W. D. Li 1 64 , , W. G. Li 1 ,a , X. Li 1 64 , , X. H. Li 72 58 , , X. L. Li 50 , X. Y. Li 1 64 , , X. Z. Li 59 , Y. G. Li 46 ,h , Z. J. Li 59 , Z. Y. Li 79 , C. Liang 42 , H. Liang 1 64 , , H. Liang 72 58 , , Y. F. Liang 54 , Y. T. Liang 31 64 , , G. R. Liao 14 , Y. P. Liao 1 64 , , J. Libby 26 , A. Limphirat 60 , C. C. Lin 55 , D. X. Lin 31 64 , , T. Lin , 1 B. J. Liu , 1 B. X. Liu 77 , C. Liu 34 , C. X. Liu , 1 F. Liu , 1 F. H. Liu 53 , Feng Liu , 6 G. M. Liu 56 ,j , H. Liu 38 ,k,l , H. B. Liu 15 , H. H. Liu , H. M. Liu 1 1 64 , , Huihui Liu 21 , J. B. Liu 72 58 , , J. Y. Liu 1 64 , , K. Liu 38 ,k,l , K. Y. Liu 40 , Ke Liu 22 , L. Liu 72 58 , , L. C. Liu 43 , Lu Liu 43 , M. H. Liu 12 ,g , P. L. Liu 1 , Q. Liu 64 , S. B. Liu 72 58 , , T. Liu 12 ,g , W. K. Liu 43 , W. M. Liu 72 58 , , X. Liu 38 ,k,l , X. Liu 39 , Y. Liu 81 , Y. Liu 38 ,k,l , Y. B. Liu 43 , Z. A. Liu 1 58 64 , , , Z. D. Liu , Z. Q. Liu 9 50 , X. C. Lou 1 58 64 , , , F. X. Lu 59 , H. J. Lu 23 , J. G. Lu 1 58 , , X. L. Lu , Y. Lu , Y. P. Lu 1 7 1 58 , , Z. H. Lu 1 64 , , C. L. Luo 41 , J. R. Luo 59 , M. X. Luo 80 , T. Luo 12 ,g , X. L. Luo 1 58 , , X. R. Lyu 64 , Y. F. Lyu 43 , F. C. Ma 40 , H. Ma 79 , H. L. Ma , 1 J. L. Ma 1 64 , , L. L. Ma 50 , L. R. Ma 67 , M. M. Ma 1 64 , , Q. M. Ma , R. Q. Ma 1 1 64 , , T. Ma 72 58 , , X. T. Ma 1 64 , , X. Y. Ma 1 58 , , Y. M. Ma 31 , F. E. Maas 18 , I. MacKay 70 , M. Maggiora 75 A, 75 C , S. Malde 70 , Y. J. Mao 46 ,h , Z. P. Mao 1 , S. Marcello 75 A, 75 C , Z. X. Meng 67 , J. G. Messchendorp 13 65 , , G. Mezzadri 29 A ,

H. Miao 1 64 , , T. J. Min 42 , R. E. Mitchell 27 , X. H. Mo 1 58 64 , , , B. Moses 27 , N. Yu. Muchnoi 4 ,c , J. Muskalla 35 , Y. Nefedov 36 , F. Nerling 18 ,e , L. S. Nie 20 , I. B. Nikolaev 4 ,c , Z. Ning 1 58 , , S. Nisar 11 ,m , Q. L. Niu 38 ,k,l , W. D. Niu 55 , Y. Niu 50 , S. L. Olsen 64 , S. L. Olsen 10 64 , , Q. Ouyang 1 58 64 , , , S. Pacetti 28 B, 28 C X. Pan 55 , Y. Pan 57 , A. Pathak 34 , Y. P. Pei 72 58 , , M. Pelizaeus , H. P. Peng 3 72 58 , , Y. Y. Peng 38 ,k,l , K. Peters 13 ,e , J. L. Ping 41 , R. G. Ping 1 64 , , S. Plura 35 , V. Prasad 33 , F. Z. Qi 1 , H. Qi 72 58 , , H. R. Qi 61 , M. Qi 42 , T. Y. Qi 12 ,g , S. Qian 1 58 , , W. B. Qian 64 , C. F. Qiao 64 , X. K. Qiao 81 , J. J. Qin 73 , L. Q. Qin 14 , L. Y. Qin 72 58 , , X. P. Qin 12 ,g , X. S. Qin 50 , Z. H. Qin 1 58 , , J. F. Qiu , Z. H. Qu 1 73 , C. F. Redmer 35 , K. J. Ren 39 , A. Rivetti 75 C , M. Rolo 75 C , G. Rong 1 64 , , Ch. Rosner 18 , S. N. Ruan 43 , N. Salone 44 , A. Sarantsev 36 ,d , Y. Schelhaas 35 , K. Schoenning 76 , M. Scodeggio 29 A , K. Y. Shan 12 ,g , W. Shan 24 , X. Y. Shan 72 58 , , Z. J. Shang 38 ,k,l , J. F. Shangguan 16 , L. G. Shao 1 64 , , M. Shao 72 58 , , C. P. Shen 12 ,g , H. F. Shen 1 8 , , W. H. Shen 64 , X. Y. Shen 1 64 , , B. A. Shi 64 , H. Shi 72 58 , , H. C. Shi 72 58 , , J. L. Shi 12 ,g , J. Y. Shi , 1 Q. Q. Shi 55 , S. Y. Shi 73 , X. Shi 1 58 , , J. J. Song 19 , T. Z. Song 59 , W. M. Song 34 1 , , Y. J. Song 12 ,g , Y. X. Song 46 ,h,n , S. Sosio 75 A, 75 C , S. Spataro 75 A, 75 C , F. Stieler 35 , S. S Su 40 , Y. J. Su 64 , G. B. Sun 77 , G. X. Sun , H. Sun 1 64 , H. K. Sun , J. F. Sun 1 19 , K. Sun 61 , L. Sun 77 , S. S. Sun 1 64 , , T. Sun 51 ,f , W. Y. Sun 34 , Y. Sun , 9 Y. J. Sun 72 58 , , Y. Z. Sun , 1 Z. Q. Sun 1 64 , , Z. T. Sun 50 , C. J. Tang 54 , G. Y. Tang , J. Tang 1 59 , M. Tang 72 58 , , Y. A. Tang 77 , L. Y. Tao 73 , Q. T. Tao 25 ,i , M. Tat 70 , J. X. Teng 72 58 , , V. Thoren 76 , W. H. Tian 59 , Y. Tian 31 64 , , Z. F. Tian 77 , I. Uman 62 B , Y. Wan 55 , S. J. Wang 50 , B. Wang , B. L. Wang 1 64 , Bo Wang 72 58 , , D. Y. Wang 46 ,h , F. Wang 73 , H. J. Wang 38 ,k,l , J. J. Wang 77 , J. P. Wang 50 , K. Wang 1 58 , , L. L. Wang , M. Wang 1 50 , N. Y. Wang 64 , S. Wang 38 ,k,l , S. Wang 12 ,g , T. Wang 12 ,g , T. J. Wang 43 , W. Wang 73 , W. Wang 59 , W. P. Wang 35 58 72 , , ,o , X. Wang 46 ,h , X. F. Wang 38 ,k,l , X. J. Wang 39 , X. L. Wang 12 ,g , X. N. Wang , 1 Y. Wang 61 , Y. D. Wang 45 , Y. F. Wang 1 58 64 , , , Y. L. Wang 19 , Y. N. Wang 45 , Y. Q. Wang , 1 Yaqian Wang 17 , Yi Wang 61 , Z. Wang 1 58 , , Z. L. Wang 73 , Z. Y. Wang 1 64 , , Ziyi Wang 64 , D. H. Wei 14 , F. Weidner 69 , S. P. Wen , Y. R. Wen 1 39 , U. Wiedner , G. Wilkinson 3 70 , M. Wolke 76 , L. Wollenberg , 3 C. Wu 39 , J. F. Wu 1 8 , , L. H. Wu , L. J. Wu 1 1 64 , , X. Wu 12 ,g , X. H. Wu 34 , Y. Wu 72 58 , , Y. H. Wu 55 , Y. J. Wu 31 , Z. Wu 1 58 , , L. Xia 72 58 , , X. M. Xian 39 , B. H. Xiang 1 64 , , T. Xiang 46 ,h , D. Xiao 38 ,k,l , G. Y. Xiao 42 , S. Y. Xiao , 1 Y. L. Xiao 12 ,g , Z. J. Xiao 41 , C. Xie 42 , X. H. Xie 46 ,h , Y. Xie 50 , Y. G. Xie 1 58 , , Y. H. Xie , Z. P. Xie 6 72 58 , , T. Y. Xing 1 64 , , C. F. Xu 1 64 , , C. J. Xu 59 , G. F. Xu , 1 H. Y. Xu 67 2 , ,p , M. Xu 72 58 , , Q. J. Xu 16 , Q. N. Xu 30 , W. Xu , W. L. Xu 1 67 , X. P. Xu 55 , Y. Xu 40 , Y. C. Xu 78 , Z. S. Xu 64 , F. Yan 12 ,g , L. Yan 12 ,g , W. B. Yan 72 58 , , W. C. Yan 81 , X. Q. Yan 1 64 , , H. J. Yang 51 ,f , H. L. Yang 34 , H. X. Yang , T. Yang , Y. Yang 1 1 12 ,g , Y. F. Yang 43 , Y. F. Yang 1 64 , , Y. X. Yang 1 64 , , Z. W. Yang 38 ,k,l , Z. P. Yao 50 , M. Ye 1 58 , , M. H. Ye , J. H. Yin , Junhao Yin 8 1 43 , Z. Y. You 59 , B. X. Yu 1 58 64 , , , C. X. Yu 43 , G. Yu 1 64 , , J. S. Yu 25 ,i , M. C. Yu 40 , T. Yu 73 , X. D. Yu 46 ,h , Y. C. Yu 81 , C. Z. Yuan 1 64 , , J. Yuan 34 , J. Yuan 45 , L. Yuan 2 , S. C. Yuan 1 64 , , Y. Yuan 1 64 , , Z. Y. Yuan 59 , C. X. Yue 39 , A. A. Zafar 74 , F. R. Zeng 50 , S. H. Zeng 63 A, 63 B, 63 C, 63 D , X. Zeng 12 ,g , Y. Zeng 25 ,i , Y. J. Zeng 1 64 , , Y. J. Zeng 59 , X. Y. Zhai 34 , Y. C. Zhai 50 , Y. H. Zhan 59 , A. Q. Zhang 1 64 , , B. L. Zhang 1 64 , , B. X. Zhang , 1 D. H. Zhang 43 , G. Y. Zhang 19 , H. Zhang 81 , H. Zhang 72 58 , , H. C. Zhang 1 58 64 , , , H. H. Zhang 34 , H. H. Zhang 59 , H. Q. Zhang 1 58 64 , , , H. R. Zhang 72 58 , , H. Y. Zhang 1 58 , , J. Zhang 81 , J. Zhang 59 , J. J. Zhang 52 , J. L. Zhang 20 , J. Q. Zhang 41 , J. S. Zhang 12 ,g , J. W. Zhang 1 58 64 , , , J. X. Zhang 38 ,k,l , J. Y. Zhang , J. Z. Zhang 1 1 64 , , Jianyu Zhang 64 , L. M. Zhang 61 , Lei Zhang 42 , P. Zhang 1 64 , , Q. Y. Zhang 34 , R. Y. Zhang 38 ,k,l , S. H. Zhang 1 64 , , Shulei Zhang 25 ,i , X. M. Zhang , 1 X. Y Zhang 40 , X. Y. Zhang 50 , Y. Zhang 73 , Y. Zhang , Y. 1 T. Zhang 81 , Y. H. Zhang 1 58 , , Y. M. Zhang 39 , Yan Zhang 72 58 , , Z. D. Zhang , Z. H. Zhang , Z. L. Zhang 1 1 34 , Z. Y. Zhang 43 , Z. Y. Zhang 77 , Z. Z. Zhang 45 , G. Zhao , J. Y. Zhao 1 1 64 , , J. Z. Zhao 1 58 , , L. Zhao 1 , Lei Zhao 72 58 , , M. G. Zhao 43 , N. Zhao 79 , R. P. Zhao 64 , S. J. Zhao 81 , Y. B. Zhao 1 58 , , Y. X. Zhao 31 64 , , Z. G. Zhao 72 58 , , A. Zhemchugov 36 ,b , B. Zheng 73 , B. M. Zheng 34 , J. P. Zheng 1 58 , , W. J. Zheng 1 64 , , Y. H. Zheng 64 , B. Zhong 41 , X. Zhong 59 , H. Zhou 50 , J. Y. Zhou 34 , L. P. Zhou 1 64 , , S. Zhou , X. Zhou 6 77 , X. K. Zhou , X. R. Zhou 6 72 58 , , X. Y. Zhou 39 , Y. Z. Zhou 12 ,g , Z. C. Zhou 20 , A. N. Zhu 64 , J. Zhu 43 , K. Zhu , K. J. Zhu 1 1 58 64 , , ,

,

- K. S. Zhu 12 ,g , L. Zhu 34 , L. X. Zhu 64 , S. H. Zhu 71 , T. J. Zhu 12 ,g , W. D. Zhu 41 , Y. C. Zhu 72 58 , , Z. A. Zhu 1 64 , , J. H. Zou , J. Zu 1 72 58 ,
- 1 Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing 100049, People's Republic of China
- 2 Beihang University, Beijing 100191, People's Republic of China
- 3 Bochum Ruhr-University, D-44780 Bochum, Germany
- 4 Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics SB RAS (BINP), Novosibirsk 630090, Russia
- 5 Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, USA
- 6 Central China Normal University, Wuhan 430079, People's Republic of China
- 7 Central South University, Changsha 410083, People's Republic of China
- 8 China Center of Advanced Science and Technology, Beijing 100190, People's Republic of China
- 9 China University of Geosciences, Wuhan 430074, People's Republic of China
- 10 Chung-Ang University, Seoul, 06974, Republic of Korea
- 11 COMSATS University Islamabad, Lahore Campus, Defence Road, Off Raiwind Road, 54000 Lahore, Pakistan
- 12 Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, People's Republic of China
- 13 GSI Helmholtzcentre for Heavy Ion Research GmbH, D-64291 Darmstadt, Germany
- 14 Guangxi Normal University, Guilin 541004, People's Republic of China
- 15 Guangxi University, Nanning 530004, People's Republic of China
- 16 Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou 310036, People's Republic of China
- 17 Hebei University, Baoding 071002, People's Republic of China
- 18 Helmholtz Institute Mainz, Staudinger Weg 18, D-55099 Mainz, Germany
- 19 Henan Normal University, Xinxiang 453007, People's Republic of China
- 20 Henan University, Kaifeng 475004, People's Republic of China
- 21 Henan University of Science and Technology, Luoyang 471003, People's Republic of China
- 22 Henan University of Technology, Zhengzhou 450001, People's Republic of China
- 23 Huangshan College, Huangshan 245000, People's Republic of China
- 24 Hunan Normal University, Changsha 410081, People's Republic of China
- 25 Hunan University, Changsha 410082, People's Republic of China
- 26 Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai 600036, India
- 27 Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405, USA
- 28 INFN Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati , (A)INFN Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, I-00044, Frascati, Italy; (B)INFN Sezione di Perugia, I-06100, Perugia, Italy; (C)University of Perugia, I-06100, Perugia, Italy
- 29 INFN Sezione di Ferrara, (A)INFN Sezione di Ferrara, I-44122, Ferrara, Italy; (B)University of Ferrara, I-44122, Ferrara, Italy
- 30 Inner Mongolia University, Hohhot 010021, People's Republic of China
- 31 Institute of Modern Physics, Lanzhou 730000, People's Republic of China
- 32 Institute of Physics and Technology, Peace Avenue 54B, Ulaanbaatar 13330, Mongolia
- 33 Instituto de Alta Investigación, Universidad de Tarapacá, Casilla 7D, Arica 1000000, Chile
- 34 Jilin University, Changchun 130012, People's Republic of China
- 35 Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, Johann-Joachim-Becher-Weg 45, D-55099 Mainz, Germany
- 36 Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, 141980 Dubna, Moscow region, Russia
- 37 Justus-Liebig-Universitaet Giessen, II. Physikalisches Institut, Heinrich-Buff-Ring 16, D-35392 Giessen, Germany
- 38 Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, People's Republic of China
- 39 Liaoning Normal University, Dalian 116029, People's Republic of China
- 40 Liaoning University, Shenyang 110036, People's Republic of China

- 41 Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing 210023, People's Republic of China
- 42 Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, People's Republic of China
- 43 Nankai University, Tianjin 300071, People's Republic of China
- 44 National Centre for Nuclear Research, Warsaw 02-093, Poland
- 45 North China Electric Power University, Beijing 102206, People's Republic of China
- 46 Peking University, Beijing 100871, People's Republic of China
- 47 Qufu Normal University, Qufu 273165, People's Republic of China
- 48 Renmin University of China, Beijing 100872, People's Republic of China
- 49 Shandong Normal University, Jinan 250014, People's Republic of China
- 50 Shandong University, Jinan 250100, People's Republic of China
- 51 Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, People's Republic of China
- 52 Shanxi Normal University, Linfen 041004, People's Republic of China
- 53 Shanxi University, Taiyuan 030006, People's Republic of China
- 54 Sichuan University, Chengdu 610064, People's Republic of China
- 55 Soochow University, Suzhou 215006, People's Republic of China
- 56 South China Normal University, Guangzhou 510006, People's Republic of China
- 57 Southeast University, Nanjing 211100, People's Republic of China
- 58 State Key Laboratory of Particle Detection and Electronics, Beijing 100049, Hefei 230026, People's Republic of China
- 59 Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510275, People's Republic of China
- 60 Suranaree University of Technology, University Avenue 111, Nakhon Ratchasima 30000, Thailand
- 61 Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, People's Republic of China
- 62 Turkish Accelerator Center Particle Factory Group, (A)Istinye University, 34010, Istanbul, Turkey; (B)Near East University, Nicosia, North Cyprus, 99138, Mersin 10, Turkey
- 63 University of Bristol, (A)H H Wills Physics Laboratory; (B)Tyndall Avenue; (C)Bristol; (D)BS8 1TL
- 64 University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, People's Republic of China
- 65 University of Groningen, NL-9747 AA Groningen, The Netherlands
- 66 University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822, USA
- 67 University of Jinan, Jinan 250022, People's Republic of China
- 68 University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, United Kingdom
- 69 University of Muenster, Wilhelm-Klemm-Strasse 9, 48149 Muenster, Germany
- 70 University of Oxford, Keble Road, Oxford OX13RH, United Kingdom
- 71 University of Science and Technology Liaoning, Anshan 114051, People's Republic of China
- 72 University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, People's Republic of China
- 73 University of South China, Hengyang 421001, People's Republic of China
- 74 University of the Punjab, Lahore-54590, Pakistan
- 75 University of Turin and INFN, (A)University of Turin, I-10125, Turin, Italy; (B)University of Eastern Piedmont, I-15121, Alessandria, Italy; (C)INFN, I-10125, Turin, Italy
- 76 Uppsala University, Box 516, SE-75120 Uppsala, Sweden
- 77 Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, People's Republic of China
- 78 Yantai University, Yantai 264005, People's Republic of China
- 79 Yunnan University, Kunming 650500, People's Republic of China
- 80 Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310027, People's Republic of China
- 81 Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450001, People's Republic of China
- a Deceased

- b Also at the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow 141700, Russia
- c Also at the Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia
- d Also at the NRC "Kurchatov Institute", PNPI, 188300, Gatchina, Russia
- e Also at Goethe University Frankfurt, 60323 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
- f Also at Key Laboratory for Particle Physics, Astrophysics and Cosmology, Ministry of Education; Shanghai Key Laboratory for Particle Physics and Cosmology; Institute of Nuclear and Particle Physics, Shanghai 200240, People's Republic of China
- g Also at Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Ion-beam Application (MOE) and Institute of Modern Physics, Fudan University, Shanghai 200443, People's Republic of China
- h Also at State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Technology, Peking University, Beijing 100871, People's Republic of China
- i Also at School of Physics and Electronics, Hunan University, Changsha 410082, China
- j Also at Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Nuclear Science, Institute of Quantum Matter, South China Normal University, Guangzhou 510006, China
- k Also at MOE Frontiers Science Center for Rare Isotopes, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, People's Republic of China
- l Also at Lanzhou Center for Theoretical Physics, Key Laboratory of Theoretical Physics of Gansu Province, and Key Laboratory for Quantum Theory and Applications of MoE, Gansu Provincial Research Center for Basic Disciplines of Quantum Physics, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, People's Republic of China
- m Also at the Department of Mathematical Sciences, IBA, Karachi 75270, Pakistan
- n Also at Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne (EPFL), CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
- o Also at Helmholtz Institute Mainz, Staudinger Weg 18, D-55099 Mainz, Germany
- p Also at School of Physics, Beihang University, Beijing 100191 , China
BESIII Collaboration M. Ablikim M. N. Achasov P. Adlarson O. Afedulidis X. C. Ai R. Aliberti A. Amoroso Q. An Y. Bai O. Bakina I. Balossino Y. Ban H. -R. Bao V. Batozskaya K. Begzsuren N. Berger M. Berlowski M. Bertani D. Bettoni F. Bianchi E. Bianco A. Bortone I. Boyko R. A. Briere A. Brueggemann H. Cai X. Cai A. Calcaterra G. F. Cao N. Cao S. A. Cetin X. Y. Chai J. F. Chang G. R. Che G. Chelkov C. Chen C. H. Chen Chao Chen G. Chen H. S. Chen H. Y. Chen M. L. Chen S. J. Chen S. L. Chen S. M. Chen T. Chen X. R. Chen X. T. Chen Y. B. Chen Y. Q. Chen Z. J. Chen Z. Y. Chen S. K. Choi G. Cibinetto F. Cossio J. J. Cui H. L. Dai J. P. Dai A. Dbeyssi R. E. de Boer D. Dedovich C. Q. Deng Z. Y. Deng A. Denig I. Denysenko M. Destefanis F. De Mori B. Ding X. X. Ding Y. Ding Y. Ding J. Dong L. Y. Dong M. Y. Dong X. Dong M. C. Du S. X. Du Y. Y. Duan Z. H. Duan P. Egorov Y. H. Fan J. Fang J. Fang S. S. Fang W. X. Fang Y. Fang Y. Q. Fang R. Farinelli L. Fava F. Feldbauer G. Felici C. Q. Feng J. H. Feng Y. T. Feng M. Fritsch C. D. Fu J. L. Fu Y. W. Fu H. Gao X. B. Gao Y. N. Gao Yang Gao S. Garbolino I. Garzia L. Ge P. T. Ge Z. W. Ge C. Geng E. M. Gersabeck A. Gilman K. Goetzen L. Gong W. X. Gong W. Gradl S. Gramigna M. Greco M. H. Gu Y. T. Gu C. Y. Guan A. Q. Guo L. B. Guo M. J. Guo R. P. Guo Y. P. Guo A. Guskov J. Gutierrez K. L. Han T. T. Han F. Hanisch X. Q. Hao F. A. Harris K. K. He K. L. He F. H. Heinsius C. H. Heinz Y. K. Heng C. Herold T. Holtmann P. C. Hong G. Y. Hou X. T. Hou Y. R. Hou Z. L. Hou B. Y. Hu H. M. Hu J. F. Hu S. L. Hu T. Hu Y. Hu G. S. Huang K. X. Huang L. Q. Huang X. T. Huang Y. P. Huang Y. S. Huang T. Hussain F. Hölzken N. Hüsken N. in der Wiesche J. Jackson S. Janchiv J. H. Jeong Q. Ji Q. P. Ji W. Ji X. B. Ji X. L. Ji Y. Y. Ji X. Q. Jia Z. K. Jia D. Jiang H. B. Jiang P. C. Jiang S. S. Jiang T. J. Jiang X. S. Jiang Y. Jiang J. B. Jiao J. K. Jiao Z. Jiao S. Jin Y. Jin M. Q. Jing X. M. Jing T. Johansson S. Kabana N. Kalantar-Nayestanaki X. L. Kang X. S. Kang M. Kavatsyuk B. C. Ke V. Khachatryan A. Khoukaz R. Kiuchi O. B. Kolcu B. Kopf M. Kuessner X. Kui N. Kumar A. Kupsc W. Kühn J. J. Lane L. Lavezzi T. T. Lei Z. H. Lei M. Lellmann T. Lenz C. Li C. Li C. H. Li Cheng Li D. M. Li F. Li G. Li H. B. Li H. J. Li H. N. Li Hui Li J. R. Li J. S. Li K. Li K. L. Li L. J. Li L. K. Li Lei Li M. H. Li P. R. Li Q. M. Li Q. X. Li R. Li S. X. Li T. Li W. D. Li W. G. Li X. Li X. H. Li X. L. Li X. Y. Li X. Z. Li Y. G. Li Z. J. Li Z. Y. Li C. Liang H. Liang H. Liang Y. F. Liang Y. T. Liang G. R. Liao Y. P. Liao J. Libby A. Limphirat C. C. Lin D. X. Lin T. Lin B. J. Liu B. X. Liu C. Liu C. X. Liu F. Liu F. H. Liu Feng Liu G. M. Liu H. Liu H. B. Liu H. H. Liu H. M. Liu Huihui Liu J. B. Liu J. Y. Liu K. Liu K. Y. Liu Ke Liu L. Liu L. C. Liu Lu Liu M. H. Liu P. L. Liu Q. Liu S. B. Liu T. Liu W. K. Liu W. M. Liu X. Liu X. Liu Y. Liu Y. Liu Y. B. Liu Z. A. Liu Z. D. Liu Z. Q. Liu X. C. Lou F. X. Lu H. J. Lu J. G. Lu X. L. Lu Y. Lu Y. P. Lu Z. H. Lu C. L. Luo J. R. Luo M. X. Luo T. Luo X. L. Luo X. R. Lyu Y. F. Lyu F. C. Ma H. Ma H. L. Ma J. L. Ma L. L. Ma L. R. Ma M. M. Ma Q. M. Ma R. Q. Ma T. Ma X. T. Ma X. Y. Ma Y. M. Ma F. E. Maas I. MacKay M. Maggiora S. Malde Y. J. Mao Z. P. Mao S. Marcello Z. X. Meng J. G. Messchendorp G. Mezzadri H. Miao T. J. Min R. E. Mitchell X. H. Mo B. Moses N. Yu. Muchnoi J. Muskalla Y. Nefedov F. Nerling L. S. Nie I. B. Nikolaev Z. Ning S. Nisar Q. L. Niu W. D. Niu Y. Niu S. L. Olsen S. L. Olsen Q. Ouyang S. Pacetti X. Pan Y. Pan A. Pathak Y. P. Pei M. Pelizaeus H. P. Peng Y. Y. Peng K. Peters J. L. Ping R. G. Ping S. Plura V. Prasad F. Z. Qi H. Qi H. R. Qi M. Qi T. Y. Qi S. Qian W. B. Qian C. F. Qiao X. K. Qiao J. J. Qin L. Q. Qin L. Y. Qin X. P. Qin X. S. Qin Z. H. Qin J. F. Qiu Z. H. Qu C. F. Redmer K. J. Ren A. Rivetti M. Rolo G. Rong Ch. Rosner S. N. Ruan N. Salone A. Sarantsev Y. Schelhaas K. Schoenning M. Scodeggio K. Y. Shan W. Shan X. Y. Shan Z. J. Shang J. F. Shangguan L. G. Shao M. Shao C. P. Shen H. F. Shen W. H. Shen X. Y. Shen B. A. Shi H. Shi H. C. Shi J. L. Shi J. Y. Shi Q. Q. Shi S. Y. Shi X. Shi J. J. Song T. Z. Song W. M. Song Y. J. Song Y. X. Song S. Sosio S. Spataro F. Stieler S. S Su Y. J. Su G. B. Sun G. X. Sun H. Sun H. K. Sun J. F. Sun K. Sun L. Sun S. S. Sun T. Sun W. Y. Sun Y. Sun Y. J. Sun Y. Z. Sun Z. Q. Sun Z. T. Sun C. J. Tang G. Y. Tang J. Tang M. Tang Y. A. Tang L. Y. Tao Q. T. Tao M. Tat J. X. Teng V. Thoren W. H. Tian Y. Tian Z. F. Tian I. Uman Y. Wan S. J. Wang B. Wang B. L. Wang Bo Wang D. Y. Wang F. Wang H. J. Wang J. J. Wang J. P. Wang K. Wang L. L. Wang M. Wang N. Y. Wang S. Wang S. Wang T. Wang T. J. Wang W. Wang W. Wang W. P. Wang X. Wang X. F. Wang X. J. Wang X. L. Wang X. N. Wang Y. Wang Y. D. Wang Y. F. Wang Y. L. Wang Y. N. Wang Y. Q. Wang Yaqian Wang Yi Wang Z. Wang Z. L. Wang Z. Y. Wang Ziyi Wang D. H. Wei F. Weidner S. P. Wen Y. R. Wen U. Wiedner G. Wilkinson M. Wolke L. Wollenberg C. Wu J. F. Wu L. H. Wu L. J. Wu X. Wu X. H. Wu Y. Wu Y. H. Wu Y. J. Wu Z. Wu L. Xia X. M. Xian B. H. Xiang T. Xiang D. Xiao G. Y. Xiao S. Y. Xiao Y. L. Xiao Z. J. Xiao C. Xie X. H. Xie Y. Xie Y. G. Xie Y. H. Xie Z. P. Xie T. Y. Xing C. F. Xu C. J. Xu G. F. Xu H. Y. Xu M. Xu Q. J. Xu Q. N. Xu W. Xu W. L. Xu X. P. Xu Y. Xu Y. C. Xu Z. S. Xu F. Yan L. Yan W. B. Yan W. C. Yan X. Q. Yan H. J. Yang H. L. Yang H. X. Yang T. Yang Y. Yang Y. F. Yang Y. F. Yang Y. X. Yang Z. W. Yang Z. P. Yao M. Ye M. H. Ye J. H. Yin Junhao Yin Z. Y. You B. X. Yu C. X. Yu G. Yu J. S. Yu M. C. Yu T. Yu X. D. Yu Y. C. Yu C. Z. Yuan J. Yuan J. Yuan L. Yuan S. C. Yuan Y. Yuan Z. Y. Yuan C. X. Yue A. A. Zafar F. R. Zeng S. H. Zeng X. Zeng Y. Zeng Y. J. Zeng Y. J. Zeng X. Y. Zhai Y. C. Zhai Y. H. Zhan A. Q. Zhang B. L. Zhang B. X. Zhang D. H. Zhang G. Y. Zhang H. Zhang H. Zhang H. C. Zhang H. H. Zhang H. H. Zhang H. Q. Zhang H. R. Zhang H. Y. Zhang J. Zhang J. Zhang J. J. Zhang J. L. Zhang J. Q. Zhang J. S. Zhang J. W. Zhang J. X. Zhang J. Y. Zhang J. Z. Zhang Jianyu Zhang L. M. Zhang Lei Zhang P. Zhang Q. Y. Zhang R. Y. Zhang S. H. Zhang Shulei Zhang X. M. Zhang X. Y Zhang X. Y. Zhang Y. Zhang Y. Zhang Y. T. Zhang Y. H. Zhang Y. M. Zhang Yan Zhang Z. D. Zhang Z. H. Zhang Z. L. Zhang Z. Y. Zhang Z. Y. Zhang Z. Z. Zhang G. Zhao J. Y. Zhao J. Z. Zhao L. Zhao Lei Zhao M. G. Zhao N. Zhao R. P. Zhao S. J. Zhao Y. B. Zhao Y. X. Zhao Z. G. Zhao A. Zhemchugov B. Zheng B. M. Zheng J. P. Zheng W. J. Zheng Y. H. Zheng B. Zhong X. Zhong H. Zhou J. Y. Zhou L. P. Zhou S. Zhou X. Zhou X. K. Zhou X. R. Zhou X. Y. Zhou Y. Z. Zhou Z. C. Zhou A. N. Zhu J. Zhu K. Zhu K. J. Zhu K. S. Zhu L. Zhu L. X. Zhu S. H. Zhu T. J. Zhu W. D. Zhu Y. C. Zhu Z. A. Zhu J. H. Zou J. Zu
Partial wave analysis of $ψ(3686)\toΛ\barΣ^0π^0+c.c.$
Based on a sample of $(2712.4\pm14.3)\times10^6\;\psi(3686)$ events collected
with the BESIII detector, a partial wave analysis of the decay
$\psi(3686)\to\Lambda\bar\Sigma^0\pi^0+c.c.$ is performed to investigate
$\Lambda^*$ and $\Sigma^*$ resonances in the $\pi^0\bar{\Sigma}^0$ and
$\pi^0\Lambda$ invariant mass distributions. Significant contributions are
found from the $\Lambda(1405)$, $\Lambda(1520)$, $\Lambda(1600)$,
$\Lambda(1670)$, $\Lambda(1690)$, $\Lambda(1800)$, $\Lambda(1890)$,
$\Lambda(2325)$, $\Sigma(1385)$, $\Sigma(1660)$, $\Sigma(1670)$,
$\Sigma(1750)$, and $\Sigma(1910)$. The masses, widths, and production
branching fractions for each component are determined. In addition, the
branching fraction of $\psi(3686)\to\Lambda\bar\Sigma^0\pi^0+c.c.$ is measured
to be $(1.544\pm0.013\pm0.069)\times10^{-4}$ for the first time, where the
first uncertainty is statistical and the second systematic.