$$h_1(1415)$$

$$I^G(JPC) = 0^{-}(1^{-})$$

### $h_1(1415)$ MASS

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>1409 + 9/8 OUR AVERAGE</strong></td></tr><tr><td>1384 ± 6 <sup>+9</sup><sub>-0</sub></td><td></td><td>1 ABLIKIM</td><td>22C BES3</td><td>J/ψ → γη'η' → <br>4/5γ2(π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>)</td></tr><tr><td>1423 ± 2.1 ± 7.3</td><td>2.2k</td><td>2 ABLIKIM</td><td>18AB BES3</td><td>J/ψ → η' h<sub>1</sub> → η' K*K̄</td></tr><tr><td>1412 ± 4 ± 8</td><td></td><td>2 ABLIKIM</td><td>15M BES3</td><td>ψ(2S) → γχ<sub>c1,2</sub> → <br>γφ(h<sub>1</sub> → K*K̄)</td></tr><tr><td>1440 ± 60</td><td></td><td>ABELE</td><td>97H CBAR</td><td>p̄p → K<sup>0</sup>L K<sup>0</sup>S π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1380 ± 20</td><td></td><td>ASTON</td><td>88C LASS</td><td>11 K<sup>-</sup> p → K<sup>0</sup>S K<sup>±</sup>π<sup>∓</sup>Λ</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From a partial wave analysis of the systems (γX), with X → η'η', and (η'X), with X → γη' in the decay J/ψ → γη'η'. The intermediate resonance X is parametrized by a constant-width, relativistic Breit-Wigner.

² Final states K⁺K⁻π⁰ and K⁰S K∓π⁺.

<figure><img src="image_467.png" /><figcaption>$h_1(1415)$ MASS (MeV)</figcaption></figure>

### $h_1(1415)$ WIDTH

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>78 ± 11 OUR AVERAGE</strong></td></tr><tr><td>66 ± 10 <sup>+12</sup><sub>-10</sub></td><td></td><td>1 ABLIKIM</td><td>22C BES3</td><td>J/ψ → γη'η' → <br>4/5γ2(π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>)</td></tr><tr><td>90.3 ± 9.8 ± 17.5</td><td>2.2k</td><td>2 ABLIKIM</td><td>18AB BES3</td><td>J/ψ → η' h<sub>1</sub> → η' K*K̄</td></tr><tr><td>84 ± 12 ± 40</td><td></td><td>2 ABLIKIM</td><td>15M BES3</td><td>ψ(2S) → γχ<sub>c1,2</sub> → <br>γφ(h<sub>1</sub> → K*K̄)</td></tr><tr><td>170 ± 80</td><td></td><td>ABELE</td><td>97H CBAR</td><td>p̄p → K<sup>0</sup>L K<sup>0</sup>S π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>80 ± 30</td><td></td><td>ASTON</td><td>88C LASS</td><td>11 K<sup>-</sup> p → K<sup>0</sup>S K<sup>±</sup>π<sup>∓</sup>Λ</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From a partial wave analysis of the systems (γX), with X → η'η', and (η'X), with X → γη' in the decay J/ψ → γη'η'. The intermediate resonance X is parametrized by a constant-width, relativistic Breit-Wigner.

² Final states K⁺K⁻π⁰ and K⁰S K∓π⁺.

### $h_1(1415)$ DECAY MODES

Mode

$$Γ_1 \quad K̄K^*(892) + \text{c.c.}$$

### $h_1(1415)$ REFERENCES

ABLIKIM 22C PR D105 072002

M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collab.)

ABLIKIM 18AB PR D98 072005

M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collab.)

ABLIKIM 15M PR D91 112008

M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collab.)

ABELE 97H PL B415 280

A. Abele et al. (Crystal Barrel Collab.)

ASTON 88C PL B201 573

D. Aston et al. (SLAC, NAGO, CINC, INUS)

$$f_1(1420)$$

$$I^G(JPC) = 0^{+}(1^{++})$$

See the review on "Spectroscopy of Light Meson Resonances."

### $f_1(1420)$ MASS

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>1428.4 ± 1.5/1.3 OUR AVERAGE</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">Error includes scale factor of 1.8. See the ideogram below.</td></tr><tr><td>1433.5 ± 1.1 <sup>+27.9</sup><sub>-0.7</sub></td><td>126K</td><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>23M BES3</td><td>J/ψ → γK<sup>0</sup>S K<sup>0</sup>S π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1434 ± 5 ± 5</td><td>133</td><td>1 ACHARD</td><td>07 L3</td><td>183-209 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> K<sup>0</sup>S K<sup>±</sup>π<sup>∓</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><tbody><tr><td>1426</td><td>± 6</td><td>711</td><td>ABDALLAH</td><td>03H DLPH</td><td>91.2 K<sup>0</sup>S K<sup>±</sup>π<sup>∓</sup> → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1420</td><td>± 14</td><td>3651</td><td>NICHITIU</td><td>02 OBLX</td><td>0 p̄p → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1428</td><td>± 4</td><td>20k</td><td>ADAMS</td><td>01B B852</td><td>18 GeV π<sup>-</sup> p̄ → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1426</td><td>± 1</td><td></td><td>BARBERIS</td><td>97C OMEG</td><td>450 p̄p → p̄pK<sup>0</sup>S K<sup>±</sup>π<sup>∓</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1425</td><td>± 8</td><td></td><td>BERTIN</td><td>97 OBLX</td><td>0.0 p̄p → K<sup>±</sup>(K<sup>0</sup>)π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1430</td><td>± 4</td><td></td><td>2 ARMSTRONG</td><td>92E OMEG</td><td>85,300 π<sup>+</sup> p̄p → π<sup>+</sup> p̄p(K̄K̄)π</td></tr><tr><td>1462</td><td>± 20</td><td></td><td>3 AUGUSTIN</td><td>92 DM2</td><td>J/ψ → γK̄K̄π</td></tr><tr><td>1443</td><td>± 7</td><td>± 3</td><td>BAI</td><td>90C MRK3</td><td>J/ψ → γK<sup>0</sup>S K<sup>±</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1425</td><td>± 10</td><td>17</td><td>BEHREND</td><td>89 CELL</td><td>γγ → K<sup>0</sup>S K<sup>±</sup>π<sup>∓</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1442</td><td>± 5</td><td>± 10</td><td>BECKER</td><td>87 MRK3</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>, ωK̄K̄π</td></tr><tr><td>1423</td><td>± 4</td><td></td><td>GIDAL</td><td>87B MRK2</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>K̄K̄π</td></tr><tr><td>1417</td><td>± 13</td><td>13</td><td>AIHARA</td><td>86C TPC</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>K̄K̄π</td></tr><tr><td>1422</td><td>± 3</td><td></td><td>CHAUVAT</td><td>84 SPEC</td><td>ISR 31.5 p̄p</td></tr><tr><td>1440</td><td>± 10</td><td></td><td>4 BROMBERG</td><td>80 SPEC</td><td>100 π<sup>-</sup> p̄ → K̄K̄πX</td></tr><tr><td>1426</td><td>± 6</td><td>221</td><td>DIONISI</td><td>80 HBC</td><td>4 π<sup>-</sup> p̄ → K̄K̄πn</td></tr><tr><td>1420 ± 20</td><td></td><td></td><td>DAHL</td><td>67 HBC</td><td>1.6-4.2 π<sup>-</sup> p̄</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>1430.8 ± 0.9</td><td>5 SOSA</td><td>99 SPEC</td><td>p̄p → p̄sslow (K<sup>0</sup>S K<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>) p<sub>fast</sub></td></tr><tr><td>1433.4 ± 0.8</td><td>5 SOSA</td><td>99 SPEC</td><td>p̄p → p̄sslow (K<sup>0</sup>S K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>) p<sub>fast</sub></td></tr><tr><td>1435 ± 9</td><td>PROKOSHKIN</td><td>97B</td><td>GAM4 100 π<sup>-</sup> p̄ → γπ<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup>n</td></tr><tr><td>1429 ± 3</td><td>ARMSTRONG</td><td>89 OMEG</td><td>300 p̄p → K̄K̄πp̄p</td></tr><tr><td>1425 ± 2</td><td>ARMSTRONG</td><td>84 OMEG</td><td>85 π<sup>+</sup> p̄p → (π<sup>+</sup>, p̄)(K̄K̄)π</td></tr><tr><td>~ 1420</td><td>BITYUKOV</td><td>84 SPEC</td><td>32 K<sup>-</sup> p̄ → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup>γ</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From a fit with a width fixed at 55 MeV.

² This result supersedes ARMSTRONG 84, ARMSTRONG 89.

³ From fit to the K*(892) K 1<sup>++</sup> partial wave.

⁴ Mass error increased to account for a₀(980) mass cut uncertainties.

⁵ No systematic error given.

<figure><img src="image_468.png" /><figcaption>$f_1(1420)$ mass (MeV)</figcaption></figure>

### $f_1(1420)$ WIDTH

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>56.7 ± 3.3 OUR AVERAGE</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">Error includes scale factor of 1.3. See the ideogram below.</td></tr><tr><td>95.9 ± 2.3 <sup>+13.6</sup><sub>-10.9</sub></td><td>126K</td><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>23M BES3</td><td>J/ψ → γK<sup>0</sup>S K<sup>0</sup>S π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>51 ± 14</td><td>711</td><td>ABDALLAH</td><td>03H DLPH</td><td>91.2 K<sup>0</sup>S K<sup>±</sup>π<sup>∓</sup> + X</td></tr><tr><td>61 ± 8</td><td>3651</td><td>NICHITIU</td><td>02 OBLX</td><td>0 p̄p → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>38 ± 9 ± 6</td><td>20k</td><td>ADAMS</td><td>01B B852</td><td>18 GeV π<sup>-</sup> p̄ → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>58 ± 4</td><td></td><td>BARBERIS</td><td>97C OMEG</td><td>450 p̄p → p̄pK<sup>0</sup>S K<sup>±</sup>π<sup>∓</sup></td></tr><tr><td>45 ± 10</td><td></td><td>BERTIN</td><td>97 OBLX</td><td>0.0 p̄p → K<sup>±</sup>(K<sup>0</sup>)π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>58 ± 10</td><td></td><td>6 ARMSTRONG</td><td>92E OMEG</td><td>85,300 π<sup>+</sup> p̄p → π<sup>+</sup> p̄p(K̄K̄)π</td></tr></tbody></table>
# Meson Particle Listings

## f₁(1420)

<table><tbody><tr><td>129</td><td>±41</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>68</td><td>+29</td><td>+8</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>-18</td><td>-9</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>42</td><td>±22</td><td></td><td>1100</td><td>BAI</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>17</td><td>BEHREND</td><td>89</td><td>CELL</td></tr><tr><td>40</td><td>+17</td><td>-13</td><td>±5</td><td>BECKER</td><td>87</td><td>MRK3</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ωK<sup>-</sup>K<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>35</td><td>+47</td><td>-20</td><td>13</td><td>AIHARA</td><td>86c</td><td>TPC</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>K<sup>-</sup>K<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>47</td><td>±10</td><td></td><td></td><td>CHAUVAT</td><td>84</td><td>SPEC</td></tr><tr><td>62</td><td>±14</td><td></td><td></td><td>BROMBERG</td><td>80</td><td>SPEC</td></tr><tr><td>40</td><td>±15</td><td></td><td>221</td><td>DIONISI</td><td>80</td><td>HBC</td></tr><tr><td>60</td><td>±20</td><td></td><td></td><td>DAHL</td><td>67</td><td>HBC</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>68.7 ± 2.9</td><td>8 SOSA</td><td>99</td><td>SPEC</td><td>pp → p<sub>slow</sub><br>(K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> K<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>) p<sub>fast</sub></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><tbody><tr><td>58.8 ± 3.3</td><td>8 SOSA</td><td>99</td><td>SPEC</td><td>pp → p<sub>slow</sub><br>(K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>) p<sub>fast</sub></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><tbody><tr><td>90 ± 25</td><td>PROKOSHKIN</td><td>97B</td><td>GAM4</td><td>100 π<sup>-</sup> p → ηπ<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup> n</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><tbody><tr><td>58 ± 8</td><td>ARMSTRONG</td><td>89</td><td>OMEG</td><td>300 pp → K<sup>-</sup>K<sup>+</sup>πp</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><tbody><tr><td>62 ± 5</td><td>ARMSTRONG</td><td>84</td><td>OMEG</td><td>85 π<sup>+</sup> p, pp → (π<sup>+</sup>, p)(K<sup>-</sup>K<sup>+</sup>)p</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><tbody><tr><td>~ 50</td><td>BITYUKOV</td><td>84</td><td>SPEC</td><td>32 K<sup>-</sup> p → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup>γ</td></tr></tbody></table>

⁶ This result supersedes ARMSTRONG 84, ARMSTRONG 89.

⁷ From fit to the K*(892) K 1++ partial wave.

⁸ No systematic error given.

<figure><img src="image_469.png" /><figcaption>WEIGHTED AVERAGE
56.7±3.3 (Error scaled by 1.3)</figcaption></figure>

## f₁(1420) DECAY MODES

<table><thead><tr><th>Mode</th><th>Fraction (Γ<sub>f</sub>/Γ)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Γ<sub>1</sub> K<sup>-</sup>K<sup>+</sup>π</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>2</sub> K<sup>-</sup>K<sup>+</sup>(892) + c.c.</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>3</sub> ηππ</td><td>possibly seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>4</sub> a<sub>0</sub>(980) π</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>5</sub> ππρ</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>6</sub> 4π</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>7</sub> ρ<sup>0</sup>γ</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>8</sub> φγ</td><td>seen</td></tr></tbody></table>

## f₁(1420) Γ(i)Γ(γγ)/Γ(total)

<table><caption>Γ(K<sup>-</sup>K<sup>+</sup>) × Γ(γγ*)/Γ<sub>total</sub></caption><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>CL%</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1.9 ± 0.4</td><td>OUR AVERAGE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>3.2 ± 0.6</td><td>± 0.7</td><td>133</td><td>9,10 ACHARD</td><td>07</td><td>L3 183-209 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>K<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup> → e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>K<sup>+</sup>π<sup>+</sup></td></tr><tr><td>3.0 ± 0.9</td><td>± 0.7</td><td>11,12</td><td>BEHREND</td><td>89</td><td>CELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>K<sup>+</sup>π</td></tr><tr><td>2.3 ± 1.0</td><td>± 0.8</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1.3 ± 0.5</td><td>± 0.3</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1.6 ± 0.7</td><td>± 0.3</td><td>11,13</td><td>GIDAL</td><td>87B</td><td>MRK2 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>K<sup>+</sup>π</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>&lt;8.0</td><td>95</td><td>JENNI</td><td>83</td><td>MRK2 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>K<sup>-</sup>K<sup>+</sup>π</td></tr></tbody></table>

⁹ From a fit with a width fixed at 55 MeV.

¹⁰ The form factor parameter from the fit is 926 ± 78 MeV.

¹¹ Assume a ρ-pole form factor.

¹² A φ-pole form factor gives considerably smaller widths.

¹³ Published value divided by 2.

## f₁(1420) BRANCHING RATIOS

$$ \frac{\Gamma(K\bar{K}^*(892)+c.c.)/\Gamma(K\bar{K}\pi)}{\Gamma_2/\Gamma_1} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>• • •</td><td></td><td></td><td>data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>0.76 ± 0.06</td><td>BROMBERG</td><td>80</td><td>SPEC 100 π<sup>-</sup> p → K<sup>-</sup>K<sup>+</sup>πX</td></tr><tr><td>0.86 ± 0.12</td><td>DIONISI</td><td>80</td><td>HBC 4 π<sup>-</sup> p → K<sup>-</sup>K<sup>+</sup>πn</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \frac{\Gamma(\eta\pi\rho)/\Gamma(K\bar{K}\pi)}{\Gamma_5/\Gamma_1} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;0.3</td><td>95</td><td>CORDEN</td><td>78</td><td>OMEG 12-15 π<sup>-</sup> p</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;2.0</td><td></td><td>DAHL</td><td>67</td><td>HBC 1.6-4.2 π<sup>-</sup> p</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \frac{\Gamma(\eta\pi\pi)/\Gamma(K\bar{K}\pi)}{\Gamma_3/\Gamma_1} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;0.1</td><td>95</td><td>ARMSTRONG</td><td>91B</td><td>OMEG 300 pp → ppηπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>1.35 ± 0.75</td><td>KOPKE</td><td>89</td><td>MRK3 J/ψ → ωηππ(K<sup>-</sup>K<sup>+</sup>π)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><tbody><tr><td>&lt;0.6</td><td>GIDAL</td><td>87</td><td>MRK2 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>ηπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><tbody><tr><td>&lt;0.5</td><td>CORDEN</td><td>78</td><td>OMEG 12-15 π<sup>-</sup> p</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><tbody><tr><td>1.5 ± 0.8</td><td>DEFOIX</td><td>72</td><td>HBC 0.7 p̄p</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \frac{\Gamma(a_0(980)\pi)/\Gamma(\eta\pi\pi)}{\Gamma_4/\Gamma_3} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>• • •</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>&gt;0.1</td><td>90</td><td>PROKOSHKIN</td><td>97B</td><td>GAM4 100 π<sup>-</sup> p → ηπ<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup> n</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><tbody><tr><td>not seen in either mode</td><td>ANDO</td><td>86</td><td>SPEC 8 π<sup>-</sup> p</td></tr><tr><td>not seen in either mode</td><td>CORDEN</td><td>78</td><td>OMEG 12-15 π<sup>-</sup> p</td></tr><tr><td>0.4 ± 0.2</td><td>DEFOIX</td><td>72</td><td>HBC 0.7 p̄p → 7π</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \frac{\Gamma(4\pi)/\Gamma(K\bar{K}^*(892)+c.c.)}{\Gamma_6/\Gamma_2} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>• • •</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;0.90</td><td>95</td><td>DIONISI</td><td>80</td><td>HBC 4 π<sup>-</sup> p</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \frac{\Gamma(K\bar{K}\pi)/[\Gamma(K\bar{K}^*(892)+c.c.) + \Gamma(a_0(980)\pi)]}{\Gamma_1/(\Gamma_2+\Gamma_4)} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>• • •</td><td></td><td></td><td>data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>0.65 ± 0.27</td><td>14 DIONISI</td><td>80</td><td>HBC 4 π<sup>-</sup> p</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹⁴ Calculated using Γ(K<sup>-</sup>K)/Γ(ηπ) = 0.24 ± 0.07 for a<sub>0</sub>(980) fractions.

$$ \frac{\Gamma(a_0(980)\pi)/\Gamma(K\bar{K}^*(892)+c.c.)}{\Gamma_4/\Gamma_2} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.042 ± 0.014</td><td>OUR AVERAGE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>0.44 ± 0.19</td><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>21U</td><td>BES3 D<sup>+</sup><sub>S</sub> → f<sub>1</sub>(1420) π<sup>+</sup></td></tr><tr><td>0.04 ± 0.01 ± 0.01</td><td>BARBERIS</td><td>98C</td><td>OMEG 450 pp → p<sub>f</sub> f<sub>1</sub>(1420) p<sub>S</sub></td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>&lt;0.04</td><td>68</td><td>ARMSTRONG</td><td>84</td><td>OMEG 85 π<sup>+</sup> p</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \frac{\Gamma(4\pi)/\Gamma(K\bar{K}\pi)}{\Gamma_6/\Gamma_1} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;0.62</td><td>95</td><td>ARMSTRONG</td><td>89G</td><td>OMEG 85 πp → 4πX</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \frac{\Gamma(\rho^0\gamma)/\Gamma_{\text{total}}}{\Gamma_7/\Gamma} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;0.08</td><td>95</td><td>15 ARMSTRONG</td><td>92C</td><td>SPEC 300 pp → p pπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>γ</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹⁵ Using the data on the K<sup>-</sup>Kπ mode from ARMSTRONG 89.

$$ \frac{\Gamma(\rho^0\gamma)/\Gamma(K\bar{K}\pi)}{\Gamma_7/\Gamma_1} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;0.02</td><td>95</td><td>BARBERIS</td><td>98C</td><td>OMEG 450 pp → p<sub>f</sub> f<sub>1</sub>(1420) p<sub>S</sub></td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \frac{\Gamma(\phi\gamma)/\Gamma(K\bar{K}\pi)}{\Gamma_8/\Gamma_1} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.003 ± 0.001 ± 0.001</td><td>BARBERIS</td><td>98C</td><td>OMEG 450 pp → p<sub>f</sub> f<sub>1</sub>(1420) p<sub>S</sub></td></tr></tbody></table>

## f₁(1420) REFERENCES

ABLIKIM 23M JHEP 2303 121 M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collab.)

ABLIKIM 21U PR D104 032011 M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collab.)

ACHARD 07 JHEP 0703 018 P. Ablard et al. (L3 Collab.)

ABDALLAH 03H PL B569 129 J. Abdallah et al. (DELPHI Collab.)

NICHITIU 02H PL B545 261 F. Nichitiu et al. (OBELIX Collab.)

ADAMS 01B PL B516 264 G.S. Adams et al. (BNL E852 Collab.)

SOSA 99 PRU 83 913 M. Sosa et al. (WA 102 Collab.)

BARBERIS 98C PL B440 225 D. Barberis et al. (WA 102 Collab.)

BARBERIS 97C PL B413 225 D. Barberis et al. (OBELIX Collab.)

BERTIN 97 PL B400 226 A. Bertin et al. Yu.D. Prokoshkin, S.A. Sadovsky PD 42 298

PROKOSHKIN 97B T.A. Armstrong et al. (ATHU, BARI, BIRM+) ARMSTRONG 92C ZPHY C54 371

ARMSTRONG 92E T.A. Armstrong et al. (ATHU, BARI, BIRM+) JPC ARMSTRONG 92C ZPHY C56 29
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>AUGUSTIN</td><td>92</td><td>PR D46 1951</td><td>J.E. Augustin, G. Cosme</td><td>(DM2 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ARMSTRONG</td><td>91B</td><td>ZPHY C52 389</td><td>T.A. Armstrong et al.</td><td>(ATHU, BARI, BIRM+)</td></tr><tr><td>BAL</td><td>90C</td><td>PRL 65 2507</td><td>Z. Bai et al.</td><td>(Mark III Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ARMSTRONG</td><td>89</td><td>PL B221 216</td><td>T.A. Armstrong et al.</td><td>(CERN, CDEF, BIRM+) JPC</td></tr><tr><td>ARMSTRONG</td><td>89G</td><td>ZPHY C43 55</td><td>T.A. Armstrong et al.</td><td>(CERN, BIRM, BARI+)</td></tr><tr><td>BEHREND</td><td>89</td><td>ZPHY C42 367</td><td>H.J. Behrend et al.</td><td>(CELLO Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>HILL</td><td>89</td><td>ZPHY C42 355</td><td>P. Hill et al.</td><td>(JADE Collab.) JP</td></tr><tr><td>KOPKE</td><td>89</td><td>PRPL 174 67</td><td>L. Kopke et al.</td><td>(CERN)</td></tr><tr><td>AIHARA</td><td>88B</td><td>PL B209 107</td><td>H. Aihara et al.</td><td>(TPC-2γ Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BECKER</td><td>87</td><td>PRL 59 186</td><td>J.J. Becker et al.</td><td>(Mark III Collab.) JP</td></tr><tr><td>GIDAL</td><td>87</td><td>PRL 59 2012</td><td>G. Gidal et al.</td><td>(LBL, SLAC, HARV)</td></tr><tr><td>GIDAL</td><td>87B</td><td>PRL 59 2016</td><td>G. Gidal et al.</td><td>(LBL, SLAC, HARV)</td></tr><tr><td>AIHARA</td><td>86C</td><td>PRL 57 2500</td><td>H. Aihara et al.</td><td>(TPC-2γ Collab.) JP</td></tr><tr><td>ANDO</td><td>86</td><td>PRL 57 1296</td><td>A. Ando et al.</td><td>(KEK, KYOT, NIRS, SAGA+)</td></tr><tr><td>ARMSTRONG</td><td>84</td><td>PL 146B 273</td><td>T.A. Armstrong et al.</td><td>(ATHU, BARI, BIRM+) JP</td></tr><tr><td>BITYUKOV</td><td>84</td><td>SJPN 39 735</td><td>S. Bityukov et al.</td><td>(SERP)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Translated from YAF 39 1155.</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CHAUVAT</td><td>84</td><td>PL 146B 382</td><td>P. Chauvat et al.</td><td>(CERN, CLER, UCLA+)</td></tr><tr><td>JENNI</td><td>83</td><td>PR D27 1031</td><td>P. Jenni et al.</td><td>(SLAC, LBL)</td></tr><tr><td>BROMBERG</td><td>80</td><td>PR D22 1513</td><td>C.M. Bromberg et al.</td><td>(CIT, FNAL, ILLC+)</td></tr><tr><td>DIONISI</td><td>80</td><td>NP B169 1</td><td>C. Dionisi et al.</td><td>(CERN, MADR, CDEF+) IJP</td></tr><tr><td>CORDEN</td><td>78</td><td>NP B144 253</td><td>M.J. Corden et al.</td><td>(BIRM, RHEL, TELA+)</td></tr><tr><td>DEFOIX</td><td>72</td><td>NP B44 125</td><td>C. Defoix et al.</td><td>(CDEF, CERN)</td></tr><tr><td>DAHL</td><td>67</td><td>PR 163 1377</td><td>O.I. Dahl et al.</td><td>(LRL) IJP</td></tr><tr><td>Also</td><td></td><td>PRL 14 1074</td><td>D.H. Miller et al.</td><td>(LRL, UCB)</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$\omega(1420)$$

See also the ω(1650) particle listing.

## ω(1420) MASS

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>1410 ± 60 OUR ESTIMATE</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>1418 ± 30 ± 10</td><td>824</td><td>1 AKHMETSHIN 17A</td><td>CMD3</td><td>1.4-2.0 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ωη</td></tr><tr><td>1470 ± 50</td><td>13.1k</td><td>2 AULCHENKO</td><td>15A</td><td>SND 1.05-1.80 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1382 ± 23 ± 70</td><td></td><td>AUBERT</td><td>07AU</td><td>BABR 10.6 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ωπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>γ</td></tr><tr><td>1350 ± 20 ± 20</td><td></td><td>AUBERT,B</td><td>04N</td><td>BABR 10.6 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup>γ</td></tr><tr><td>1400 ± 50 ± 130</td><td>1.2M</td><td>3 ACHASOV</td><td>03D</td><td>RVUE 0.44-2.00 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1450 ± 10</td><td></td><td>4 HENNER</td><td>02</td><td>RVUE 1.2-2.0 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ρπ, ωππ</td></tr><tr><td>1373 ± 70</td><td>177</td><td>5 AKHMETSHIN 00D</td><td>CMD2</td><td>1.2-1.38 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ωπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1370 ± 25</td><td>5095</td><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>00H</td><td>SPEC 0.0 pρ → ωπ<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1400<sup>+100</sup><sub>-200</sub></td><td></td><td>6 ACHASOV</td><td>98H</td><td>RVUE e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>~ 1400</td><td></td><td>7 ACHASOV</td><td>98H</td><td>RVUE e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ωπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>~ 1460</td><td></td><td>8 ACHASOV</td><td>98H</td><td>RVUE e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1440 ± 70</td><td></td><td>9 CLEGG</td><td>94</td><td>RVUE</td></tr><tr><td>1419 ± 31</td><td>315</td><td>10 ANTONELLI</td><td>92</td><td>DM2 1.34-2.4e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ρπ</td></tr></tbody></table>

1. From a fit of the interfering ω(1420) and ω(1650) with a relative phase of π and other parameters floating.

2. From a fit with contributions from ω(782), φ(1020), ω(1420), and ω(1650). See ACHASOV 20A for a further analysis of the π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup> data.

3. From the combined fit of ANTONELLI 92, ACHASOV 01E, ACHASOV 02E, and ACHASOV 03D data on the π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup> and ANTONELLI 92 on the ωπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup> final states. Supersedes ACHASOV 99E and ACHASOV 02E.

4. Using results of CORDIER 81 and preliminary data of DOLINSKY 91 and ANTONELLI 92.

5. Using the data of AKHMETSHIN 00D and ANTONELLI 92. The ρπ dominance for the energy dependence of the ω(1420) and ω(1650) width assumed.

6. Using data from BARKOV 87, DOLINSKY 91, and ANTONELLI 92.

7. Using the data from ANTONELLI 92.

8. Using the data from IVANOV 81 and BISELLO 88B.

9. From a fit to two Breit-Wigner functions and using the data of DOLINSKY 91 and ANTONELLI 92.

10. From a fit to two Breit-Wigner functions interfering between them and with the ω,φ tails with fixed (+,-,+), phases.

## ω(1420) WIDTH

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>290 ± 190 OUR ESTIMATE</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>440 ± 125</td><td>267</td><td>1 ACHASOV</td><td>20B</td><td>SND e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ωη → ηπ<sup>0</sup>γ</td></tr><tr><td>104 ± 35 ± 10</td><td>824</td><td>2 AKHMETSHIN 17A</td><td>CMD3</td><td>1.4-2.0 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ωη</td></tr><tr><td>880 ± 170</td><td>13.1k</td><td>3 AULCHENKO</td><td>15A</td><td>SND 1.05-1.80 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>480 ± 180</td><td></td><td>4 ACHASOV</td><td>10D</td><td>SND 1.075-2.0 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>0</sup>γ</td></tr><tr><td>130 ± 50 ± 100</td><td></td><td>AUBERT</td><td>07AU</td><td>BABR 10.6 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ωπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>γ</td></tr><tr><td>450 ± 70 ± 70</td><td></td><td>AUBERT,B</td><td>04N</td><td>BABR 10.6 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup>γ</td></tr><tr><td>870<sup>+500</sup><sub>-300</sub> ± 450</td><td>1.2M</td><td>5 ACHASOV</td><td>03D</td><td>RVUE 0.44-2.00 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>199 ± 15</td><td></td><td>6 HENNER</td><td>02</td><td>RVUE 1.2-2.0 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ρπ, ωππ</td></tr><tr><td>188 ± 45</td><td>177</td><td>7 AKHMETSHIN 00D</td><td>CMD2</td><td>1.2-1.38 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ωπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>360<sup>+100</sup><sub>-60</sub></td><td>5095</td><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>00H</td><td>SPEC 0.0 pρ → ωπ<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><tr><td>240 ± 70</td><td>8 CLEGG</td><td>94</td><td>RVUE</td></tr><tr><td>174 ± 59</td><td>315</td><td>9 ANTONELLI</td><td>92</td><td>DM2 1.34-2.4e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ρπ</td></tr></table>

1. From a fit with contributions from ω(1420), ω(1650), and φ(1680). The mass of ω(1420) is fixed to the PDG 18 value of 1420 MeV.

2. From a fit of the interfering ω(1420) and ω(1650) with a relative phase of π and other parameters floating.

3. From a fit with contributions from ω(782), φ(1020), ω(1420), and ω(1650). See ACHASOV 20A for a further analysis of the π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup> data.

4. From a fit of a VMD model with two effective resonances with masses of 1450 MeV and 1700 MeV to describe the excited vector states ω(1420), ρ(1450), ω(1650), and ρ(1700). Systematic errors not evaluated.

5. From the combined fit of ANTONELLI 92, ACHASOV 01E, ACHASOV 02E, and ACHASOV 03D data on the π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup> and ANTONELLI 92 on the ωπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup> final states. Supersedes ACHASOV 99E and ACHASOV 02E.

6. Using results of CORDIER 81 and preliminary data of DOLINSKY 91 and ANTONELLI 92.

7. Using the data of AKHMETSHIN 00D and ANTONELLI 92. The ρπ dominance for the energy dependence of the ω(1420) and ω(1650) width assumed.

8. From a fit to two Breit-Wigner functions and using the data of DOLINSKY 91 and ANTONELLI 92.

9. From a fit to two Breit-Wigner functions interfering between them and with the ω,φ tails with fixed (+,-,+), phases.

## ω(1420) DECAY MODES

<table><thead><tr><th>Mode</th><th>Fraction (Γ<sub>f</sub>/Γ)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Γ<sub>1</sub> ρπ</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>2</sub> ωππ</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>3</sub> ωη</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>4</sub> b<sub>1</sub>(1235)π</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>5</sub> e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup></td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>6</sub> π<sup>0</sup>γ</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

### ω(1420) Γ(i)Γ(e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>)/Γ<sup>2</sup>(total)

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(ρπ)/Γ<sub>total</sub> × Γ(e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>)/Γ<sub>total</sub></th><th>Γ<sub>1</sub>/Γ × Γ<sub>5</sub>/Γ</th></tr><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-6</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.73 ± 0.08</td><td>13.1k</td><td>1 AULCHENKO</td><td>15A</td><td>SND 1.05-1.80 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>0.82 ± 0.05 ± 0.06</td><td></td><td>AUBERT,B</td><td>04N</td><td>BABR 10.6 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup>γ</td></tr><tr><td>0.65 ± 0.13 ± 0.21</td><td>1.2M</td><td>2,3 ACHASOV</td><td>03D</td><td>RVUE 0.44-2.00 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>0.625 ± 0.160</td><td></td><td>4,5 CLEGG</td><td>94</td><td>RVUE</td></tr><tr><td>0.466 ± 0.178</td><td></td><td>6,7 ANTONELLI</td><td>92</td><td>DM2 1.34-2.4e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ρπ</td></tr></tbody></table>

1. From a fit with contributions from ω(782), φ(1020), ω(1420), and ω(1650). See ACHASOV 20A for a further analysis of the π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup> data.

2. Calculated by us from the cross section at the peak.

3. From the combined fit of ANTONELLI 92, ACHASOV 01E, ACHASOV 02E, and ACHASOV 03D data on the π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup> and ANTONELLI 92 on the ωπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup> final states. Supersedes ACHASOV 99E and ACHASOV 02E.

4. From a fit to two Breit-Wigner functions and using the data of DOLINSKY 91 and ANTONELLI 92.

5. From the partial and leptonic width given by the authors.

6. From a fit to two Breit-Wigner functions interfering between them and with the ω,φ tails with fixed (+,-,+), phases.

7. From the product of the leptonic width and partial branching ratio given by the authors.

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(ωππ)/Γ<sub>total</sub> × Γ(e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>)/Γ<sub>total</sub></th><th>Γ<sub>2</sub>/Γ × Γ<sub>5</sub>/Γ</th></tr><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-8</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>19.7 ± 5.7</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>07AU</td><td>BABR 10.6 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ωπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>γ</td></tr><tr><td>1.9 ± 1.9</td><td>1 AKHMETSHIN 00D</td><td>CMD2</td><td>1.2-2.4 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ωπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr></table>

1. Using the data of AKHMETSHIN 00D and ANTONELLI 92. The ρπ dominance for the energy dependence of the ω(1420) and ω(1650) width assumed.

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(ωη)/Γ<sub>total</sub> × Γ(e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>)/Γ<sub>total</sub></th><th>Γ<sub>3</sub>/Γ × Γ<sub>5</sub>/Γ</th></tr><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-8</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>2.5 ± 0.6</td><td>267</td><td>1 ACHASOV</td><td>20B</td><td>SND e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ωη → ηπ<sup>0</sup>γ</td></tr><tr><td>2.1<sup>+1.0</sup><sub>-0.8</sub></td><td></td><td>AUBERT</td><td>19</td><td>SND e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup>η</td></tr><tr><td>5.0 ± 2.6 ± 0.3</td><td>824</td><td>2 AKHMETSHIN 17A</td><td>CMD3</td><td>1.4-2.0 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ωη</td></tr><tr><td>1.6<sup>+0.9</sup><sub>-0.7</sub></td><td>898</td><td>3 ACHASOV</td><td>16B</td><td>SND 1.34-2.00 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ωη</td></tr></table>

1. From a fit with contributions from ω(1420), ω(1650), and φ(1680). The mass of ω(1420) is fixed to the PDG 18 value of 1420 MeV. Fixing also the width of ω(1420) to the PDG 18 value of 220 MeV results in (3.0 ± 1.6) × 10<sup>-8</sup> measurement.

2. From a fit of the interfering ω(1420) and ω(1650) with a relative phase of π and other parameters floating. From an alternative fit Γ(ω(1420) → ωη)/Γ<sub>total</sub> × Γ(ω(1420) → e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>) = 5.3 ± 1.6 eV.

3. From a fit with contributions from ω(1420), ω(1650), and φ(1680). The mass and the width of ω(1420) are fixed to the 2014 edition (PDG 14) of this review.
⁴ Not confirmed by BUGG 08A.

⁵ Isospin 0 not excluded.

a₀(1450) WIDTH

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><b>258</b> ±14</td><td><b>OUR AVERAGE</b></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>265 ±15</td><td></td><td>ABELE</td><td>98</td><td>CBAR 0.0 p̄p → K<sub>L</sub><sup>0</sup> K<sup>±</sup>π<sup>∓</sup></td></tr><tr><td>230 ±30</td><td></td><td>ETKIN</td><td>82c</td><td>MPS 23 π<sup>-</sup> p → n2K<sub>S</sub><sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>282 ±12 ±13</td><td>190k</td><td>1 AAiJ</td><td>16N</td><td>LHCB D<sup>0</sup> → K<sub>S</sub><sup>0</sup> K<sup>±</sup>π<sup>∓</sup></td></tr><tr><td>65.0<sup>+</sup> <sup>-</sup> 2.1+99.1</td><td></td><td>2 UEHARA</td><td>09A</td><td>BELL γγ → π<sup>0</sup>η</td></tr><tr><td>267 ±11</td><td></td><td>3 UMAN</td><td>06</td><td>E835 5.2 p̄p → ηηπ<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>80 ± 5</td><td>80k</td><td>4 BERTIN</td><td>98b</td><td>OBLX 0.0 p̄p → K<sup>±</sup>KS π<sup>∓</sup></td></tr><tr><td>270 ±40</td><td></td><td>AMSLER</td><td>94d</td><td>CBAR 0.0 p̄p → π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup>η</td></tr><tr><td>~ 250</td><td></td><td>MARTIN</td><td>78</td><td>SPEC 10 K<sup>±</sup> p → K<sub>S</sub><sup>0</sup> πp</td></tr><tr><td>79 ±10</td><td></td><td>5 CASON</td><td>76</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Using a model with Gaussian constraints to the PDG averaged values.

² May be a different state.

³ Statistical error only.

⁴ Not confirmed by BUGG 08A.

⁵ Isospin 0 not excluded.

a₀(1450) DECAY MODES

Branching fractions are given relative to the one **DEFINED AS 1**.

<table><thead><tr><th>Mode</th><th>Fraction (Γ<sub>f</sub>/Γ)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Γ<sub>1</sub> πη</td><td>0.093 ± 0.020</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>2</sub> πη'(958)</td><td>0.033 ± 0.017</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>3</sub> K<span style="text-decoration: overline">K</span></td><td>0.082 ± 0.028</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>4</sub> ωππ</td><td><b>DEFINED AS 1</b></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>5</sub> a₀(980) ππ</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>6</sub> γγ</td><td>seen</td></tr></tbody></table>

a₀(1450) Γ(j)Γ(γγ)/Γ(total)

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(πη) × Γ(γγ)/Γ<sub>total</sub></th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>432 ± 6<sup>+1073</sup><sub>-256</sub></td><td>1 UEHARA</td><td>09A</td><td>BELL γγ → π<sup>0</sup>η</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">¹ May be a different state.</td></tr></tbody></table>

a₀(1450) BRANCHING RATIOS

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(πη'(958))/Γ(πη)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.35 ± 0.16</td><td>1 ABELE</td><td>98</td><td>CBAR 0.0 p̄p → K<sub>L</sub><sup>0</sup> K<sup>±</sup>π<sup>∓</sup></td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>0.43 ± 0.19</td><td>ABELE</td><td>97c</td><td>CBAR 0.0 p̄p → π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup>η'</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">¹ Using π<sup>0</sup>η from AMSLER 94D.</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(K<span style="text-decoration: overline">K</span>)/Γ(πη)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.88 ± 0.23</td><td>1 ABELE</td><td>98</td><td>CBAR 0.0 p̄p → K<sub>L</sub><sup>0</sup> K<sup>±</sup>π<sup>∓</sup></td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>1.887 ± 0.041 ± 0.97</td><td>2 ALBRECHT</td><td>20</td><td>RVUE 0.9 p̄p → π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup>η, π<sup>0</sup>ηη, π<sup>0</sup>K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">¹ Using π<sup>0</sup>η from AMSLER 94D.</td></tr></tbody></table>

² Residues from T-matrix pole, 2 poles, 2 channels (πη, K<span style="text-decoration: overline">K</span>).

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(ωππ)/Γ(πη)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>10.7 ± 2.3</td><td>35280</td><td>1 BAKER</td><td>03</td><td>SPEC p̄p → ωπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Using results on p̄p → a₀(1450) 0π₀, a₀(1450) → ηπ₀ from ABELE 96c and assuming the ωρ mechanism for the ωππ state.

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(a₀(980)ππ)/Γ<sub>total</sub></th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>≤ 4.3</td><td>BUGG</td><td>08A</td><td>RVUE p̄p</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(γγ)/Γ<sub>total</sub></th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1 UEHARA</td><td>09A</td><td>BELL</td><td>γγ → π<sup>0</sup>η</td></tr></tbody></table>

seen

¹ May be a different state.

a₀(1450) REFERENCES

<table><tbody><tr><td>ALBRECHT</td><td>20</td><td>EPJ C80 453</td><td>M. Albrecht et al. (Crystal Barrel Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AAIJ</td><td>16N</td><td>PR D93 052018</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>09</td><td>IMPJ A24 2481</td><td>(PNPI)</td></tr><tr><td>UEHARA</td><td>09A</td><td>PR D80 032001</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BUGG</td><td>08A</td><td>PR D78 074023</td><td>(LOQM)</td></tr><tr><td>UMAN</td><td>06</td><td>PR D73 052009</td><td>(FNAL E835)</td></tr><tr><td>BAKER</td><td>03</td><td>PL B563 140</td><td>C.A. Baker et al. (OBELIX Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BARGIOTTI</td><td>03</td><td>EPJ C26 371</td><td>M. Bargiotti et al. (Crystal Barrel Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AMSLER</td><td>02</td><td>EPJ C23 29</td><td>C. Amsler et al. (Crystal Barrel Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>01</td><td>NP A690 567</td><td>A.V. Anisovich et al. (Crystal Barrel Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ABELE</td><td>98</td><td>PR D57 3860</td><td>A. Abele et al. (Crystal Barrel Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>98B</td><td>SPU 41 419</td><td>V.V. Anisovich et al. (Crystal Barrel Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BERTIN</td><td>98B</td><td>PL B34 180</td><td>A. Bertin et al. (OBELIX Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ABELE</td><td>97C</td><td>PL B404 179</td><td>A. Abele et al. (Crystal Barrel Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ABELE</td><td>96C</td><td>NP A609 562</td><td>A. Abele et al. (Crystal Barrel Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AMSLER</td><td>95B</td><td>PL B342 433</td><td>C. Amsler et al. (Crystal Barrel Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AMSLER</td><td>95C</td><td>PL B353 571</td><td>C. Amsler et al. (Crystal Barrel Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AMSLER</td><td>95D</td><td>PL B355 425</td><td>C. Amsler et al. (Crystal Barrel Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AMSLER</td><td>94D</td><td>PL B333 277</td><td>C. Amsler et al. (Crystal Barrel Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BUGG</td><td>94</td><td>PR D50 4412</td><td>D.V. Bugg et al. (LOQM)</td></tr><tr><td>ETKIN</td><td>82C</td><td>PR D25 2446</td><td>A. Etkin et al. (BNL, CUNY, TUFTS, VAND)</td></tr><tr><td>MARTIN</td><td>78</td><td>NP B134 392</td><td>A.D. Martin et al. (DURH, GEVA)</td></tr><tr><td>CASON</td><td>76</td><td>PRL 36 1485</td><td>N.M. Cason et al. (NDAM, ANL)</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$\rho(1450)$$

$$\ell^G(J^{PC}) = 1^+(1^-^-)$$

ρ(1450) MASS

<table><thead><tr><th>ρ(1450) MASS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1465 ± 25 OUR ESTIMATE</td><td>This is only an educated guess; the error given is larger than the error on the average of the published values.</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>ηρ<sup>0</sup> MODE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1506 ± 11</td><td>13.4k</td><td>1 GRIBANOV</td><td>20</td><td>CMD3 1.1-2.0 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → ηπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1500 ± 10</td><td>7.4k</td><td>2 ACHASOV</td><td>18</td><td>SND 1.22-2.00 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → ηπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1497 ± 14</td><td></td><td>3 AKHMETSHIN 01B</td><td>CMD2</td><td>e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → ηγ</td></tr><tr><td>1421 ± 15</td><td></td><td>4 AKHMETSHIN 00D</td><td>CMD2</td><td>e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → ηπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1470 ± 20</td><td></td><td>ANTONELLI</td><td>88</td><td>DM2 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → ηπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1446 ± 10</td><td></td><td>FUKUI</td><td>88</td><td>SPEC 8.95 π<sup>-</sup> p → ηπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup> π<sup>-</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Mass and width of the ρ(770) fixed at 775 and 149 MeV, respectively; solution 2 of model 2, η → γγ decays used.

² From the combined fit of AULCHENKO 15 and ACHASOV 18 in the model with the interfering ρ(1450), ρ(1700) and ρ(2150) with the parameters of the ρ(1450) and ρ(1700) floating and the mass and width of the ρ(2150) fixed at 2155 MeV and 320 MeV, respectively. The phases of the resonances are π, 0 and π, respectively.

³ Using the data of AKHMETSHIN 01B on e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → ηγ, AKHMETSHIN 00D and ANTONELLI 88 on e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → ηπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>.

⁴ Using the data of ANTONELLI 88, DOLINSKY 91, and AKHMETSHIN 00D. The energy-independent width of the ρ(1450) and ρ(1700) mesons assumed.

<table><thead><tr><th>ωπ MODE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1510 ± 7</td><td>10.2k</td><td>1 ACHASOV</td><td>16D</td><td>SND 1.05-2.00 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup>γ</td></tr><tr><td>1544 ± 22<sup>+11</sup><sub>-46</sub></td><td>821</td><td>2 MATVIENKO</td><td>15</td><td>BELL B<sup>0</sup> → D<sup>+</sup>ωπ<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1491 ± 19</td><td>7815</td><td>3 ACHASOV</td><td>13</td><td>SND 1.05-2.00 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup>η</td></tr><tr><td>1582 ± 17 ± 25</td><td>2382</td><td>4 AKHMETSHIN 03B</td><td>CMD2</td><td>e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup>γ</td></tr><tr><td>1349 ± 25<sup>+10</sup><sub>-5</sub></td><td>341</td><td>5 ALEXANDER</td><td>01B</td><td>CLE2 B → D(*) ωπ<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1523 ± 10</td><td></td><td>6 EDWARDS</td><td>00A</td><td>CLE2 τ<sup>-</sup> → ωπ<sup>-</sup>ντ</td></tr><tr><td>1463 ± 25</td><td></td><td>7 CLEGG</td><td>94</td><td>RVUE</td></tr><tr><td>1250</td><td></td><td>8 ASTON</td><td>80C</td><td>OMEG 20-70 γp → ωπ<sup>0</sup>ρ</td></tr><tr><td>1290 ± 40</td><td></td><td>8 BARBER</td><td>80C</td><td>SPEC 3-5 γp → ωπ<sup>0</sup>ρ</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From a phenomenological model based on vector meson dominance with interfering ρ(770), ρ(1450), and ρ(1700). The ρ(1700) mass and width are fixed at 1720 MeV and 250 MeV, respectively. Systematic uncertainties not estimated. Suppresses ACHASOV 13.

² Using Breit-Wigner parameterization of the ρ(1450) and assuming equal probabilities of the ρ(1450) → ππ and ρ(1450) → ωπ decays.

³ From a phenomenological model based on vector meson dominance with the interfering ρ(1450) and ρ(1700) and their widths fixed at 400 and 250 MeV, respectively. Systematic uncertainty not estimated.

⁴ Using the data of AKHMETSHIN 03B and BISELLO 91B assuming the ωπ₀ and π⁺π⁻ mass dependence of the total width. ρ(1700) mass and width fixed at 1700 MeV and 240 MeV, respectively.

⁵ Using Breit-Wigner parameterization of the ρ(1450) and assuming the ωπ⁻ mass dependence for the total width.

⁶ Mass-independent width parameterization. ρ(1700) mass and width fixed at 1700 MeV and 235 MeV respectively.

⁷ Using data from BISELLO 91B, DOLINSKY 86 and ALBRECHT 87L.

⁸ Not separated from b₁(1235), not pure J<sup>P</sup> = 1<sup>-</sup> effect.
# Meson Particle Listings

## $\rho(1450)$

### 4$\pi$ MODE

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

1435 ± 40 ABELE 01B CBAR 0.0 $\bar{p}n \to 2^- 2\pi^0 \pi^+$

1350 ± 50 ACHASOV 97 RVUE $e^+ e^- \to 2(\pi^+ \pi^-)$

1449 ± 4 $^1$ARMSTRONG 89E OMEG 300 $p\bar{p} \to p\bar{p} 2(\pi^+ \pi^-)$

¹ Not clear whether this observation has $l=1$ or 0.

### $\pi\pi$ MODE

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

1326.35 ± 3.46 $^1$BARTOS 17 RVUE $e^+ e^- \to \pi^+ \pi^-$

1342.31 ± 46.62 $^2$BARTOS 17A RVUE $e^+ e^- \to \pi^+ \pi^-$

1373.83 ± 11.37 $^3$BARTOS 17A RVUE $\tau^- \to \pi^- \pi^0 \nu_\tau$

1429 ± 41 20k $^4$LEES 17C BABR $J/\psi \to \pi^+ \pi^- \pi^0$

1350 ± 20 $^{+20}_{-30}$ 63.5k $^5$ABRAMOWICZI2 17C ZEUS $e^p \to e\pi^+ \pi^- \rho$

1493 ± 15 $^6$LEES 126 BABR $e^+ e^- \to \pi^+ \pi^- \gamma$

1446 ± 7 $^{7,8}$FUJIKAWA 08 BELL $\tau^- \to \pi^- \pi^0 \nu_\tau$

1328 ± 15 $^9$SCHAEL 05C ALEP $\tau^- \to \pi^- \pi^0 \nu_\tau$

1406 ± 15 87k $^{7,10}$ANDERSON 00A CLE2 $\tau^- \to \pi^- \pi^0 \nu_\tau$

$\sim 1368$ $^{11}$ABELE 99C CBAR 0.0 $\bar{p}d \to \pi^+ \pi^- \pi^- \rho$

1348 ± 33 $^{12}$BERTIN 98 OBLX 0.05–0.405 $\pi p \to$

1411 ± 14 $^{12}$ABELE 97 CBAR $\bar{p}n \to \pi^- \pi^0 \pi^0$

1370 $^{+90}_{-70}$ ACHASOV 97 RVUE $e^+ e^- \to \pi^+ \pi^-$

1359 ± 40 $^{10}$BERTIN 97C OBLX 0.0 $\bar{p}p \to \pi^+ \pi^- \pi^0$

1282 ± 37 $^{97}$D BERTIN 97D OBLX 0.05 $\bar{p}p \to 2^+ 2^+ \pi^-$

1424 ± 25 $^{89}$BISELLO 89 DM2 $e^+ e^- \to \pi^+ \pi^-$

1265.5 ± 75.3 $^{89}$DUBNICKA 89 RVUE $e^+ e^- \to \pi^+ \pi^-$

1292 ± 17 $^{13}$KURDADZE 83 OLYA $0.64–1.4 e^+ e^- \to \pi^+ \pi^-$

¹ Applies the Unitary & Analytic Model of the pion electromagnetic form factor of DUB-NICKA 10 to analyze the data of LEES 12G and ABLIKIM 16c.

² Applies the Unitary & Analytic Model of the pion electromagnetic form factor of DUB-NICKA 10 to analyze the data of ACHASOV 06, AKHMETSHIN 07, AUBERT 09AS, and AMBROSINO 11a.

³ Applies the Unitary & Analytic Model of the pion electromagnetic form factor of DUB-NICKA 10 to analyze the data of FUJIKAWA 08.

⁴ From a Dalitz plot analysis in an isobar model with $\rho(1450)$ and $\rho(1700)$ masses and widths floating.

⁵ Using the KUHN 90 parametrization of the pion form factor, neglecting $\rho-\omega$ interference.

⁶ Using the GOUNARIS 68 parametrization of the pion form factor leaving the masses and widths of the $\rho(1450)$, $\rho(1700)$, and $\rho(2150)$ resonances as free parameters of the fit.

⁷ From the GOUNARIS 68 parametrization of the pion form factor.

⁸ $|\rho_\pi(0)|^2$ fixed to 1.

⁹ From the combined fit of the $\tau^-$ data from ANDERSON 00A and SCHAEL 05C and $e^+ e^-$ data from the compilation of BARKOV 85, AKHMETSHIN 04, and ALOIOSIO 05. $\rho(1700)$ mass and width fixed at 1713 MeV and 235 MeV, respectively. Supersedes BARATE 97M.

¹⁰ $\rho(1700)$ mass and width fixed at 1700 MeV and 235 MeV, respectively.

¹¹ $\rho(1700)$ mass and width fixed at 1780 MeV and 275 MeV respectively.

¹² T-matrix pole.

¹³ Using for $\rho(1700)$ mass and width 1600 ± 20 and 300 ± 10 MeV respectively.

### $K\bar{K}$ MODE

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>CHG</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

1208 ± 8 ± 9 190k $^{1}$AAIJ 16N LHCB $D^0 \to K_S^0 K^\pm \pi^+$

1422.8 ± 6.5 27k $^{2}$ABELE 99D CBAR ± 0.0 $\bar{p}p \to K^+ K^- \pi^0$

¹ Using the GOUNARIS 68 parametrization with fixed width.

² K-matrix pole. Isospin not determined, could be $\omega(1420)$.

### $K\bar{K}^*(892) + \text{c.c.}$ MODE

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

1505 ± 19 ± 7 AUBERT 08S BABR 10.6 $e^+ e^- \to K\bar{K}^*(892)\gamma$

### $m_\rho(1450)^0 - m_\rho(1450)^\pm$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

$-31.53 \pm 47.99$ $^1$BARTOS 17A RVUE $e^+ e^- \to \pi^+ \pi^- \tau^- \to \pi^- \pi^0 \nu_\tau$

¹ Applies the Unitary & Analytic Model of the pion electromagnetic form factor of DUB-NICKA 10 to analyze the data of ACHASOV 06, AKHMETSHIN 07, AUBERT 09AS, AMBROSINO 11A, and FUJIKAWA 08.

### $\rho(1450)$ WIDTH

### $\rho(1450)$ WIDTH

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead></table>

400 ± 60 OUR ESTIMATE This is only an educated guess; the error given is larger than the error on the average of the published values.

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

480 ± 180 $^1$ACHASOV 10D SND 1.075–2.0 e$^+ e^- \to \pi^0 \gamma$

¹ From a fit of a VMD model with two effective resonances with masses of 1450 MeV and 1700 MeV to describe the excited vector states $\omega(1420)$, $\rho(1450)$, $\omega(1650)$, and $\rho(1700)$. Systematic errors not evaluated.

### $\eta\rho^0$ MODE

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

321 ± 27 13.4k $^1$GRIBANOV 20 CMD3 1.1–2.0 e$^+ e^- \to \eta\pi^+ \pi^-$

280 ± 20 7.4k $^2$ACHASOV 18 SND 1.22–2.00 e$^+ e^- \to \eta\pi^+ \pi^-$

226 ± 44 $^3$AKHMETSHIN 01B CMD2 $e^+ e^- \to \eta\gamma$

211 ± 31 $^4$AKHMETSHIN 00D CMD2 $e^+ e^- \to \eta\pi^+ \pi^-$

230 ± 30 ANTONELLI 88 DM2 $e^+ e^- \to \eta\pi^+ \pi^-$

60 ± 15 FUKUI 88 SPEC 8.95 $\pi^- p \to \eta\pi^+ \pi^- n$

¹ Mass and width of the $\rho(770)$ fixed at 775 and 149 MeV, respectively; solution 2 of model 2, $\eta \to \gamma\gamma$ decays used.

² From the combined fit of AULCHENKO 15 and ACHASOV 18 in the model with the interfering $\rho(1450)$, $\rho(1700)$ and $\rho(2150)$ with the parameters of the $\rho(1450)$ and $\rho(1700)$ floating and the mass and width of the $\rho(2150)$ fixed at 2155 MeV and 320 MeV, respectively. The phases of the resonances are $\pi, 0$ and $\pi$, respectively.

³ Using the data of AKHMETSHIN 01B on $e^+ e^- \to \eta\gamma$, AKHMETSHIN 00D and ANTONELLI 88 on $e^+ e^- \to \eta\pi^+ \pi^-$.

⁴ Using the data of ANTONELLI 88, DOLINSKY 91, and AKHMETSHIN 00D. The energy-independent width of the $\rho(1450)$ and $\rho(1700)$ mesons assumed.

### $\omega\pi$ MODE

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

440 ± 40 10.2k $^1$ACHASOV 16D SND 1.05–2.00 e$^+ e^- \to \pi^0 \gamma$

303 $^{+31}_{-52}$ 69 821 $^2$MATVIENKO 15 BELL $\bar{B}^0 \to D^+ \pi^+ \omega^-$

429 ± 42 ± 10 2382 $^3$AKHMETSHIN 03B CMD2 $e^+ e^- \to \pi^0 \pi^0 \gamma$

547 ± 86 $^{+86}_{-45}$ 341 $^4$ALEXANDER 01B CLE2 $B \to D^*(*) \pi^- \pi^-$

400 ± 35 $^5$EDWARDS 00A CLE2 $\tau^- \to \omega\pi^- \nu_\tau$

311 ± 62 $^6$CLEGG 94 RVUE

300 $^7$ASTON 80C OMEG 20–70 $\gamma p \to \omega\pi^0 p$

320 ± 100 $^8$BARBER 80C SPEC 3–5 $\gamma p \to \omega\pi^0 p$

¹ From a phenomenological model based on vector meson dominance with interfering $\rho(770)$, $\rho(1450)$, and $\rho(1700)$. The $\rho(1700)$ mass and width are fixed at 1720 MeV and 250 MeV, respectively. Systematic uncertainties not estimated. Supersedes ACHASOV 13.

² Using Breit-Wigner parameterization of the $\rho(1450)$ and assuming equal probabilities of the $\rho(1450) \to \pi\pi$ and $\rho(1450) \to \omega\pi$ decays.

³ Using the data of AKHMETSHIN 03B and BISELLO 91B assuming the $\omega\pi^0$ and $\pi^+ \pi^-$ mass dependence of the total width. $\rho(1700)$ mass and width fixed at 1700 MeV and 240 MeV, respectively.

⁴ Using Breit-Wigner parameterization of the $\rho(1450)$ and assuming the $\omega\pi^-$ mass dependence for the total width.

⁵ Mass-independent width parameterization. $\rho(1700)$ mass and width fixed at 1700 MeV and 235 MeV respectively.

⁶ Using data from BISELLO 91B, DOLINSKY 86 and ALBRECHT 87L.

⁷ Not separated from $b_1(1235)$, not pure $J^P = 1^-$ effect.

### $4\pi$ MODE

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

325 ± 100 ABELE 01B CBAR 0.0 $\bar{p}n \to 2\pi^- 2\pi^0 \pi^+$

### $\pi\pi$ MODE

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

324.13 ± 12.01 $^1$BARTOS 17 RVUE $e^+ e^- \to \pi^+ \pi^-$

492.17 ± 138.38 $^2$BARTOS 17A RVUE $e^+ e^- \to \pi^+ \pi^-$

340.87 ± 23.84 $^3$BARTOS 17A RVUE $\tau^- \to \pi^- \pi^0 \nu_\tau$

576 ± 29 20k $^4$LEES 17C BABR $J/\psi \to \pi^+ \pi^- \pi^0$

460 ± 30 $^{+40}_{-45}$ 63.5k $^5$ABRAMOWICZI2 17C ZEUS $e^p \to e\pi^+ \pi^- \rho$

427 ± 31 $^6$LEES 12G BABR $e^+ e^- \to \pi^+ \pi^- \gamma$

434 ± 16 $^{+60}_{-54}$ 5.4M $^7,8$FUJIKAWA 08 BELL $\tau^- \to \pi^- \pi^0 \nu_\tau$

468 ± 41 $^9$SCHAEL 05C ALEP $\tau^- \to \pi^- \pi^0 \nu_\tau$

455 ± 41 87k $^{7,10}$ANDERSON 00A CLE2 $\tau^- \to \pi^- \pi^0 \nu_\tau$

$\sim 374$ $^{11}$ABELE 99C CBAR 0.0 $\bar{p}d \to \pi^+ \pi^- \pi^- \rho$

275 ± 10 BERTIN 98 OBLX 0.05–0.405 $\bar{p}p \to$

343 ± 20 $^{12}$ABELE 97 CBAR $\bar{p}n \to \pi^- \pi^0 \pi^0$

310 ± 40 $^{10}$BERTIN 97C OBLX 0.0 $\bar{p}p \to \pi^+ \pi^- \pi^0$

236 ± 36 $^{89}$BERTIN 97D OBLX 0.05 $\bar{p}p \to 2^+ 2^+ \pi^-$

269 ± 31 $^{89}$BISELLO 89 DM2 $e^+ e^- \to \pi^+ \pi^-$

391 ± 70 $^{89}$DUBNICKA 89 RVUE $e^+ e^- \to \pi^+ \pi^-$

218 ± 46 $^{13}$KURDADZE 83 OLYA $0.64–1.4 e^+ e^- \to \pi^+ \pi^-$

¹ Applies the Unitary & Analytic Model of the pion electromagnetic form factor of DUB-NICKA 10 to analyze the data of LEES 12G and ABLIKIM 16C.
2 Applies the Unitary & Analytic Model of the pion electromagnetic form factor of DUB-NICKA 10 to analyze the data of ACHASOV 06, AKHMETSHIN 07, AUBERT 09AS, and AMBROSINO 11A.

3 Applies the Unitary & Analytic Model of the pion electromagnetic form factor of DUB-NICKA 10 to analyze the data of FUJIKAWA 08.

4 From a Dalitz plot analysis in an isobar model with $\rho(1450)$ and $\rho(1700)$ masses and widths floating.

5 Using the KUHN 90 parametrization of the pion form factor, neglecting $\rho-\omega$ interference.

6 Using the GOUNARIS 68 parametrization of the pion form factor leaving the masses and widths of the $\rho(1450)$, $\rho(1700)$, and $\rho(2150)$ resonances as free parameters of the fit.

7 From the GOUNARIS 68 parametrization of the pion form factor.

8 $|\Gamma_{\pi}(0)|^2$ fixed to 1.

9 From the combined fit of the $\tau^-$ data from ANDERSON 00A and SCHAEL 05C and $e^+e^-$ data from the compilation of BARKOV 85, AKHMETSHIN 04, and ALOIOSIO 05. $\rho(1700)$ mass and width fixed at 1713 MeV and 235 MeV, respectively. Supersedes BARATE 97M.

10 $\rho(1700)$ mass and width fixed at 1700 MeV and 235 MeV, respectively.

11 $\rho(1700)$ mass and width fixed at 1780 MeV and 275 MeV respectively.

12 T-matrix pole.

13 Using for $\rho(1700)$ mass and width 1600 ± 20 and 300 ± 10 MeV respectively.

### K$\bar{K}$ MODE

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>CHG</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>410 ±19 ±35</td><td>190k</td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>16N</td><td>LHCB</td><td>D<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>K<sup>±</sup>π<sup>∓</sup></td></tr><tr><td>146.5 ±10.5</td><td>27k</td><td>2 ABELE</td><td>99D</td><td>CBAR</td><td>0.0 πp → K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup> π<sup>0</sup></td></tr></table>

1 Using the GOUNARIS 68 parameterization with fixed mass.

2 K-matrix pole. Isospin not determined, could be $\omega(1420)$.

### K$\bar{K}^*(892) + \text{c.c.} \text{ MODE}$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>418 ±25 ±4</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>08S</td><td>BABR</td><td>10.6 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → K$\bar{K}^*(892)\gamma$</td></tr></table>

### $\Gamma(\rho(1450)^0 - \Gamma(\rho(1450)^\pm)$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>151.30 ±140.42</td><td>1 BARTOS</td><td>17A</td><td>RVUE</td><td>e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>+</sup> π<sup>-</sup>,<br/>τ<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>-</sup> π<sup>0</sup> ν<sub>T</sub></td></tr></table>

1 Applies the Unitary & Analytic Model of the pion electromagnetic form factor of DUB-NICKA 10 to analyze the data of ACHASOV 06, AKHMETSHIN 07, AUBERT 09AS, AMBROSINO 11A, and FUJIKAWA 08.

### $\rho(1450) \text{ DECAY MODES}$

<table><thead><tr><th>Mode</th><th>Fraction ($\Gamma_i/\Gamma$)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>$\Gamma_1$</td><td>$\pi\pi$</td></tr><tr><td>$\Gamma_2$</td><td>$\pi^+\pi^-$</td></tr><tr><td>$\Gamma_3$</td><td>$4\pi$</td></tr><tr><td>$\Gamma_4$</td><td>$\omega\pi$</td></tr><tr><td>$\Gamma_5$</td><td>$\partial_1(1260)\pi$</td></tr><tr><td>$\Gamma_6$</td><td>$\hbar_1(1170)\pi$</td></tr><tr><td>$\Gamma_7$</td><td>$\pi(1300)\pi$</td></tr><tr><td>$\Gamma_8$</td><td>$\rho\rho$</td></tr><tr><td>$\Gamma_9$</td><td>$\rho(\pi\pi)S$-wave</td></tr><tr><td>$\Gamma_{10}$</td><td>$e^+e^-$</td></tr><tr><td>$\Gamma_{11}$</td><td>$\eta\rho$</td></tr><tr><td>$\Gamma_{12}$</td><td>$\partial_2(1320)\pi$</td></tr><tr><td>$\Gamma_{13}$</td><td>$K\bar{K}$</td></tr><tr><td>$\Gamma_{14}$</td><td>$K^+K^-$</td></tr><tr><td>$\Gamma_{15}$</td><td>$K\bar{K}^*(892) + \text{c.c.}$</td></tr><tr><td>$\Gamma_{16}$</td><td>$\pi^0\gamma$</td></tr><tr><td>$\Gamma_{17}$</td><td>$\eta\gamma$</td></tr><tr><td>$\Gamma_{18}$</td><td>$f_0(500)\gamma$</td></tr><tr><td>$\Gamma_{19}$</td><td>$f_0(980)\gamma$</td></tr><tr><td>$\Gamma_{20}$</td><td>$f_0(1370)\gamma$</td></tr><tr><td>$\Gamma_{21}$</td><td>$f_2(1270)\gamma$</td></tr></tbody></table>

### $\rho(1450) \Gamma(i)\Gamma(e^+e^-)/\Gamma(\text{total})$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (keV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>0.12</td><td>1 DIEKMAN</td><td>88</td><td>RVUE</td><td>e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>+</sup> π<sup>-</sup></td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>0.027<sup>+0.015</sup><sub>-0.010</sub></td><td>2 KURDADZE</td><td>83</td><td>OLYA</td><td>0.64-1.4 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>+</sup> π<sup>-</sup></td></tr></table>

1 Using total width = 235 MeV.

2 Using for $\rho(1700)$ mass and width 1600 ± 20 and 300 ± 10 MeV respectively.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (eV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>335 ±27 ±20</td><td>13.4k</td><td>1 GRIBANOV</td><td>20</td><td>CMD3 1.1-2.0 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → ηπ<sup>+</sup> π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>210 ±24 ±10</td><td></td><td>2 LEES</td><td>18</td><td>BABR e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → ηπ<sup>+</sup> π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>74 ±20</td><td></td><td>3 AKHMETSHIN 00d</td><td></td><td>CMD2 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → ηπ<sup>+</sup> π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>91 ±19</td><td></td><td>ANTONELLI</td><td>88</td><td>DM2 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → ηπ<sup>+</sup> π<sup>-</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>



1 Mass and width of the $\rho(770)$ fixed at 775 and 149 MeV, respectively; solution 2 of model 2, $\eta \to \gamma\gamma$ decays used.

2 Includes non-resonant contribution. The selected fit model includes three $\rho$ excited states. Model uncertainty is 20%.

3 Using the data of ANTONELLI 88, DOLINSKY 91, and AKHMETSHIN 00d. The energy-independent width of the $\rho(1450)$ and $\rho(1700)$ mesons assumed.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (eV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>127 ±15 ±6</td><td></td><td>AUBERT</td><td>08S</td><td>BABR 10.6 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → K$\bar{K}^*(892)\gamma$</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (eV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;16.4</td><td></td><td>1 AKHMETSHIN 05</td><td></td><td>CMD2 0.60-1.38 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → ηγ</td></tr><tr><td>2.2 ±0.5 ±0.3</td><td></td><td>2 AKHMETSHIN 01b</td><td></td><td>CMD2 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → ηγ</td></tr></tbody></table>



1 From 2$\gamma$ decay mode of $\eta$ using 1465 MeV and 310 MeV for the $\rho(1450)$ mass and width. Recalculated by us.

2 Using the data of AKHMETSHIN 01b on $e^+e^-$ → $\eta\gamma$, AKHMETSHIN 00d and ANTONELLI 88 on $e^+e^-$ → $\eta\pi^+\pi^-$. Recalculated by us using width of 226 MeV.

### $\rho(1450) \Gamma(i)/\Gamma(\text{total}) \times \Gamma(e^+e^-)/\Gamma(\text{total})$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-6</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead></table>

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</th></tr></thead></table>

<table><tr><td>2.1 ±0.4</td><td>10.2k</td><td>1 ACHASOV</td><td>16D</td><td>SND 1.05-2.00 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>0</sup> π<sup>0</sup> γ</td></tr><tr><td>5.3 ±0.4</td><td>7815</td><td>2 ACHASOV</td><td>13</td><td>SND 1.05-2.00 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>0</sup> π<sup>0</sup> γ</td></tr></table>

1 From a phenomenological model based on vector meson dominance with interfering $\rho(770)$, $\rho(1450)$, and $\rho(1700)$. The $\rho(1700)$ mass and width are fixed at 1720 MeV and 250 MeV, respectively. Systematic uncertainties not estimated. Supersedes ACHASOV 13.

2 From a phenomenological model based on vector meson dominance with the interfering $\rho(1450)$ and $\rho(1700)$ and their widths fixed at 400 and 250 MeV, respectively. Systematic uncertainty not estimated.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-7</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead></table>

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</th></tr></thead></table>

<table><tr><td>7.3 ±0.3</td><td>7.4k</td><td>1 ACHASOV</td><td>18</td><td>SND 1.22-2.00 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → ηπ<sup>+</sup> π<sup>-</sup></td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>4.3<sup>+1.1</sup><sub>-0.9</sub> ±0.2</td><td>4.9k</td><td>2 AULCHENKO</td><td>15</td><td>SND 1.22-2.00 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → ηπ<sup>-</sup> π<sup>+</sup></td></tr></table>

1 From the combined fit of AULCHENKO 15 and ACHASOV 18 in the model with the interfering $\rho(1450)$, $\rho(1700)$ and $\rho(2150)$ with the parameters of the $\rho(1450)$ and $\rho(1700)$ floating and the mass and width of the $\rho(2150)$ fixed at 2155 MeV and 320 MeV, respectively. The phases of the resonances are $\pi, 0$ and $\pi$, respectively.

2 From a fit to the $e^+e^-$ → $\eta\pi^+\pi^-$ cross section with vector meson dominance model including $\rho(770)$, $\rho(1450)$, and $\rho(1700)$ decaying exclusively via $\eta\rho(770)$. Masses and widths of vector states are fixed to PDG 14. Coupling constants are assumed to be real.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-9</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>2.3 ±1.4</td><td>1 ACHASOV</td><td>10d</td><td>SND 1.075-2.00 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>0</sup>γ</td></tr></table>

1 From a fit of a VMD model with two effective resonances with masses of 1450 MeV and 1700 MeV to describe the excited vector states $\omega(1420)$, $\rho(1450)$, $\omega(1650)$, and $\rho(1700)$. Systematic errors not evaluated.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-9</sup>)</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;4.0</td><td>90</td><td>ACHASOV</td><td>11</td><td>SND e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>0</sup> π<sup>0</sup> γ</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-9</sup>)</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;2.6</td><td>90</td><td>ACHASOV</td><td>11</td><td>SND e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>0</sup> π<sup>0</sup> γ</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-9</sup>)</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;3.5</td><td>90</td><td>ACHASOV</td><td>11</td><td>SND e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>0</sup> π<sup>0</sup> γ</td></tr></tbody></table>
# Meson Particle Listings

## ρ(1450)

$$ \Gamma(\bar{f}_2(1270)\gamma)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \times \Gamma(e^+e^-)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \quad \Gamma_{21}/\Gamma \times \Gamma_{10}/\Gamma $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-9</sup>)</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;0.8</td><td>90</td><td>1 ACHASOV</td><td>11</td><td>SND e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup>γ</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Using Breit-Wigner parametrization of the ρ(1450) with mass and width of 1465 MeV and 400 MeV, respectively.

## ρ(1450) BRANCHING RATIOS

$$ \Gamma(\pi\pi)/\Gamma(4\pi) \quad \Gamma_{1/\Gamma} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.37±0.10</td><td>1,2 ABELE</td><td>01B</td><td>CBAR 0.0 π̄n → 5π</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ ωπ not included.

² Using ABELE 97.

$$ \Gamma(K^+K^-)/\Gamma(\pi^+\pi^-) \quad \Gamma_{14/\Gamma} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (%)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>30.7±8.4±8.2</td><td>20k</td><td>1 LEES</td><td>17C</td><td>BABR J/ψ → h<sup>+</sup>h<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From Dalitz plot analyses in isobar models.

$$ \Gamma(\omega\pi)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \quad \Gamma_{4/\Gamma} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>• • •</td><td>• We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>seen</td><td>821</td><td>1 MATVIENKO</td><td>15</td><td>BELL B̄0 → D<sup>*+</sup>ωπ<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>seen</td><td>1.6k</td><td>ACHASOV</td><td>12</td><td>SND e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup>γ</td></tr><tr><td>~ 0.21</td><td></td><td>CLEGG</td><td>94</td><td>RVUE</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Using Breit-Wigner parameterization of the ρ(1450) and assuming equal probabilities of the ρ(1450) → ππ and ρ(1450) → ωπ decays.

$$ \Gamma(\pi\pi)/\Gamma(\omega\pi) \quad \Gamma_{1/\Gamma} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>• • •</td><td>• We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>~ 0.32</td><td>CLEGG</td><td>94</td><td>RVUE</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(\omega\pi)/\Gamma(4\pi) \quad \Gamma_{4/\Gamma} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>• • •</td><td>• We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>&lt;0.14</td><td>CLEGG</td><td>88</td><td>RVUE</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(a_1(1260)\pi)/\Gamma(4\pi) \quad \Gamma_{5/\Gamma} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>• • •</td><td>• We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>0.27±0.08</td><td>1 ABELE</td><td>01B</td><td>CBAR 0.0 π̄n → 5π</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ ωπ not included.

$$ \Gamma(h_1(1170)\pi)/\Gamma(4\pi) \quad \Gamma_{6/\Gamma} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>• • •</td><td>• We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>0.08±0.04</td><td>1 ABELE</td><td>01B</td><td>CBAR 0.0 π̄n → 5π</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ ωπ not included.

$$ \Gamma(\pi(1300)\pi)/\Gamma(4\pi) \quad \Gamma_{7/\Gamma} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>• • •</td><td>• We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>0.37±0.13</td><td>1 ABELE</td><td>01B</td><td>CBAR 0.0 π̄n → 5π</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ ωπ not included.

$$ \Gamma(\rho\rho)/\Gamma(4\pi) \quad \Gamma_{8/\Gamma} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>• • •</td><td>• We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>0.11±0.05</td><td>1 ABELE</td><td>01B</td><td>CBAR 0.0 π̄n → 5π</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ ωπ not included.

$$ \Gamma(\rho(\pi\pi)S-wave)/\Gamma(4\pi) \quad \Gamma_{9/\Gamma} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>• • •</td><td>• We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>0.17±0.09</td><td>1 ABELE</td><td>01B</td><td>CBAR 0.0 π̄n → 5π</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ ωπ not included.

$$ \Gamma(\eta\eta)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \quad \Gamma_{11/\Gamma} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>seen</td><td>35</td><td>1 ACHASOV</td><td>14</td><td>SND 1.15-2.00 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ηη</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<0.04 DONNACHIE 87B RVUE

¹ From a phenomenological model based on vector meson dominance with ρ(1450) and φ(1680) masses and widths from the PDG 12.

$$ \Gamma(\eta\rho)/\Gamma(\omega\pi) \quad \Gamma_{11/\Gamma} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>• • •</td><td>• We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>0.081±0.020</td><td>1,2 AULCHENKO</td><td>15</td><td>SND 1.22-2.00 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ηπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>~ 0.24</td><td>3 DONNACHIE</td><td>91</td><td>RVUE</td></tr><tr><td>>2</td><td>FUKUI</td><td>91</td><td>SPEC 8.95 π<sup>-</sup> p → ωπ<sup>0</sup>π</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From a fit to the e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ηπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup> cross section with vector meson dominance model including ρ(770), ρ(1450), and ρ(1700) decaying exclusively via ηρ(770). Masses and widths of vector states are fixed to PDG 14. Coupling constants are assumed to be real.

² Reports the inverse of the quoted value as 12.3 ± 3.1.

³ Using data from BISELLO 91B, DOLINSKY 86 and ALBRECHT 87L.

$$ \Gamma(\pi\pi)/\Gamma(\eta\rho) \quad \Gamma_{1/\Gamma_{11}} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>• • •</td><td>• We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1.3±0.4</td><td>1 AULCHENKO</td><td>15</td><td>SND 1.22-2.00 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ηπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From a fit to the e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ηπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup> cross section with vector meson dominance model including ρ(770), ρ(1450), and ρ(1700) decaying exclusively via ηρ(770). Masses and widths of vector states are fixed to PDG 14. Coupling constants are assumed to be real.

$$ \Gamma(a_2(1320)\pi)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \quad \Gamma_{12/\Gamma} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>• • •</td><td>• We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>not seen</td><td>AMELIN</td><td>00</td><td>VES 37 π<sup>-</sup> p → ηπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(K\bar{K}^*)/\Gamma(\omega\pi) \quad \Gamma_{13/\Gamma} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>• • •</td><td>• We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>&lt;0.08</td><td>1 DONNACHIE</td><td>91</td><td>RVUE</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Using data from BISELLO 91B, DOLINSKY 86 and ALBRECHT 87L.

$$ \Gamma(K\bar{K}^*(892)+c.c.)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \quad \Gamma_{15/\Gamma} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>• • •</td><td>• We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>possibly seen</td><td>COAN</td><td>04</td><td>CLEO τ<sup>-</sup> → K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>-</sup> K<sup>+</sup>ν<sub>τ</sub></td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(\eta\eta)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \quad \Gamma_{17/\Gamma} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>seen</td><td>35</td><td>1 ACHASOV</td><td>14</td><td>SND 1.15-2.00 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ηη</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From a phenomenological model based on vector meson dominance with ρ(1450) and φ(1680) masses and widths from the PDG 12.

## ρ(1450) REFERENCES

<table><tbody><tr><td>GRIBANOV</td><td>20</td><td>JHEP 2001 112</td><td>S.S. Gribanov et al.</td><td>(CMD-3 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ACHASOV</td><td>18</td><td>PR D97 012008</td><td>M.N. Achasov et al.</td><td>(SND Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>LEES</td><td>18</td><td>PR D97 052007</td><td>J.P. Lees et al.</td><td>(BABAR Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BARTOS</td><td>17</td><td>PR D96 113004</td><td>E. Bartos et al.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>BARTOS</td><td>17A</td><td>IMP.A32 1750154</td><td>E. Bartos et al.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>LEES</td><td>17C</td><td>PR D95 072007</td><td>J.P. Lees et al.</td><td>(BABAR Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AAIJ</td><td>16N</td><td>PR D93 052018</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>16C</td><td>PR B753 629</td><td>M. Ablikim et al.</td><td>(BESIII Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ACHASOV</td><td>16D</td><td>PR D94 112001</td><td>M.N. Achasov et al.</td><td>(SND Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AULCHENKO</td><td>15</td><td>PR D91 052013</td><td>V.M. Aulchenko et al.</td><td>(SND Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>MATVIENKO</td><td>15</td><td>PR D92 012013</td><td>D. Matvienko et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ACHASOV</td><td>14</td><td>PR D90 032002</td><td>M.N. Achasov et al.</td><td>(SND Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>PDG</td><td>14</td><td>CP C38 070001</td><td>K. Olive et al.</td><td>(PDG Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ACHASOV</td><td>13</td><td>PR D88 054013</td><td>M.N. Achasov et al.</td><td>(SND Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ABRAMOWICZ</td><td>12</td><td>EPJ C72 1869</td><td>H. Abramowicz et al.</td><td>(SND Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ACHASOV</td><td>12</td><td>JETPL 94 734</td><td>M.N. Achasov et al.</td><td>(ZEUS Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>LEES</td><td>12G</td><td>PR D86 032013</td><td>Transated from ZETF 94 796.</td><td>(BABAR Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>PDG</td><td>12</td><td>PR D86 010001</td><td>J.P. Lees et al.</td><td>(PDG Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ACHASOV</td><td>11</td><td>JETP 113 75</td><td>M.N. Achasov et al.</td><td>(SND Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AMBROSINO</td><td>11A</td><td>PL B700 102</td><td>F. Ambrosino et al.</td><td>(KLOE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>10D</td><td>PR D98 112001</td><td>M.N. Achasov et al.</td><td>S. Dubnicka, A.Z. Dubnickova</td><td>(BABAR Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>DUBNICKA</td><td>10</td><td>APS 60 1</td><td>B. Aubert et al.</td><td>(BABAR Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AUBERT</td><td>09AS</td><td>PR L03 231801</td><td>B. Aubert et al.</td><td>(BABAR Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AUBERT</td><td>085</td><td>PR D77 092002</td><td>M. Fujikawa et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>FUJIKAWA</td><td>08</td><td>PR D78 072006</td><td>R.R. Akhmetshin et al.</td><td>(Novosibirsk CMD-2 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AKHMETSHIN</td><td>07</td><td>PL B648 28</td><td>M.N. Achasov et al.</td><td>(Novosibirsk SND Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ACHASOV</td><td>06</td><td>JETP 103 380</td><td>Transated from ZETF 130 437.</td><td>(Novosibirsk CMD-2 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AKHMETSHIN</td><td>05</td><td>PL B605 26</td><td>R.R. Akhmetshin et al.</td><td>(Novosibirsk CMD-2 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ALOISIO</td><td>05</td><td>PL B606 12</td><td>A. Aloisio et al.</td><td>(KLOE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>SCHAEL</td><td>05C</td><td>PRPL 421 191</td><td>S. Schael et al.</td><td>(ALEPH Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AKHMETSHIN</td><td>04</td><td>PL B578 285</td><td>R.R. Akhmetshin et al.</td><td>(Novosibirsk CMD-2 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>COAN</td><td>04</td><td>PR L92 322001</td><td>T.E. Coan et al.</td><td>(CLEO Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AKHMETSHIN</td><td>03B</td><td>PL B562 173</td><td>R.R. Akhmetshin et al.</td><td>(Novosibirsk CMD-2 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ABELE</td><td>01B</td><td>EPJ C21 261</td><td>A. Abele et al.</td><td>(Crystal Barrel Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AKHMETSHIN</td><td>01B</td><td>PL B509 217</td><td>R.R. Akhmetshin et al.</td><td>(Novosibirsk CMD-2 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ALEXANDER</td><td>01B</td><td>PR D64 092001</td><td>J.P. Alexander et al.</td><td>(CLEO Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AKHMETSHIN</td><td>00D</td><td>PL B489 125</td><td>R.R. Akhmetshin et al.</td><td>(Novosibirsk CMD-2 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AMELIN</td><td>00</td><td>NP A668 83</td><td>D. Ameil et al.</td><td>(VES Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ANDERSON</td><td>00A</td><td>PR D61 112002</td><td>S. Anderson et al.</td><td>(CLEO Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>EDWARDS</td><td>00A</td><td>PR D61 072003</td><td>K.W. Edwards et al.</td><td>(CLEO Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ABELE</td><td>99C</td><td>PL B450 275</td><td>A. Abele et al.</td><td>(Crystal Barrel Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ABELE</td><td>99D</td><td>PL B468 178</td><td>A. Abele et al.</td><td>(Crystal Barrel Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BERTIN</td><td>98</td><td>PR D57 55</td><td>A. Bertin et al.</td><td>(OBELIX Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ABELE</td><td>97</td><td>PL B391 191</td><td>A. Abele et al.</td><td>(Crystal Barrel Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AKHASOV</td><td>97</td><td>PR D55 2663</td><td>N.N. Achasov et al.</td><td>(NOVM)</td></tr><tr><td>BARATE</td><td>97M</td><td>ZPHY C76 15</td><td>R. Barate et al.</td><td>(ALEPH Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BERTIN</td><td>97C</td><td>PL B408 476</td><td>A. Bertin et al.</td><td>(OBELIX Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BERTIN</td><td>97D</td><td>PL B414 220</td><td>A. Bertin et al.</td><td>(OBELIX Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>CLEGG</td><td>94</td><td>ZPHY C62 455</td><td>A.B. Clegg, A. Donnachie</td><td>(LANC, MCHS)</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td>BISELLO</td><td>91B</td><td>NPBPS B21 111</td><td>D. Bisello</td><td>(DM2 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>DOLINSKY</td><td>91</td><td>PRPL 202 99</td><td>S.I. Dolinsky et al.</td><td>(NOVO)</td></tr><tr><td>DONNACHIE</td><td>91</td><td>ZPHY C51 689</td><td>A. Donnachie, A.B. Clegg</td><td>(MCHS, LANC)</td></tr><tr><td>FUKUI</td><td>91</td><td>PL B257 241</td><td>S. Fukui et al.</td><td>(SUGI, NAGO, KEK, KYOT+)</td></tr><tr><td>KUHN</td><td>90</td><td>ZPHY C48 445</td><td>J.H. Kuhn et al.</td><td>(MPIM)</td></tr><tr><td>ARMSTRONG</td><td>89E</td><td>PL B228 536</td><td>T.A. Armstrong, M. Benayoun (ATHU, BARI, BIRM+)</td><td>(DM2 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BISELLO</td><td>89</td><td>PL B220 321</td><td>D. Bisello et al.</td><td>(JINR, SLOV)</td></tr><tr><td>DUBNICKA</td><td>89</td><td>JP G15 1349</td><td>S. Dubnicka et al.</td><td>(NOVO)</td></tr><tr><td>ANTONELLI</td><td>88</td><td>PL B212 133</td><td>A. Antonelli et al.</td><td>(DM2 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>CLEGG</td><td>88</td><td>ZPHY C40 313</td><td>A.B. Clegg, A. Donnachie</td><td>(MCHS, LANC)</td></tr><tr><td>DIEKMAN</td><td>88</td><td>PRPL 159 99</td><td>B. Diekmann</td><td>(BONN)</td></tr><tr><td>FUKUI</td><td>88</td><td>PL B202 441</td><td>S. Fukui et al.</td><td>(SUGI, NAGO, KEK, KYOT+)</td></tr><tr><td>ALBRECHT</td><td>87L</td><td>PL B185 223</td><td>H. Albrecht et al.</td><td>(ARGUS Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>DONNACHIE</td><td>87B</td><td>ZPHY C34 257</td><td>A. Donnachie, A.B. Clegg</td><td>(MCHS, LANC)</td></tr><tr><td>DOLINSKY</td><td>86</td><td>PL B174 453</td><td>S.I. Dolinsky et al.</td><td>(NOVO)</td></tr><tr><td>BARKOV</td><td>85</td><td>NP B256 365</td><td>L.M. Barkov et al.</td><td>(NOVO)</td></tr><tr><td>KURDADZE</td><td>83</td><td>JETPL 37 733</td><td>L.M. Kurdadze et al.</td><td>(NOVO)</td></tr><tr><td>ASTON</td><td>80C</td><td>PL 92B 211</td><td>Translated from ZETF 37 613.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>BARBER</td><td>80C</td><td>ZPHY C4 169</td><td>D. Aston (BONN, CERN, EPOL, GLAS, LANC+)</td><td>(DARE, LANC, SHEF)</td></tr><tr><td>GOUNARIS</td><td>68</td><td>PRL 21 244</td><td>G.J. Gounaris, J.J. Sakurai</td><td></td></tr></table>

$\eta(1475)$

$I^G(JPC) = 0^+(0^-)$

See the $\eta(1405)$ and the related review on "Spectroscopy of Light Meson Resonances."

## $\eta(1475)$ MASS

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><b>1476</b> ± 4</td><td><b>OUR AVERAGE</b></td><td></td><td></td><td>Error includes scale factor of 1.4. See the ideogram below.</td></tr><tr><td>1507.6 ± 1.6<sup>+15.5</sup><sub>-32.2</sub></td><td>126K</td><td>1</td><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>23M BES3 J/ψ → γK<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1469 ± 14</td><td>± 13</td><td>74</td><td>ACHARD</td><td>07 L3 183-209 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>K<sup>±</sup>π<sup>∓</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1460 ± 12</td><td>3651</td><td></td><td>NICHITIU</td><td>02 OBLX 0 p̄p → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>0</td></tr><tr><td>1485 ± 8</td><td>± 5</td><td>20k</td><td>ADAMS</td><td>01B B852 18 GeV π<sup>-</sup>p → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup>n</td></tr><tr><td>1500 ± 10</td><td></td><td></td><td>CICALO</td><td>99 OBLX 0 p̄p → K<sup>±</sup>K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>π<sup>∓</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1464 ± 10</td><td></td><td></td><td>BERTIN</td><td>97 OBLX 0 p̄p → K<sup>±</sup>(K<sup>0</sup>)π<sup>∓</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1460 ± 10</td><td></td><td></td><td>BERTIN</td><td>95 OBLX 0 p̄p → K<sup>−</sup>K<sup>ππ</sup>ππ</td></tr><tr><td>1490 ± 14</td><td>± 3</td><td>1100</td><td>BAI</td><td>90C MRK3 J/ψ → γK<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>K<sup>±</sup>π<sup>∓</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1475 ± 4</td><td></td><td></td><td>RATH</td><td>89 MPS 21.4 π<sup>-</sup>p → nK<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

$1477 \pm 7 \pm 13 \qquad 2 \text{ ABLIKIM} \qquad 181 \text{ BES3} \qquad J/\psi \rightarrow \gamma\gamma\phi(1020)$

$1565 \pm 8 \pm 0 \qquad 3 \text{ ABLIKIM} \qquad 151 \text{ BES3} \qquad J/\psi \rightarrow \gamma K_S^0 K_S^0 \eta$

$1421 \pm 14 \qquad \text{AUGUSTIN} \qquad 92 \text{ DM2} \qquad J/\psi \rightarrow \gamma K \bar{K} \pi$

¹ ABLIKIM 23M reports for this state a significance from the fit much higher than 35 σ.

² From a fit to $\gamma\phi$ invariant mass. Angular analysis consistent with $J^{PC} = 0^{-+}$. Other $J^{PC}$ not excluded.

³ Could also be the $\eta(1405)$.

<figure><img src="image_470.png" /><figcaption>$\eta(1475)$ mass (MeV)</figcaption></figure>

## $\eta(1475)$ WIDTH

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><b>96</b> ± 9</td><td><b>OUR AVERAGE</b></td><td></td><td></td><td>Error includes scale factor of 1.7. See the ideogram below.</td></tr><tr><td>115.8 ± 2.4<sup>+14.8</sup><sub>-10.9</sub></td><td>126K</td><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>23M BES3</td><td>J/ψ → γK<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>67 ± 18</td><td>± 7</td><td>74</td><td>ACHARD</td><td>07 L3 183-209 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>K<sup>±</sup>π<sup>∓</sup></td></tr><tr><td>120 ± 15</td><td>3651</td><td>NICHITIU</td><td>02 OBLX 0 p̄p → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>0</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>98 ± 18</td><td>± 3</td><td>20k</td><td>ADAMS</td><td>01B B852 18 GeV π<sup>-</sup>p → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup>π</td></tr><tr><td>100 ± 20</td><td></td><td>CICALO</td><td>99 OBLX 0 p̄p → K<sup>±</sup>K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>π<sup>∓</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><tr><td>105</td><td>± 15</td><td>BERTIN</td><td>97</td><td>OBLX</td><td>0.0 p̄p → K<sup>±</sup>(K<sup>0</sup>)π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>105</td><td>± 15</td><td>BERTIN</td><td>95</td><td>OBLX</td><td>0 p̄p → K<sup>−</sup>K<sup>ππ</sup></td></tr><tr><td>54</td><td>+37</td><td>+13</td><td>BAI</td><td>90C</td><td>MRK3 J/ψ → γK<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>K<sup>±</sup>π<sup>∓</sup></td></tr><tr><td>51</td><td>± 13</td><td>RATH</td><td>89</td><td>MPS</td><td>21.4 π<sup>-</sup>p → nK<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

$118 \pm 22 \pm 17 \qquad 1 \text{ ABLIKIM} \qquad 181 \text{ BES3} \qquad J/\psi \rightarrow \gamma\gamma\phi(1020)$

$45 \pm 14 \pm 21 \qquad 2 \text{ ABLIKIM} \qquad 151 \text{ BES3} \qquad J/\psi \rightarrow \gamma K_S^0 K_S^0 \eta$

$63 \pm 18 \qquad \text{AUGUSTIN} \qquad 92 \text{ DM2} \qquad J/\psi \rightarrow \gamma K \bar{K} \pi$

¹ From a fit to $\gamma\phi$ invariant mass. Angular analysis consistent with $J^{PC} = 0^{-+}$. Other $J^{PC}$ not excluded.

² Could also be the $\eta(1405)$.

<figure><img src="image_471.png" /><figcaption>$\eta(1475)$ width (MeV)</figcaption></figure>

## $\eta(1475)$ DECAY MODES

<table><thead><tr><th>Mode</th><th>Fraction (Γ<sub>f</sub>/Γ)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Γ<sub>1</sub> K̄Kπ</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>2</sub> K̄K<sup>*</sup>(892) + c.c.</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>3</sub> a<sub>0</sub>(980)π</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>4</sub> γγ</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>5</sub> K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>η</td><td>possibly seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>6</sub> γφ(1020)</td><td>possibly seen</td></tr></tbody></table>

## $\eta(1475)$ $\Gamma(i)\Gamma(\gamma\gamma)/\Gamma(\text{total})$

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="3">Γ(K̄Kπ) × Γ(γγ)/Γ<sub>total</sub></th><th colspan="3">Γ<sub>1</sub>Γ<sub>4</sub>/Γ</th></tr><tr><th>VALUE (keV)</th><th>CL%</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.23 ± 0.05 ± 0.05</td><td></td><td>74</td><td>1 ACHARD</td><td>07</td><td>L3 183-209 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>K<sup>±</sup>π<sup>∓</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

$< 0.089 \qquad 90 \qquad 2,3 \text{ AHOHE} \qquad 05 \text{ CLE2} \qquad 10.6 e^+ e^- \rightarrow e^+ e^- K_S^0 K^+ \pi^-$

¹ Supersedes ACCIARRI 01G. Using $B(K_S^0 \rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-) = 0.6895$.

² Using $\eta(1475)$ mass of 1481 MeV and width of 48 MeV. The upper limit increases to 0.140 keV if the world average value, 87 MeV, of the width is used.

³ Assuming three-body phase-space decay to $K_S^0 K^+ \pi^-$.

## $\eta(1475)$ BRANCHING RATIOS

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="3">Γ(K̄K<sup>*</sup>(892) + c.c.)/Γ(K̄Kπ)</th><th colspan="3">Γ<sub>2</sub>/Γ<sub>1</sub></th></tr><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th><th>CL%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.50 ± 0.10</td><td></td><td>1 BAILLON</td><td>67</td><td>HBC 0.0 p̄p → K̄Kπππ</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Data could also refer to $\eta(1405)$.

$\Gamma(K\bar{K}^*(892) + \text{c.c.}) / [\Gamma(K\bar{K}^*(892) + \text{c.c.}) + \Gamma(a_0(980)\pi)] \quad \Gamma_2/(\Gamma_2+\Gamma_3)$

$< 0.25 \qquad 90 \qquad \text{EDWARDS} \qquad 82E \qquad \text{CBAL} \qquad J/\psi \rightarrow K^+K^-\pi^0\gamma$

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="3">Γ(γγ)/Γ(K̄Kπ)</th><th colspan="3">Γ<sub>4</sub>/Γ<sub>1</sub></th></tr><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th><th>CL%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><b>&lt;1.27 x 10<sup>-3</sup></b></td><td></td><td>90</td><td>1 ABLIKIM</td><td>180</td><td>BES3 ψ(2S) → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>γγγ</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Using results from BAI 00D.
$\Gamma(\gamma\phi(1020))/\Gamma_{\text{total}}$

VALUE
possibly seen

DOCUMENT ID 1 ABLIKIM 18i BES3
TECN J/ψ → γγφ(1020)

¹Seen as a peak in $\gamma\phi$ invariant mass. Angular analysis consistent with $J^PC = 0^{-+}$. Other $J^PC$ not excluded. Also see $\eta(1405)$.

$\eta(1475)$ REFERENCES

<table><tr><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>23M</td><td>JHEP 2303 121</td><td>M. Ablikim et al.</td><td>(BESIII Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>18I</td><td>PR D97 051101</td><td>M. Ablikim et al.</td><td>(BESIII Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>18O</td><td>PR D97 072014</td><td>M. Ablikim et al.</td><td>(BESIII Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>15T</td><td>PRL 115 091803</td><td>M. Ablikim et al.</td><td>(BESIII Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ACHARD</td><td>07</td><td>JHEP 0703 018</td><td>P. Achard et al.</td><td>(L3 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AHOHE</td><td>05</td><td>PR D71 072001</td><td>R. Ahohe et al.</td><td>(CLEO Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>NICHTEL</td><td>02</td><td>PL B545 261</td><td>F. Nichteit et al.</td><td>(OBELIX Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ACCIARRI</td><td>01G</td><td>PL B501 1</td><td>M. Acciarri et al.</td><td>(L3 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ADAMS</td><td>01B</td><td>PL B516 264</td><td>G.S. Adams et al.</td><td>(BNL E852 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BAI</td><td>00D</td><td>PL B476 25</td><td>J.Z. Bai et al.</td><td>(BES Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>CICALTO</td><td>99</td><td>PL B462 453</td><td>C. Cicalo et al.</td><td>(OBELIX Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BERTIN</td><td>97</td><td>PL B400 226</td><td>A. Bertin et al.</td><td>(OBELIX Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BERTIN</td><td>95</td><td>PL B361 187</td><td>A. Bertin et al.</td><td>(OBELIX Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AUGUSTIN</td><td>92</td><td>PR D46 1951</td><td>J.E. Augustin, G. Cosme</td><td>(DM2 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BAI</td><td>90C</td><td>PRL 65 2507</td><td>Z. Bai et al.</td><td>(Mark III Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>RATH</td><td>89</td><td>PR D40 693</td><td>M.G. Rath et al.</td><td>(NDAM, BRAN, BNL, CUNY+)</td></tr><tr><td>EDWARDS</td><td>82E</td><td>PRL 49 259</td><td>C. Edwards et al.</td><td>(CIT, HARV, PRIN+)</td></tr><tr><td>BAILLON</td><td>67</td><td>NC 50A 393</td><td>P.H. Baillon et al.</td><td>(CERN, CDEF, IRAD)</td></tr></table>

$f_0(1500)$

$I^G(J^{PC}) = 0^+(0^{++})$

See the review on "Spectroscopy of Light Meson Resonances."

$f_0(1500)$ T-MATRIX POLE $\sqrt{s}$

Note that $\Gamma = -2 \operatorname{Im}(\sqrt{s})$.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="4">(1430-1530) - i (40-90) OUR ESTIMATE</td></tr><tr><td>(1450 ± 10) - i (53 ± 8)</td><td>1 RODAS</td><td>22</td><td>RVUE J/ψ(15) → γ (ππ, K<sup>0</sup> K<sup>0</sup>)</td></tr><tr><td>(1483 ± 15) - i (58 ± 6)</td><td>SARANTSEV</td><td>21</td><td>RVUE J/ψ(15) → γ (ππ, K<sup>0</sup> K<sup>0</sup>, ηη, ρφ)</td></tr><tr><td>(1496 ± 1.2<sup>+4.4</sup><sub>-26.4</sub>) - i<br>(40.4 ± 0.3<sup>+10.0</sup><sub>-2.5</sub>)</td><td>2 ALBRECHT</td><td>20</td><td>RVUE 0.9 p̄p → π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup>η, π<sup>0</sup>ηη, π<sup>0</sup>K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>(1465 ± 18) - i (50 ± 9)</td><td>3 ROPERTZ</td><td>18</td><td>RVUE p̄0<sup>0</sup>S → J/ψ(π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>/K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>)</td></tr><tr><td>(1486 ± 10) - i (57 ± 5)</td><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>09</td><td>RVUE 0.0 p̄p, πN</td></tr><tr><td>(1489<sup>+8</sup><sub>-4</sub>) - i (51 ± 5)</td><td>4 ANISOVICH</td><td>09</td><td>RVUE</td></tr><tr><td>(1515 ± 12) - i (55 ± 12)</td><td>BARBERIS</td><td>03</td><td>00A 450 pp → p<sub>f</sub>(ηη', η'η')p<sub>S</sub></td></tr><tr><td>(1511 ± 9) - i (51 ± 9)</td><td>5 BARBERIS</td><td>00C</td><td>450 pp → p<sub>f</sub>4πp<sub>S</sub></td></tr><tr><td>(1510 ± 8) - i (55 ± 8)</td><td>BARBERIS</td><td>00E</td><td>450 pp → p<sub>f</sub>ηηp<sub>S</sub></td></tr><tr><td>(1502 ± 12 ± 10) - i<br>(49 ± 9 ± 8)</td><td>6 BARBERIS</td><td>99D</td><td>OMEG 450 pp → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>, π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>(1447 ± 27) - i (54 ± 23)</td><td>7 KAMINSKI</td><td>99</td><td>RVUE ππ → ππ, K<sup>0</sup> K<sup>0</sup>, σσ</td></tr><tr><td>(1499 ± 8) - i (65 ± 10)</td><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>98B</td><td>RVUE Compilation.</td></tr><tr><td>(1510 ± 20) - i (60 ± 18)</td><td>BARBERIS</td><td>97B</td><td>OMEG 450 pp → p̄p2(π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>)</td></tr><tr><td>(1449 ± 20) - i (57 ± 15)</td><td>BERTIN</td><td>97C</td><td>OBXL 0.9 p̄p → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>(1515 ± 20) - i (53 ± 8)</td><td>ABELE</td><td>96B</td><td>CBAR 0.9 p̄p → π<sup>0</sup>K<sup>0</sup>L K<sup>0</sup>L</td></tr><tr><td>(1500 ± 8) - i (66 ± 8)</td><td>ABELE</td><td>96C</td><td>RVUE Compilation.</td></tr><tr><td>(1500 ± 10) - i (77 ± 15)</td><td>8 AMSLER</td><td>95D</td><td>CBAR 0.9 p̄p → π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup>, π<sup>0</sup>ηη, π<sup>0</sup>ηπ<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>(1520 ± 25) - i (74<sup>+10</sup><sub>-13</sub>)</td><td>9 ANISOVICH</td><td>94</td><td>CBAR 0.9 p̄p → 3π<sup>0</sup>, π<sup>0</sup>ηη</td></tr><tr><td>(1505 ± 20) - i (75 ± 10)</td><td>10 BUGG</td><td>94</td><td>RVUE p̄p → 3π<sup>0</sup>, ηηπ<sup>0</sup>, π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹T-matrix pole from coupled channel K-matrix fit to data on $J/ψ \to \gamma\pi^0\pi^0$ (ABLIKIM 15AE) and $J/ψ \to \gamma K_S^0 K_S^0$ (ABLIKIM 18AA).

²T-matrix pole, 5 poles, 5 channels, including scattering data from HYAMS 75 ($\pi\pi$), LONGACRE 86 ($K\bar{K}$), BINON 83 ($\eta\eta$), and BINON 84c ($\eta\eta'$).

³T-matrix pole of 3 channel unitary model fit to data from AAIJ 14BR and AAIJ 17V extracted using Pade approximants.

⁴Pole position from combined analysis of $\pi^{-}p \to \pi^{0}\pi^{0}n, \pi^{-}p \to K\bar{K}n, \pi^{+}\pi^{-} \to \pi^{+}\pi^{-}, \bar{p}p \to \pi^{0}\pi^{0}\pi^{0}, \pi^{0}\eta\eta, \pi^{0}\eta\eta, \pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^{0}, K^{+}K^{-}\pi^{0}, K^{0}K_{S}^{0}\pi^{0}, K^{+}K_{S}^{0}\pi^{-}$ at rest, $\bar{p}n \to \pi^{-}\pi^{-}\pi^{+}, K_{S}^{0}K^{-}\pi^{0}, K_{S}^{0}K_{S}^{0}\pi^{-}$ at rest.

⁵Average between $\pi^{+}\pi^{-}2\pi^0$ and $2(\pi^{+}\pi^{-})$.

⁶Supersedes BARBERIS 99 and BARBERIS 99B.

⁷T-matrix pole on sheet $-\to-$.

⁸Coupled-channel analysis of AMSLER 95B, AMSLER 95C, and AMSLER 94D.

⁹From a simultaneous analysis of the annihilations $\bar{p}p \to 3\pi^0, \pi^0\eta\eta$.

¹⁰Reanalysis of ANISOVICH 94 data.

$f_0(1500)$ MASS

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1522 ± 25</td><td></td><td>1 BERTIN</td><td>98</td><td>OBLX 0.05-0.405 p̄p → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

$\Gamma_6/\Gamma$

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>1492.5 ± 3.6<sup>+2.4</sup><sub>-20.5</sub></td><td>2 ABLIKIM</td><td>22G BES3</td><td>J/ψ → γπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>η'</td></tr><tr><td>1447 ± 16 ± 13</td><td>3,4 DOBBS</td><td>15</td><td>J/ψ → γπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1442 ± 9 ± 4</td><td>3,4 DOBBS</td><td>15</td><td>ψ(2S) → γπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1460.9 ± 2.9</td><td>5 AAIJ</td><td>14BR LHCB</td><td>B<sup>0</sup>S → J/ψπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1468<sup>+14</sup><sub>-15</sub> ± 23</td><td>5.5k</td><td>13N BES3</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → J/ψ → γηη</td></tr><tr><td>1470 ± 60</td><td>568</td><td>08 E791</td><td>D<sup>+</sup>S → π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>+</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1470 ± 6<sup>+6</sup><sub>-7</sub> ± 72</td><td></td><td>08A BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup>η<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1466 ± 6 ± 20</td><td></td><td>06V BES2</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → J/ψ → γπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1495 ± 4</td><td></td><td>06 CBAR</td><td>0.9 p̄p → K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1539 ± 20</td><td>9.9k</td><td>06 BABR</td><td>B<sup>+</sup>S → K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1473 ± 5</td><td>80k</td><td>9,10 UMAN</td><td>5.2 p̄p → ηηπ<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1478 ± 6</td><td></td><td>06 E835</td><td>40 π<sup>-</sup> p → K<sup>0</sup>S K<sup>0</sup>S n</td></tr><tr><td>1493 ± 7</td><td></td><td>9 BINON</td><td>05 GAMS 33 π<sup>-</sup> p → ηηη</td></tr><tr><td>1524 ± 14</td><td>1400</td><td>11 GARMASH</td><td>05 BELL K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1490 ± 30</td><td></td><td>01 CBAR</td><td>0.0 p̄d → π<sup>-</sup>4π<sup>0</sup>p</td></tr><tr><td>1497 ± 10</td><td></td><td>99 OMEG</td><td>450 pp → p<sub>S</sub>P<sub>F</sub> K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1502 ± 10</td><td></td><td>99B OMEG</td><td>450 pp → p<sub>S</sub>P<sub>F</sub>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1530 ± 45</td><td></td><td>99 GAM4</td><td>450 pp → pπ<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1505 ± 18</td><td></td><td>99 FRENCH</td><td>300 pp → p<sub>F</sub>(K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup>)p<sub>S</sub></td></tr><tr><td>1580 ± 80</td><td></td><td>9 ALDE</td><td>GAM4 100 π<sup>-</sup> p → π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>~ 1520</td><td></td><td>REYES</td><td>98 SPEC 800 pp → p<sub>S</sub>P<sub>F</sub> K<sup>0</sup>S K<sup>0</sup>S</td></tr><tr><td>~ 1475</td><td></td><td>FRABETTI</td><td>97D E687 D<sup>+</sup>S → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>±</sup></td></tr><tr><td>~ 1505</td><td></td><td>ABELE</td><td>96 CBAR 0.0 p̄p → 5π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1460 ± 20</td><td>120</td><td>9 AMELIN</td><td>96B VES 37 π<sup>-</sup> A → ηηη<sup>-</sup> A</td></tr><tr><td>1500 ± 8</td><td></td><td>BUGG</td><td>96 RVUE</td></tr><tr><td>1500 ± 15</td><td></td><td>12 AMSLER</td><td>95B CBAR 0.0 p̄p → 3π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1505 ± 15</td><td></td><td>13 AMSLER</td><td>95C CBAR 0.0 p̄p → ηηη<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1445 ± 5</td><td></td><td>14 ANTINORI</td><td>95 OMEG 300,450 pp → p̄p2(π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>)</td></tr><tr><td>1497 ± 30</td><td></td><td>9 ANTINORI</td><td>95 OMEG 300,450 pp → p̄pπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>~ 1505</td><td></td><td>BUGG</td><td>95 MRK3 J/ψ → γπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1446 ± 5</td><td></td><td>9 ABATZIS</td><td>94 OMEG 450 pp → p̄p2(π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>)</td></tr><tr><td>1545 ± 25</td><td></td><td>9 AMSLER</td><td>94E CBAR 0.0 p̄p → π<sup>0</sup>ηη'</td></tr><tr><td>1560 ± 25</td><td></td><td>9 AMSLER</td><td>92 CBAR 0.0 p̄p → π<sup>0</sup>ηη</td></tr><tr><td>1550 ± 45 ± 30</td><td></td><td>9 BELADIDZE</td><td>92C VES 36 π<sup>-</sup> Be → π<sup>-</sup>η'η Be</td></tr><tr><td>1449 ± 4</td><td></td><td>9 ARMSTRONG</td><td>89E OMEG 300 pp → p̄p2(π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>)</td></tr><tr><td>1610 ± 20</td><td></td><td>9 ALDE</td><td>88 GAM4 300 π<sup>-</sup> N → π<sup>-</sup>N2η</td></tr><tr><td>~ 1525</td><td></td><td>ASTON</td><td>88D LASS 11 K<sup>-</sup> p → K<sup>0</sup>S K<sup>0</sup>S Λ</td></tr><tr><td>1570 ± 20</td><td>600</td><td>9 ALDE</td><td>87 GAM4 100 π<sup>-</sup> p → 4π<sup>0</sup>n</td></tr><tr><td>1575 ± 45</td><td></td><td>15 ALDE</td><td>86D GAM4 100 π<sup>-</sup> p → 2ηη</td></tr><tr><td>1568 ± 33</td><td></td><td>9 BINON</td><td>84C GAM2 38 π<sup>-</sup> p → ηη'</td></tr><tr><td>1592 ± 25</td><td></td><td>9 BINON</td><td>83 GAM2 38 π<sup>-</sup> p → 2ηη</td></tr><tr><td>1525 ± 5</td><td></td><td>9 GRAY</td><td>83 DBC 0.0 p̄N → 3π</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹Breit-Wigner mass.

²The $\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ mass spectrum is described by a coherent sum of two Breit-Wigner resonances, $f_0(1500)$ and a new $X(1540)$ with mass $1540.2 \pm 7.0^{+36.3}_{-6.1}$ MeV and width $157 \pm 19^{+11}_{-77}$ MeV.

³Using CLEO-c data but not authored by the CLEO Collaboration.

⁴From a fit to a Breit-Wigner line shape with fixed $\Gamma = 109$ MeV.

⁵Solution I, statistical error only.

⁶From partial wave analysis including all possible combinations of $0^{++}$, $2^{++}$, and $4^{++}$ resonances.

⁷Reanalysis of AITALA 01A data. This state could also be $f_0(1370)$.

⁸Breit-Wigner mass. May also be the $f_0(1370)$.

⁹Breit-Wigner mass.

¹⁰Statistical error only.

¹¹Breit-Wigner, solution 1, PWA ambiguous.

¹²T-matrix pole, supersedes ANISOVICH 94.

¹³T-matrix pole, supersedes ANISOVICH 94 and AMSLER 92.

¹⁴Supersedes ABATZIS 94, ARMSTRONG 89E. Breit-Wigner mass.

¹⁵From central value and spread of two solutions. Breit-Wigner mass.

$f_0(1500)$ WIDTH

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>108 ± 33</td><td></td><td>1 BERTIN</td><td>98</td><td>OBLX 0.05-0.405 p̄p → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •
<table><tbody><tr><td>121 ± 8</td><td></td><td>AMSLER</td><td>06</td><td>CBAR</td><td>0.9 p&#773; → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>257 ± 33</td><td>9.9k</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>060</td><td>BABR</td><td>B<sup>+</sup> → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>108 ± 9</td><td>80k</td><td>6,7 UMAN</td><td>06</td><td>E835</td><td>5.2 p&#773; → ηηπ<sup>0</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>119 ± 10</td><td></td><td>VLADIMIRSK...</td><td>06</td><td>SPEC</td><td>40 π<sup>-</sup> p → K<sup>0</sup>S K<sup>0</sup>S n</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>90 ± 15</td><td></td><td>6 BINON</td><td>05</td><td>GAMS</td><td>33 π<sup>-</sup> p → ηηn</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>136 ± 23</td><td>1400</td><td>8 GARMASH</td><td>05</td><td>BELL</td><td>B<sup>+</sup> → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>140 ± 40</td><td></td><td>6 ABELE</td><td>01</td><td>CBAR</td><td>0.0 p&#773; d → π<sup>-</sup>4π<sup>0</sup>p</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>104 ± 25</td><td></td><td>6 BARBERIS</td><td>99</td><td>OMEG</td><td>450 p p → p<sub>S</sub> p<sub>f</sub> K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>131 ± 15</td><td></td><td>6 BARBERIS</td><td>99b</td><td>OMEG</td><td>450 p p → p<sub>S</sub> p<sub>f</sub> π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>160 ± 50</td><td></td><td>6 BELLAZZINI</td><td>99</td><td>GAM4</td><td>450 p p → p pπ<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>100 ± 33</td><td></td><td>6 FRENCH</td><td>99</td><td></td><td>300 p p →</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>p<sub>f</sub>(K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>)p<sub>S</sub></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>280 ± 100</td><td></td><td>6 ALDE</td><td>98</td><td>GAM4</td><td>100 π<sup>-</sup> p → π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup> n</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>~ 100</td><td></td><td>FRABETTI</td><td>97D</td><td>E687</td><td>D<sup>±</sup><sub>S</sub> → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>±</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>~ 169</td><td></td><td>ABELE</td><td>96</td><td>CBAR</td><td>0.0 p&#773; p → 5π<sup>0</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>100 ± 30</td><td>120</td><td>6 AMELIN</td><td>96b</td><td>VES</td><td>37 π<sup>-</sup> A → ηηπ<sup>0</sup> A</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>132 ± 15</td><td></td><td>BUGG</td><td>96</td><td>RVUE</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>120 ± 25</td><td></td><td>9 AMSLER</td><td>95b</td><td>CBAR</td><td>0.0 p&#773; p → 3π<sup>0</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>120 ± 30</td><td></td><td>10 AMSLER</td><td>95c</td><td>CBAR</td><td>0.0 p&#773; p → ηηπ<sup>0</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>65 ± 10</td><td></td><td>11 ANTINORI</td><td>95</td><td>OMEG</td><td>300,450 p p →</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>p p2(π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>199 ± 30</td><td></td><td>6 ANTINORI</td><td>95</td><td>OMEG</td><td>300,450 p p →</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>p pπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>56 ± 12</td><td></td><td>6 ABATZIS</td><td>94</td><td>OMEG</td><td>450 p p → p p2(π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>100 ± 40</td><td></td><td>6 AMSLER</td><td>94e</td><td>CBAR</td><td>0.0 p&#773; p → π<sup>0</sup>ηη'</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>245 ± 50</td><td></td><td>6 AMSLER</td><td>92</td><td>CBAR</td><td>0.0 p&#773; p → π<sup>0</sup>ηη</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>153 ± 67 ± 50</td><td></td><td>6 BELADIDZE</td><td>92c</td><td>VES</td><td>36 π<sup>-</sup> Be → π<sup>-</sup>η<sup>′</sup>η Be</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>78 ± 18</td><td></td><td>6 ARMSTRONG</td><td>89e</td><td>OMEG</td><td>300 p p → p p2(π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>170 ± 40</td><td>600</td><td>6 ALDE</td><td>88</td><td>GAM4</td><td>300 π<sup>-</sup> N → π<sup>-</sup>N 2η</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>150 ± 20</td><td></td><td>6 ALDE</td><td>87</td><td>GAM4</td><td>100 π<sup>-</sup> p → 4π<sup>0</sup> n</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>265 ± 65</td><td></td><td>12 ALDE</td><td>86D</td><td>GAM4</td><td>100 π<sup>-</sup> p → 2ηn</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>260 ± 60</td><td></td><td>6 BINON</td><td>84c</td><td>GAM2</td><td>38 π<sup>-</sup> p → ηη<sup>′</sup> n</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>210 ± 40</td><td></td><td>6 BINON</td><td>83</td><td>GAM2</td><td>38 π<sup>-</sup> p → 2ηn</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>101 ± 13</td><td></td><td>6 GRAY</td><td>83</td><td>DBC</td><td>0.0 p&#773; N → 3π</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹Breit-Wigner width.

²The $\pi^+\pi^-$ mass spectrum is described by a coherent sum of two Breit-Wigner resonances, $f_0(1500)$ and a new $X(1540)$ with mass $1540.2 \pm 7.0_{-6.1}^{+36.3}$ MeV and width $157 \pm 19_{-77}^{+11}$ MeV.

³Solution I, statistical error only.

⁴From partial wave analysis including all possible combinations of $0^{++}$, $2^{++}$, and $4^{++}$ resonances.

⁵Breit-Wigner width. May also be the $f_0(1370)$.

⁶Breit-Wigner width.

⁷Statistical error only.

⁸Breit-Wigner, solution 1, PWA ambiguous.

⁹T-matrix pole, supersedes ANISOVICH 94.

¹⁰T-matrix pole, supersedes ANISOVICH 94 and AMSLER 92.

¹¹Supersedes ABATZIS 94, ARMSTRONG 89e. Breit-Wigner mass.

¹²From central value and spread of two solutions. Breit-Wigner mass.

## $f_0(1500)$ DECAY MODES

<table><thead><tr><th>Mode</th><th>Fraction (Γ<sub>f</sub>/Γ)</th><th>Scale factor</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Γ<sub>1</sub> ππ</td><td>(34.5 ± 2.2) %</td><td rowspan="3">1.2</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>2</sub> π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>3</sub> 2π<sup>0</sup></td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>4</sub> 4π</td><td>(48.9 ± 3.3) %</td><td rowspan="5">1.2</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>5</sub> 4π<sup>0</sup></td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>6</sub> 2π<sup>+</sup>2π<sup>-</sup></td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>7</sub> 2(ππ)<sub>s-wave</sub></td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>8</sub> ρρ</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>9</sub> π(1300)π</td><td>seen</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>10</sub> a<sub>1</sub>(1260)π</td><td>seen</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>11</sub> ηη</td><td>( 6.0 ± 0.9) %</td><td>1.1</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>12</sub> ηη'(958)</td><td>( 2.2 ± 0.8) %</td><td>1.4</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>13</sub> K<span style="text-decoration: overline">K</span></td><td>( 8.5 ± 1.0) %</td><td>1.1</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>14</sub> γγ</td><td>not seen</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

## CONSTRAINED FIT INFORMATION

An overall fit to 6 branching ratios uses 10 measurements and one constraint to determine 5 parameters. The overall fit has a $\chi^2 = 5.6$ for 6 degrees of freedom.

The following off-diagonal array elements are the correlation coefficients $\langle \delta x_i \delta x_j \rangle / (\delta x_i - \delta x_j)$, in percent, from the fit to the branching fractions, $\chi_i \equiv \Gamma_i / \Gamma_{\text{total}}$. The fit constrains the $\chi_i$ whose labels appear in this array to sum to one.

<table><tbody><tr><td>x<sub>4</sub></td><td>-88</td></tr><tr><td>x<sub>11</sub></td><td>27</td><td>-56</td></tr><tr><td>x<sub>12</sub></td><td>3</td><td>-32</td><td>26</td></tr><tr><td>x<sub>13</sub></td><td>43</td><td>-64</td><td>20</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>x<sub>1</sub></td><td>x<sub>4</sub></td><td>x<sub>11</sub></td><td>x<sub>12</sub></td></tr></tbody></table>

## $f_0(1500)$ $\Gamma(i)\Gamma(\gamma\gamma)/\Gamma(\text{total})$

$$ \Gamma(\pi\pi) \times \Gamma(\gamma\gamma)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_1\Gamma_{14}/\Gamma $$

$\text{VALUE} \quad (\text{eV}) \quad \text{CL\%} \quad \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \quad \text{COMMENT}$

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>33<sup>+12</sup><sub>-6</sub><sup>+1809</sup><br>not seen</td><td>1 UEHARA<br>ACCIARRI</td><td>08A<br>01H</td><td>BELL<br>L3</td><td>10.6 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> π<sup>0</sup> π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>&lt;460</td><td>95</td><td>BARATE</td><td>00E</td><td>ALEC<br>γγ → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹May also be the $f_0(1370)$. Multiplied by 3 to obtain the $\pi\pi$ value.

## $f_0(1500)$ BRANCHING RATIOS

$$ \Gamma(\pi\pi)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_1/\Gamma $$

$\text{VALUE} \quad \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN}$

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>0.454 ± 0.104</td><td>BUGG</td><td>96</td><td>RVUE</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(\pi^+\pi^-)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_2/\Gamma $$

$\text{VALUE} \quad \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \quad \text{COMMENT}$

seen BERTIN 98 OBLX 0.05-0.405 p&#773; p → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>possibly seen</td><td>FRABETTI</td><td>97D</td><td>E687</td><td>D<sup>±</sup><sub>S</sub> → π<sup>±</sup>π<sup>±</sup>π<sup>±</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(4\pi)/\Gamma(\pi\pi) \qquad \Gamma_4/\Gamma_1 $$

$\text{VALUE} \quad \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \quad \text{COMMENT}$

1.42±0.18 OUR FIT Error includes scale factor of 1.2.

1.42±0.18 OUR AVERAGE Error includes scale factor of 1.2.

<table><tbody><tr><td>1.37 ± 0.16</td><td>BARBERIS</td><td>00D</td><td>450 p p → p<sub>f</sub> 4πp<sub>S</sub></td></tr><tr><td>2.1 ± 0.6</td><td>1 AMSLER</td><td>98</td><td>RVUE</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

2.1 ± 0.2 2 ANISOVICH 02D SPEC Combined fit

<table><tbody><tr><td>3.4 ± 0.8</td><td>1 ABELE</td><td>96</td><td>CBAR</td><td>0.0 p&#773; p → 5π<sup>0</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹Excluding $\rho\rho$ contribution to $4\pi$.

²From a combined K-matrix analysis of Crystal Barrel (0. $p\bar{p}$ → $\pi^0\pi^0\pi^0$, $\pi^0\eta\eta$, $\pi^0\pi^0\eta'$), GAMS ($\pi p \rightarrow \pi^0\pi^0 n$, $\eta\eta n$, $\eta\eta' n$), and BNL ($\pi p \rightarrow K\bar{K} n$) data.

$$ \Gamma(2(\pi\pi)\text{s-wave})/\Gamma(\pi\pi) \qquad \Gamma_7/\Gamma_1 $$

$\text{VALUE} \quad \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \quad \text{COMMENT}$

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>0.42 ± 0.26</td><td>1 ABELE</td><td>01</td><td>CBAR</td><td>0.0 p&#773; d → π<sup>-</sup>4π<sup>0</sup>p</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹From the combined data of ABELE 96 and ABELE 96c.

$$ \Gamma(2(\pi\pi)\text{s-wave})/\Gamma(4\pi) \qquad \Gamma_7/\Gamma_4 $$

$\text{VALUE} \quad \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \quad \text{COMMENT}$

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>0.26 ± 0.07</td><td>ABELE</td><td>01B</td><td>CBAR</td><td>0.0 p&#773; d → 5πp</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(\rho\rho)/\Gamma(4\pi) \qquad \Gamma_8/\Gamma_4 $$

$\text{VALUE} \quad \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \quad \text{COMMENT}$

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>0.13 ± 0.08</td><td>ABELE</td><td>01B</td><td>CBAR</td><td>0.0 p&#773; d → 5πp</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(\rho\rho)/\Gamma(2(\pi\pi)\text{s-wave}) \qquad \Gamma_8/\Gamma_7 $$

$\text{VALUE} \quad \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \quad \text{COMMENT}$

2.87±0.34 OUR AVERAGE Error includes scale factor of 1.1.

<table><tbody><tr><td>3.3 ± 0.5</td><td>BARBERIS</td><td>00C</td><td>450 p p → p<sub>f</sub> π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup> 2π<sup>0</sup> p<sub>S</sub></td></tr><tr><td>2.6 ± 0.4</td><td>BARBERIS</td><td>00C</td><td>450 p p → p<sub>f</sub> 2(π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>) p<sub>S</sub></td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(\pi(1300)\pi)/\Gamma(4\pi) \qquad \Gamma_9/\Gamma_4 $$

$\text{VALUE} \quad \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \quad \text{COMMENT}$

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>0.50 ± 0.25</td><td>ABELE</td><td>01B</td><td>CBAR</td><td>0.0 p&#773; d → 5πp</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(a_1(1260)\pi)/\Gamma(4\pi) \qquad \Gamma_{10}/\Gamma_4 $$

$\text{VALUE} \quad \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \quad \text{COMMENT}$

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>0.12 ± 0.05</td><td>ABELE</td><td>01B</td><td>CBAR</td><td>0.0 p&#773; d → 5πp</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(\eta\eta)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{11}/\Gamma $$

$\text{VALUE} \quad \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \quad \text{COMMENT}$

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>large</td><td>ALDE</td><td>88</td><td>GAM4</td><td>300 π<sup>-</sup> N → ηηπ<sup>-</sup> N</td></tr><tr><td>large</td><td>BINON</td><td>83</td><td>GAM2</td><td>38 π<sup>-</sup> p → 2ηn</td></tr></tbody></table>
$\Gamma(\eta\eta)/\Gamma(\pi\pi)$

VALUE

DOCUMENT ID

TECN

COMMENT

0.173±0.024 OUR FIT Error includes scale factor of 1.1.

0.175±0.027 OUR AVERAGE

<table><tr><td>0.18 ± 0.03</td><td>BARBERIS</td><td>00E</td><td>450 p p → p<sub>f</sub>ηηp<sub>S</sub></td></tr><tr><td>0.157 ± 0.060</td><td>1 AMSLER</td><td>95d CBAR</td><td>0.0 p p → π<sub>0</sub>0 π<sub>0</sub>0 π<sub>0</sub>0 π<sub>0</sub>0 π<sub>0</sub>0</td></tr></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>0.080 ± 0.033</td><td>AMSLER</td><td>02 CBAR</td><td>0.9 p p → π<sub>0</sub>0 π<sub>η</sub>η, π<sub>0</sub>0 π<sub>0</sub>0</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>0.11 ± 0.03</td><td>2 ANISOVICH</td><td>02d SPEC</td><td>Combined fit</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>0.078 ± 0.013</td><td>3 ABELE</td><td>96c RVUE</td><td>Compilation</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>0.230 ± 0.097</td><td>4 AMSLER</td><td>95c CBAR</td><td>0.0 p p → ηηπ<sub>0</sub></td></tr></table>

¹Coupled-channel analysis of AMSLER 95b, AMSLER 95c, and AMSLER 94d.

²From a combined K-matrix analysis of Crystal Barrel (0. $p\bar{p}$ → $\pi^0\pi^0\pi^0$, $\pi^0\eta\eta$, $\pi^0\pi^0\eta$), GAMS ($\pi p \rightarrow \pi^0\pi^0 n$, $\eta\eta n$, $\eta\eta' n$), and BNL ($\pi p \rightarrow K\bar{K} n$) data.

³$2\pi$ width determined to be 60 ± 12 MeV.

⁴Using AMSLER 95b ($3\pi^0$).

$\Gamma(4\pi^0)/\Gamma(\eta\eta)$

VALUE

DOCUMENT ID

TECN

$\Gamma_{5}/\Gamma_{11}$

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>0.8 ± 0.3</td><td>ALDE</td><td>87</td><td>GAM4</td><td>100 π<sup>-</sup> p → 4π<sup>0</sup> n</td></tr></table>

$\Gamma(\eta\eta'(958))/\Gamma(\pi\pi)$

VALUE

DOCUMENT ID

TECN

$\Gamma_{12}/\Gamma_{1}$

(units 10<sup>-2</sup>) Error includes scale factor of 1.4.

6.4±2.2 OUR FIT Error includes scale factor of 1.4.

<table><tr><td>9.5 ± 2.6</td><td>BARBERIS</td><td>00A</td><td>450 p p → p<sub>f</sub>ηηp<sub>S</sub></td></tr></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>16.6<sup>+4.2</sup><sub>-4.0</sub></td><td>1 ABLIKIM</td><td>22AS BES3</td><td>J/ψ(1S) → γηη'</td></tr><tr><td>0.5 ± 0.3</td><td>2 ANISOVICH</td><td>02d SPEC</td><td>Combined fit</td></tr></table>

¹From a Breit-Wigner fit involving 9 resonances and a resonating exotic $\eta\eta$ (1855) → $\eta\eta'$ P-wave.

²From a combined K-matrix analysis of Crystal Barrel (0. $p\bar{p}$ → $\pi^0\pi^0\pi^0$, $\pi^0\eta\eta$, $\pi^0\pi^0\eta$), GAMS ($\pi p \rightarrow \pi^0\pi^0 n$, $\eta\eta n$, $\eta\eta' n$), and BNL ($\pi p \rightarrow K\bar{K} n$) data.

$\Gamma(\eta\eta'(958))/\Gamma(\eta\eta)$

VALUE

DOCUMENT ID

TECN

$\Gamma_{12}/\Gamma_{11}$

0.37±0.13 OUR FIT Error includes scale factor of 1.5.

<table><tr><td>0.29±0.10</td><td>1 AMSLER</td><td>95c CBAR</td><td>0.0 p p → ηηπ<sub>0</sub></td></tr></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>0.05 ± 0.03</td><td>2 ANISOVICH</td><td>02d SPEC</td><td>Combined fit</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>0.84 ± 0.23</td><td>ABELE</td><td>96c RVUE</td><td>Compilation</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>2.7 ± 0.8</td><td>BINON</td><td>84c GAM2</td><td>38 π<sup>-</sup> p → ηη' n</td></tr></table>

¹Using AMSLER 94e ($\eta\eta'\pi^0$).

²From a combined K-matrix analysis of Crystal Barrel (0. $p\bar{p}$ → $\pi^0\pi^0\pi^0$, $\pi^0\eta\eta$, $\pi^0\pi^0\eta$), GAMS ($\pi p \rightarrow \pi^0\pi^0 n$, $\eta\eta n$, $\eta\eta' n$), and BNL ($\pi p \rightarrow K\bar{K} n$) data.

$\Gamma(K\bar{K})/\Gamma_{\text{total}}$

VALUE

DOCUMENT ID

TECN

$\Gamma_{13}/\Gamma$

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>0.044 ± 0.021</td><td>BUGG</td><td>96 RVUE</td></tr></table>

$\Gamma(K\bar{K})/\Gamma(\pi\pi)$

VALUE

DOCUMENT ID

TECN

$\Gamma_{13}/\Gamma_{1}$

0.246±0.025 OUR FIT

0.236±0.026 OUR AVERAGE

<table><tr><td>0.25 ± 0.03</td><td>1 BARGIOTTI</td><td>03 OBLK</td><td>p p</td></tr><tr><td>0.19 ± 0.07</td><td>2 ABELE</td><td>98 CBAR</td><td>0.0 p p → K<sup>0</sup> K<sup>±</sup>π<sup>∓</sup></td></tr><tr><td>0.20 ± 0.08</td><td>3 ABELE</td><td>96B CBAR</td><td>0.0 p p → π<sup>0</sup> K<sup>0</sup> K<sup>0</sup> L</td></tr></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>0.16 ± 0.05</td><td>4 ANISOVICH</td><td>02d SPEC</td><td>Combined fit</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>0.33 ± 0.03 ± 0.07</td><td>BARBERIS</td><td>99d OMEG</td><td>450 p p → K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup>, π<sup>+</sup> π<sup>-</sup></td></tr></table>

¹Coupled channel analysis of $\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$, $K^+K^-$, $\pi^+\pi^-$, and $K^\pm K_0^\pi\mp$.

²Using $\pi^0\pi^0$ from AMSLER 95b.

³Using AMSLER 95b ($3\pi^0$), AMSLER 94c ($2\pi^0\eta$) and SU(3).

⁴From a combined K-matrix analysis of Crystal Barrel (0. $p\bar{p}$ → $\pi^0\pi^0\pi^0$, $\pi^0\eta\eta$, $\pi^0\pi^0\eta$), GAMS ($\pi p \rightarrow \pi^0\pi^0 n$, $\eta\eta n$, $\eta\eta' n$), and BNL ($\pi p \rightarrow K\bar{K} n$) data.

$\Gamma(K\bar{K})/\Gamma(\eta\eta)$

VALUE

CL%

DOCUMENT ID

TECN

$\Gamma_{13}/\Gamma_{11}$

1.43±0.24 OUR FIT Error includes scale factor of 1.1.

<table><tr><td>1.85±0.41</td><td>BARBERIS</td><td>00E</td><td>450 p p → p<sub>f</sub>ηηp<sub>S</sub></td></tr></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>1.5 ± 0.6</td><td>1 ANISOVICH</td><td>02d SPEC</td><td>Combined fit</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;0.4</td><td>2 PROKOSHKIN</td><td>91 GAM4</td><td>300 π<sup>-</sup> p → π<sup>-</sup> pηη</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;0.6</td><td>3 BINON</td><td>83 GAM2</td><td>38 π<sup>-</sup> p → 2ηη</td></tr></table>

¹From a combined K-matrix analysis of Crystal Barrel (0. $p\bar{p}$ → $\pi^0\pi^0\pi^0$, $\pi^0\eta\eta$, $\pi^0\pi^0\eta$), GAMS ($\pi p \rightarrow \pi^0\pi^0 n$, $\eta\eta n$, $\eta\eta' n$), and BNL ($\pi p \rightarrow K\bar{K} n$) data.

²Combining results of GAM4 with those of WA76 on $K\bar{K}$ central production.

³Using ETKIN 82b and COHEN 80.

$f_0(1500)$ REFERENCES

<table><tr><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>22AS PR D106 072012</td><td>M. Ablikim et al.</td><td>(BESIII Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>Also</td><td>PR D107 079901 (errat.)</td><td>M. Ablikim et al.</td><td>(BESIII Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>22G PRL 129 042001</td><td>M. Ablikim et al.</td><td>(BESIII Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>RODAS</td><td>22 EPJ C82 80</td><td>A. Rodas et al.</td><td>(JPAC Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>SARANTSEV</td><td>21 PR B816 136227</td><td>A.V. Sarantsev et al.</td><td>(BONN+, PNIPI)</td></tr><tr><td>ALBRECHT</td><td>20 EPJ C80 453</td><td>M. Albrecht et al.</td><td>(Crystal Barrel Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ROPERTZ</td><td>18AA PR D95 200303</td><td>M. Albrecht et al.</td><td>(BESIII Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AAIJ</td><td>18 EPJ C78 1000</td><td>S. Ropertz, C. Hanhart, B. Kubis</td><td>(BONN+, JULI)</td></tr><tr><td>ALBRECHT</td><td>17V JHEP 1708 037</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ALBRECHT</td><td>15AE PR D92 052003</td><td>M. Ablikim et al.</td><td>(BESIII Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>DOBBS</td><td>15 PR D91 052006</td><td>S. Dobbs et al.</td><td>(NWE5)</td></tr><tr><td>AAIJ</td><td>14BR PR D89 092006</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ALBRECHT</td><td>13N PR D73 092009</td><td>M. Ablikim et al.</td><td>(BESIII Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>09 JMP A24 2481</td><td>V.V. Anisovich, A.V. Sarantsev</td><td>(PNIPI)</td></tr><tr><td>KLEMPET</td><td>08 EPJ C55 39</td><td>E. Klempt, M. Matveev, A.V. Sarantsev</td><td>(BONN+)</td></tr><tr><td>UEHARA</td><td>08A PR D78 052004</td><td>S. Uehara et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ALBRECHT</td><td>06V PR B642 441</td><td>M. Albrecht et al.</td><td>(BES Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AMSLER</td><td>06 PR B639 165</td><td>C. Amsler et al.</td><td>(Crystal Barrel Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AUBERT</td><td>06 PR D74 032003</td><td>B. Aubert et al.</td><td>(BABAR Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>UMAN</td><td>06 PR D73 052009</td><td>I. Uman et al.</td><td>(FNAL E835)</td></tr><tr><td>VLADIMIRSKI</td><td>06 PAN 69 493</td><td>V.V. Vladimirskey et al.</td><td>(ITEP, Moscow)</td></tr><tr><td>Also</td><td>06 Translated from YAF 69 515</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>BINON</td><td>05 F. Binon et al.</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>GARMASH</td><td>05 PR D71 092003</td><td>A. Garmash et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>03 EPJ A16 229</td><td>V.V. Anisovich et al.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>BARGIOTTI</td><td>03 EPJ D23 371</td><td>M. Bargiotti et al.</td><td>(OBELIX Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AMSLER</td><td>02 EPJ C23 29</td><td>C. Amsler et al.</td><td>(Crystal Barrel Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>02D PAN 65 1545</td><td>V.V. Anisovich et al.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Also</td><td>02D Translated from YAF 65 1583.</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ABELE</td><td>01 EPJ C19 667</td><td>A. Abele et al.</td><td>(Crystal Barrel Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ABELE</td><td>01B PR D21 261</td><td>A. Abele et al.</td><td>(LHC Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ACCIARRI</td><td>01H PR B501 173</td><td>M. Acciarri et al.</td><td>(FNAL E791 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AITALA</td><td>01A PRL 86 765</td><td>E.M. Aitolai et al.</td><td>(ALEPH Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BARATE</td><td>00E PL B472 189</td><td>R. Barate et al.</td><td>(WA 102 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BARBERIS</td><td>00A PL B471 429</td><td>D. Barberis et al.</td><td>(WA 102 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BARBERIS</td><td>00A PL B470 440</td><td>D. Barberis et al.</td><td>(WA 102 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BARBERIS</td><td>00D PL B474 423</td><td>D. Barberis et al.</td><td>(WA 102 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BARBERIS</td><td>00E PL B479 59</td><td>D. Barberis et al.</td><td>(Omega Ext.)</td></tr><tr><td>BARBERIS</td><td>99 PL B453 305</td><td>D. Barberis et al.</td><td>(Omega Ext.)</td></tr><tr><td>BARBERIS</td><td>99B PL B453 316</td><td>D. Barberis et al.</td><td>(Omega Ext.)</td></tr><tr><td>BARBERIS</td><td>99D PL B462 462</td><td>D. Barberis et al.</td><td>(Omega Ext.)</td></tr><tr><td>BELLAZZINI</td><td>99 PL B467 296</td><td>R. Bellazzini et al.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>FRENCH</td><td>99 PL B460 213</td><td>B. French et al.</td><td>(WA76 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>KAMINSKI</td><td>99 EPJ C9 141</td><td>R. Kaminski, L. Lesniak, B. Loiseau</td><td>(CRAC, PARIN)</td></tr><tr><td>ABELE</td><td>98 PR D57 3860</td><td>A. Abele et al.</td><td>(Crystal Barrel Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ALDE</td><td>98 EPJ A3 361</td><td>D. Alde et al.</td><td>(GAM4 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>Also</td><td>98 PAN 62 405</td><td>D. Alde et al.</td><td>(GAMS Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>Also</td><td>06 Translated from YAF 62 446.</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>AMSLER</td><td>98 RMP 70 1293</td><td>C. Amsler</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>98B SPU 41 419</td><td>V.V. Anisovich et al.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>BERTIN</td><td>98 PR D57 55</td><td>A. Bertin et al.</td><td>(OBELIX Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>REYES</td><td>98 PRL 81 4079</td><td>M.A. Reyes et al.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>BARBERIS</td><td>97B PL B413 217</td><td>D. Barberis et al.</td><td>(WA 102 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BERTIN</td><td>97C PL B408 476</td><td>A. Bertin et al.</td><td>(OBELIX Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>FRABETTI</td><td>97D PL B407 79</td><td>P.L. Frabetti et al.</td><td>(FNAL E687 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ABELE</td><td>96 PL B380 453</td><td>A. Abele et al.</td><td>(Crystal Barrel Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ABELE</td><td>96B PL B385 425</td><td>A. Abele et al.</td><td>(Crystal Barrel Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ABELE</td><td>96B PL B385 425</td><td>A. Abele et al.</td><td>(Crystal Barrel Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ABELE</td><td>96P NC A609 562</td><td>A. Abele et al.</td><td>(Crystal Barrel Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AMELIN</td><td>96B PAN 59 976</td><td>D.V. Amelin et al.</td><td>(SERP, TBIL)</td></tr><tr><td>BUGG</td><td>96 NP B471 59</td><td>D.V. Bugg, A.V. Sarantsev, B.S. Zou</td><td>(LOQM, PNIPI)</td></tr><tr><td>AMSLER</td><td>95B PL B342 433</td><td>C. Amsler et al.</td><td>(Crystal Barrel Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AMSLER</td><td>95C PL B353 571</td><td>C. Amsler et al.</td><td>(Crystal Barrel Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AMSLER</td><td>95D PL B355 425</td><td>C. Amsler et al.</td><td>(Crystal Barrel Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ANTINORI</td><td>95 PL B353 589</td><td>F. Antinori et al.</td><td>(ATHU, BARI, BIRM+)</td></tr><tr><td>BUGG</td><td>95 PL B353 378</td><td>D.V. Bugg et al.</td><td>(LOQM, PNIPI, WASH)</td></tr><tr><td>ABATZIS</td><td>94 PL B324 509</td><td>S. Abatzis et al.</td><td>(ATHU, BARI, BIRM+)</td></tr><tr><td>AMSLER</td><td>94C PL B327 425</td><td>C. Amsler et al.</td><td>(Crystal Barrel Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AMSLER</td><td>94D PL B333 277</td><td>C. Amsler et al.</td><td>(Crystal Barrel Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AMSLER</td><td>94E PL B323 233</td><td>C. Amsler et al.</td><td>(Crystal Barrel Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>94 PL D50 4412</td><td>V.V. Anisovich et al.</td><td>(LOQM)</td></tr><tr><td>BUGG</td><td>94 PL D50 4412</td><td>D.V. Bugg et al.</td><td>(C. Amsler et al.)</td></tr><tr><td>AMSER</td><td>92 PL B291 347</td><td>C. Amsler et al.</td><td>(Crystal Barrel Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BELADIZDE</td><td>92C SJNP 55 1535</td><td>G.M. Beladizde, S.I. Bityukov, G.V. Borisov</td><td>(SERP+)</td></tr><tr><td>Also</td><td>92C Translated from YAF 55 2748.</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>PROKOSHKIN</td><td>91 SPD 36 155</td><td>Y.D. Prokoshkin</td><td>(GAM2 and GAM4 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ARMSTRONG</td><td>89E PL B228 536</td><td>T.A. Armstrong, M. Benayoun</td><td>(ATHU, BARI, BIRM+)</td></tr><tr><td>ALDE</td><td>88 PL B201 160</td><td>D.M. Alde et al.</td><td>(SERP, BELG, LANL, LAPP+)</td></tr><tr><td>ASTON</td><td>88D NP D25 525</td><td>D. Aston et al.</td><td>(SLAC, NAGO, CINC, INUS)</td></tr><tr><td>ALDE</td><td>87 PL B198 286</td><td>(LNL, BRUX, SERP, LAPP)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ALDE</td><td>86D NP B269 485</td><td>D.M. Alde et al.</td><td>(BELG, LAPP, SERP, CERN+)</td></tr><tr><td>LONGACRE</td><td>86 PL B177 223</td><td>R.S. Longacre et al.</td><td>(BNL, BRAN, CUNY)</td></tr><tr><td>BINON</td><td>84C NC 80A 363</td><td>F.G. Binon et al.</td><td>(BELG, LAPP, SERP+)</td></tr><tr><td>BINON</td><td>84C NC 76A 313</td><td>F.G. Binon et al.</td><td>(BELG, LAPP, SERP+)</td></tr><tr><td>BINON</td><td>83 SJNP 38 561</td><td>F.G. Binon et al.</td><td>(BELG, LAPP, SERP+)</td></tr><tr><td>Also</td><td>83 Translated from YAF 38 934.</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>GRAY</td><td>83 PR D27 307</td><td>L. Gray et al.</td><td>(SYRA)</td></tr><tr><td>ETKIN</td><td>82B PR D25 1786</td><td>A. Etkin et al.</td><td>(BNL, CUNY, TUFTS, VAND)</td></tr><tr><td>COHEN</td><td>83 PR D22 5929</td><td>D. Cohen et al.</td><td>(ANL)</td></tr><tr><td>HYAMS</td><td>75 NP B100 205</td><td>B.D. Hyams et al.</td><td>(CERN, MPIM)</td></tr></table>

$f_1(1510)$

$I^G(JPC) = 0^+ (1^+ +)$

OMITTED FROM SUMMARY TABLE

See the review on "Spectroscopy of Light Meson Resonances."

$f_1(1510)$ MASS

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1518± 5 OUR AVERAGE</td><td></td><td>Error includes scale factor of 1.7.</td><td></td><td>See the ideogram below.</td></tr><tr><td>1530±10</td><td></td><td>ASTON</td><td>88C LASS</td><td>11 K<sup>-</sup> p → K<sup>0</sup> K<sup>±</sup>π<sup>∓</sup>Λ</td></tr><tr><td>1512± 4</td><td></td><td>1 BIRMAN</td><td>88 MPS</td><td>8 π<sup>-</sup> p → K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>0</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1526± 6</td><td></td><td>GAVILLET</td><td>82 HBC</td><td>4.2 K<sup>-</sup> p → Λ K Kπ</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>~ 1525</td><td>2 BAUER</td><td>93B</td><td>γγ* → π<sup>+</sup> π<sup>-</sup> π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr></table>

¹From partial wave analysis of $K^+K^0\pi^-$ state.
$f_1(1510), f'_2(1525)$

²Not seen by AIHARA 88c in the $K_S^0 K^\pm \pi^\mp$ final state.

WEIGHTED AVERAGE
1518±5 (Error scaled by 1.7)

<figure><img src="image_472.png" /></figure>

## f₁(1510) WIDTH

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>73±25 OUR AVERAGE</strong></td></tr><tr><td>100±40</td><td></td><td>ASTON</td><td>88c</td><td>LASS 11 K<sup>-</sup> p &rarr; K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> K<sup>±</sup>π<sup>±</sup>Λ</td></tr><tr><td>35±15</td><td>600</td><td><sup>3</sup>BIRMAN</td><td>88</td><td>MPS 8 π<sup>-</sup> p &rarr; K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>0</sup> π<sup>-</sup> n</td></tr><tr><td>107±15</td><td>271</td><td>GAVILLET</td><td>82</td><td>HBC 4.2 K<sup>-</sup> p &rarr; Λ K K π</td></tr></tbody></table>

³From partial wave analysis of $K^+ K^0 \pi^-$ state.

WEIGHTED AVERAGE
73±25 (Error scaled by 2.5)

<figure><img src="image_473.png" /></figure>

## f₁(1510) DECAY MODES

<table><thead><tr><th>Mode</th><th>Fraction (Γ<sub>f</sub>/Γ)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Γ<sub>1</sub> K̄K<sup>*</sup>(892) + c.c.</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>2</sub> π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>η'</td><td>seen</td></tr></tbody></table>

## f₁(1510) BRANCHING RATIOS

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>η')/Γ<sub>total</sub></th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>seen</td><td>230</td><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>11C</td><td>BES3 J/ψ → γπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>η'</td></tr></tbody></table>

## f₁(1510) REFERENCES

<table><tr><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>11C</td><td>PRL 106 072002</td></tr><tr><td>BAUER</td><td>93B</td><td>PR D48 3976</td></tr><tr><td>AIHARA</td><td>88C</td><td>PR D38 1</td></tr><tr><td>ASTON</td><td>88C</td><td>PL B201 573</td></tr><tr><td>BIRMAN</td><td>88</td><td>PRL 61 1557</td></tr><tr><td>GAVILLET</td><td>82</td><td>ZPHY C16 119</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>M. Ablikim et al.</td><td>(BESIII Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>D.A. Bauer et al.</td><td>(SLAC)</td></tr><tr><td>H. Aihara et al.</td><td>(TPC-2γ Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>D. Aston et al.</td><td>(SLAC, NAGO, CINC, INUS) JP</td></tr><tr><td>A. Birman et al.</td><td>(BNL, FSU, IND, MASD) JP</td></tr><tr><td>P. Gavillet et al.</td><td>(CERN, CDEF, PADO+)</td></tr></table>

$f'_2(1525)$

$I^G(J^PC) = 0^{+}(2^{++})$

## f'_2(1525) MASS

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="2"><strong>1517.3±2.4 OUR AVERAGE</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Includes data from the 6 datablocks that follow this one.<br>Error includes scale factor of 2.8. See the ideogram below.</td></tr></tbody></table>

WEIGHTED AVERAGE
1517.3±2.4 (Error scaled by 2.8)

<figure><img src="image_474.png" /></figure>

## PRODUCED BY PION BEAM

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead></table>

The data in this block is included in the average printed for a previous datablock.

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>1521±13</td><td>TIKHOMIROV 03</td><td>SPEC 40.0 π<sup>-</sup> C → K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> K<sup>0</sup><sub>L</sub> X</td></tr><tr><td>1547<sup>+10</sup><sub>-2</sub></td><td><sup>1</sup>LONGACRE 86</td><td>MPS 22 π<sup>-</sup> p → K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> n</td></tr><tr><td>1496<sup>+9</sup><sub>-8</sub></td><td><sup>2</sup>CHABAUD 81</td><td>ASPK 6 π<sup>-</sup> p → K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup> n</td></tr><tr><td>1497<sup>+8</sup><sub>-9</sub></td><td>CHABAUD 81</td><td>ASPK 18.4 π<sup>-</sup> p → K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup> n</td></tr><tr><td>1492±29</td><td>GORLICH 80</td><td>ASPK 17 π<sup>-</sup> p polarized → K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup> n</td></tr><tr><td>1502±25</td><td><sup>3</sup>CORDEN 79</td><td>OMEG 12-15 π<sup>-</sup> p → π<sup>+</sup> π<sup>-</sup> n</td></tr><tr><td>1480</td><td>CRENNELL 66</td><td>HBC 6.0 π<sup>-</sup> p → K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> n</td></tr></table>

¹From a partial-wave analysis of data using a K-matrix formalism with 5 poles.

²CHABAUD 81 is a reanalysis of PAWLICKI 77 data.

³From an amplitude analysis where the $f'_2(1525)$ width and elasticity are in complete disagreement with the values obtained from $K\bar{K}$ channel, making the solution dubious.

## PRODUCED BY K<sup>±</sup> BEAM

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead></table>

The data in this block is included in the average printed for a previous datablock.

1518.0± 2.7 OUR AVERAGE Includes data from the datablock that follows this one.
Error includes scale factor of 2.9. See the ideogram below.

<table><tr><td>1526.8± 4.3</td><td>ASTON</td><td>88d</td><td>LASS 11 K<sup>-</sup> p → K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> Λ</td></tr><tr><td>1504 ±12</td><td>BOLONKIN</td><td>86</td><td>SPEC 40 K<sup>-</sup> p → K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> Y</td></tr><tr><td>1529 ± 3</td><td>ARMSTRONG</td><td>83b</td><td>OMEG 18.5 K<sup>-</sup> p → K<sup>-</sup> K<sup>+</sup>Λ</td></tr><tr><td>1521 ± 6</td><td>AGUILAR-...</td><td>81b</td><td>HBC 4.2 K<sup>-</sup> p → Λ K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1521 ± 3</td><td>ALHARRAN</td><td>81</td><td>HBC 8.25 K<sup>-</sup> p → Λ K̄</td></tr><tr><td>1522 ± 6</td><td>BARREIRO</td><td>77</td><td>HBC 4.15 K<sup>-</sup> p → Λ K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub></td></tr><tr><td>1528 ± 7</td><td>EVANGELIS...</td><td>77</td><td>OMEG 10 K<sup>-</sup> p → K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup> (Λ, Σ)</td></tr><tr><td>1527 ± 3</td><td>BRANDENB...</td><td>76c</td><td>ASPK 13 K<sup>-</sup> p → K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup> (Λ, Σ)</td></tr><tr><td>1519 ± 7</td><td>AGUILAR-...</td><td>72b</td><td>HBC 3.9,4.6 K<sup>-</sup> p → K̄(Λ, Σ)</td></tr></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>1514 ± 8</td><td>61</td><td>BINON</td><td>07</td><td>GAMS 32.5 K<sup>-</sup> p → ηη(Λ/Σ<sup>0</sup>)</td></tr><tr><td>1513 ±10</td><td><sup>1</sup>BARKOV</td><td>99</td><td>SPEC 40 K<sup>-</sup> p → K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> y</td><td></td></tr></table>

¹Systematic errors not estimated.
# Meson Particle Listings

$f'_2(1525)$

<figure><img src="image_475.png" /><figcaption>WEIGHTED AVERAGE
1518.0±2.7 (Error scaled by 2.9)</figcaption></figure>

PRODUCED BY $K^{\pm}$ BEAM (MeV)

## PRODUCED IN $e^{+}e^{-}$ ANNIHILATION AND PARTICLE DECAYS

VALUE (MeV) EVTS DOCUMENT ID TECN COMMENT

The data in this block is included in the average printed for a previous datablock.

**1514 ± 4 OUR AVERAGE** Error includes scale factor of 3.6. See the ideogram below.

<table><tbody><tr><td>1515.4</td><td>2.5<sup>+3.2</sup><sub>-7.6</sub></td><td>126K</td><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>23M BES3</td><td>J/ψ → γK<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1522.2</td><td>2.8<sup>+5.3</sup><sub>-2.0</sub></td><td></td><td>AAIJ</td><td>13AN LHCB</td><td>B<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> → J/ψK<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1513</td><td>5<sup>+4</sup><sub>-10</sub></td><td>5.5k</td><td>1 ABLIKIM</td><td>13N BES3</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → J/ψ → γηη</td></tr><tr><td>1525.3</td><td>1.2<sup>+3.7</sup><sub>-1.4</sub></td><td></td><td>UEHARA</td><td>13 BELL</td><td>γγ → K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub></td></tr><tr><td>1521</td><td>5</td><td></td><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>05 BES2</td><td>J/ψ → φK<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1518</td><td>1 ± 3</td><td></td><td>ABE</td><td>04 BELL</td><td>10.6 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1519</td><td>2<sup>+15</sup><sub>-5</sub></td><td></td><td>BAI</td><td>03G BES</td><td>J/ψ → γK<sup>-</sup>K<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1523</td><td>6</td><td>331</td><td>2 ACCIARRI</td><td>01H L3</td><td>91, 183–209 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub></td></tr><tr><td>1535</td><td>5 ± 4</td><td></td><td>ABREU</td><td>96C DLPH</td><td>Z<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup> + X</td></tr><tr><td>1516</td><td>5<sup>+9</sup><sub>-15</sub></td><td></td><td>BAI</td><td>96C BES</td><td>J/ψ → γK<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1531.6</td><td>±10.0</td><td></td><td>AUGUSTIN</td><td>88 DM2</td><td>J/ψ → γK<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1496</td><td>2</td><td></td><td>3 FALVARD</td><td>88 DM2</td><td>J/ψ → φK<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1525</td><td>±10 ±10</td><td></td><td>BALTRUSAIT...</td><td>87 MRK3</td><td>J/ψ → γK<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><caption>WEIGHTED AVERAGE
1514±4 (Error scaled by 3.6)</caption><tbody><tr><td>1518</td><td>3</td><td>4 KLEMPT</td><td>22 RVUE</td><td>J/ψ(1S) → γπ<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup>, γK<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub></td></tr><tr><td>1503</td><td>11</td><td></td><td>5 RODAS</td><td>22 RVUE</td><td>J/ψ(1S) → γ(ππ, K<sup>-</sup>K<sup>-</sup>)</td></tr><tr><td>1532</td><td>3 ± 6</td><td>644</td><td>6,7 DOBBS</td><td>15</td><td>J/ψ → γK<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1557</td><td>9 ± 3</td><td>113</td><td>6,7 DOBBS</td><td>15</td><td>ψ(2S) → γK<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1526</td><td>7</td><td>29</td><td>LEES</td><td>14H BABR</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>γ</td></tr><tr><td>1523</td><td>5</td><td>870</td><td>9 SCHEGELSKY</td><td>06A RVUE</td><td>γγ → K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub></td></tr><tr><td>1515</td><td>5</td><td></td><td>10 FALVARD</td><td>88 DM2</td><td>J/ψ → φK<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_476.png" /></figure>

$f'_2(1525)$ mass, $e^{+}e^{-}$ annihilation and particle decays (MeV)

## PRODUCED IN $\bar{p}p$ ANNIHILATION

VALUE (MeV) DOCUMENT ID TECN COMMENT

The data in this block is included in the average printed for a previous datablock.

**1512 ± 4 OUR AVERAGE**

<table><tbody><tr><td>1513</td><td>4</td><td>AMSLER</td><td>06 CBAR</td><td>0.9 p̄p → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1508</td><td>9</td><td>1 AMSLER</td><td>02 CBAR</td><td>0.9 p̄p → π<sup>0</sup>ηη, π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>1495.0 ± 1.1 ± 8.1</td><td>2 ALBRECHT</td><td>20 RVUE</td><td>0.9 p̄p → π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup>ηη, π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup>ηη, π<sup>0</sup>K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1530</td><td>± 12</td><td>3 ANISOVICH</td><td>09 RVUE</td><td>0.0 p̄p, π N</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ T-matrix pole.

² T-matrix pole, 4 poles, 4 channels, including scattering data from HYAMS 75 ($\pi\pi$), LONGACRE 86 ($K\bar{K}$), BINON 83 ($\eta\eta$).

³ 4-poles, 5-channel K matrix fit.

## CENTRAL PRODUCTION

VALUE (MeV) DOCUMENT ID TECN COMMENT

The data in this block is included in the average printed for a previous datablock.

<table><tbody><tr><td>1515 ± 15</td><td>BARBERIS</td><td>99 OMEG</td><td>450 pp → p<sub>S</sub>p<sub>F</sub> K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

## PRODUCED IN $ep$ COLLISIONS

VALUE (MeV) EVTS DOCUMENT ID TECN COMMENT

The data in this block is included in the average printed for a previous datablock.

<table><tbody><tr><td>1512 ± 3<sup>+1.4</sup><sub>-0.5</sub></td><td>1 CHEKANOV</td><td>08 ZEUS</td><td>ep → K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>X</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>1537 ± 9<sup>-8</sup></td><td>2 CHEKANOV</td><td>04 ZEUS</td><td>ep → K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub>X</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ In the SU(3) based model with a specific interference pattern of the $f_2(1270)$, $a_0^2(1320)$, and $f'_2(1525)$ mesons incoherently added to the $f_0(1710)$ and non-resonant background.

² Systematic errors not estimated.

## $f'_2(1525)$ WIDTH

VALUE (MeV) DOCUMENT ID

72 $\pm$7 OUR FIT

84.4±2.7 OUR AVERAGE Includes data from the 6 datablocks that follow this one. Error includes scale factor of 1.7. See the ideogram below.

<figure><img src="image_477.png" /><figcaption>WEIGHTED AVERAGE
84.4±2.7 (Error scaled by 1.7)</figcaption></figure>

$f'_2(1525)$ WIDTH (MeV)

<footnote n="1">¹ From partial wave analysis including all possible combinations of 0++, 2++, and 4++ resonances.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Supersedes ACCIARRI 95J.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ From an analysis including interference with $f_0(1710)$.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ Fit of the tensor partial waves from BES3 in the multipole basis.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ T-matrix pole from coupled channel K-matrix fit to data on $J/ψ \rightarrow \gamma\pi^0\pi^0$ (AB-LIKIM 15AE) and $J/ψ \rightarrow \gamma K_S^0 K_S^0$ (ABLIKIM 18AA).</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ Using CLEO-c data but not authored by the CLEO Collaboration.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷ From a fit to a Breit-Wigner line shape with fixed $Γ = 73$ MeV.</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸ From a fit to a Breit-Wigner line shape plus a second-order polynomial function. Systematic errors not evaluated.</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹ From analysis of L3 data at 91 and 183–209 GeV.</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ From an analysis ignoring interference with $f_0(1710)$.</footnote>
PRODUCED BY PION BEAM

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead></table>

The data in this block is included in the average printed for a previous datablock.

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>102 ± 42</td><td>TIKHOMIROV 03</td><td>SPEC</td><td>40.0 π⁻C → K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> K<sup>0</sup><sub>L</sub> X</td></tr><tr><td>108<sup>+5</sup><sub>-2</sub></td><td>1 LONGACRE</td><td>86</td><td>MPS 22 π⁻p → K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> n</td></tr><tr><td>69<sup>+22</sup><sub>-16</sub></td><td>2 CHABAUD</td><td>81</td><td>ASPK 6 π⁻p → K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup> n</td></tr><tr><td>137<sup>+23</sup><sub>-21</sub></td><td>CHABAUD</td><td>81</td><td>ASPK 18.4 π⁻p → K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup> n</td></tr><tr><td>150<sup>+83</sup><sub>-50</sub></td><td>GORLICH</td><td>80</td><td>ASPK 17 π⁻p polarized → K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup> n</td></tr><tr><td>165 ± 42</td><td>3 CORDEN</td><td>79</td><td>OMEG 12-15 π⁻p → π<sup>+</sup> π<sup>-</sup> n</td></tr><tr><td>92<sup>+39</sup><sub>-22</sub></td><td>4 POLYCHRO...</td><td>79</td><td>STRC 7 π⁻p → n K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From a partial-wave analysis of data using a K-matrix formalism with 5 poles.

² CHABAUD 81 is a reanalysis of PAWLICKI 77 data.

³ From an amplitude analysis where the $f'_2(1525)$ width and elasticity are in complete disagreement with the values obtained from $K\bar{K}$ channel, making the solution dubious.

⁴ From a fit to the $D$ with $f'_2(1270)-f'_2(1525)$ interference. Mass fixed at 1516 MeV.

PRODUCED BY K± BEAM

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead></table>

The data in this block is included in the average printed for a previous datablock.

82 ± 6 OUR AVERAGE

<table><tbody><tr><td>90 ± 12</td><td>ASTON</td><td>88d</td><td>LASS 11 K<sup>-</sup> p → K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> Λ</td></tr><tr><td>73 ± 18</td><td>BOLONKIN</td><td>86</td><td>SPEC 40 K<sup>-</sup> p → K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> Y</td></tr><tr><td>83 ± 15</td><td>ARMSTRONG</td><td>83b</td><td>OMEG 18.5 K<sup>-</sup> p → K<sup>-</sup> K<sup>+</sup> Λ</td></tr><tr><td>85 ± 16</td><td>AGUILAR-...</td><td>81b</td><td>HBC 4.2 K<sup>-</sup> p → Λ K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>80<sup>+14</sup><sub>-11</sub></td><td>572</td><td>81</td><td>HBC</td></tr><tr><td>80 ± 25</td><td>ALHARRAN</td><td>81</td><td>HBC 8.25 K<sup>-</sup> p → Λ K<sup>-</sup> K<sup>+</sup></td></tr><tr><td>69 ± 22</td><td>EVANGELIS...</td><td>77</td><td>OMEG 10 K<sup>-</sup> p → K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup> (Λ, Σ)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>AGUILAR-...</td><td>72b</td><td>HBC 3.9,4.6 K<sup>-</sup> p → K<sup>-</sup> K<sup>+</sup> (Λ, Σ)</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>92<sup>+25</sup><sub>-16</sub></td><td>61</td><td>BINON</td><td>07</td><td>GAMS 32.5 K<sup>-</sup> p → ηη(Λ/Σ<sup>0</sup>)</td></tr><tr><td>75 ± 20</td><td></td><td>1 BARKOV</td><td>99</td><td>SPEC 40 K<sup>-</sup> p → K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> Y</td></tr><tr><td>62<sup>+19</sup><sub>-14</sub></td><td>123</td><td>BARREIRO</td><td>77</td><td>HBC 4.15 K<sup>-</sup> p → Λ K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub></td></tr><tr><td>61 ± 8</td><td>120</td><td>BRANDENB...</td><td>76c</td><td>ASPK 13 K<sup>-</sup> p → K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup> (Λ, Σ)</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Systematic errors not estimated.

PRODUCED IN e⁺e⁻ ANNIHILATION AND PARTICLE DECAYS

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead></table>

The data in this block is included in the average printed for a previous datablock.

86 ± 4 OUR AVERAGE Error includes scale factor of 2.4. See the ideogram below.

<table><tbody><tr><td>64.0 ± 4.3<sup>+2.0</sup><sub>-6.1</sub></td><td>126K</td><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>23M BES3</td><td>J/ψ → γK<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>84 ± 6</td><td>5.5k</td><td>AAIJ</td><td>13AN LHCB</td><td>B̄<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> → J/ψ K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>75<sup>+12</sup><sub>-10</sub></td><td>5.5k</td><td>1 ABLIKIM</td><td>13N BES3</td><td>e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → J/ψ → γηη</td></tr><tr><td>82.9<sup>+2.1</sup><sub>-2.2</sub></td><td></td><td>UEHARA</td><td>13</td><td>γγ → K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub></td></tr><tr><td>77 ± 15</td><td></td><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>05</td><td>BELL</td></tr><tr><td>82 ± 2</td><td>± 3</td><td>ABE</td><td>04</td><td>BELL</td></tr><tr><td>75 ± 4</td><td>± 15</td><td>BAI</td><td>03G BES</td><td>J/ψ → γK<sup>-</sup> K<sup>+</sup></td></tr><tr><td>100 ± 15</td><td>331</td><td>2 ACCIARRI</td><td>01H L3</td><td>91, 183-209 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub></td></tr><tr><td>60 ± 20</td><td>± 19</td><td>ABREU</td><td>96c</td><td>DLPH Z<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup> + X</td></tr><tr><td>60 ± 23</td><td>± 13</td><td>BAI</td><td>96c</td><td>BES J/ψ → γK<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>103 ± 30</td><td></td><td>AUGUSTIN</td><td>88</td><td>DM2 J/ψ → γK<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>100 ± 3</td><td></td><td>3 FALVARD</td><td>88</td><td>DM2 J/ψ → φK<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>85 ± 35</td><td></td><td>BALTRUSAIT..</td><td>87</td><td>MRK3 J/ψ → γK<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>78 ± 6</td><td>4 KLEMPT</td><td>22</td><td>RVUE J/ψ(1S) → γπ<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup>, γK<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub></td></tr><tr><td>84 ± 15</td><td>5 RODAS</td><td>22</td><td>RVUE J/ψ(1S) → γ (ππ, K<span style="text-decoration: overline">K</span>)</td></tr><tr><td>37 ± 12</td><td>29</td><td>6 LEES</td><td>14H BABR e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup> γ</td></tr><tr><td>104 ± 10</td><td>870</td><td>7 SCHEGELSKY 06A</td><td>RVUE γγ → K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub></td></tr><tr><td>62 ± 10</td><td>88</td><td>8 FALVARD</td><td>DM2 J/ψ → φK<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From partial wave analysis including all possible combinations of 0<sup>++</sup>, 2<sup>++</sup>, and 4<sup>++</sup> resonances.

² Supersedes ACCIARRI 95J.

³ From an analysis including interference with $f_0(1710)$.

⁴ Fit of the tensor partial waves from BES3 in the multipole basis.

⁵ T-matrix pole from coupled channel K-matrix fit to data on $J/ψ \to \gamma\pi^0\pi^0$ (ABLIKIM 15AE) and $J/ψ \to \gamma K^0 S K^0 S$ (ABLIKIM 18AA).

⁶ From a fit to a Breit-Wigner line shape plus a second-order polynomial function. Systematic errors not evaluated.

⁷ From analysis of L3 data at 91 and 183-209 GeV.

⁸ From an analysis ignoring interference with $f_0(1710)$.

<figure><img src="image_478.png" /><figcaption>$f'_2(1525)$ width, $e^+e^-$ annihilation and particle decays (MeV)</figcaption></figure>

PRODUCED IN $\bar{p}p$ ANNIHILATION

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead></table>

The data in this block is included in the average printed for a previous datablock.

77 ± 5 OUR AVERAGE

<table><tbody><tr><td>76 ± 6</td><td>AMSLER</td><td>06</td><td>CBAR</td><td>0.9 p̄p → K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup> π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>79 ± 8</td><td>1 AMSLER</td><td>02</td><td>CBAR</td><td>0.9 p̄p → π<sup>0</sup>ηη, π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>104.8 ± 0.9 ± 9.8</td><td>2 ALBRECHT</td><td>20</td><td>RVUE</td><td>0.9 p̄p → π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup>η, π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup>η, π<sup>0</sup>K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>128 ± 20</td><td>3 ANISOVICH</td><td>09</td><td>RVUE</td><td>0.0 p̄p, πN</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ T-matrix pole.

² T-matrix pole, 4 poles, 4 channels, including scattering data from HYAMS 75 (ππ), LONGACRE 86 ($K\bar{K}$), BINON 83 ($\eta\eta$).

³ K-matrix, 4-poles, 5-channel fit.

CENTRAL PRODUCTION

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead></table>

The data in this block is included in the average printed for a previous datablock.

70 ± 25

BARBERIS 99 OMEG 450 pp → p<sub>S</sub>p<sub>F</sub> K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup>

PRODUCED IN ep COLLISIONS

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead></table>

The data in this block is included in the average printed for a previous datablock.

83 ± 9<sup>+5</sup><sub>-4</sub> ¹ CHEKANOV 08 ZEUS ep → K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> X

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

50<sup>+34</sup><sub>-22</sub> 84 ² CHEKANOV 04 ZEUS ep → K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> X

¹ In the SU(3) based model with a specific interference pattern of the $f_2(1270)$, $a_0^2(1320)$, and $f'_2(1525)$ mesons incoherently added to the $f_0(1710)$ and non-resonant background.

² Systematic errors not estimated.

$f'_2(1525)$ DECAY MODES

<table><thead><tr><th>Mode</th><th>Fraction (Γ<sub>i</sub>/Γ)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Γ<sub>1</sub> K<span style="text-decoration: overline">K</span></td><td>(88.8 ± 2.2) %</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>2</sub> ηη</td><td>(10.3 ± 2.2) %</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>3</sub> ππ</td><td>( 8.2 ± 1.5 ) × 10<sup>-3</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>4</sub> K<span style="text-decoration: overline">K</span>* (892) + c.c.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>5</sub> πK<span style="text-decoration: overline">K</span></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>6</sub> ππη</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>7</sub> π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>8</sub> γγ</td><td>( 1.12 ± 0.15 ) × 10<sup>-6</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

CONSTRAINED FIT INFORMATION

An overall fit to 2 partial widths, a combination of partial widths obtained from integrated cross sections, and 3 branching ratios uses 16 measurements and one constraint to determine 5 parameters. The overall fit has a $\chi^2 = 14.2$ for 12 degrees of freedom.

The following off-diagonal array elements are the correlation coefficients $\langle\delta x_i \delta x_j\rangle/(\delta x_i \delta x_j)$, in percent, from the fit to the branching fractions, $x_i \equiv \Gamma_i/\Gamma_{\text{total}}$. The fit constrains the $x_i$ whose labels appear in this array to sum to one.
$f'_2(1525)$

<table><tr><td>x<sub>2</sub></td><td>-100</td></tr><tr><td>x<sub>3</sub></td><td>-5</td><td>-1</td></tr><tr><td>x<sub>8</sub></td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Γ</td><td>-28</td><td>28</td><td>-1</td><td>-62</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>x<sub>1</sub></td><td>x<sub>2</sub></td><td>x<sub>3</sub></td><td>x<sub>8</sub></td></tr></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>Mode</th><th>Rate (MeV)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Γ<sub>1</sub> K<span style="text-decoration: overline">K</span></td><td>64 <sup>+6</sup><sub>-5</sub></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>2</sub> ηη</td><td>7.4 ±1.9</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>3</sub> ππ</td><td>0.59 ±0.12</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>8</sub> γγ</td><td>( 8.1 ±0.9 ) × 10<sup>-5</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

$f'_2(1525)$ PARTIAL WIDTHS

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(K<span style="text-decoration: overline">K</span>)</th><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th><th>Γ<sub>1</sub></th></tr></thead></table>

64 $\pm \frac{6}{5}$ OUR FIT

<table><tr><td>63 $\pm \frac{6}{5}$</td><td>1 LONGACRE 86</td><td>MPS</td><td>22 π<sup>-</sup> p → K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> n</td></tr></table>

¹ From a partial-wave analysis of data using a K-matrix formalism with 5 poles.

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(ηη)</th><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th><th>Γ<sub>2</sub></th></tr></thead></table>

7.4 $\pm 1.9$ OUR FIT

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>5.0 ± 0.8</td><td>870</td><td>1 SCHEGELSKY 06A</td><td>RVUE γγ → K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub></td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>24 $\pm \frac{3}{1}$</td><td>2 LONGACRE 86</td><td>MPS</td><td>22 π<sup>-</sup> p → K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> n</td></tr></table>

¹ From analysis of L3 data at 91 and 183–209 GeV, using Γ($f'_2(1525) → K\bar{K}$) = 68 MeV and SU(3) relations.

² From a partial-wave analysis of data using a K-matrix formalism with 5 poles.

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(ππ)</th><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th><th>Γ<sub>3</sub></th></tr></thead></table>

0.59 $\pm 0.12$ OUR FIT

<table><tr><td>1.4 $\pm \frac{1.0}{-0.5}$</td><td>1 LONGACRE 86</td><td>MPS</td><td>22 π<sup>-</sup> p → K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> n</td></tr></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>0.2 $\pm \frac{1.0}{-0.2}$</td><td>870</td><td>2 SCHEGELSKY 06A</td><td>RVUE γγ → K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub></td></tr></table>

¹ From a partial-wave analysis of data using a K-matrix formalism with 5 poles.

² From analysis of L3 data at 91 and 183–209 GeV, using Γ($f'_2(1525) → K\bar{K}$) = 68 MeV and SU(3) relations.

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(γγ)</th><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th><th>Γ<sub>8</sub></th></tr></thead></table>

0.081 $\pm 0.009$ OUR FIT

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>0.13 ± 0.03</td><td>870</td><td>1 SCHEGELSKY 06A</td><td>RVUE γγ → K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub></td></tr></table>

¹ From analysis of L3 data at 91 and 183–209 GeV, using Γ($f'_2(1525) → K\bar{K}$) = 68 MeV and SU(3) relations.

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(K<span style="text-decoration: overline">K</span>) / Γ<sub>total</sub></th><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th><th>Γ<sub>1</sub> / Γ</th></tr></thead></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>0.746 ± 0.002</td><td>1 ALBRECHT 20</td><td>RVUE</td><td>0.9 p → π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup>η, π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup>ηη, π<sup>0</sup>K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup></td></tr></table>

¹ Residue from T-matrix pole, 4 poles, 4 channels, including scattering data from HYAMS 75 (ππ), LONGACRE 86 (K\bar{K}), BINON 83 (ηη).

$f'_2(1525) Γ(Γ(γγ)/Γ(total))

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(K<span style="text-decoration: overline">K</span>) × Γ(γγ)/Γ<sub>total</sub></th><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th><th>Γ<sub>1</sub> Γ<sub>8</sub> / Γ</th></tr></thead></table>

0.072 ± 0.007 OUR FIT

0.072 ± 0.007 OUR AVERAGE

<table><tr><td>0.048 $\pm \frac{0.067}{-0.008}$</td><td>UEHARA</td><td>13</td><td>BELL</td><td>γγ → K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>0.0564 ± 0.0048 ± 0.0116</td><td>ABE</td><td>04</td><td>BELL</td><td>10.6 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>0.076 ± 0.006 ± 0.011</td><td>331</td><td>1</td><td>ACCIARRI</td><td>e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>0.067 ± 0.008 ± 0.015</td><td>2</td><td>ALBRECHT</td><td>90G</td><td>ARG</td><td>e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>0.11 $\pm \frac{0.03}{-0.02}$</td><td>BEHREND</td><td>89c</td><td>CELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>0.10 $\pm \frac{0.04}{-0.03}$</td><td>BERGER</td><td>88</td><td>PLUT</td><td>e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>0.12 ± 0.07 ± 0.04</td><td>2</td><td>AIHARA</td><td>86b</td><td>TPC</td><td>e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>0.11 ± 0.02 ± 0.04</td><td>2</td><td>ALTHOFF</td><td>83</td><td>TASS</td><td>e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> K\bar{K}</td><td></td></tr></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>0.0314 ± 0.0050 ± 0.0077</td><td>3 ALBRECHT 90G</td><td>ARG</td><td>e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup></td></tr></table>

¹ Supersedes ACCIARRI 95J. From analysis of L3 data at 91 and 183–209 GeV,

² Using an incoherent background.

³ Using a coherent background.

$f'_2(1525)$ BRANCHING RATIOS

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(ηη) / Γ<sub>total</sub></th><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th><th>Γ<sub>2</sub> / Γ</th></tr></thead></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>0.059 ± 0.003 ± 0.026</td><td>1 ALBRECHT 20</td><td>RVUE</td><td>0.9 p → π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup>η, π<sup>0</sup>ηη, π<sup>0</sup>K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup></td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>seen</td><td>UEHARA 10A</td><td>BELL</td><td>10.6 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup>ηη</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>0.10 ± 0.03</td><td>2 PROKOSHKIN 91</td><td>GAM4</td><td>300 π<sup>-</sup> p → π<sup>-</sup> pηη</td></tr></table>

¹ Residue from T-matrix pole, 4 poles, 4 channels, including scattering data from HYAMS 75 (ππ), LONGACRE 86 (K\bar{K}), BINON 83 (ηη).

² Combining results of GAM4 with those of WA76 on K\bar{K} central production and results of CBAL, MRK3 and DM2 on J/ψ → γηη.

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(ηη) / Γ(K<span style="text-decoration: overline">K</span>)</th><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th><th>Γ<sub>2</sub> / Γ<sub>1</sub></th></tr></thead></table>

0.116 $\pm 0.028$ OUR FIT

0.115 $\pm 0.028$ OUR AVERAGE

<table><tr><td>0.119 ± 0.015 ± 0.036</td><td>61</td><td>1 BINON</td><td>07</td><td>GAMS</td><td>32.5 K<sup>-</sup> p → ηη(Λ/Σ<sup>0</sup>)</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>0.11 ± 0.04</td><td>2 PROKOSHKIN 91</td><td>GAM4</td><td>300 π<sup>-</sup> p → π<sup>-</sup> pηη</td></tr></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>&lt; 0.14</td><td>90</td><td>BARBERIS 00E</td><td>450 p p → pFηηp<sub>S</sub></td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>&lt; 0.50</td><td>BARNES</td><td>HBC</td><td>4,6,5,0 K<sup>-</sup> p</td></tr></table>

¹ Using the compilation of the cross sections for $f'_2(1525)$ production in K\bar{K} collisions from ASTON 88d.

² Combining results of GAM4 with those of WA76 on K\bar{K} central production and results of CBAL, MRK3 and DM2 on J/ψ → γηη.

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(ππ) / Γ<sub>total</sub></th><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th><th>Γ<sub>3</sub> / Γ</th></tr></thead></table>

0.82 $\pm 0.16$ OUR FIT

0.75 $\pm 0.16$ OUR AVERAGE

<table><tr><td>0.7 ± 0.2</td><td>COSTA 80</td><td>OMEG</td><td>10 π<sup>-</sup> p → K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup> n</td></tr><tr><td>2.7 $\pm \frac{7.1}{-1.3}$</td><td>1 GORLICH 80</td><td>ASPK</td><td>17,18 π<sup>-</sup> p</td></tr><tr><td>0.75 ± 0.25</td><td>1.2 MARTIN 79</td><td>RVUE</td><td></td></tr></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>3.4 ± 1.5 ± 1.0</td><td>3 ALBRECHT 20</td><td>RVUE</td><td>0.9 p → π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup>η, π<sup>0</sup>ηη, π<sup>0</sup>K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>&lt; 6</td><td>95</td><td>AGUILAR-... 81B</td><td>HBC</td><td>4.2 K<sup>-</sup> p → ΛK<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>19 ± 3</td><td>95</td><td>CORDEN 79</td><td>OMEG</td><td>12–15 π<sup>-</sup> p → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup> n</td></tr><tr><td>&lt; 4.5</td><td>95</td><td>BARREIRO 77</td><td>HBC</td><td>4.15 K<sup>-</sup> p → ΛK<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub></td></tr><tr><td>1.2 ± 0.4</td><td>1 PAWLICKI 77</td><td>SPEC</td><td>6 πN → K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup> N</td></tr><tr><td>&lt; 6.3</td><td>90</td><td>BRANDENB... 76c</td><td>ASPK</td><td>13 K<sup>-</sup> p → K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup>(Λ,Σ)</td></tr><tr><td>&lt; 0.86</td><td>1 BEUSCH 75b</td><td>OSPK</td><td>8.9 π<sup>-</sup> p → K<sup>0</sup><sub>K</sub> θ<sub>0</sub></td></tr></table>

¹ Assuming that the $f'_2(1525)$ is produced by an one-pion exchange production mechanism.

² MARTIN 79 uses the PAWLICKI 77 data with different input value of the $f'_2(1525) → K\bar{K}$ branching ratio.

³ Residue from T-matrix pole, 4 poles, 4 channels, including scattering data from HYAMS 75 (ππ), LONGACRE 86 (K\bar{K}), BINON 83 (ηη).

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(ππ) / Γ(K<span style="text-decoration: overline">K</span>)</th><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th><th>Γ<sub>3</sub> / Γ<sub>1</sub></th></tr></thead></table>

<table><tr><td>0.0092 ± 0.0018 OUR FIT</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>0.075 ± 0.035</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(K<span style="text-decoration: overline">K</span>* (892) + c.c.) + Γ(K<span style="text-decoration: overline">K</span>) / Γ(K<span style="text-decoration: overline">K</span>)</th><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th><th>(Γ<sub>4</sub> + Γ<sub>5</sub>) / Γ<sub>1</sub></th></tr></thead></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>&lt;0.35</td><td>95</td><td>AGUILAR-... 72B</td><td>HBC</td><td>3,9,4,6 K<sup>-</sup> p</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;0.4</td><td>67</td><td>AMMAR 67</td><td>HBC</td><td></td></tr></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(ππη) / Γ(K<span style="text-decoration: overline">K</span>)</th><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th><th>Γ<sub>6</sub> / Γ<sub>1</sub></th></tr></thead></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>&lt;0.41</td><td>95</td><td>AGUILAR-... 72B</td><td>HBC</td><td>3,9,4,6 K<sup>-</sup> p</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;0.3</td><td>67</td><td>AMMAR 67</td><td>HBC</td><td></td></tr></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>-</sup>) / Γ(K<span style="text-decoration: overline">K</span>)</th><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th><th>Γ<sub>7</sub> / Γ<sub>1</sub></th></tr></thead></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>&lt;0.32</td><td>95</td><td>AGUILAR-... 72B</td><td>HBC</td><td>3,9,4,6 K<sup>-</sup> p</td></tr></table>

$f'_2(1525)$ REFERENCES

<table><tr><td>ABLIKIM 23M</td><td>JHEP 2303 121</td><td>M. Ablikim et al.</td><td>(BESIII Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>KLEMPT 22</td><td>PL B830 137171</td><td>E. Klempt et al.</td><td>(BONN)</td></tr><tr><td>RODAS 22</td><td>EPJ C82 80</td><td>A. Rodas et al.</td><td>(JPAC Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ALBRECHT 20</td><td>EPJ C80 453</td><td>M. Albrecht et al.</td><td>(Crystal Barrel Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ABLIKIM 18AA</td><td>PR D98 072003</td><td>M. Ablikim et al.</td><td>(BESIII Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ABLIKIM 15AE</td><td>PR D92 052003</td><td>M. Ablikim et al.</td><td>(BESIII Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>DOBBS 15</td><td>PR D91 205006</td><td>S. Dobbs et al.</td><td>(NWES)</td></tr><tr><td>LEES 14H</td><td>PR D89 092002</td><td>J.P. Lees et al.</td><td>(BABAR Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AALI 13AN</td><td>PR D87 072004</td><td>R. Aalij et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ABLIKIM 13N</td><td>PR D87 092009</td><td>M. Ablikim et al.</td><td>(BESIII Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>UEHARA 13</td><td>PTEP 2013 123C01</td><td>S. Uehara et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr></table>
See key on page 1171

# Meson Particle Listings

$f_2'(1525)$, $f_2(1565)$

<table><tbody><tr><td>UEHARA</td><td>10A</td><td>PR D82 114031</td><td>S. Uehara et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>09</td><td>UMP A24 2481</td><td>V.V. Anisovich, A.V. Sarantsev</td><td>(PNPI)</td></tr><tr><td>CHEKANOV</td><td>08</td><td>PRL 101 112003</td><td>S. Chekanov et al.</td><td>(ZEUS Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BINON</td><td>07</td><td>PAN 70 1713</td><td>F. Binon et al.</td><td>(GAMS Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Translated from YAF 70 1758.</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>AMSLER</td><td>06</td><td>PL B639 165</td><td>C. Amsler et al.</td><td>(Crystal Barrel Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>SCHEGELSKY</td><td>06A</td><td>EPJ A27 207</td><td>V.A. Schegelsky et al.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>05</td><td>PL B607 243</td><td>M. Ablikim et al.</td><td>(BES Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ABE</td><td>04</td><td>EPJ C32 323</td><td>K. Abe et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>CHEKANOV</td><td>04</td><td>PL B578 33</td><td>S. Chekanov et al.</td><td>(ZEUS Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BAI</td><td>03G</td><td>PR D68 052003</td><td>J.Z. Bai et al.</td><td>(BES Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>TIKOMIROV</td><td>03</td><td>PAN 66 828</td><td>G.D. Tikhomirov et al.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Translated from YAF 66 860.</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>AMSLER</td><td>02</td><td>EPJ C23 29</td><td>C. Amsler et al.</td><td>(Crystal Barrel Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ACCIARRI</td><td>01H</td><td>PL B501 173</td><td>M. Acciarri et al.</td><td>(L3 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BARBERIS</td><td>00E</td><td>PL B479 59</td><td>D. Barberis et al.</td><td>(WA 102 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BARBERIS</td><td>99</td><td>PL B453 305</td><td>D. Barberis et al.</td><td>(Omega Expt.)</td></tr><tr><td>BARKOV</td><td>99</td><td>JETPL 70 248</td><td>B.P. Bai et al.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Translated from ZETF 70 242.</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ABREU</td><td>96C</td><td>PL B379 309</td><td>P. Abreu et al.</td><td>(DELPHI Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BAI</td><td>96C</td><td>PL B77 3959</td><td>J.Z. Bai et al.</td><td>(BES Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ACCIARRI</td><td>95J</td><td>PL B363 118</td><td>M. Acciarri et al.</td><td>(L3 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>PROKOSHKIN</td><td>91</td><td>SPD 36 155</td><td>Y.D. Prokoshkin</td><td>(GAM2 and GAM4 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Translated from DANS 316 900.</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ALBRECHT</td><td>90G</td><td>ZPHY C48 183</td><td>H. Albrecht et al.</td><td>(ARGUS Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BEHREND</td><td>89C</td><td>ZPHY C43 91</td><td>H.J. Behrend et al.</td><td>(CELLO Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ASTON</td><td>88D</td><td>NP B301 525</td><td>D. Aston et al.</td><td>(SLAC, NAGO, CINC, INUS)</td></tr><tr><td>AUGUSTIN</td><td>88</td><td>PRL 60 2238</td><td>J.E. Augustin et al.</td><td>(DM2 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BERGER</td><td>88</td><td>ZPHY C37 329</td><td>C. Berger et al.</td><td>(PLUTO Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>FALVARD</td><td>88</td><td>PR D38 2706</td><td>A. Falhard et al.</td><td>(CLER, FRAS, LALO<sup>+</sup>)</td></tr><tr><td>AUGUSTIN</td><td>87</td><td>ZPHY C36 369</td><td>J.E. Augustin et al.</td><td>(LALO<sup>+</sup>, CLER, FRAS<sup>+</sup>)</td></tr><tr><td>BALTRUSAIT...</td><td>87</td><td>PR D35 2077</td><td>R.M. Baltrusaitis et al.</td><td>(Mark III Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AIHARA</td><td>86B</td><td>PRL 57 404</td><td>H. Alhara et al.</td><td>(TPC-2γ Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BOLONKIN</td><td>86</td><td>SJPN 43 776</td><td>B.V. Bolonkin et al.</td><td>(ITEP) JP</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Translated from YAF 43 1211.</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>LONGACRE</td><td>86</td><td>PL B177 223</td><td>R.S. Longacre et al.</td><td>(BNL, BRAN, CUNY<sup>+</sup>)</td></tr><tr><td>ALTHOFF</td><td>83</td><td>PL 121B 216</td><td>M. Althoff et al.</td><td>(TASSO Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ARMSTRONG</td><td>83B</td><td>NP B224 193</td><td>T.A. Aguilar et al.</td><td>(BARI, BIRM, CERN<sup>+</sup>)</td></tr><tr><td>BINON</td><td>83</td><td>NC 78A 313</td><td>F.G. Binon et al.</td><td>(BELG, LAPP, SERP<sup>+</sup>)</td></tr><tr><td>AGUILAR...</td><td>81B</td><td>ZPHY C8 313</td><td>M. Aguilar-Benitez et al.</td><td>(CERN, CDEF<sup>+</sup>)</td></tr><tr><td>ALHARRAN</td><td>81</td><td>NP B191 26</td><td>S. Al-Harran et al.</td><td>(BIRM, CERN, GLAS<sup>+</sup>)</td></tr><tr><td>CHABAUD</td><td>81</td><td>APP B12 575</td><td>V. Chabaud et al.</td><td>(CERN, CRAC, MPIM<sup>+</sup>)</td></tr><tr><td>COSTA</td><td>80</td><td>NP B175 402</td><td>G. Costa et al.</td><td>(BARI, BONN, CERN, GLAS<sup>+</sup>)</td></tr><tr><td>GORLICH</td><td>80</td><td>NP B174 16</td><td>L. Gorlach et al.</td><td>(CRAC, MPIM, CERN<sup>+</sup>)</td></tr><tr><td>CORDEN</td><td>79</td><td>NP B157 250</td><td>M.J. Corden et al.</td><td>(BIRM, RHEL, TELA<sup>+</sup>) JP</td></tr><tr><td>MARTIN</td><td>79</td><td>A.D. Martin, E.N. Ozmutlu</td><td>A.D. Martin, E.N. Ozmutlu</td><td>(DURH) JP</td></tr><tr><td>POLYCHRO...</td><td>79</td><td>PR D19 1317</td><td>V.A. Polychronakos et al.</td><td>(NDAM, ANL)</td></tr><tr><td>BARRREIRO</td><td>77</td><td>NP B121 237</td><td>F. Barreiro et al.</td><td>(CERN, AMST, NIJM<sup>+</sup>)</td></tr><tr><td>EVANGELIS...</td><td>77</td><td>NP B127 384</td><td>C. Evangelista et al.</td><td>(BARI, BONN, CERN<sup>+</sup>)</td></tr><tr><td>PAWLIKCI</td><td>77</td><td>PR D15 3196</td><td>A.J. Pawliki et al.</td><td>(ANL) IJP</td></tr><tr><td>BRANDENB...</td><td>76C</td><td>B104 413</td><td>G.W. Brandenburg et al.</td><td>(SLAC)</td></tr><tr><td>BEUSCH</td><td>75B</td><td>PL 60B 101</td><td>W. Beusch et al.</td><td>(CERN, ETH)</td></tr><tr><td>HYAMS</td><td>75</td><td>NP B100 205</td><td>B.D. Hyams et al.</td><td>(CERN, MPIM<sup>+</sup>)</td></tr><tr><td>AGUILAR...</td><td>72B</td><td>PR D6 29</td><td>M. Aguilar-Benitez et al.</td><td>(BNL)</td></tr><tr><td>AMMAR</td><td>67</td><td>PRL 19 1071</td><td>R. Ammar et al.</td><td>(NWES, ANL) JP</td></tr><tr><td>BARNES</td><td>67</td><td>PRL 19 964</td><td>V.E. Barnes et al.</td><td>(BNL, SYRA) IJPC</td></tr><tr><td>CRENNELL</td><td>66</td><td>PRL 16 1025</td><td>D.J. Crennell et al.</td><td>(BNL) I</td></tr></tbody></table>

$f_2(1565)$

$I^G(JPC) = 0^{+}(2^{++})$

Seen mostly in antinucleon-nucleon annihilation. See the review on "Spectroscopy of Light Meson Resonances."

$f_2(1565)$ T-MATRIX POLE $\sqrt{s}$

Note that $\Gamma = -2 \text{Im}(\sqrt{s})$.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="4">(1495-1560) - i (40-110) OUR ESTIMATE</td></tr><tr><td>(1560 ± 15)</td><td>- i (140 ± 20)</td><td>1 ANISOVICH</td><td>09 RVUE 0.0 $\bar{p}p, \pi N$</td></tr><tr><td>(1552 ± 13)</td><td>- i (57 ± 12)</td><td>AMSLER</td><td>02 CBAR 0.9 $\bar{p}p \rightarrow \pi^0 \eta \eta$</td></tr><tr><td>(1507 ± 15)</td><td>- i (65 ± 10)</td><td>BERTIN</td><td>97C OBLX $\pi^0 \pi^0 \pi^0$</td></tr><tr><td>(1534 ± 20)</td><td>- i (90 ± 30)</td><td>2 ABELE</td><td>96C RVUE Compilation</td></tr><tr><td>(~ 1552)</td><td>- i (~ 71)</td><td>3 AMSLER</td><td>95D CBAR 0.0 $\bar{p}p \rightarrow \pi^0 \pi^0 \pi^0$, $\pi^0 \eta \eta$, $\pi^0 \pi^0 \eta$</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹On sheet II in a two-pole solution.

²T-matrix pole, large coupling to $\rho\rho$ and $\omega\omega$, could be $f_2(1640)$.

³Coupled-channel analysis of AMSLER 95B, AMSLER 95C, and AMSLER 94D.

$f_2(1565)$ MASS

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="4">1571 ± 13 OUR AVERAGE</td></tr><tr><td>1575 ± 18</td><td>1 BERTIN</td><td>98</td><td>OBLX 0.05-0.405 $\bar{p}p \rightarrow \pi^+ \pi^+ \pi^-$</td></tr><tr><td>1565 ± 20</td><td>1 MAY</td><td>90</td><td>0.0 $\bar{p}p \rightarrow \pi^+ \pi^- \pi^0$</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>1590 ± 10</td><td>AMELIN</td><td>06</td><td>VES 36 $\pi^- p \rightarrow \omega \pi \pi$</td></tr><tr><td>1550 ± 10 ± 20</td><td>AMELIN</td><td>00</td><td>VES 37 $\pi^- p \rightarrow \eta \pi^+ \pi^- \pi^-$</td></tr><tr><td>1598 ± 11 ± 9</td><td>BAKER</td><td>99b</td><td>SPEC $0 \bar{p}p \rightarrow \omega \pi \pi^0$</td></tr><tr><td>1598 ± 72</td><td>BALOSHIN</td><td>95</td><td>SPEC 40 $\pi^- C \rightarrow K_S^0 K_S^0 X$</td></tr><tr><td>1566 ± 80</td><td>2 ANISOVICH</td><td>94</td><td>0.0 $\bar{p}p \rightarrow 3\pi^0, \eta \eta \pi^0$</td></tr><tr><td>~ 50</td><td>ADAMO</td><td>93</td><td>OBLX $\bar{p}p \rightarrow \pi^+ \pi^+ \pi^-$</td></tr><tr><td>1502 ± 9</td><td>3 ARMSTRONG</td><td>E760</td><td>$\bar{p}p \rightarrow \pi^0 \eta \eta \rightarrow 6 \gamma$</td></tr><tr><td>1488 ± 10</td><td>3 ARMSTRONG</td><td>E760</td><td>$\bar{p}p \rightarrow 3\pi^0 \rightarrow 6 \gamma$</td></tr><tr><td>1508 ± 10</td><td>3 ARMSTRONG</td><td>E760</td><td>$\bar{p}p \rightarrow \eta \pi^0 \pi^0 \rightarrow 6 \gamma$</td></tr><tr><td>1525 ± 10</td><td>3 ARMSTRONG</td><td>E760</td><td>$\bar{p}p \rightarrow \eta \pi^0 \pi^0 \rightarrow 6 \gamma$</td></tr><tr><td>~ 1504</td><td>4 WEIDENAUER</td><td>93</td><td>0.0 $\bar{p}N \rightarrow 3\pi^- 2\pi^+$</td></tr><tr><td>1540 ± 15</td><td>3 ADAMO</td><td>92</td><td>OBLX $\bar{p}p \rightarrow \pi^+ \pi^+ \pi^-$</td></tr><tr><td>1515 ± 10</td><td>5 AKER</td><td>91</td><td>CBAR 0.0 $\bar{p}p \rightarrow 3\pi^0$</td></tr><tr><td>1477 ± 5</td><td>BRIDGES</td><td>86c</td><td>DBC 0.0 $\bar{p}N \rightarrow 3\pi^- 2\pi^+$</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹Breit-Wigner mass.

²From a simultaneous analysis of the annihilations $\bar{p}p \rightarrow 3\pi^0, \pi^0 \eta \eta$ including AKER 91 data.

³ $J^P$ not determined, could be partly $f_0(1500)$.

⁴ $J^P$ not determined.

⁵Superseded by AMSLER 95B.

$f_2(1565)$ WIDTH

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="4">132 ± 23 OUR AVERAGE</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Error includes scale factor of 1.1.</td></tr><tr><td>119 ± 24</td><td>1 BERTIN</td><td>98</td><td>OBLX 0.05-0.405 $\bar{p}p \rightarrow \pi^+ \pi^+ \pi^-$</td></tr><tr><td>170 ± 40</td><td>1 MAY</td><td>90</td><td>ASTE 0.0 $\bar{p}p \rightarrow \pi^+ \pi^- \pi^0$</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>140 ± 11</td><td>1,2 AMELIN</td><td>06</td><td>VES 36 $\pi^- p \rightarrow \omega \pi \pi$</td></tr><tr><td>130 ± 20 ± 40</td><td>1 AMELIN</td><td>00</td><td>VES 37 $\pi^- p \rightarrow \eta \pi^+ \pi^- \pi^-$</td></tr><tr><td>263 ± 101</td><td>BALOSHIN</td><td>95</td><td>SPEC 40 $\pi^- C \rightarrow K_S^0 K_S^0 X$</td></tr><tr><td>166 ± 80</td><td>3 ANISOVICH</td><td>94</td><td>CBAR 0.0 $\bar{p}p \rightarrow 3\pi^0, \eta \eta \pi^0$</td></tr><tr><td>~ 20</td><td>4 ADAMO</td><td>93</td><td>OBLX $\bar{p}p \rightarrow \pi^+ \pi^+ \pi^-$</td></tr><tr><td>130 ± 10</td><td>5 ARMSTRONG</td><td>93c</td><td>E760 $\bar{p}p \rightarrow \pi^0 \eta \eta \rightarrow 6 \gamma$</td></tr><tr><td>148 ± 27</td><td>5 ARMSTRONG</td><td>93d</td><td>E760 $\bar{p}p \rightarrow 3\pi^0 \rightarrow 6 \gamma$</td></tr><tr><td>103 ± 15</td><td>5 ARMSTRONG</td><td>93d</td><td>E760 $\bar{p}p \rightarrow \eta \pi^0 \pi^0 \rightarrow 6 \gamma$</td></tr><tr><td>111 ± 10</td><td>5 ARMSTRONG</td><td>93d</td><td>E760 $\bar{p}p \rightarrow \eta \pi^0 \pi^0 \rightarrow 6 \gamma$</td></tr><tr><td>~ 206</td><td>6 WEIDENAUER</td><td>93</td><td>ASTE 0.0 $\bar{p}N \rightarrow 3\pi^- 2\pi^+$</td></tr><tr><td>132 ± 37</td><td>5 ADAMO</td><td>92</td><td>OBLX $\bar{p}p \rightarrow \pi^+ \pi^+ \pi^-$</td></tr><tr><td>120 ± 10</td><td>7 AKER</td><td>91</td><td>CBAR 0.0 $\bar{p}p \rightarrow 3\pi^0$</td></tr><tr><td>116 ± 9</td><td>BRIDGES</td><td>86c</td><td>DBC 0.0 $\bar{p}N \rightarrow 3\pi^- 2\pi^+$</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹Breit-Wigner width.

²Supersedes the $\omega\omega$ state of BELADIDZE 92B earlier assigned to the $f_2(1640)$.

³From a simultaneous analysis of the annihilations $\bar{p}p \rightarrow 3\pi^0, \pi^0 \eta \eta$ including AKER 91 data.

⁴Supersedes ADAMO 92.

⁵ $J^P$ not determined, could be partly $f_0(1500)$.

⁶ $J^P$ not determined.

⁷Superseded by AMSLER 95B.

$f_2(1565)$ DECAY MODES

<table><thead><tr><th>Mode</th><th>Fraction ($\Gamma_f/\Gamma$)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>$\Gamma_1$</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>$\Gamma_2$</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>$\Gamma_3$</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>$\Gamma_4$</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>$\Gamma_5$</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>$\Gamma_6$</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>$\Gamma_7$</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>$\Gamma_8$</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>$\Gamma_9$</td><td>seen</td></tr></tbody></table>

$f_2(1565)$ PARTIAL WIDTHS

<table><thead><tr><th>$\Gamma(\eta\eta)$</th><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="6">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>1.2 ± 0.3</td><td>870</td><td>1 SCHEGELSKY 06A</td><td>RVUE $\gamma\gamma \rightarrow K_S^0 K_S^0$</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

$1.2 \pm 0.3$ 870 1 SCHEGELSKY 06A RVUE $\gamma\gamma \rightarrow K_S^0 K_S^0$

¹From analysis of L3 data at 91 and 183-209 GeV, using $f_2(1565)$ mass of 1570 MeV, width of 160 MeV, $\Gamma(\pi\pi) = 25$ MeV, and SU(3) relations.

<table><thead><tr><th>$\Gamma(K\bar{K})$</th><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="6">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>2.0 ± 1.0</td><td>870</td><td>1 SCHEGELSKY 06A</td><td>RVUE $\gamma\gamma \rightarrow K_S^0 K_S^0$</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹From analysis of L3 data at 91 and 183-209 GeV, using $f_2(1565)$ mass of 1570 MeV, width of 160 MeV, $\Gamma(\pi\pi) = 25$ MeV, and SU(3) relations.

<table><thead><tr><th>$\Gamma(\gamma\gamma)$</th><th>VALUE (keV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="6">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>0.70 ± 0.14</td><td>870</td><td>1 SCHEGELSKY 06A</td><td>RVUE $\gamma\gamma \rightarrow K_S^0 K_S^0$</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹From analysis of L3 data at 91 and 183-209 GeV, using $f_2(1565)$ mass of 1570 MeV, width of 160 MeV, $\Gamma(\pi\pi) = 25$ MeV, and SU(3) relations.

$f_2(1565)$ BRANCHING RATIOS

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="4">$\Gamma(\pi\pi)/\Gamma_{\text{total}}$</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

seen BAKER 99B SPEC 0 $\bar{p}p \rightarrow \omega \pi \pi^0$
# Meson Particle Listings

$f_2(1565)$, $\rho(1570)$, $h_1(1595)$

$$ \Gamma(\pi^{+} \pi^{-})/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{2}/\Gamma $$

**VALUE** DOCUMENT ID TECN COMMENT

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

seen BERTIN 98 OBLX 0.05–0.405 $\bar{\pi}p \to$

not seen 1 ANISOVICH 94B RVUE $\bar{\pi}p \to \pi^{+} \pi^{-} \pi^{0}$

seen MAY 89 ASTE $\bar{\pi}p \to \pi^{+} \pi^{-} \pi^{0}$

¹ ANISOVICH 94B is from a reanalysis of MAY 90.

$$ \Gamma(\pi^{0} \pi^{0})/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{3}/\Gamma $$

**VALUE** DOCUMENT ID TECN COMMENT

seen AMSLER 95B CBAR 0.0 $\bar{\pi}p \to 3\pi^{0}$

$$ \Gamma(\pi^{+} \pi^{-})/\Gamma(\rho^{0} \rho^{0}) \qquad \Gamma_{2}/\Gamma_{4} $$

**VALUE** DOCUMENT ID TECN COMMENT

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

0.042 ± 0.013 BRIDGES 86B DBC $\bar{\pi}N \to 3\pi^2 2\pi^+$

$$ \Gamma(\eta\eta)/\Gamma(\pi^{0}\pi^{0}) \qquad \Gamma_{6}/\Gamma_{3} $$

**VALUE** DOCUMENT ID TECN COMMENT

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

0.024 ± 0.005 ± 0.012 ¹ ARMSTRONG 93C E760 $\bar{\pi}p \to \pi^{0} \eta \eta \to 6\gamma$

¹ J$^P$ not determined, could be partly $f_0(1500)$.

$$ \Gamma(\omega\omega)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{7}/\Gamma $$

**VALUE** DOCUMENT ID TECN COMMENT

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

seen BAKER 99B SPEC 0 $\bar{\pi}p \to \omega\pi^0$

## $f_2(1565)$ REFERENCES

ANISOVICH 09 IJMP A24 2481 V.V. Anisovich, A.V. Sarantsev (PNPI)

AMELIN 06 PAN 69 690 D.V. Amelin et al. (VES Collab.)

SCHEGELSKY 06A EPJ A27 207 V.A. Schegelsky et al.

AMSLER 02 EPJ C23 29 C. Amsler et al. (Crystal Barrel Collab.)

AMELIN 00 NP A668 83 D. Amelin et al. (VES Collab.)

BAKER 99B PL B467 147 C. A. Baker et al. (OBELIX Collab.)

BERTIN 98 PR D57 55 A. Bertin et al. (OBELIX Collab.)

BERTIN 97C PL B408 475 A. Bertin et al. (OBELIX Collab.)

ABELE 96C NP A609 562 A. Abele et al. (Crystal Barrel Collab.)

AMSLER 95B PL B342 433 C. Amsler et al. (Crystal Barrel Collab.)

AMSLER 95C PL B353 571 C. Amsler et al. (Crystal Barrel Collab.)

AMSLER 95D PL B355 425 C. Amsler et al. (Crystal Barrel Collab.)

BALOSHIN 95 PAN 58 46 O.N. Baloshin et al. (ITEP)

AMSLER 94D PL B333 277 C. Amsler et al. (Crystal Barrel Collab.)

ANISOVICH 94B PL B323 233 V.V. Anisovich et al. (LOQM)

ANISOVICH 94B PR D50 1972 V.V. Anisovich et al.

ADAMO 93 NP A558 13C A. Adamo et al. (OBELIX Collab.)

ARMSTRONG 93C PL B307 394 T.A. Armstrong et al. (FNAL, FERR, GENO+)

ARMSTRONG 93D PL B307 399 T.A. Armstrong et al. (FNAL, FERR, GENO+)

WEIDENAUER 93 ZPHY C59 387 P. Weidenauer et al. (ASTERIX Collab.)

ADAMO 92 PL B287 368 A. Adamo et al. (OBELIX Collab.)

BELADIDZE 92B ZPHY C54 367 G.M. Beladidze et al. (VES Collab.)

AKER 91 PL B260 249 E. Aker et al. (Crystal Barrel Collab.)

MAY 90 ZPHY C46 203 P. May et al. (ASTERIX Collab.)

MAY 89 PL B225 450 B. May et al. (ASTERIX Collab.) IJP

BRIDGES 86B PRL 56 215 D.L. Bridges et al. (SYRA, CASE)

BRIDGES 86C PRL 57 1534 D.L. Bridges et al. (SYRA)

$$ \rho(1570) $$

$$ I^{G}(J^{PC}) = 1^{+}(1^{-}) $$

## Omitted from Summary Table

May be an OZI-violating decay mode of $\rho(1700)$. See the review on "Spectroscopy of Light Meson Resonances."

## $\rho(1570)$ MASS

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1570 ± 36 ± 62</td><td>54</td><td>¹ AUBERT</td><td>08S</td><td>BABR 10.6 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → φπ<sup>0</sup>γ</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

1614 ± 2 ² ACHASOV 23A SND e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → ωπ<sup>0</sup>

1585 ± 15 ³ ACHASOV 20C SND 1.3–2.0 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup> π<sup>0</sup>

1480 ± 40 ⁴ BITYUKOV 87 SPEC 32.5 π<sup>-</sup> p → φπ<sup>0</sup> n

¹ From the fit with two resonances.

² From a vector dominance fit to the Born cross section between 1.05 and 2.0 GeV with $\rho(770)$, $\rho(1570)$, $\rho(1700)$, $\rho(2150)$. The fit also uses SND data from the VEPP-2M collider below 1.02 GeV and from LEES 17H and ABLIKIM 21A above 1.5 GeV.

³ From a fit using a two resonance model in which the mass and width of the other resonance are fixed at the $\rho(1700)$ values from PDG 20.

⁴ Systematic errors not estimated.

## $\rho(1570)$ WIDTH

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>144 ± 75 ± 43</td><td>54</td><td>¹ AUBERT</td><td>08S</td><td>BABR 10.6 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → φπ<sup>0</sup>γ</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

492 ± 4 ² ACHASOV 23A SND e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → ωπ<sup>0</sup>

75 ± 30 ³ ACHASOV 20C SND 1.3–2.0 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup> π<sup>0</sup>

130 ± 60 ⁴ BITYUKOV 87 SPEC 32.5 π<sup>-</sup> p → φπ<sup>0</sup> n

¹ From the fit with two resonances.

² From a vector dominance fit to the Born cross section between 1.05 and 2.0 GeV with $\rho(770)$, $\rho(1570)$, $\rho(1700)$, $\rho(2150)$. The fit also uses SND data from the VEPP-2M collider below 1.02 GeV and from LEES 17H and ABLIKIM 21A above 1.5 GeV.

³ From a fit using a two resonance model in which the mass and width of the other resonance are fixed at the $\rho(1700)$ values from PDG 20.

⁴ Systematic errors not estimated.

## $\rho(1570)$ DECAY MODES

**Mode** Fraction ($\Gamma_f/\Gamma$)

$\Gamma_1$ $e^+ e^-$ seen

$\Gamma_2$ $\phi\pi$ not seen

$\Gamma_3$ $\omega\pi$

## $\rho(1570)$ $\Gamma(i)\Gamma(e^+ e^-)/\Gamma(\text{total})$

$$ \Gamma(\phi\pi) \times \Gamma(e^+ e^-)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{2\Gamma_1}/\Gamma $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (eV)</th><th>CL%</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>3.5 ± 0.9 ± 0.3</td><td>54</td><td></td><td>¹ AUBERT</td><td>08S</td><td>BABR 10.6 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → φπ<sup>0</sup>γ</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<70 90 ² AULCHENKO 87B ND e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → K<sup>0</sup> S K<sup>0</sup> L π<sup>0</sup>

¹ From the fit with two resonances.

² Using mass and width of BITYUKOV 87.

## $\rho(1570)$ BRANCHING RATIOS

$$ \Gamma(\phi\pi)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{2}/\Gamma $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>not seen</td><td>ABELE</td><td>97H</td><td>CBAR $\bar{\pi}p \to K^0 S \pi^0 \pi^0$</td></tr></tbody></table>

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<0.01 ¹ DONNACHIE 91 RVUE

¹ Using data from BISELLO 91B, DOLINSKY 86, and ALBRECHT 87L.

$$ \Gamma(\phi\pi)/\Gamma(\omega\pi) \qquad \Gamma_{2}/\Gamma_{3} $$

**VALUE** CL% DOCUMENT ID TECN COMMENT

• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

>0.5 95 BITYUKOV 87 SPEC 32.5 π<sup>-</sup> p → φπ<sup>0</sup> n

## $\rho(1570)$ REFERENCES

ACHASOV 23A PR D108 092012 M.N. Achasov et al. (SND Collab.)

ABLIKIM 21A PL B813 136059 M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collab.)

ACHASOV 20C EPJ C80 1139 M.N. Achasov et al. (SND Collab.)

PDG 20 PTEP 2020 083C01 P.A. Zyla et al. (PDG Collab.)

LEES 17H PR D96 092009 J.P. Lees et al. (BABAR Collab.)

AUBERT 08S PR D77 092002 B. Aubert et al. (BABAR Collab.)

ABELE 97H PL B415 280 A. Abele et al. (Crystal Barrel Collab.)

BISELLO 91B NPBPS B21 111 D. Bisello (DM2 Collab.)

DONNACHIE 91 ZPHY C51 689 A. Donnachie, A.B. Clegg (MCHS, LANC)

ALBRECHT 87L PL B185 223 H. Albrecht et al. (ARGUS Collab.)

AULCHENKO 87B JETPL 45 145 V.M. Aulchenko et al. (NOVO)

BITYUKOV 87 PL B188 383 S.I. Bityukov et al. (SERP)

DOLINSKY 86 PL B174 453 S.I. Dolinsky et al. (NOVO)

$$ h_1(1595) $$

$$ I^{G}(J^{PC}) = 0^{-}(1^{+}) $$

## Omitted from Summary Table

Seen in a partial-wave analysis of the $\omega\eta$ system produced in the reaction $\pi^{-} p \to \omega\eta n$ at 18 GeV/c.

## $h_1(1595)$ MASS

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1594 ± 15 ± 10</td><td>60</td><td>EUGENIO</td><td>01 SPEC 18 π<sup>-</sup> p → ωηn</td></tr></tbody></table>

## $h_1(1595)$ WIDTH

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>384 ± 60 ± 70</td><td>100</td><td>EUGENIO</td><td>01 SPEC 18 π<sup>-</sup> p → ωηn</td></tr></tbody></table>

## $h_1(1595)$ DECAY MODES

**Mode** Fraction ($\Gamma_f/\Gamma$)

$\Gamma_1$ $\omega\eta$ seen

## $h_1(1595)$ REFERENCES

EUGENIO 01 PL B497 190 P. Eugenio et al.