$$\pi_1(1600)$$

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

Coupled channel analyses favor the existence of only one broad $1^{-+}$ isovector state consistent with $\pi_1(1600)$ in the 1400-1600 MeV region. Accordingly, the $\pi_1(1400)$ entries of the previous Reviews have been moved into this section. See the review on "Spectroscopy of Light Meson Resonances."

### $\pi_1(1600)$ 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" style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">(1480-1680) - i (150-300) OUR ESTIMATE</td></tr><tr><td>(1623 ± 47<sup>+24</sup><sub>-75</sub>) - i (228 ± 44<sup>+72</sup><sub>-88</sub>)</td><td>1 KOPF</td><td>21</td><td>RVUE 0.9 p p̄ → π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup>η,<br>π<sup>0</sup>ηη, π<sup>0</sup>K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup><br>and 191 π<sup>-</sup>p →<br>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>p</td></tr><tr><td>(1564 ± 24 ± 86) - i (246 ± 27 ± 51)</td><td>2 RODAS</td><td>19</td><td>RVUE 191 π<sup>-</sup>p → η<sup>(l)</sup>π<sup>-</sup>p</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4" style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>(1405 ± 4<sup>+15</sup><sub>-18</sub>) - i (314 ± 14<sup>+18</sup><sub>-69</sub>)</td><td>3 ALBRECHT</td><td>20</td><td>RVUE p̄p → π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup>η</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From T-matrix pole based on combined fit of Crystal Barrel and $\pi\pi$ scattering data (ALBRECHT 20), and COMPASS data (ADOLPH 15), using a coupled-channel model of $\eta\pi, \eta'/\pi$ and $K\pi$ systems.

² The coupled-channel analysis of both the $\eta\pi$ and $\eta'/\pi$ systems using ADOLPH 15 data.

³ Superseded by KOPF 21.

### $\pi_1(1600)$ MASS ($\eta\pi$ mode)

Not seen by PROKOSHKIN 95B, BUGG 94, APEL 81, BOUTEMEUR 90, and AGHASYAN 18B.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVENTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>CHG</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1354 ±25</td><td>OUR AVERAGE</td><td colspan="4">Error includes scale factor of 1.8. See the ideogram below.</td></tr><tr><td>1257 ±20</td><td>±25</td><td>23.5k</td><td>ADAMS</td><td>07B</td><td>B852</td><td>18 π<sup>-</sup>p → ηπ<sup>0</sup>η</td></tr><tr><td>1384 ±20</td><td>±35</td><td>90k</td><td>SALVINI</td><td>04</td><td>OBLX</td><td>p̄p → 2π<sup>+</sup>2π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1360 ±25</td><td></td><td></td><td>ABELE</td><td>99</td><td>CBAR</td><td>0.0 p̄p → π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup>η</td></tr><tr><td>1400 ±20</td><td>±20</td><td></td><td>ABELE</td><td>98B</td><td>CBAR</td><td>0.0 p̄n → π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>-</sup>η</td></tr><tr><td>1370 ±16</td><td>±50<br>-30</td><td></td><td>1 THOMPSON</td><td>97</td><td>MPS</td><td>18 π<sup>-</sup>p → ηπ<sup>-</sup>p</td></tr></tbody></table>

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

<table><tbody><tr><td>1323.1 ± 4.6</td><td>2</td><td>AOYAGI</td><td>93</td><td>BKEI</td><td>π<sup>-</sup>p → ηπ<sup>-</sup>p</td></tr><tr><td>1406 ± 20</td><td>3</td><td>ALDE</td><td>88B</td><td>GAM4</td><td>0</td><td>100 π<sup>-</sup>p → ηπ<sup>0</sup>n</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Natural parity exchange, questioned by DZIERBA 03.

² Unnatural parity exchange.

³ Seen in the $P_0$-wave intensity of the $\eta\pi^0$ system, unnatural parity exchange.

<figure><img src="image_479.png" /><figcaption>$\pi_1(1600)$ mass ($\eta\pi$ mode) (MeV)</figcaption></figure>

### $\pi_1(1600)$ MASS (non-$\eta\pi$ mode)

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVENTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1645<sup>+40</sup><sub>-17</sub> OUR AVERAGE</td><td colspan="4">Error includes scale factor of 1.3. See the ideogram below.</td></tr><tr><td>1600<sup>+110</sup><sub>-60</sub></td><td>46M</td><td>1 AGHASYAN</td><td>18B</td><td>COMP 190 π<sup>-</sup>p → π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>p</td></tr><tr><td>1709 ± 24 ± 41</td><td>69k</td><td>2 KUHN</td><td>04</td><td>B852</td><td>18 π<sup>-</sup>p → ηπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>-</sup>p</td></tr><tr><td>1597 ± 10<sup>+45</sup><sub>-10</sub></td><td></td><td>2 IVANOV</td><td>01</td><td>B852</td><td>18 π<sup>-</sup>p → η<sup>l</sup>π<sup>-</sup>p</td></tr></tbody></table>

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

<table><tbody><tr><td>1660 ± 10<sup>+0</sup><sub>-64</sub></td><td>420k</td><td>3</td><td>ALEKSEEV</td><td>10</td><td>COMP 190 π<sup>-</sup>p → π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>p̄</td></tr><tr><td>1664 ± 8 ± 10</td><td>145k</td><td>4</td><td>LU</td><td>05</td><td>B852</td><td>18 π<sup>-</sup>p → ωπ<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup>p</td></tr><tr><td>1593 ± 8<sup>+29</sup><sub>-47</sub></td><td>2,5</td><td>ADAMS</td><td>98B</td><td>B852</td><td>18.3 π<sup>-</sup>p → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>-</sup>p</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Statistical error negligible. See also the review ALEXEEV 22.

² Natural parity exchange.

³ Superseded by AGHASYAN 2018B.

⁴ May be a different state: natural and unnatural parity exchanges.

⁵ Superseded by DZIERBA 06 excluding this state in a more refined PWA analysis, with 2.6 M events of $\pi^-p \to \pi^-\pi^-\pi^+p$ and 3 M events of $\pi^-p \to \pi^-\pi^0\pi^0p$ of E852 data.

<figure><img src="image_480.png" /><figcaption>$\pi_1(1600)$ mass (non-$\eta\pi$ mode) (MeV)</figcaption></figure>

### $\pi_1(1600)$ WIDTH ($\eta\pi$ mode)

Not seen by PROKOSHKIN 95B, BUGG 94, APEL 81, BOUTEMEUR 90, and AGHASYAN 18B.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVENTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>CHG</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>330 ±35</td><td>OUR AVERAGE</td><td colspan="4"></td></tr><tr><td>354 ±64</td><td>±58</td><td>23.5k</td><td>ADAMS</td><td>07B</td><td>B852</td><td>18 π<sup>-</sup>p → ηπ<sup>0</sup>n</td></tr><tr><td>378 ±50</td><td>±50</td><td>90k</td><td>SALVINI</td><td>04</td><td>OBLX</td><td>p̄p → 2π<sup>+</sup>2π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>220 ±90</td><td></td><td></td><td>ABELE</td><td>99</td><td>CBAR</td><td>0.0 p̄p → π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup>η</td></tr><tr><td>310 ±50</td><td>±50</td><td>30</td><td>ABELE</td><td>98B</td><td>CBAR</td><td>0.0 p̄n → π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>-</sup>η</td></tr><tr><td>385 ±40</td><td>±65<br>-105</td><td></td><td>1 THOMPSON</td><td>97</td><td>MPS</td><td>18 π<sup>-</sup>p → ηπ<sup>-</sup>p</td></tr></tbody></table>

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

<table><tbody><tr><td>143.2 ±12.5</td><td>2</td><td>AOYAGI</td><td>93</td><td>BKEI</td><td>π<sup>-</sup>p → ηπ<sup>-</sup>p</td></tr><tr><td>180 ±20</td><td>3</td><td>ALDE</td><td>88B</td><td>GAM4</td><td>0</td><td>100 π<sup>-</sup>p → ηπ<sup>0</sup>n</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Resolution is not unfolded, natural parity exchange, questioned by DZIERBA 03.

² Unnatural parity exchange.

³ Seen in the $P_0$-wave intensity of the $\eta\pi^0$ system, unnatural parity exchange.

### $\pi_1(1600)$ WIDTH (non-$\eta\pi$ mode)

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>EVENTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>370<sup>+50</sup><sub>-60</sub> OUR AVERAGE</td><td colspan="4"></td></tr><tr><td>580<sup>+100</sup><sub>-230</sub></td><td>46M</td><td>1</td><td>AGHASYAN</td><td>18B</td><td>COMP 190 π<sup>-</sup>p → π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>p</td></tr><tr><td>403 ± 80 ± 115</td><td>69k</td><td>2</td><td>KUHN</td><td>04</td><td>B852</td><td>18 π<sup>-</sup>p → ηπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>-</sup>p</td></tr><tr><td>340 ± 40 ± 50</td><td></td><td>2</td><td>IVANOV</td><td>01</td><td>B852</td><td>18 π<sup>-</sup>p → η<sup>l</sup>π<sup>-</sup>p</td></tr><tr><td colspan="6" style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>269 ± 21<sup>+42</sup><sub>-64</sub></td><td>420k</td><td>3</td><td>ALEKSEEV</td><td>10</td><td>COMP 190 π<sup>-</sup>p̄p → π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>p̄</td></tr><tr><td>185 ± 25 ± 28</td><td>145k</td><td>4</td><td>LU</td><td>05</td><td>B852</td><td>18 π<sup>-</sup>p → ωπ<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup>p</td></tr><tr><td>168 ± 20<sup>+150</sup><sub>-12</sub></td><td></td><td>2,5</td><td>ADAMS</td><td>98B</td><td>B852</td><td>18.3 π<sup>-</sup>p → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>-</sup>p</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Statistical error negligible. See also the review ALEXEEV 22.

² Natural parity exchange.

³ Superseded by AGHASYAN 2018B.

⁴ May be a different state: natural and unnatural parity exchanges.

⁵ Superseded by DZIERBA 06 excluding this state in a more refined PWA analysis, with 2.6 M events of $\pi^-p \to \pi^-\pi^-\pi^+p$ and 3 M events of $\pi^-p \to \pi^-\pi^0\pi^0p$ of E852 data.

### $\pi_1(1600)$ DECAY MODES

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Mode</th><th>Fraction (Γ<sub>i</sub>/Γ)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Γ<sub>1</sub></td><td>πππ</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>2</sub></td><td>ρ<sup>0</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>3</sub></td><td>f<sub>2</sub>(1270)π<sup>-</sup></td><td>not seen</td></tr></tbody></table>
$\Gamma_4$ $b_1(1235)\pi$ seen

$\Gamma_5$ $\eta'(958)\pi^-$ seen

$\Gamma_6$ $\eta\pi$ seen

$\Gamma_7$ $f_1(1285)\pi$ seen

### $\pi_1(1600)$ BRANCHING RATIOS

$$ \frac{\Gamma(\rho^0\pi^-)}{\Gamma_{\text{total}}} \quad \Gamma_2/\Gamma $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>seen</td><td>ALEKSEEV</td><td>10</td><td>COMP 190 π<sup>-</sup> Pb → π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup> Pb<sup>+</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

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

not seen NOZAR 09 CLAS $\gamma p \to 2\pi^+\pi^- n$

not seen 1 DZIERBA 06 B852 18 $\pi^- p$

¹ From the PWA analysis of 2.6 M $\pi^- p \to \pi^-\pi^-\pi^+\pi^+$ and 3 M events of $\pi^- p \to \pi^-\pi^0\pi^0 p$ of E852 data. Supersedes ADAMS 98B.

$$ \frac{\Gamma(f_2(1270)\pi^-)}{\Gamma_{\text{total}}} \quad \Gamma_3/\Gamma $$

<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>1 DZIERBA</td><td>06</td><td>B852 18 $\pi^- p$</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From the PWA analysis of 2.6 M $\pi^- p \to \pi^-\pi^-\pi^+\pi^+$ and 3 M events of $\pi^- p \to \pi^-\pi^0\pi^0 p$ of E852 data. Supersedes CHUNG 02.

$$ \frac{\Gamma(b_1(1235)\pi)}{\Gamma_{\text{total}}} \quad \Gamma_4/\Gamma $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>seen</td><td>35280</td><td>1 BAKER</td><td>03</td><td>SPEC $\bar{p} p \to \omega\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$</td></tr></tbody></table>

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

seen 145k LU 05 B852 18 $\pi^- p \to \omega\pi^-\pi^0 p$
¹ B((b₁π)$_D$-wave)/B((b₁π)$_S$-wave)=0.3 ± 0.1.

$$ \frac{\Gamma(\eta'(958)\pi^-)}{\Gamma_{\text{total}}} \quad \Gamma_5/\Gamma $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>seen</td><td>IVANOV</td><td>01</td><td>B852 18 $\pi^- p \to \eta'\pi^- p$</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \frac{\Gamma(\eta'(958)\pi^-)}{\Gamma(\eta\pi)} \quad \Gamma_5/\Gamma_6 $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</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></tbody></table>

5.54±1.1$^{+1.8}_{-0.27}$ ¹ KOPF 21 RVUE 0.9 $\rho\bar{p} \to \pi^0\pi^0\eta$, $\pi^0\eta\eta$, $\pi^0 K^+ K^-$ and 191 $\pi^- p \to \pi^-\pi^-\pi^+$

¹ From T-matrix pole based on combined fit of Crystal Barrel and $\pi\pi$ scattering data (ALBRECHT 20), and COMPASS data (ADOLPH 15), using a coupled-channel model of $\eta\pi$, $\eta'\pi$ and $K\bar{K}$ systems.

$$ \frac{\Gamma(f_1(1285)\pi)}{\Gamma(\eta'(958)\pi^-)} \quad \Gamma_7/\Gamma_5 $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>3.80±0.78</td><td>69k</td><td>1 KUHN</td><td>04</td><td>B852 18 $\pi^- p \to \eta\pi^+\pi^-\pi^- p$</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Using $\eta'(958)\pi$ data from IVANOV 01.

### $\pi_1(1600)$ REFERENCES

<table><tbody><tr><td>ALEXEEV</td><td>22</td><td>PR D105 012005</td><td>G.D. Alexeev et al.</td><td>(COMPASS Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>KOPF</td><td>21</td><td>EPJ C81 1056</td><td>B. Kopf et al.</td><td>(BOCH)</td></tr><tr><td>ALBRECHT</td><td>20</td><td>EPJ C80 453</td><td>M. Albrecht et al.</td><td>(Crystal Barrel Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>RODAS</td><td>19</td><td>PRL 122 042002</td><td>A. Rodas et al.</td><td>(JPAC Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AGHASYAN</td><td>18B</td><td>PRL D98 092003</td><td>M. Aghasyan et al.</td><td>(COMPASS Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ADOLPH</td><td>15</td><td>PL B740 303</td><td>M. Adolph et al.</td><td>(COMPASS Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ALEKSEEV</td><td>10</td><td>PRL 104 241803</td><td>M.G. Alekseev et al.</td><td>(COMPASS Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>NOZAR</td><td>09</td><td>PRL 102 102002</td><td>M. Nozar et al.</td><td>(JLab CLAS Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ADAMS</td><td>07B</td><td>PL B657 27</td><td>G.S. Adams et al.</td><td>(BNL E852 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>DZIERBA</td><td>06</td><td>PR D737 072001</td><td>A.R. Dzierba et al.</td><td>(BNL E852 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>LU</td><td>05</td><td>PRL 94 032002</td><td>M. Lu et al.</td><td>(BNL E852 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>KUHN</td><td>04</td><td>PL B595 109</td><td>J. Kuhn et al.</td><td>(BNL E852 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>SALVINI</td><td>04</td><td>EPJ C35 21</td><td>P. Salvini et al.</td><td>(OBELIX Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BAKER</td><td>03</td><td>PL B563 140</td><td>C.A. Baker et al.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>DZIERBA</td><td>03</td><td>PR D67 094015</td><td>A.R. Dzierba et al.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CHUNG</td><td>02</td><td>PR D65 072001</td><td>S.U. Chung et al.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>IVANOV</td><td>01</td><td>PRL 86 3977</td><td>E.I. Ivanov et al.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ABELE</td><td>99</td><td>PL B446 349</td><td>A. Abele et al.</td><td>(Crystal Barrel Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ABELE</td><td>98B</td><td>PL B423 175</td><td>A. Abele et al.</td><td>(Crystal Barrel Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ADAMS</td><td>98B</td><td>PRL 81 5760</td><td>G.S. Adams et al.</td><td>(BNL E852 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>THOMPSON</td><td>97</td><td>PRL 79 1630</td><td>D.R. Thompson et al.</td><td>(BNL E852 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>PROKOSHIN</td><td>95B</td><td>PAN 58 606</td><td>Y.D. Prokoshin, S.A. Sadovsky</td><td>(SERP)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><tbody><tr><td>BUGG</td><td>94</td><td>PR D50 4412</td><td>D.V. Bugg et al.</td><td>(LOQM)</td></tr><tr><td>AOYAGI</td><td>93</td><td>PL B314 246</td><td>H. Aoyagi et al.</td><td>(BKEI Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BOUTEMEUR</td><td>90</td><td>Hadron 89 Conf. p 119</td><td>M. Boutemeur, M. Poulet</td><td>(SERP, BELG, LANL+)</td></tr><tr><td>ALDE</td><td>88B</td><td>PL B205 397</td><td>D.M. Alde et al.</td><td>(SERP, BELG, LANL, LAPP)</td></tr><tr><td>APEL</td><td>81</td><td>NP B193 269</td><td>W.D. Apel et al.</td><td>(SERP, CERN)</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ a_1(1640) $$

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

Possibly seen in the study of the hadronic structure in decay $\tau \to 3\pi\nu_\tau$ (ABREU 98G and ASNER 00).

### $a_1(1640)$ 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>1655 ± 16</td><td>OUR AVERAGE</td><td></td><td></td><td>Error includes scale factor of 1.2.</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><tbody><tr><td>1700<sup>+35</sup><sub>-130</sub></td><td>46M</td><td>1 AGHASYAN</td><td>18B</td><td>COMP 190 $\pi^- p \to \pi^-\pi^-\pi^+ p$</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><tbody><tr><td>1691 ± 18</td><td>± 30</td><td>DARGENT</td><td>17</td><td>RVUE $D^0 \to \pi^-\pi^+\pi^-\pi^+$</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><tbody><tr><td>1630 ± 20</td><td>35k</td><td>2 BAKER</td><td>03</td><td>SPEC $\bar{p} p \to \omega\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$</td></tr><tr><td>1714 ± 9</td><td>± 36</td><td>CHUNG</td><td>02</td><td>SPEC 18.3 $\pi^- p \to \pi^+\pi^-\pi^- p$</td></tr><tr><td>1640 ± 12</td><td>± 30</td><td>BAKER</td><td>99</td><td>SPEC 1.94 $\bar{p} p \to 4\pi^0$</td></tr></tbody></table>

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

<table><tbody><tr><td>1670 ± 90</td><td>BELLINI</td><td>85</td><td>SPEC 40 $\pi^- A \to \pi^-\pi^+\pi^- A$</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Statistical error negligible.

² Using the $a_1(1260)$ mass and width results of BOWLER 88.

### $a_1(1640)$ 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>250 ± 40</td><td>OUR AVERAGE</td><td>Error includes scale factor of 1.8.</td><td></td><td>See the ideogram below.</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><tbody><tr><td>510<sup>+170</sup><sub>-90</sub></td><td>46M</td><td>1 AGHASYAN</td><td>18B</td><td>COMP 190 $\pi^- p \to \pi^-\pi^+\pi^- p$</td></tr><tr><td>171 ± 33</td><td>± 40</td><td>DARGENT</td><td>17</td><td>RVUE $D^0 \to \pi^-\pi^+\pi^-\pi^+$</td></tr><tr><td>225 ± 30</td><td>35k</td><td>2 BAKER</td><td>03</td><td>SPEC $\bar{p} p \to \omega\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$</td></tr><tr><td>308 ± 37</td><td>± 62</td><td>CHUNG</td><td>02</td><td>B852 18.3 $\pi^- p \to \pi^+\pi^-\pi^- p$</td></tr><tr><td>300 ± 22</td><td>± 40</td><td>BAKER</td><td>99</td><td>SPEC 1.94 $\bar{p} p \to 4\pi^0$</td></tr></tbody></table>

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

<table><tbody><tr><td>300 ± 100</td><td>BELLINI</td><td>85</td><td>SPEC 40 $\pi^- A \to \pi^-\pi^+\pi^- A$</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Statistical error negligible.

² Using the $a_1(1260)$ mass and width results of BOWLER 88.

<figure><img src="image_481.png" /></figure>

### $a_1(1640)$ 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>not seen</td></tr></tbody></table>

### $a_1(1640)$ BRANCHING RATIOS

$$ \frac{\Gamma(f_2(1270)\pi)}{\Gamma(\sigma\pi)} \quad \Gamma_2/\Gamma_3 $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.24 ± 0.07</td><td>BAKER</td><td>99</td><td>SPEC 1.94 $\bar{p} p \to 4\pi^0$</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \frac{\Gamma(\rho\pi D^-\text{wave})}{\Gamma_{\text{total}}} \quad \Gamma_5/\Gamma $$

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

seen CHUNG 02 B852 18.3 $\pi^- p \to \pi^+\pi^-\pi^- p$

seen AMELIN 95B VES 36 $\pi^- A \to \pi^+\pi^-\pi^- A$

$$ \frac{\Gamma(\omega\pi\pi)}{\Gamma_{\text{total}}} \quad \Gamma_6/\Gamma $$

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

seen 35280 1 BAKER 03 SPEC $\bar{p} p \to \omega\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$

¹ Assuming the $\omega\pi\pi$ mechanism for the $\omega\pi\pi$ state.

$$ \frac{\Gamma(f_1(1285)\pi)}{\Gamma_{\text{total}}} \quad \Gamma_7/\Gamma $$

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

<table><tbody><tr><td>not seen</td><td>KUHN</td><td>04</td><td>B852 18 $\pi^- p \to \eta\pi^+\pi^-\pi^- p$</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><tbody><tr><td>seen</td><td>LEE</td><td>94</td><td>MPS2 18 $\pi^- p \to K^+K^0\pi^-\pi^- p$</td></tr></tbody></table>
Γ(a₁(1620)η)/Γtotal Γ₈/Γ

<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>KUHN</td><td>04</td><td>B852 18 π<sup>-</sup> p → ηπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>-</sup> p</td></tr></tbody></table>

a₁(1640) REFERENCES

<table><tr><td>AGHASYAN</td><td>18B</td><td>PR D98 092003</td><td>M. Aghasyan et al.</td><td>(COMPASS Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>DARGENT</td><td>17</td><td>JHEP 1705 143</td><td>P. dArgent et al.</td><td>(HEID, BRIS)</td></tr><tr><td>KUHN</td><td>04</td><td>PL B595 109</td><td>J. Kuhn et al.</td><td>(BNL E852 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BAKER</td><td>03</td><td>PL B563 140</td><td>C.A. Baker et al.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CHUNG</td><td>02</td><td>PR D65 072001</td><td>S.U. Chung et al.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ASNER</td><td>00</td><td>PR D61 012002</td><td>D.M. Asner et al.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>BAKER</td><td>99</td><td>PL B449 114</td><td>C.A. Baker et al.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ABREU</td><td>98B</td><td>PL B426 411</td><td>P. Abreu et al.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>AMELIN</td><td>95B</td><td>PL B356 595</td><td>D.V. Amelin et al.</td><td>(DELPHI Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>LEE</td><td>94</td><td>PL B323 227</td><td>J.H. Lee et al.</td><td>(BNL, IND, KYUN, MASD+)</td></tr><tr><td>BOWLER</td><td>88</td><td>PL B209 99</td><td>M.G. Bowler</td><td>(OXF)</td></tr><tr><td>BELLINI</td><td>85</td><td>SJNP 41 781</td><td>D. Bellini et al.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Translated from YAF 41 1223.</td><td></td><td></td></tr></table>

$f_2(1640)$

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

OMITTED FROM SUMMARY TABLE

f₂(1640) MASS

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1639 ± 6</td><td>OUR AVERAGE</td><td>Error includes scale factor of 1.2.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1620 ± 16</td><td>BUGG</td><td>95</td><td>MRK3 J/ψ → γπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1647 ± 7</td><td>ADAMO</td><td>92</td><td>OBLX πp → 3π<sup>+</sup>2π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1635 ± 7</td><td>ALDE</td><td>90</td><td>GAM2 38 π<sup>-</sup> p → ωωn</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>1640 ± 5</td><td>AMSLER</td><td>06</td><td>CBAR 0.9 p̄p → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1659 ± 6</td><td>VLADIMIRSK...</td><td>06</td><td>SPEC 40 π<sup>-</sup> p → K<sup>0</sup>S K<sup>0</sup>S n</td></tr><tr><td>1643 ± 7</td><td>1 ALDE</td><td>89B</td><td>GAM2 38 π<sup>-</sup> p → ωωn</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">¹Superseded by ALDE 90.</td></tr></tbody></table>

f₂(1640) WIDTH

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>100<sup>+60</sup><sub>-40</sub></td><td>OUR AVERAGE</td><td>Error includes scale factor of 2.9.</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>140<sup>+60</sup><sub>-20</sub></td><td>BUGG</td><td>95</td><td>MRK3 J/ψ → γπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>58 ± 20</td><td>ADAMO</td><td>92</td><td>OBLX πp → 3π<sup>+</sup>2π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>44 ± 9</td><td>AMSLER</td><td>06</td><td>CBAR 0.9 p̄p → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>152 ± 18</td><td>VLADIMIRSK...</td><td>06</td><td>SPEC 40 π<sup>-</sup> p → K<sup>0</sup>S K<sup>0</sup>S n</td></tr><tr><td>&lt; 70</td><td>90</td><td>ALDE</td><td>90 GAM2 38 π<sup>-</sup> p → ωωn</td></tr></tbody></table>

f₂(1640) 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> ωω</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>2</sub> 4π</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>3</sub> K̄K</td><td>seen</td></tr></tbody></table>

f₂(1640) BRANCHING RATIOS

Γ(K̄K)/Γtotal Γ₃/Γ

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>seen</td><td>AMSLER</td><td>06</td><td>CBAR 0.9 p̄p → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

f₂(1640) REFERENCES

<table><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>VLADIMIRSK...</td><td>06</td><td>PAN 69 493</td><td>V.V. Vladimirsky et al.</td><td>(ITEP, Moscow)</td></tr><tr><td>BUGG</td><td>95</td><td>PL B333 378</td><td>D.V. Bugg et al.</td><td>(LOQM, PNWI, WASH) JP</td></tr><tr><td>ADAMO</td><td>92</td><td>PL B287 368</td><td>A. Adamo et al.</td><td>(OBELIX Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ALDE</td><td>90</td><td>PL B241 600</td><td>D.M. Alde et al.</td><td>(SERP, BELG, LANL, LAPP+)</td></tr><tr><td>ALDE</td><td>89B</td><td>PL B216 451</td><td>D.M. Alde et al.</td><td>(SERP, BELG, LANL, LAPP+) IGJPC</td></tr></table>

$\eta_2(1645)$

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

η₂(1645) MASS

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>CHG</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1617 ± 5</td><td>OUR AVERAGE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1613 ± 8</td><td>BARBERIS</td><td>00B</td><td>450 p̄p → p<sub>f</sub>ηπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup> p<sub>s</sub></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1617 ± 8</td><td>BARBERIS</td><td>00C</td><td>450 p̄p → p<sub>f</sub>4πp<sub>s</sub></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1620 ± 20</td><td>BARBERIS</td><td>97B</td><td>OMEG</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1645 ± 14 ± 15</td><td>ADOMEIT</td><td>96</td><td>CBAR 0 1.94 p̄p → η3π<sup>0</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>1645 ± 6 ± 20</td><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>00E</td><td>SPEC 0.9-1.94 p̄p → η3π<sup>0</sup></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

η₂(1645) WIDTH

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>CHG</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>181 ± 11</td><td>OUR AVERAGE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>185 ± 17</td><td>BARBERIS</td><td>00B</td><td></td><td>450 p̄p → p<sub>f</sub>ηπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup> p<sub>s</sub></td></tr><tr><td>177 ± 18</td><td>BARBERIS</td><td>00C</td><td></td><td>450 p̄p → p<sub>f</sub>4πp<sub>s</sub></td></tr><tr><td>180 ± 25</td><td>BARBERIS</td><td>97B</td><td>OMEG</td><td>450 p̄p → p̄p2(π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>)</td></tr><tr><td>180<sup>+40</sup><sub>-21</sub></td><td>ADOMEIT</td><td>96</td><td>CBAR 0</td><td>1.94 p̄p → η3π<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>200 ± 25</td><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>00E</td><td>SPEC 0.9-1.94 p̄p → η3π<sup>0</sup></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

η₂(1645) 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> a₂(1320)π</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>2</sub> K̄K̄π</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>3</sub> K<sup>+</sup>K̄</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>4</sub> ηπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>5</sub> a₀(980)π</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>6</sub> f₂(1270)η</td><td>not seen</td></tr></tbody></table>

η₂(1645) BRANCHING RATIOS

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(K̄K̄) / Γ(a₂(1320)π)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>0.07 ± 0.03</strong></td><td><strong>1 BARBERIS</strong></td><td><strong>97C</strong></td><td><strong>OMEG 450 p̄p → p̄pK̄K̄π</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">¹Using 2(π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>) data from BARBERIS 97B.</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(a₂(1320)π)/Γ(a₀(980)π)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>13.1 ± 2.3</strong></td><td><strong>OUR AVERAGE</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>13.5 ± 4.6</td><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>11 SPEC</td><td>0.9-1.94 p̄p</td></tr><tr><td>13.0 ± 2.7</td><td>BARBERIS</td><td>00B</td><td>450 p̄p → p<sub>f</sub>ηπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup> p<sub>s</sub></td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">²Reanalysis of ADOMEIT 96 and ANISOVICH 00E.</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(f₂(1270)η)/Γtotal</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>not seen</td><td>BARBERIS</td><td>00B</td><td>450 p̄p → p<sub>f</sub>ηπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup> p<sub>s</sub></td></tr></tbody></table>

η₂(1645) REFERENCES

<table><tr><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>11</td><td>EPJ C71 1511</td><td>A.V. Anisovich et al.</td><td>(LOQM, RAL, PNPI)</td></tr><tr><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>00E</td><td>PL B477 19</td><td>A.V. Anisovich et al.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>BARBERIS</td><td>00B</td><td>PL B471 435</td><td>D. Barberis et al.</td><td>(WA 102 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BARBERIS</td><td>00C</td><td>PL B471 440</td><td>D. Barberis et al.</td><td>(WA 102 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BARBERIS</td><td>97B</td><td>PL B413 217</td><td>D. Barberis et al.</td><td>(WA 102 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BARBERIS</td><td>97C</td><td>PL B413 225</td><td>D. Barberis et al.</td><td>(WA 102 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ADOMEIT</td><td>96</td><td>ZPHY C71 227</td><td>J. Adomeit et al.</td><td>(Crystal Barrel Collab.)</td></tr></table>

$\omega(1650)$

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

See also the ω(1420) particle listing.

ω(1650) 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>1670 ± 30</td><td>OUR ESTIMATE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1660.0 ± 8.4</td><td></td><td>1 LICHARD</td><td>23 RVUE</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ωη</td></tr><tr><td>1698 ± 10</td><td></td><td>2 ACHASOV</td><td>20B SND</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ωη → ηπ<sup>0</sup>γ</td></tr><tr><td>1651 ± 3</td><td></td><td>3 ABLIKIM</td><td>19AQ BES</td><td>J/ψ → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1673 ± 6</td><td></td><td>ACHASOV</td><td>19 SND</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup>η</td></tr><tr><td>1667 ± 10</td><td></td><td>AUBERT</td><td>07AU BABR</td><td>10.6 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ωπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>γ</td></tr><tr><td>1645 ± 8</td><td></td><td>AUBERT</td><td>06D BABR</td><td>10.6 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ωηγ</td></tr><tr><td>1660 ± 10</td><td></td><td>AUBERT, B</td><td>04N BABR</td><td>10.6 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup>γ</td></tr><tr><td>1770 ± 50</td><td></td><td>7 ACHASOV</td><td>03D RVUE</td><td>0.44-2.00 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup>η</td></tr><tr><td>1619 ± 5</td><td></td><td>8 HENNER</td><td>02 RVUE</td><td>1.2-2.00 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ρπ</td></tr><tr><td>1700 ± 20</td><td></td><td>EUGENIO</td><td>01 SPEC</td><td>18 π<sup>-</sup> p → ωηn</td></tr><tr><td>1705 ± 26</td><td></td><td>9 AKHMETSHIN</td><td>00D CMD2</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ωπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1820 ± 190</td><td></td><td>10 ACHASOV</td><td>98H RVUE</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>-150</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
# Meson Particle Listings

## ω(1650)

<table><tbody><tr><td>1840</td><td>+100</td><td>11 ACHASOV</td><td>98H RVUE</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ωπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1780</td><td>+170</td><td>12 ACHASOV</td><td>98H RVUE</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>~ 2100</td><td>-300</td><td>13 ACHASOV</td><td>98H RVUE</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → K<sup>0</sup>S K<sup>±</sup>π<sup>∓</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1606</td><td>± 9</td><td>14 CLEGG</td><td>94 RVUE</td><td>ωππ</td></tr><tr><td>1662</td><td>± 13</td><td>750</td><td>15 ANTONELLI</td><td>92 DM2 1.34-2.4e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ρπ,</td></tr><tr><td>1670</td><td>± 20</td><td></td><td>ATKINSON</td><td>83B OMEG 20-70 γp → 3πX</td></tr><tr><td>1657</td><td>± 13</td><td></td><td>CORDIER</td><td>81 DM1 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ω2π</td></tr><tr><td>1679</td><td>± 34</td><td>21</td><td>ESPOSITO</td><td>80 FRAM e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → 3π</td></tr><tr><td>1652</td><td>± 17</td><td></td><td>COSME</td><td>79 OSPK e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → 3π</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From a VDM fit to AKHMETSHIN 17A ωη data with two additional resonances of low statistical evidences.

² 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 1694 ± 9 MeV measurement.

³ Could also be ρ(1700). Branching ratio J/ψ → Xπ⁰ → K⁺K⁻π⁰ = (5.3±0.3)⁰.⁶×10⁻⁵.

⁴ From a fit of the interfering ω(1420) and ω(1650) with a relative phase of π and other parameters floating.

⁵ From a fit with contributions from ω(1420), ω(1650), and φ(1680).

⁶ 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⁺π⁻π⁰ data.

⁷ From the combined fit of ANTONELLI 92, ACHASOV 01E, ACHASOV 02E, and ACHASOV 03D data on the π⁺π⁻π⁰ and ANTONELLI 92 on the ωπ⁺π⁻ final states. Supersedes ACHASOV 99E and ACHASOV 02E.

⁸ Using results of CORDIER 81 and preliminary data of DOLINSKY 91 and ANTONELLI 92.

⁹ 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.

¹⁰ Using data from BARKOV 87, DOLINSKY 91, and ANTONELLI 92.

¹¹ Using the data from ANTONELLI 92.

¹² Using the data from IVANOV 81 and BISELLO 88B.

¹³ Using the data from BISELLO 91C.

¹⁴ From a fit to two Breit-Wigner functions and using the data of DOLINSKY 91 and ANTONELLI 92.

¹⁵ From the combined fit of the ρπ and ωππ final states.

## ω(1650) 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>315 ± 35 OUR ESTIMATE</strong></td></tr><tr><td>106 ± 15</td><td></td><td>1 LICHARD</td><td>23 RVUE</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ωη</td></tr><tr><td>110 ± 16</td><td>267</td><td>2 ACHASOV</td><td>20B SND</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ωη → ηπ<sup>0</sup>γ</td></tr><tr><td>194 ± 8<sup>+ 15</sup><sub>- 7</sub></td><td>183k</td><td>3 ABLIKIM</td><td>19AQ BES</td><td>J/ψ → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>95 ± 11</td><td></td><td>ACHASOV</td><td>19 SND</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup>η</td></tr><tr><td>113 ± 9 ± 10</td><td>824</td><td>4 AKHMETSHIN 17A</td><td>CMD3</td><td>1.4-2.0 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ωη</td></tr><tr><td>110 ± 20</td><td>898</td><td>5 ACHASOV</td><td>16B SND</td><td>1.34-2.00 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ωη</td></tr><tr><td>310 ± 30</td><td>13.1k</td><td>6 AULCHENKO</td><td>15A SND</td><td>1.05-1.80 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>222 ± 25 ± 20</td><td></td><td>AUBERT</td><td>07AU BABR</td><td>10.6 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ωπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>γ</td></tr><tr><td>114 ± 14</td><td>13</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>06D BABR</td><td>10.6 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ωηγ</td></tr><tr><td>230 ± 30 ± 20</td><td></td><td>AUBERT, B</td><td>04N BABR</td><td>10.6 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup>γ</td></tr><tr><td>490<sup>+ 200</sup><sub>- 150</sub> ± 130</td><td>1.2M</td><td>7 ACHASOV</td><td>03D RVUE</td><td>0.44-2.00 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>250 ± 14</td><td></td><td>8 HENNER</td><td>02 RVUE</td><td>1.2-2.0 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ρπ, ωππ</td></tr><tr><td>250 ± 50</td><td></td><td>EUGENIO</td><td>01 SPEC</td><td>18 π<sup>-</sup>ρ → ωηη</td></tr><tr><td>370 ± 25</td><td>612</td><td>9 AKHMETSHIN 00D</td><td>CMD2</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ωπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>113 ± 20</td><td></td><td>10 CLEGG</td><td>94 RVUE</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>280 ± 24</td><td>750</td><td>11 ANTONELLI</td><td>92 DM2</td><td>1.34-2.4e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ρπ, ωππ</td></tr><tr><td>160 ± 20</td><td></td><td>ATKINSON</td><td>83B OMEG</td><td>20-70 γp → 3πX</td></tr><tr><td>136 ± 46</td><td></td><td>CORDIER</td><td>81 DM1</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ω2π</td></tr><tr><td>99 ± 49</td><td>21</td><td>ESPOSITO</td><td>80 FRAM</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → 3π</td></tr><tr><td>42 ± 17</td><td></td><td>COSME</td><td>79 OSPK</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → 3π</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From a VDM fit to AKHMETSHIN 17A ωη data with two additional resonances of low statistical evidences.

² 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 94 ± 13 MeV measurement.

³ Could also be ρ(1700). Branching ratio J/ψ → Xπ⁰ → K⁺K⁻π⁰ = (5.3±0.3)⁰.⁶×10⁻⁵.

⁴ From a fit of the interfering ω(1420) and ω(1650) with a relative phase of π and other parameters floating.

⁵ From a fit with contributions from ω(1420), ω(1650), and φ(1680).

⁶ 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⁺π⁻π⁰ data.

⁷ From the combined fit of ANTONELLI 92, ACHASOV 01E, ACHASOV 02E, and ACHASOV 03D data on the π⁺π⁻π⁰ and ANTONELLI 92 on the ωπ⁺π⁻ final states. Supersedes ACHASOV 99E and ACHASOV 02E.

⁸ Using results of CORDIER 81 and preliminary data of DOLINSKY 91 and ANTONELLI 92.

⁹ 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.

¹⁰ From a fit to two Breit-Wigner functions and using the data of DOLINSKY 91 and ANTONELLI 92.

¹¹ From the combined fit of the ρπ and ωππ final states.

## ω(1650) 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> ρ(1450)π</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>3</sub> ωππ</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>4</sub> ωη</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>not seen</td></tr></tbody></table>

## ω(1650) Γ(1)Γ(1)Γ(1)Γ(1)Γ(1)

<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>1.56 ± 0.23</td><td>13.1k</td><td>1 AULCHENKO</td><td>15A SND</td><td>1.05-1.80 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1.3 ± 0.1 ± 0.1</td><td></td><td>AUBERT, B</td><td>04N BABR</td><td>10.6 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup>γ</td></tr><tr><td>1.2 ± 0.4<sup>- 0.1</sup> ± 0.8 1.2M</td><td>2,3 ACHASOV</td><td>03D RVUE</td><td>0.44-2.00 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>0.921 ± 0.230</td><td>4,5 CLEGG</td><td>94 RVUE</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>0.479 ± 0.050</td><td>750</td><td>6,7 ANTONELLI</td><td>92 DM2</td><td>1.34-2.4e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ρπ, ωππ</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⁺π⁻π⁰ 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⁺π⁻π⁰ and ANTONELLI 92 on the ωπ⁺π⁻ 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 the combined fit of the ρπ and ωππ final states.

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>3</sub>/Γ × Γ<sub>5</sub>/Γ</th></tr><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-7</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>7.0 ± 0.5</td><td></td><td>AUBERT</td><td>07AU BABR</td><td>10.6 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ωπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>γ</td></tr><tr><td>4.1 ± 0.9 ± 1.3 1.2M</td><td>1,2 ACHASOV</td><td>03D RVUE</td><td>0.44-2.00 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>5.40 ± 0.95</td><td></td><td>3 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>3.18 ± 0.80</td><td>4,5 CLEGG</td><td>94 RVUE</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>6.07 ± 0.61</td><td>750</td><td>6,7 ANTONELLI</td><td>92 DM2</td><td>1.34-2.4 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ρπ, ωππ</td></tr></tbody></table>

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

<table><tbody><tr><td>7.0 ± 0.5</td><td></td><td>AUBERT</td><td>07AU BABR</td><td>10.6 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ωπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>γ</td></tr><tr><td>4.1 ± 0.9 ± 1.3 1.2M</td><td>1,2 ACHASOV</td><td>03D RVUE</td><td>0.44-2.00 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>5.40 ± 0.95</td><td></td><td>3 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>3.18 ± 0.80</td><td>4,5 CLEGG</td><td>94 RVUE</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>6.07 ± 0.61</td><td>750</td><td>6,7 ANTONELLI</td><td>92 DM2</td><td>1.34-2.4 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ρπ, ωππ</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Calculated by us from the cross section at the peak.

² From the combined fit of ANTONELLI 92, ACHASOV 01E, ACHASOV 02E, and ACHASOV 03D data on the π⁺π⁻π⁰ and ANTONELLI 92 on the ωπ⁺π⁻ final states. Supersedes ACHASOV 99E and ACHASOV 02E.

³ 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.

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 the combined fit of the ρπ and ωππ final states.

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

<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>4</sub>/Γ × Γ<sub>5</sub>/Γ</th></tr><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-7</sup>)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>6.4 ± 0.9</td><td>267</td><td>1 ACHASOV</td><td>20B SND</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ωη → ηπ<sup>0</sup>γ</td></tr><tr><td>5.62<sup>+ 0.45</sup><sub>- 0.42</sub></td><td></td><td>ACHASOV</td><td>19 SND</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup>η</td></tr><tr><td>4.5 ± 0.3 ± 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>4.4 ± 0.5</td><td>898</td><td>3 ACHASOV</td><td>16B SND</td><td>1.34-2.00 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ωη</td></tr><tr><td>5.7 ± 0.6</td><td>13</td><td>AUBERT</td><td>06D BABR</td><td>10.6 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ωηγ</td></tr><tr><td>&lt; 60 at 90% CL</td><td></td><td>4 AKHMETSHIN 03B</td><td>CMD2</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ηπ<sup>0</sup>γ</td></tr></tbody></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 (5.4 ± 0.6) × 10⁻⁷ 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(1650) → ωη)/Γ<sub>total</sub> × Γ(ω(1650) → e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>) = 51 ± 3 eV.

³ From a fit with contributions from ω(1420), ω(1650), and φ(1680).

⁴ ω(1650) mass and width fixed at 1700 MeV and 250 MeV, respectively.

## ω(1650) BRANCHING RATIOS

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(ρπ)/Γ<sub>total</sub></th><th>Γ<sub>1</sub>/Γ</th></tr><tr><th>VALUE</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><tbody><tr><td>~ 0.65</td><td>1.2M</td><td>1 ACHASOV</td><td>03D RVUE</td><td>0.44-2.00 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>0.380 ± 0.014</td><td></td><td>2 HENNER</td><td>02 RVUE</td><td>1.2-2.0 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ρπ, ωππ</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.380 ± 0.014</td></tr></tbody></table>

² Assuming the ω(1650) decays into ρπ and ωππ only.
Γ(ρ(1450)π)/Γ<sub>total</sub> Γ₂/Γ

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>seen</td><td>ACHASOV</td><td>20A</td><td>SND 1.15-2.00 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

Γ(ωππ)/Γ<sub>total</sub> Γ₃/Γ

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</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. • • •

~ 0.35 1.2M 1 ACHASOV 03D RVUE 0.44-2.00 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup>

0.620±0.014 2 HENNER 02 RVUE 1.2-2.0 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → ρπ, ωππ

¹From 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.

²Assuming that the ω(1650) decays into ρπ and ωππ only.

Γ(e⁺e⁻)/Γ<sub>total</sub> Γ₅/Γ

<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>

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

~ 18 1.2M 1,2 ACHASOV 03D RVUE 0.44-2.00 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup>

32±1 2 HENNER 02 RVUE 1.2-2.0 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → ρπ, ωππ

¹Calculated by us from the cross section at the peak.

²Assuming that the ω(1650) decays into ρπ and ωππ only.

Γ(π⁰γ)/Γ<sub>total</sub> Γ₆/Γ

<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>1 ACHASOV</td><td>10D</td><td>SND 1.075-2.0 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>0</sup>γ</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹From 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). The width of the highest mass effective resonance is fixed at 315 MeV.

ω(1650) REFERENCES

<table><tbody><tr><td>LICHARD</td><td>23</td><td>PR D108 092005</td><td>P. Lichard</td><td>(OPAV, CTUP)</td></tr><tr><td>ACHASOV</td><td>20A</td><td>EPJ C80 993</td><td>M.N. Achasov et al.</td><td>(SND Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ACHASOV</td><td>20B</td><td>EPJ C80 1008</td><td>M.N. Achasov et al.</td><td>(SND Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>19AQ</td><td>PR D100 032004</td><td>M. Ablikim et al.</td><td>(BESIII Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ACHASOV</td><td>19</td><td>PR D99 112004</td><td>M.N. Achasov et al.</td><td>(SND Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>PDG</td><td>18</td><td>PR D98 030001</td><td>M. Tanabashi et al.</td><td>(PDG Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AKHMETSHIN</td><td>17A</td><td>PL B773 150</td><td>R.R. Akhmetshin et al.</td><td>(CMD-3 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ACHASOV</td><td>16B</td><td>PR D94 092002</td><td>M.N. Achasov et al.</td><td>(SND Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AULCHENKON</td><td>15A</td><td>JETP 121 27</td><td>V.M. Aulchenko et al.</td><td>(SND Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Translated from ZETF 148 34.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ACHASOV</td><td>10D</td><td>PR D98 112001</td><td>M.N. Achasov et al.</td><td>(SND Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AUBERT</td><td>07AU</td><td>PR D76 092005</td><td>B. Aubert et al.</td><td>(BABAR Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AUBERT</td><td>06D</td><td>PR D73 052003</td><td>B. Aubert et al.</td><td>(BABAR Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AUBERT,B</td><td>04N</td><td>PR D70 072004</td><td>B. Aubert et al.</td><td>(BABAR Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ACHASOV</td><td>03D</td><td>PR D68 052006</td><td>M.N. Achasov et al.</td><td>(Novosibirsk SND 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>ACHASOV</td><td>02E</td><td>PR D66 032001</td><td>M.N. Achasov et al.</td><td>(Novosibirsk SND Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>HENNER</td><td>02</td><td>EPJ C26 3</td><td>V.K. Henner et al.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ACHASOV</td><td>01E</td><td>PR D63 072002</td><td>M.N. Achasov et al.</td><td>(Novosibirsk SND Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>EUGENIO</td><td>01</td><td>PL B497 190</td><td>P. Eugenio et al.</td><td></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>ACHASOV</td><td>99E</td><td>PL B462 365</td><td>M.N. Achasov et al.</td><td>(Novosibirsk SND Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ACHASOV</td><td>98H</td><td>PR D57 4334</td><td>N.N. Achasov, A.A. Kozhevnikov</td><td></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><tr><td>ANTONELLI</td><td>92</td><td>ZPHY C56 15</td><td>A. Antonelli et al.</td><td>(DM2 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BISELLO</td><td>91C</td><td>ZPHY C52 227</td><td>D. Bisello et al.</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>BISELLO</td><td>88B</td><td>ZPHY C39 13</td><td>D. Bisello et al.</td><td>(PADO, CLER, FRAS+)</td></tr><tr><td>BARKOV</td><td>87</td><td>JETPL 46 164</td><td>L.M. Barkov et al.</td><td>(NOVO)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Translated from ZETF 46 132.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ATKINSON</td><td>83B</td><td>PL 127B 132</td><td>M. Atkinson et al.</td><td>(BONN, CERN, GLAS+)</td></tr><tr><td>CORDIER</td><td>81</td><td>PL 106B 155</td><td>A. Cordier et al.</td><td>(ORSAY)</td></tr><tr><td>IVANOV</td><td>81</td><td>PL 107B 297</td><td>P.M. Ivanov et al.</td><td>(NOVO)</td></tr><tr><td>ESPOSITO</td><td>80</td><td>LNC 28 195</td><td>B. Esposito et al.</td><td>(FRAS, NAPL, PADO+)</td></tr><tr><td>COSME</td><td>79</td><td>NP B152 215</td><td>G. Cosme et al.</td><td>(IPN)</td></tr></tbody></table>

$\omega_3(1670)$

$I^G(JPC) = 0-(3-^-)$

ω₃(1670) 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>1667 ± 4</td><td>OUR AVERAGE</td><td>AMELIN</td><td>96</td><td>VES 36 π<sup>-</sup> p → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup> n</td></tr><tr><td>1665.3 ± 5.2 ± 4.5</td><td>23400</td><td></td><td></td><td>8.2 K<sup>-</sup> p backward</td></tr><tr><td>1685 ± 20</td><td>60</td><td>BAUBILLIER</td><td>79</td><td>HBC 1,2 BALTAY 78E HBC 8.2 K<sup>-</sup> p backward</td></tr><tr><td>1673 ± 12</td><td>430</td><td>CORDEN</td><td>78B</td><td>OMEG 8-12 π<sup>-</sup> p → N3π</td></tr><tr><td>1650 ± 12</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1669 ± 11</td><td>600</td><td>2 WAGNER</td><td>75</td><td>HBC 7 π<sup>+</sup> p → Δ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>+</sup>3π</td></tr><tr><td>1678 ± 14</td><td>500</td><td>DIAZ</td><td>74</td><td>DBC 6 π<sup>+</sup> n → p3π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1660 ± 13</td><td>200</td><td>DIAZ</td><td>74</td><td>DBC 6 π<sup>+</sup> n → ρωπ<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1679 ± 17</td><td>200</td><td>MATTHEWS</td><td>71D</td><td>DBC 7.0 π<sup>+</sup> n → p3π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1670 ± 20</td><td></td><td>KENYON</td><td>69</td><td>DBC 8 π<sup>+</sup> n → p3π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1700</td><td>110</td><td>1 CERRADA</td><td>77B</td><td>HBC 4.2 K<sup>-</sup> p → Λ3π</td></tr><tr><td>1695 ± 20</td><td></td><td>BARNES</td><td>69B</td><td>HBC 4.6 K<sup>-</sup> p → ω2πX</td></tr><tr><td>1636 ± 20</td><td></td><td>ARMENISE</td><td>68B</td><td>DBC 5.1 π<sup>+</sup> n → p3π<sup>0</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹Phase rotation seen for J<sup>P</sup> = 3<sup>-</sup> ρπ wave.

²From a fit to I(J<sup>P</sup>) = 0(3<sup>-</sup>) ρπ partial wave.

ω₃(1670) 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>168 ± 10 OUR AVERAGE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>149 ± 19 ± 7</td><td>23400</td><td>AMELIN</td><td>96</td><td>VES 36 π<sup>-</sup> p → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup> n</td></tr><tr><td>160 ± 80</td><td>60</td><td>3 BAUBILLIER</td><td>79</td><td>HBC 8.2 K<sup>-</sup> p backward</td></tr><tr><td>173 ± 16</td><td>430</td><td>4,5 BALTAY</td><td>78E</td><td>HBC 15 π<sup>+</sup> p → Δ3π</td></tr><tr><td>253 ± 39</td><td></td><td>CORDEN</td><td>78B</td><td>OMEG 8-12 π<sup>-</sup> p → N3π</td></tr><tr><td>173 ± 28</td><td>600</td><td>3,5 WAGNER</td><td>75</td><td>HBC 7 π<sup>+</sup> p → Δ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>+</sup>3π</td></tr><tr><td>167 ± 40</td><td>500</td><td>DIAZ</td><td>74</td><td>DBC 6 π<sup>+</sup> n → p3π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>122 ± 39</td><td>200</td><td>DIAZ</td><td>74</td><td>DBC 6 π<sup>+</sup> n → ρωπ<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>155 ± 40</td><td>200</td><td>3 MATTHEWS</td><td>71D</td><td>DBC 7.0 π<sup>+</sup> n → p3π<sup>0</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

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

90±20 BARNES 69B HBC 4.6 K<sup>-</sup> p → ω2π

100±40 KENYON 69 DBC 8 π<sup>+</sup> n → p3π<sup>0</sup>

112±60 ARMENISE 68B DBC 5.1 π<sup>+</sup> n → p3π<sup>0</sup>

³Width errors enlarged by 4Γ/√N; see the note with the K*(892) mass.

⁴Phase rotation seen for J<sup>P</sup> = 3<sup>-</sup> ρπ wave.

⁵From a fit to I(J<sup>P</sup>) = 0(3<sup>-</sup>) ρπ partial wave.

ω₃(1670) 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> b<sub>1</sub>(1235) π</td><td>possibly seen</td></tr></tbody></table>

ω₃(1670) BRANCHING RATIOS

Γ(ωππ)/Γ(ρπ) Γ₂/Γ₁

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</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>0.71 ± 0.27</td><td>100</td><td>DIAZ</td><td>74</td><td>DBC 6 π<sup>+</sup> n → p5π<sup>0</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

Γ(b₁(1235)π)/Γ(ρπ) Γ₃/Γ₁

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>possibly seen</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Γ(b₁(1235)π)/Γ(ωππ) Γ₃/Γ₂

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</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>>0.75</td><td>68</td><td>BAUBILLIER</td><td>79</td><td>HBC 8.2 K<sup>-</sup> p backward</td></tr></tbody></table>

ω₃(1670) REFERENCES

<table><tbody><tr><td>AMELIN</td><td>96</td><td>ZPHY C70 71</td><td>D.V. Amelin et al. (SERP, TBIL)</td></tr><tr><td>BAUBILLIER</td><td>79</td><td>PL 89B 131</td><td>M. Baubillier et al. (BIRM, CERN, GLAS+)</td></tr><tr><td>BALTAY</td><td>78E</td><td>PRL 40 87</td><td>C. Baltay, C.V. Cautis, M. Kalekdar (COLU) JP</td></tr><tr><td>CORDEN</td><td>78B</td><td>NP B138 235</td><td>M.J. Corden et al. (BIRM, RHEL, TELA+)</td></tr><tr><td>CERRADA</td><td>77B</td><td>NP B126 241</td><td>M. Cerrada et al. (AMST, CERN, NJM+.) JP</td></tr><tr><td>WAGNER</td><td>75</td><td>PL 58B 201</td><td>F. Wagner, M. Tabak, D.M. Chew (BLL) JP</td></tr><tr><td>DIAZ</td><td>74</td><td>PL 32 250</td><td>J. Diaz et al. (CASE, CMU)</td></tr><tr><td>J.A.J. Matthews et al.</td><td>71D</td><td>PRL D3 2561</td><td>TNT0, WISC</td></tr><tr><td>BARNES</td><td>69B</td><td>PRL 23 142</td><td>V.E. Barnes et al. (BNL)</td></tr><tr><td>KENYON</td><td>69</td><td>PRL 23 146</td><td>I.R. Kenyon et al. (BNL, UCND, ORNL)</td></tr><tr><td>ARMENISE</td><td>68B</td><td>PL 26B 336</td><td>N. Armenise et al. (BARI, BGNA, FIRZ+)</td></tr></tbody></table>

$\pi_2(1670)$

$I^G(JPC) = 1-(2-^-)$

π₂(1670) MASS

<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><tbody><tr><td>1670.6<sup>+2.9</sup><sub>-1.2</sub> OUR AVERAGE</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1642</td><td>+12<sup>-1</sup></td><td>46M</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1749</td><td>±10</td><td>±100</td><td>145k</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1676</td><td>±3</td><td>±8</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1685</td><td>±10</td><td>±30</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1687</td><td>±9</td><td>±15</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1669</td><td>±4</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1670</td><td>±4</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1690</td><td>±14</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1710</td><td>±20</td><td></td><td>700</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1676</td><td>±6</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1657</td><td>±14</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1662</td><td>±10</td><td></td><td>2000</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tbody><tr><td>1658</td><td>± 3</td><td>+ 24</td><td>420k</td><td>5 ALEKSEEV</td><td>10 COMP</td><td>190 π<sup>-</sup> Pb → π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>+</sup> Pb'</td></tr><tr><td>1730</td><td>±20</td><td></td><td></td><td>6 AMELIN</td><td>95B VES</td><td>36 π<sup>-</sup> A → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup> A</td></tr><tr><td>1742</td><td>±31</td><td>± 49</td><td></td><td>ANTREASYAN</td><td>90 CBAL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>π<sub>0</sub>π<sub>0</sub></td></tr><tr><td>1624</td><td>±21</td><td></td><td></td><td>2 BELLINI</td><td>85 SPEC</td><td>40 π<sup>-</sup> A → π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup> A</td></tr><tr><td>1622</td><td>±35</td><td></td><td></td><td>7 BELLINI</td><td>85 SPEC</td><td>40 π<sup>-</sup> A → π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup> A</td></tr><tr><td>1693</td><td>±28</td><td></td><td></td><td>8 BELLINI</td><td>85 SPEC</td><td>40 π<sup>-</sup> A → π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup> A</td></tr><tr><td>1710</td><td>±20</td><td></td><td></td><td>9 DAUM</td><td>81B SPEC</td><td>63,94 π<sup>-</sup> p</td></tr><tr><td>1660</td><td>±10</td><td></td><td></td><td>3 ASCOLI</td><td>73 HBC</td><td>5-25 π<sup>-</sup> p → pπ<sub>2</sub></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹Statistical error negligible.

²From $f_2(1270)\pi$ decay.

³From a fit to $J^P = 2^-S-wave$ $f_2(1270)\pi$ partial wave.

⁴Clear phase rotation seen in $2^-S, 2^-P, 2^-D$ waves. We quote central value and spread of single-resonance fits to three channels.

⁵Superseded by AGHASYAN 2018B.

⁶$J^{PC}$ ambiguous.

⁷From $\rho\pi$ decay.

⁸From $\sigma\pi$ decay.

⁹From a two-resonance fit to four $2^-0^+$ waves. This should not be averaged with all the single resonance fits.

<figure><img src="image_482.png" /><figcaption>WEIGHTED AVERAGE
1670.6+2.9-1.2 (Error scaled by 1.3)</figcaption></figure>

## π₂(1670) WIDTH

<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><tbody><tr><td><strong>258</strong><sup>+</sup><br><strong>8</strong><sup>9</sup> OUR AVERAGE</td><td></td><td colspan="4">Error includes scale factor of 1.2.</td></tr><tr><td>311<sup>+</sup><sub>-23</sub></td><td>46M</td><td>10</td><td>AGHASYAN</td><td>18B COMP</td><td>190 π<sup>-</sup> p → π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup> p</td></tr><tr><td>408 ± 60 ± 250</td><td>145k</td><td>LU</td><td>05</td><td>B852</td><td>18 π<sup>-</sup> p → ωπ<sup>-</sup> π<sup>0</sup> p</td></tr><tr><td>254 ± 3 ± 31</td><td></td><td>11</td><td>CHUNG</td><td>02 B852</td><td>18.3 π<sup>-</sup> p → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>-</sup> p</td></tr><tr><td>265 ± 30 ± 40</td><td></td><td>BARBERIS</td><td>01</td><td></td><td>450 pp → p<sub>f</sub> 3π<sup>0</sup> p<sub>s</sub></td></tr><tr><td>168 ± 43 ± 53</td><td></td><td>AMELIN</td><td>99 VES</td><td></td><td>37 π<sup>-</sup> A → ωπ<sup>-</sup> π<sup>0</sup> A*</td></tr><tr><td>268 ± 15</td><td></td><td>BARBERIS</td><td>98B</td><td></td><td>450 pp → p<sub>f</sub> ρπ p<sub>s</sub></td></tr><tr><td>256 ± 15</td><td></td><td>BARBERIS</td><td>98B</td><td></td><td>450 pp → p<sub>f</sub> f<sub>2</sub>(1270) π p<sub>s</sub></td></tr><tr><td>190 ± 50</td><td></td><td>12</td><td>BERDNIKOV</td><td>94 VES</td><td>37 π<sup>-</sup> A → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>-</sup> A</td></tr><tr><td>170 ± 80</td><td>700</td><td>ANTIPOV</td><td>87 SIGM</td><td>-</td><td>50 π<sup>-</sup> Cu → μ<sup>+</sup>μ<sup>-</sup> π<sup>-</sup> Cu</td></tr><tr><td>260 ± 20</td><td></td><td>12</td><td>EVANGELIS...</td><td>81 OMEG</td><td>12 π<sup>-</sup> p → 3π p</td></tr><tr><td>219 ± 20</td><td>12,13</td><td>DAUM</td><td>80D SPEC</td><td>-</td><td>63-94 π p → 3π X</td></tr><tr><td>285 ± 60</td><td>2000</td><td>12</td><td>BALTAY</td><td>77 HBC</td><td>15 π<sup>+</sup> p → p3π</td></tr><tr><td colspan="6"><strong>• • •</strong> We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>271 ± 9<sup>+22</sup><sub>-24</sub></td><td>420k</td><td>14</td><td>ALEKSEEV</td><td>10 COMP</td><td>190 π<sup>-</sup> Pb → π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>+</sup> Pb'</td></tr><tr><td>310 ± 20</td><td></td><td>15</td><td>AMELIN</td><td>95B VES</td><td>36 π<sup>-</sup> A → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup> A</td></tr><tr><td>236 ± 49 ± 36</td><td></td><td>ANTREASYAN</td><td>90 CBAL</td><td></td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>π<sub>0</sub>π<sub>0</sub></td></tr><tr><td>304 ± 22</td><td></td><td>11</td><td>BELLINI</td><td>85 SPEC</td><td>40 π<sup>-</sup> A → π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup> A</td></tr><tr><td>404 ± 108</td><td></td><td>16</td><td>BELLINI</td><td>85 SPEC</td><td>40 π<sup>-</sup> A → π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup> A</td></tr><tr><td>330 ± 90</td><td></td><td>17</td><td>BELLINI</td><td>85 SPEC</td><td>40 π<sup>-</sup> A → π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup> A</td></tr><tr><td>312 ± 50</td><td></td><td>18</td><td>DAUM</td><td>81B SPEC</td><td>63,94 π<sup>-</sup> p</td></tr><tr><td>270 ± 60</td><td></td><td>12</td><td>ASCOLI</td><td>73 HBC</td><td>5-25 π<sup>-</sup> p → pπ<sub>2</sub></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹⁰Statistical error negligible.

¹¹From $f_2(1270)\pi$ decay.

¹²From a fit to $J^P = 2^-f_2(1270)\pi$ partial wave.

¹³Clear phase rotation seen in $2^-S, 2^-P, 2^-D$ waves. We quote central value and spread of single-resonance fits to three channels.

¹⁴Superseded by AGHASYAN 2018B.

¹⁵$J^{PC}$ ambiguous.

¹⁶From $\rho\pi$ decay.

¹⁷From $\sigma\pi$ decay.

¹⁸From a two-resonance fit to four $2^-0^+$ waves. This should not be averaged with all the single resonance fits.

## π₂(1670) DECAY MODES

<table><thead><tr><th>Mode</th><th>Fraction (Γ<sub>f</sub>/Γ)</th><th>Confidence level</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Γ<sub>1</sub> 3π</td><td>(95.8 ± 1.4) %</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>2</sub> π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>3</sub> π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>4</sub> f<sub>2</sub>(1270)π</td><td>(56.3 ± 3.2) %</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>5</sub> ρπ</td><td>(31 ± 4) %</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>6</sub> σπ</td><td>(10 ± 4) %</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>7</sub> π(ππ)<sub>S-wave</sub></td><td>(8.7 ± 3.4) %</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>8</sub> π<sup>±</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td><td>(53 ± 4) %</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>9</sub> K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>(892) + c.c.</td><td>(4.2 ± 1.4) %</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>10</sub> ωρ</td><td>(2.7 ± 1.1) %</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>11</sub> π<sup>±</sup>γ</td><td>(7.0 ± 1.2) × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>12</sub> γγ</td><td></td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>13</sub> ηπ</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>14</sub> π<sup>±</sup>2π<sup>+</sup>2π<sup>-</sup></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>15</sub> ρ(1450)π</td><td></td><td>97.7%</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>16</sub> b<sub>1</sub>(1235)π</td><td></td><td>97.7%</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>17</sub> f<sub>1</sub>(1285)π</td><td>possibly seen</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>18</sub> a<sub>2</sub>(1320)π</td><td>not seen</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

## CONSTRAINED FIT INFORMATION

An overall fit to 4 branching ratios uses 6 measurements and one constraint to determine 4 parameters. The overall fit has a $\chi^2 = 1.9$ for 3 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.

<figure><img src="image_483.png" /></figure>

## π₂(1670) PARTIAL WIDTHS

### Γ(π±γ)

Γ₁₁

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (keV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>CHG</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>181 ± 11 ± 27</strong></td><td>19 ADOLPH</td><td>14</td><td>COMP</td><td>190 π<sup>-</sup> Pb → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>-</sup> Pb'</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹⁹Primakoff reaction. Assumes incoherent $f_2(1270)\pi$ contribution to 3π final state and uses $B(\pi_2(1670) → f_2\pi) = 56\%$.

### Γ(γγ)

Γ₁₂

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (keV)</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>CHG</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>&lt;0.072</strong></td><td>90</td><td>20</td><td>ACCIARRI</td><td>97T</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</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>&lt;0.19</td><td>90</td><td>20</td><td>ALBRECHT</td><td>97B ARG</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1.41 ± 0.23 ± 0.28</td><td></td><td>ANTREASYAN</td><td>90 CBAL</td><td>0</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>π<sub>0</sub>π<sub>0</sub></td></tr><tr><td>0.8 ± 0.3 ± 0.12</td><td></td><td>21</td><td>BEHREND</td><td>90C CELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1.3 ± 0.3 ± 0.2</td><td></td><td>22</td><td>BEHREND</td><td>90C CELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

²⁰Decaying into $f_2(1270)\pi$ and $\rho\pi$.

²¹Constructive interference between $f_2(1270)\pi, \rho\pi$ and background.

²²Incoherent Ansatz.

## π₂(1670) Γ(i)Γ(γγ)/Γ(total)

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (keV)</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>&lt;0.1</strong></td><td>95</td><td>23</td><td>SCHEGELSKY</td><td>06 RVUE</td><td>γγ → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

²³From analysis of L3 data at 183–209 GeV.
## $\pi_2(1670)$ BRANCHING RATIOS

$$ \Gamma(3\pi)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_1/\Gamma = (\Gamma_4+\Gamma_5+\Gamma_7)/\Gamma $$

VALUE
0.958±0.014 OUR FIT

DOCUMENT ID

$$ \Gamma(\pi^0\pi^0\pi^0)/\Gamma(\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0) \qquad \Gamma_3/\Gamma_2 $$

VALUE
0.29±0.03±0.05

DOCUMENT ID

COMMENT
450 $p\bar{p} \to p\bar{p} 3\pi^0 p_S$

BARBERIS

$$ \Gamma(\rho\pi)/0.565\Gamma(f_2(1270)\pi) \qquad \Gamma_5/0.565\Gamma_4 $$

(With $f_2(1270) \to \pi^+\pi^-$)

VALUE
0.97±0.09 OUR AVERAGE

DOCUMENT ID

TECN

COMMENT

<table>
  <tr>
    <td colspan="3">Error includes scale factor of 1.9.</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>0.76±0.07±0.10</td>
    <td>CHUNG</td>
    <td>02 B852</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>1.01±0.05</td>
    <td>BARBERIS</td>
    <td>98B</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
    <td>18.3 $\pi^-\pi^-\pi^-\pi^0 p$</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
    <td>450 $p\bar{p} \to p\bar{p} \pi^+\pi^-\pi^0 p_S$</td>
  </tr>
</table>

$$ \Gamma(\sigma\pi)/\Gamma(f_2(1270)\pi) \qquad \Gamma_6/\Gamma_4 $$

VALUE
0.17±0.02±0.07

DOCUMENT ID

TECN

COMMENT

<table>
  <tr>
    <td>0.17±0.02±0.07</td>
    <td>CHUNG</td>
    <td>02 B852</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td></td>
    <td></td>
    <td>18.3 $\pi^-\pi^-\pi^-\pi^0 p$</td>
  </tr>
</table>

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

<table>
  <tr>
    <td>0.24±0.10</td>
    <td>24.25 BAKER</td>
    <td>99 SPEC</td>
    <td>1.94 $p\bar{p} \to 4\pi^0$</td>
  </tr>
</table>

$$ \frac{1}{2}\Gamma(\rho\pi)/\Gamma(\pi^\pm\pi^+\pi^-) \qquad \frac{1}{2}\Gamma_5/\Gamma_8 = \frac{1}{2}\Gamma_5/(0.565\Gamma_4+\frac{1}{2}\Gamma_5+0.624\Gamma_7) $$

VALUE
0.29±0.04 OUR FIT

DOCUMENT ID

TECN

CHG

COMMENT

<table>
  <tr>
    <td>0.29±0.05</td>
    <td>26 DAUM</td>
    <td>81B SPEC</td>
    <td>63.94 $\pi^- p$</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td colspan="4">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>&lt;0.3</td>
    <td>BARTSCH</td>
    <td>68 HBC</td>
    <td>+ 8 $\pi^+ p \to 3\pi p$</td>
  </tr>
</table>

$$ \frac{0.565\Gamma(f_2(1270)\pi)}{\Gamma(\pi^\pm\pi^+\pi^-)} \qquad \frac{0.565\Gamma_4/\Gamma_8 = 0.565\Gamma_4/(0.565\Gamma_4+\frac{1}{2}\Gamma_5+0.624\Gamma_7)}{\Gamma(\pi^\pm\pi^+\pi^-)} $$

(With $f_2(1270) \to \pi^+\pi^-$)

VALUE
0.604±0.035 OUR FIT

DOCUMENT ID

TECN

CHG

COMMENT

<table>
  <tr>
    <td>0.60 ±0.05 OUR AVERAGE</td>
    <td>Error includes scale factor of 1.3.</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>0.61 ±0.04</td>
    <td>26 DAUM 81B SPEC 63.94 $\pi^- p$</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>0.76 +0.24</td>
    <td>ARMENISE 69 DBC + 5.1 $\pi^+ d \to d\pi 3$</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>-0.34</td>
    <td></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>0.35 ±0.20</td>
    <td>BALTAY 68 HBC + 7-8.5 $\pi^+ p$</td>
  </tr>
</table>

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

<table>
  <tr>
    <td>0.59</td>
    <td>BARTSCH</td>
    <td>68 HBC</td>
    <td>+ 8 $\pi^+ p \to 3\pi p$</td>
  </tr>
</table>

$$ \frac{0.624\Gamma(\pi\pi_s\pi^-)}{\Gamma(\pi^\pm\pi^+\pi^-)} \qquad \frac{0.624\Gamma_7/\Gamma_8 = 0.624\Gamma_7/(0.565\Gamma_4+\frac{1}{2}\Gamma_5+0.624\Gamma_7)}{\Gamma(\pi^\pm\pi^+\pi^-)} $$

(With $\pi\pi_s\pi^- \to \pi^+\pi^-\pi^-$)

VALUE
0.10±0.04 OUR FIT

DOCUMENT ID

TECN

COMMENT

<table>
  <tr>
    <td>0.10±0.05</td>
    <td>26 DAUM</td>
    <td>81B SPEC</td>
    <td>63.94 $\pi^- p$</td>
  </tr>
</table>

$$ \Gamma(K\bar{K}^*(892)+c.c.)/\Gamma(f_2(1270)\pi) \qquad \Gamma_9/\Gamma_4 $$

VALUE
0.075±0.025 OUR FIT

DOCUMENT ID

TECN

CHG

COMMENT

<table>
  <tr>
    <td>0.075±0.025</td>
    <td>27 ARMSTRONG 82B OMEG - 16 $\pi^- p \to K^+ K^- \pi^- p$</td>
  </tr>
</table>

$$ \Gamma(\rho\omega)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{10}/\Gamma $$

VALUE
0.027±0.004±0.010

DOCUMENT ID

TECN

COMMENT

<table>
  <tr>
    <td>0.027±0.004±0.010</td>
    <td>28 AMELIN</td>
    <td>99 VES</td>
    <td>37 $\pi^- A \to \omega\pi^0 \pi^0 A^*$</td>
  </tr>
</table>

$$ \frac{\Gamma(\eta\pi)}{\Gamma(\pi^\pm\pi^+\pi^-)} \qquad \Gamma_{13}/\Gamma_8 = \Gamma_{13}/(0.565\Gamma_4+\frac{1}{2}\Gamma_5+0.624\Gamma_7) $$

(All $\eta$ decays.)

VALUE
<0.09

DOCUMENT ID

TECN

CHG

COMMENT

<table>
  <tr>
    <td>0.09</td>
    <td>BALTAY 68 HBC + 7-8.5 $\pi^+ p$</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td colspan="2">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>&lt;0.10</td>
    <td>CRENNELL 70 HBC - 6 $\pi^- p \to f_2\pi^- N$</td>
  </tr>
</table>

$$ \frac{\Gamma(\pi^\pm 2\pi^+\pi^-)}{\Gamma(\pi^\pm\pi^+\pi^-)} \qquad \Gamma_{14}/\Gamma_8 = \Gamma_{14}/(0.565\Gamma_4+\frac{1}{2}\Gamma_5+0.624\Gamma_7) $$

VALUE
<0.10

DOCUMENT ID

TECN

CHG

COMMENT

<table>
  <tr>
    <td>0.10</td>
    <td>CRENNELL 70 HBC - 6 $\pi^- p \to f_2\pi^- N$</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td colspan="2">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>&lt;0.1</td>
    <td>BALTAY 68 HBC + 7.8.5 $\pi^+ p$</td>
  </tr>
</table>

$$ \Gamma(\rho(1450)\pi)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \qquad \Gamma_{15}/\Gamma $$

VALUE
<0.0036

DOCUMENT ID

TECN

COMMENT

<table>
  <tr>
    <td>97.7</td>
    <td>AMELIN</td>
    <td>99 VES</td>
    <td>37 $\pi^- A \to \omega\pi^0 \pi^0 A^*$</td>
  </tr>
</table>

$$ \frac{\Gamma(b_1(1235)\pi)}{\Gamma_{\text{total}}} \qquad \Gamma_{16}/\Gamma $$

VALUE
<0.0019

DOCUMENT ID

TECN

COMMENT

<table>
  <tr>
    <td>97.7</td>
    <td>AMELIN</td>
    <td>99 VES</td>
    <td>37 $\pi^- A \to \omega\pi^0 \pi^0 A^*$</td>
  </tr>
</table>

$$ \frac{\Gamma(f_1(1285)\pi)}{\Gamma_{\text{total}}} \qquad \Gamma_{\text{17}}/\Gamma $$

VALUE
possibly seen

EVENTS
69k

DOCUMENT ID
KUHN

TECN
04 B852

COMMENT
18 $\pi^- p \to \eta\pi^+\pi^-\pi^- p$

$$ \frac{\Gamma(a_2(1320)\pi)}{\Gamma_{\text{total}}} \qquad \Gamma_{\text{18}}/\Gamma $$

VALUE
not seen

EVENTS
69k

DOCUMENT ID
KUHN

TECN
04 B852

COMMENT
18 $\pi^- p \to \eta\pi^+\pi^-\pi^- p$

$$ \frac{\text{D-wave}/\text{S-wave RATIO FOR } \pi_2(1670)}{\Gamma_2(1670)\pi} \qquad \frac{\Gamma_2(1670)\pi}{\Gamma_{\text{18}}/\Gamma} $$

VALUE
-0.18±0.06

EVENTS
24 BAKER
99 SPEC

DOCUMENT ID
24 BAKER
99 SPEC

TECN
1.94 $p\bar{p} \to 4\pi^0$

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

<table>
  <tr>
    <td>0.22±0.10</td>
    <td>26 DAUM 81B SPEC 63.94 $\pi^- p$</td>
  </tr>
</table>

$$ \frac{\text{F-wave}/\text{P-wave RATIO FOR } \pi_2(1670)}{\rho\pi} \qquad \frac{\Gamma_2(1670)\pi}{\Gamma_{\text{18}}/\Gamma} $$

VALUE
-0.72±0.07±0.14

DOCUMENT ID
CHUNG

TECN
02 B852

COMMENT
18 $\pi^- p \to \pi^+\pi^-\pi^- p$

24 Using preliminary CBAR data.

25 With the $\sigma\pi$ in $L=2$ and the $f_2(1270)\pi$ in $L=0$.

26 From a two-resonance fit to four $2^0-0^+$ waves.

27 From a partial-wave analysis of $K^+ K^-\pi^-$ system.

28 Normalized to the $B(\pi_2(1670) \to f_2\pi)$.

## $\pi_2(1670)$ REFERENCES

AGHASYAN 18B PR D98 092003
ADOLPH 1 ASS 79 EPJ A50 79
ALEKSEEV 10 PRL 104 241803
SCHEGELSKY 06 EPJ A27 199
LU 05 PRL 94 032002
KUHN 04 PL B95 109
CHUNG 02 PR D65 072001
BARBERIS 01 PL B507 14
AMELIN 99 PAN 62 445

M. Aghasyan et al. (COMPASS Collab.)
C. Adolph et al. (COMPASS Collab.)
M.G. Alekseev et al. (COMPASS Collab.)
V.A. Schegelsky et al. (BNL E852 Collab.)
M. Lu et al. (BNL E852 Collab.)
S. J. Kuhn et al. (BNL E852 Collab.)
D. Barberis et al. (BNL E852 Collab.)
D.V. Amelin et al. (VES Collab.)

BAKER 99 PL B449 114
BARBERIS 98B PL B422 399
ACCIARRI 97T PL B413 147
ALBRECHT 97B ZPHY C74 469
AMELIN 95B PL B356 595
BERDNIKOV 94 PL B337 219
ANTREASYAN 90 ZPHY C48 561
BEHREND 90C ZPHY C46 583
ANTIPOV 87 EPL 4 403
BELLINI 85 SJNP 41 781

Translated from YAF 62 487.
C.A. Baker et al. (WA 102 Collab.)
D. Barberis et al. (L3 Collab.)
M. Acciarri et al. (ARGUS Collab.)
H. Albrecht et al. (SERP, TBIL)
D.V. Amelin et al. (SERP, TBIL)
E.B. Berdnikov et al. (Crystal Ball Collab.)
D. Antreasyan et al. (Crystal Ball Collab.)
H.J. Behrend et al. (CELLO Collab.)
Y.M. Antipov et al. (SERP, JINR, INR+)

ARMSTRONG 82B NP B202 1
DAUM 81B NP B182 269
EVANGELIS... 81 NP B178 197
Also 81B NP B186 594
DAUM 80D PL B9B 285
BALTAY 77 PRL 39 591
ASCOLI 73 PR D7 669
CRENNELL 70 PRL 24 781
ARMENISE 69 LNC 2 501
BALTAY 68 PRL 20 887
BARTSCH 68 NP B7 345

Translated from YAF 41 1223.
T.A. Armstrong, B. Baccari (AACH3, BARI, BONN+)
C. A. Baker et al. (AMST, CERN, CRAC, MPIM+)
C. Evangelista et al. (BARI, BONN, CERN+)
C. Evangelista et al. (BARI, BONN, CERN)
C. A. Baker et al. (AMST, CERN, CRAC, MPIM+) JP
C. Baltay, C.V. Cautis, M. Kalekar (COLU) JP
G. Ascòli (ILL, TINTO, GENO, HAMB, MILA+) JP
D.J. Crennell et al. (BNL)
N. Arménise et al. (BARI, BGNA, FIRZ)
C. Baltay et al. (COLU, ROCH, RUTG, YALE) I
J. Bartsch et al. (AACH, BERL, CERN) JP

$$ \phi(1680) $$

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

## $\phi(1680)$ MASS

$$ \frac{e^+ e^- \text{ PRODUCTION}}{\text{1680} \pm 20 \text{ OUR ESTIMATE}} \qquad \frac{\text{DOCUMENT ID}}{\text{EVENTS}} $$

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

<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>1656.8 ± 4.9</td>
      <td>1 LICHARD</td>
      <td>23 RVUE</td>
      <td>e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → T(nS) → φηη</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>1683 ± 7 ± 9</td>
      <td>2 ZHU</td>
      <td>23 BELL</td>
      <td>e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → T(nS) → φηη</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>1678 ± 5 ± 7</td>
      <td>3 ZHU</td>
      <td>23A RVUE</td>
      <td>e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → ηφ</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>1673 ± 5</td>
      <td>4 ABLIKIM</td>
      <td>22L BES3</td>
      <td>2.0-3.08 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>1680 +12 -13 ±21 1.8k</td>
      <td>5 ABLIKIM</td>
      <td>20F BES3</td>
      <td>ψ(25) → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>η</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>1662 ±20</td>
      <td>6 ACHASOV</td>
      <td>20C SND</td>
      <td>1.3-2.0 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>1641 +24 -18</td>
      <td>ACHASOV</td>
      <td>19 SND</td>
      <td>e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup>η</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>1667 ± 5 ±11 3k</td>
      <td>7 IVANOV</td>
      <td>19A CMD3</td>
      <td>1.59-2.007 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>η</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>1700 ±23 2k</td>
      <td>8 ACHASOV</td>
      <td>18A SND</td>
      <td>1.3-2.0 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → K<sup>0</sup>S K<sup>0</sup>L π<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>0</sup>S K<sup>0</sup>L π<sup>0</sup></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>1674 ±12 ± 6 6.2k</td>
      <td>9 LEES</td>
      <td>14H BABR</td>
      <td>e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → K<sup>0</sup>S K<sup>0</sup>L γ</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>1733 ±10 ±10</td>
      <td>10 LEES</td>
      <td>12F BABR</td>
      <td>10.6 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → φπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>γ</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>1689 ± 7 ±10 4.8k</td>
      <td>11 SHEN</td>
      <td>09 BELL</td>
      <td>10.6 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>-</sup>γ</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>1709 ±20 ±43</td>
      <td>12 AUBERT</td>
      <td>08S BABR</td>
      <td>10.6 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → hadrons</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>1623 ±20 948</td>
      <td>13 AKHMETSHIN 03</td>
      <td>CMD2</td>
      <td>1.05-1.38 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → K<sup>0</sup>L K<sup>0</sup>S</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>~ 1500</td>
      <td>14 ACHASOV</td>
      <td>98H RVUE</td>
      <td>e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup>, ωπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>, K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup></td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
# Meson Particle Listings

## $\phi(1680)$

~ 1900

1700 $\pm$ 20

1657 $\pm$ 27

1655 $\pm$ 17

1680 $\pm$ 10

1677 $\pm$ 12

15 ACHASOV

16 CLEGG

17 BISELLO

18 BUON

19 MANE

98H RVUE $e^+e^- \to K_S^0 K^\pm \pi^\mp$

94 RVUE $e^+e^- \to K^+ K^-, K_S^0 K \pi$

91C DM2 $e^+e^- \to K_S^0 K^\pm \pi^\mp$

88B DM2 $e^+e^- \to K^+ K^-$

82 DM1 $e^+e^- \to \text{hadrons}$

82 DM1 $e^+e^- \to K_S^0 K \pi$

1 From a VDM fit to ZHU 23 $\eta\phi\gamma$ data with two resonances, $\phi(1680)$, $\phi(2170)$, and a third resonance with mass 1850.7 $\pm$ 5.3 MeV and width 25 $\pm$ 35 MeV of $1.7\sigma$ statistical evidence.

2 From a fit using a vector meson dominance model with contributions from $\phi(1680)$, $\phi(2170)$ and non resonant contribution.

3 From the analysis of the combined measurements of $\sigma(e^+e^- \to \eta\phi)$ from BaBar, Belle, BESIII, CMD3.

4 From a partial wave amplitude analysis at $\sqrt{s} = 2.125$ GeV which includes all the possible intermediate states that match $J^{PC}$ conservation in the subsequent two-body decay. The intermediate states are parameterized with the relativistic Breit-Wigner functions. Statistical error only.

5 Seen in $\psi(2S)$ decay with branching ratio $\psi(2S) \to X\eta \to K^+K^-\eta = (12.0 \pm 1.3^{+6.9}_{-6.9}) \times 10^{-6}$.

6 From a fit using a vector meson dominance model with contribution from $\rho(770)$, $\omega(782)$, $\phi(1020)$, $\omega(1420)$, $\rho(1450)$.

7 From a fit with coherent interference of the $\phi(1680)$ with a non-resonant contribution.

8 Assuming the $K\bar{K}^*(892) + \text{c.c.}$ dynamics. Systematic uncertainties not estimated.

9 Using a vector meson dominance model with contribution from $\phi(1020)$, $\phi(1680)$, and higher mass excitations of $\rho(770)$ and $\omega(782)$.

10 Using events with $\pi\pi$ invariant mass less than 0.85 GeV.

11 From a fit with two incoherent Breit-Wignerms.

12 From the simultaneous fit to the $K\bar{K}^*(892) + \text{c.c.}$ and $\phi\eta$ data from AUBERT 08s using the results of AUBERT 07AK.

13 From the combined fit of AKHMETSHIN 03 and MANE 81 also including $\rho$, $\omega$, and $\phi$. Neither isospin nor flavor structure known.

14 Using data from IVANOV 81, BARKOV 87, BISELLO 88b, DOLINSKY 91, and AN-TONELLI 92.

15 Using the data from BISELLO 91c.

16 Using BISELLO 88b and MANE 82 data.

17 From global fit including $\rho$, $\omega$, $\phi$ and $\rho(1700)$ assume mass 1570 MeV and width 510 MeV for $\rho$ radial excitation.

18 From global fit of $\rho$, $\omega$, $\phi$ and their radial excitations to channels $\omega\pi^+\pi^-$, $K^+K^-$, $K_S^0 K_L^0$, $K_S^0 K^\pm\pi^\mp$. Assume mass 1570 MeV and width 510 MeV for $\rho$ radial excitations, mass 1570 and width 500 MeV for $\omega$ radial excitation.

19 Fit to one channel only, neglecting interference with $\omega$, $\rho(1700)$.

## $p\bar{p}$ ANNIHILATION

VALUE (MeV)

DOCUMENT ID

TECN COMMENT

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

1700 $\pm$ 8

1 AMSLER

06

CBAR 0.9 $p\bar{p} \to K^+K^-\pi^0$

1 Could also be $\rho(1700)$.

## $\phi(1680)$ WIDTH

### $e^+e^-$ PRODUCTION

VALUE (MeV)

DOCUMENT ID

TECN COMMENT

150 $\pm$ 50 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. • • •

150.8 $\pm$ 7.0

149 $\pm$ 12 $\pm$ 13

156 $\pm$ 5 $\pm$ 9

172 $\pm$ 8

185 $^{+30}_{-26}$

$^{+25}_{-47}$

1.8k

159 $\pm$ 32

103 $^{+26}_{-24}$

176 $\pm$ 23 $\pm$ 38

211 $\pm$ 14 $\pm$ 19

322 $\pm$ 77

139 $\pm$ 60

300 $\pm$ 60

146 $\pm$ 55

207 $\pm$ 45

185 $\pm$ 22

102 $\pm$ 36

1 LICHARD

2 ZHU

3 ZHU

4 ABLIKIM

5 ABLIKIM

6 ACHASOV

7 IVANOV

8 ACHASOV

9 LEES

10 LEES

11 SHEN

12 AUBERT

13 AKHMETSHIN

14 CLEGG

15 BISELLO

16 BUON

17 MANE

23 RVUE $e^+e^- \to \Gamma(nS) \to \phi\eta\gamma$

23 BELL $e^+e^- \to \Gamma(nS) \to \phi\eta\gamma$

23A RVUE $e^+e^- \to \eta\phi$

22L BES3 2.0-3.08 $e^+e^- \to K^+K^-\pi^0$

20F BES3 $\psi(2S) \to K^+K^-\eta$

20C SND 1.3-2.0 $e^+e^- \to K^+K^-\pi^0$

19A CMD3 1.59-2.007 $e^+e^- \to K^+K^-\eta$

19A SND 1.3-2.0 $e^+e^- \to K_S^0 K_L^0\pi^0$

14H BABR $e^+e^- \to K_S^0 K_L^0\gamma$

12F BABR 10.6 $e^+e^- \to \phi\pi^+\pi^-\gamma$

09 BELL 10.6 $e^+e^- \to K^+K^-\pi^+\pi^-\gamma$

18A SND 1.3-2.0 $e^+e^- \to K_S^0 K_L^0\pi^0$

14H BABR $e^+e^- \to K_S^0 K_L^0\gamma$

12F BABR 10.6 $e^+e^- \to \phi\pi^+\pi^-\gamma$

09 BELL 10.6 $e^+e^- \to K^+K^-\pi^+\pi^-\gamma$

18A BABR 10.6 $e^+e^- \to \text{hadrons}$

94B 10.6 $e^+e^- \to \text{hadrons}$

94B 10.6 $e^+e^- \to \text{hadrons}$

94B 10.6 $e^+e^- \to \text{hadrons}$

94B 10.6 $e^+e^- \to \text{hadrons}$

94B 10.6 $e^+e^- \to \text{hadrons}$

94B 10.6 $e^+e^- \to \text{hadrons}$

94B 10.6 $e^+e^- \to \text{hadrons}$

94B 10.6 $e^+e^- \to \text{hadrons}$

94B 10.6 $e^+e^- \to \text{hadrons}$

94B 10.6 $e^+e^- \to \text{hadrons}$

94B 10.6 $e^+e^- \to \text{hadrons}$

94B 10.6 $e^+e^- \to \text{hadrons}$

94B 10.6 $e^+e^- \to \text{hadrons}$

1 From a VDM fit to ZHU 23 $\eta\phi\gamma$ data with two resonances, $\phi(1680)$, $\phi(2170)$, and a third resonance with mass 1850.7 $\pm$ 5.3 MeV and width 25 $\pm$ 35 MeV of $1.7\sigma$ statistical evidence.

2 From a fit using a vector meson dominance model with contributions from $\phi(1680)$, $\phi(2170)$ and non resonant contribution.

3 From the analysis of the combined measurements of $\sigma(e^+e^- \to \eta\phi)$ from BaBar, Belle, BESIII, CMD3.

4 From a partial wave amplitude analysis at $\sqrt{s} = 2.125$ GeV which includes all the possible intermediate states that match $J^{PC}$ conservation in the subsequent two-body decay. The intermediate states are parameterized with the relativistic Breit-Wigner functions. Statistical error only.

5 Seen in $\psi(2S)$ decay with branching ratio $\psi(2S) \to X\eta \to K^+K^-\eta = (12.0 \pm 1.3^{+6.9}_{-6.9}) \times 10^{-6}$.

6 From a fit using a vector meson dominance model with contribution from $\rho(770)$, $\omega(782)$, $\phi(1020)$, $\omega(1420)$, $\rho(1450)$.

7 From a fit with coherent interference of the $\phi(1680)$ with a non-resonant contribution.

8 Assuming the $K\bar{K}^*(892) + \text{c.c.}$ dynamics. Systematic uncertainties not estimated.

9 Using a vector meson dominance model with contribution from $\phi(1020)$, $\phi(1680)$, and higher mass excitations of $\rho(770)$ and $\omega(782)$.

10 Using events with $\pi\pi$ invariant mass less than 0.85 GeV.

11 From a fit with two incoherent Breit-Wignerms.

12 From the simultaneous fit to the $K\bar{K}^*(892) + \text{c.c.}$ and $\phi\eta$ data from AUBERT 08s using the results of AUBERT 07AK.

13 From the combined fit of AKHMETSHIN 03 and MANE 81 also including $\rho$, $\omega$, and $\phi$. Neither isospin nor flavor structure known.

14 Using BISELLO 88b and MANE 82 data.

15 From global fit including $\rho$, $\omega$, $\phi$ and $\rho(1700)$.

16 From global fit of $\rho$, $\omega$, $\phi$ and their radial excitations to channels $\omega\pi^+\pi^-$, $K^+K^-$, $K_S^0 K_L^0$, $K_S^0 K^\pm\pi^\mp$. Assume mass 1570 MeV and width 510 MeV for $\rho$ radial excitations, mass 1570 and width 500 MeV for $\omega$ radial excitation.

17 Fit to one channel only, neglecting interference with $\omega$, $\rho(1700)$.

## $p\bar{p}$ ANNIHILATION

VALUE (MeV)

DOCUMENT ID

TECN COMMENT

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

143 $\pm$ 24

1 AMSLER

06 CBAR 0.9 $p\bar{p} \to K^+K^-\pi^0$

1 Could also be $\rho(1700)$.

## $\phi(1680)$ 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>(892) + c.c.</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>2</sub> K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> Kπ</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>3</sub> K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup></td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>4</sub> K<sup>0</sup><sub>L</sub> K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub></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> ωππ</td><td>not seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>7</sub> φππ</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>8</sub> K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>9</sub> ηφ</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>10</sub> ηγ</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>11</sub> K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>12</sub> f'<sub>2</sub>(1525)γ</td><td>not seen</td></tr></tbody></table>

## $\phi(1680)$ $\Gamma(i)\Gamma(e^+e^-)/\Gamma(\text{total})$

This combination of a partial width with the partial width into $e^+e^-$ and with the total width is obtained from the integrated cross section into channel (i) in $e^+e^-$ annihilation. We list only data that have not been used to determine the partial width $\Gamma(i)$ or the branching ratio $\Gamma(i)/\Gamma$.

$$ \Gamma(K_L^0 K_S^0) \times \Gamma(e^+e^-)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \quad \Gamma_4\Gamma_5/\Gamma $$

VALUE (eV)

EVTS

DOCUMENT ID

TECN COMMENT

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

14.3 $\pm$ 2.4 $\pm$ 6.2

6.2k

1 LEES

14H BABR $e^+e^- \to K_S^0 K_L^0\gamma$

1 Using a vector meson dominance model with contribution from $\phi(1020)$, $\phi(1680)$, and higher mass excitations of $\rho(770)$ and $\omega(782)$.

$$ \Gamma(\phi\pi\pi) \times \Gamma(e^+e^-)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \quad \Gamma_7\Gamma_5/\Gamma $$

VALUE (10$^{-2}$ keV)

EVTS

DOCUMENT ID

TECN COMMENT

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

4.2 $\pm$ 0.2 $\pm$ 0.3

LEES

12F

BABR 10.6 $e^+e^- \to \phi\pi^+\pi^-\gamma$

$$ \Gamma(\eta\phi) \times \Gamma(e^+e^-)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \quad \Gamma_9\Gamma_5/\Gamma $$

VALUE (eV)

EVTS

DOCUMENT ID

TECN COMMENT

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

122 $\pm$ 6 $\pm$ 13

1 ZHU

23

BELL $e^+e^- \to \Gamma(nS) \to \phi\eta\gamma$

65 $^{+5}_{-4}$ $\pm$ 13 to

2 ZHU

23A RVUE $e^+e^- \to \eta\phi$

215 $^{+8}_{-5}$ $\pm$ 11

94 $\pm$ 13 $\pm$ 15

3k

3 IVANOV

19A CMD3 1.59-2.007 $e^+e^- \to K^+K^-\eta$

1 From a solution of the fit using a vector meson dominance model with contributions from $\phi(1680)$, $\phi(2170)$ and non resonant contribution. Other solutions with equal fit quality give (219 $\pm$ 15 $\pm$ 18) eV, (163 $\pm$ 11 $\pm$ 13) eV and (203 $\pm$ 12 $\pm$ 18) eV.

2 From the analysis of the combined measurements of $\sigma(e^+e^- \to \eta\phi)$ from BaBar, Belle, BESIII, CMD3. Four solutions are found, with equal fit quality: (79 $\pm$ 4 $\pm$ 16) eV, (127 $\pm$ 5 $\pm$ 12) eV, (65$^{+5}_{-4}$ $\pm$ 13) eV, (215$^{+8}_{-5}$ $\pm$ 11) eV.

3 From a fit with coherent interference of the $\phi(1680)$ with a non-resonant contribution.
## $\phi(1680) \Gamma(i)\Gamma(e^+e^-)/\Gamma^2(\text{total})$

This combination of a branching ratio into channel (i) and branching ratio into $e^+e^-$ is directly measured and obtained from the cross section at the peak. We list only data that have not been used to determine the branching ratio into (i) or $e^+e^-$.

$$ \Gamma(K_L^0 K_S^0)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \times \Gamma(e^+e^-)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \quad \Gamma_4/\Gamma \times \Gamma_5/\Gamma $$

<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>

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

<table><tr><td>0.131 ± 0.059</td><td>948</td><td>1 AKHMETSHIN 03</td><td>CMD2</td><td>1.05–1.38 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → K<sub>L</sub><sup>0</sup> K<sub>S</sub><sup>0</sup></td></tr></table>

¹ From the combined fit of AKHMETSHIN 03 and MANE 81 also including $\rho$, $\omega$, and $\phi$. Neither isospin nor flavor structure known. Recalculated by us.

$$ \Gamma(K\bar{K}^*(892)+c.c.)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \times \Gamma(e^+e^-)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \quad \Gamma_1/\Gamma \times \Gamma_5/\Gamma $$

<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>

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

<table><tr><td>1.15 ± 0.16 ± 0.01</td><td>1 AUBERT</td><td>08s</td><td>BABR</td><td>10.6 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>(892)γ + c.c.</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>3.29 ± 1.57</td><td>367</td><td>2 BISELLO</td><td>91c</td><td>DM2</td><td>1.35–2.40 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → K<sub>S</sub><sup>0</sup> K<sup>±</sup>π<sup>∓</sup></td></tr></table>

¹ From the simultaneous fit to the $K\bar{K}^*(892)+c.c.$ and $\phi\eta$ data from AUBERT 08s using the results of AUBERT 07AK.

² Recalculated by us with the published value of B(K\bar{K}^*(892) + c.c.) × $\Gamma(e^+e^-)$.

$$ \Gamma(\phi\pi\pi)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \times \Gamma(e^+e^-)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \quad \Gamma_7/\Gamma \times \Gamma_5/\Gamma $$

<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>

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

<table><tr><td>1.86 ± 0.14 ± 0.21</td><td>4.8k</td><td>1 SHEN</td><td>09</td><td>BELL</td><td>10.6 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>γ</td></tr></table>

¹ Multiplied by 3/2 to take into account the $\phi\pi^0\pi^0$ mode. Using $B(\phi \to K^+K^-) = (49.2 \pm 0.6)\%$.

$$ \Gamma(\eta\phi)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \times \Gamma(e^+e^-)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \quad \Gamma_9/\Gamma \times \Gamma_5/\Gamma $$

<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>

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

<table><tr><td>5.64<sup>+1.74</sup><sub>-1.80</sub></td><td>ACHASOV</td><td>19</td><td>SND</td><td>e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup>η</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>5.3 ± 0.6 ± 0.9</td><td>3k</td><td>1 IVANOV</td><td>19A</td><td>CMD3</td><td>1.59–2.007 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>η</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>4.3 ± 1.0 ± 0.9</td><td>2 AUBERT</td><td>08s</td><td>BABR</td><td>10.6 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → φηγ</td></tr></table>

¹ From a fit with coherent interference of the $\phi(1680)$ with a non-resonant contribution.

² From the simultaneous fit to the $K\bar{K}^*(892)+c.c.$ and $\phi\eta$ data from AUBERT 08s using the results of AUBERT 07AK.

## $\phi(1680)$ BRANCHING RATIOS

$$ \Gamma(K\bar{K}^*(892)+c.c.)/\Gamma(K_S^0 K\pi) \quad \Gamma_1/\Gamma_2 $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>dominant</td><td>MANE</td><td>82</td><td>DM1</td><td>e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → K<sub>S</sub><sup>0</sup> K<sup>±</sup>π<sup>∓</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(K\bar{K})/\Gamma(K\bar{K}^*(892)+c.c.) \quad \Gamma_3/\Gamma_1 $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</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>0.07 ± 0.01</td><td>BUON</td><td>82</td><td>DM1</td><td>e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup></td></tr></table>

$$ \Gamma(\omega\pi\pi)/\Gamma(K\bar{K}^*(892)+c.c.) \quad \Gamma_6/\Gamma_1 $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><0.10</td><td>BUON</td><td>82</td><td>DM1</td><td>e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \Gamma(\eta\phi)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \quad \Gamma_9/\Gamma $$

<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</td><td>1.15–2.00 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → ηγ</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From a phenomenological model based on vector meson dominance with $\rho(1450)$ and $\phi(1680)$ masses and widths from the PDG 12.

$$ \Gamma(\eta\phi)/\Gamma(K\bar{K}^*(892)+c.c.) \quad \Gamma_9/\Gamma_1 $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</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>0.37</td><td>1 AUBERT</td><td>08s</td><td>BABR</td><td>10.6 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → hadrons</td></tr></table>

¹ From the fit including data from AUBERT 07AK.

$$ \Gamma(\eta\gamma)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \quad \Gamma_{10}/\Gamma $$

<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</td><td>1.15–2.00 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → ηγ</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From a phenomenological model based on vector meson dominance with $\rho(1450)$ and $\phi(1680)$ masses and widths from the PDG 12.

$$ \Gamma(f'_2(1525)\gamma)/\Gamma_{\text{total}} \quad \Gamma_{12}/\Gamma $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>not seen</td><td>1 ACHASOV</td><td>22</td><td>SND</td><td>1.17–2.00 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → ηγ</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ The 90% CL upper limit on the Born cross sections $\sigma(e^+e^- \to \phi(1680) \to f'_2(1525)\gamma \to \eta\eta\gamma)$ and $\sigma(e^+e^- \to \rho(1700) \to f'_0(1500)\gamma \to \eta\eta\gamma)$ is 10.6 pb.

## $\phi(1680)$ REFERENCES

<table><tbody><tr><td>LICHARD</td><td>23</td><td>PR 108 092006</td><td>P. Lichard</td><td>(OPAV, CTUP)</td></tr><tr><td>ZHU</td><td>23</td><td>PR 107 012006</td><td>W. Zhu, et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ZHA</td><td>23</td><td>CP 47 113003</td><td>W. Zhu, X. Wang</td><td>(RVUE)</td></tr><tr><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>22L</td><td>JHEP 2207 045</td><td>M. Ablikim et al.</td><td>(BESIII Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ACHASOV</td><td>22</td><td>EPJ C82 168</td><td>M.N. Achasov et al.</td><td>(SND Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>20F</td><td>PR D101 032008</td><td>M. Ablikim et al.</td><td>(BESIII Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ACHASOV</td><td>20C</td><td>EPJ C80 1139</td><td>M.N. Achasov et al.</td><td>(SND Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ACHASOV</td><td>19</td><td>PR D99 112004</td><td>M.N. Achasov et al.</td><td>(SND Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>IVANOV</td><td>19A</td><td>PL B798 134946</td><td>V.L. Ivanov et al.</td><td>(CMD-3 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ACHASOV</td><td>18A</td><td>PR D97 032011</td><td>M.N. Achasov et al.</td><td>(SND 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>LEES</td><td>14H</td><td>PR D89 092002</td><td>J.P. Lees et al.</td><td>(BABAR Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>LEES</td><td>12F</td><td>PR D86 012008</td><td>J.P. Lees et al.</td><td>(BABAR Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>PDG</td><td>12</td><td>PR D86 010001</td><td>J. Beringer et al.</td><td>(PDG Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>SHEN</td><td>09</td><td>PR D80 031101</td><td>C.P. Shen et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AUBERT</td><td>08S</td><td>PR D77 092002</td><td>B. Aubert et al.</td><td>(BABAR Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AUBERT</td><td>07AK</td><td>PR D76 012008</td><td>B. Aubert et al.</td><td>(BABAR Collab.)</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>AKHMETSHIN</td><td>03</td><td>PL B551 27</td><td>R.R. Akhmetshin et al.</td><td>(Novosibirsk Coll.-2 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>Also</td><td></td><td>PAN 65 1222</td><td>E.V. Anashkin, V.M. Aulchenko, R.R. Akhmetshin</td><td>(Novosibirsk Coll.-2 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ACHASOV</td><td>98H</td><td>PR 037 4334</td><td>N.N. Achasov, A.A. Kozhevnikov</td><td></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><tr><td>ANTONELLI</td><td>92</td><td>ZPHY C56 15</td><td>A. Antonelli et al.</td><td>(DM2 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BISELLO</td><td>91C</td><td>ZPHY C52 227</td><td>D. Bisello et al.</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>BISELLO</td><td>88B</td><td>ZPHY C39 13</td><td>D. Bisello et al.</td><td>(PADO, CLER, FRAS+)</td></tr><tr><td>BARKOV</td><td>87</td><td>JETPL 46 164</td><td>L.M. Barkov et al.</td><td>(NOVO)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Translated from ZETFIP 46 132.</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>BUON</td><td>82</td><td>PL 118B 221</td><td>J. Buon et al.</td><td>(LALO, MONP)</td></tr><tr><td>MANE</td><td>82</td><td>PL 112B 178</td><td>F. Mane et al.</td><td>(LALO)</td></tr><tr><td>IVANOV</td><td>81</td><td>PL 107B 297</td><td>P.M. Ivanov et al.</td><td>(NOVO)</td></tr><tr><td>MANE</td><td>81</td><td>PL 99B 261</td><td>F. Mane et al.</td><td>(ORSAY)</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \rho_3(1690) $$

$$ I^G(J^{PC}) = 1^+ (3^-)^- $$

## $\rho_3(1690)$ MASS

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1688.8 ± 2.1</td><td>OUR AVERAGE</td></tr></tbody></table>

### $2\pi$ 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>

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

### $1686 \pm 4$ OUR AVERAGE

<table><tbody><tr><td>1677 ± 14</td><td>81</td><td>EVANGELIS...</td><td>OMEG</td><td>12 π<sup>-</sup> p → 2πp</td></tr><tr><td>1679 ± 11</td><td>476</td><td>BALTAY</td><td>78b</td><td>15 π<sup>+</sup> p → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1678 ± 12</td><td>175</td><td>1 ANTIPOV</td><td>77</td><td>25 π<sup>-</sup> p → p3π</td></tr><tr><td>1690 ± 7</td><td>600</td><td>1 ENGLER</td><td>74</td><td>6 π<sup>+</sup> n → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1693 ± 8</td><td></td><td>2 GRAYER</td><td>74</td><td>17 π<sup>-</sup> p → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1678 ± 12</td><td></td><td>MATTHEWS</td><td>71c</td><td>8 π<sup>+</sup> N</td></tr></tbody></table>

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

<table><tbody><tr><td>1734 ± 10</td><td>3 CORDEN</td><td>79</td><td>OMEG</td><td>12–15 π<sup>-</sup> p → n2π</td></tr><tr><td>1692 ± 12</td><td>2,4 ESTABROOKS</td><td>75</td><td>RVUE</td><td>17 π<sup>-</sup> p → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1737 ± 23</td><td></td><td>ARMENISE</td><td>70</td><td>DBC 0</td><td>9 π<sup>+</sup> N</td></tr><tr><td>1650 ± 35</td><td>122</td><td>BARTSCH</td><td>70b</td><td>HBC +</td><td>8 π<sup>+</sup> p → N2π</td></tr><tr><td>1687 ± 21</td><td></td><td>STUNTEBECK</td><td>70</td><td>HDBC 0</td><td>8 π<sup>-</sup> p, 5.4 π<sup>+</sup> d</td></tr><tr><td>1683 ± 13</td><td></td><td>ARMENISE</td><td>68</td><td>DBC 0</td><td>5.1 π<sup>+</sup> d</td></tr><tr><td>1670 ± 30</td><td></td><td>GOLDBERG</td><td>65</td><td>HBC 0</td><td>6 π<sup>+</sup> d, 8 π<sup>-</sup> p</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Mass errors enlarged by us to $\Gamma/\sqrt{n}$; see the note with the $K^*(892)$ mass.

² Uses same data as HYAMS 75.

³ From a phase shift solution containing a $f'_2(1525)$ width two times larger than the $K\bar{K}$ result.

⁴ From phase-shift analysis. Error takes account of spread of different phase-shift solutions.

### $K\bar{K}$ AND $K\bar{K}\pi$ MODES

<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>

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

### $1696 \pm 4$ OUR AVERAGE

<table><tbody><tr><td>1699 ± 5</td><td>6k</td><td>ALPER</td><td>80</td><td>CNTR 0</td><td>62 π<sup>-</sup> p → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>n</td></tr><tr><td>1698 ± 12</td><td>5,6 MARTIN</td><td>78d</td><td>SPEC</td><td>10 π<sup>+</sup> p → K<sub>S</sub><sup>0</sup> K<sup>-</sup>p</td></tr><tr><td>1692 ± 6</td><td></td><td>BLUM</td><td>75</td><td>ASPK 0</td><td>18.4 π<sup>-</sup> p → nK<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1690 ± 16</td><td></td><td>ADERHOLZ</td><td>69</td><td>HBC +</td><td>8 π<sup>+</sup> p → K\bar{K}\pi</td></tr></tbody></table>

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

<table><tr><td>1694 ± 8</td><td>7 COSTA</td><td>80</td><td>OMEG</td><td>10 π<sup>-</sup> p → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>n</td></tr></table>

⁵ From a fit to $J^P = 3^-$ partial wave.

⁶ Systematic error on mass scale subtracted.

⁷ They cannot distinguish between $\rho_3(1690)$ and $\omega_3(1670)$.

### $(4\pi)^\pm$ 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>

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

### $1686 \pm 5$ OUR AVERAGE

<table><tbody><tr><td>1694 ± 6</td><td>8</td><td>EVANGELIS...</td><td>81</td><td>OMEG</td><td>12 π<sup>-</sup> p → p4π</td></tr><tr><td>1665 ± 15</td><td>177</td><td>BALTAY</td><td>78b</td><td>HBC +</td><td>15 π<sup>+</sup> p → p4π</td></tr><tr><td>1670 ± 10</td><td></td><td>THOMPSON</td><td>74</td><td>HBC +</td><td>13 π<sup>+</sup> p</td></tr><tr><td>1687 ± 20</td><td></td><td>CASON</td><td>73</td><td>HBC +</td><td>8,18.5 π<sup>-</sup> p</td></tr><tr><td>1685 ± 14</td><td></td><td>9 CASON</td><td>73</td><td>HBC +</td><td>8,18.5 π<sup>+</sup> p</td></tr><tr><td>1680 ± 40</td><td>144</td><td>BARTSCH</td><td>70b</td><td>HBC +</td><td>8 π<sup>+</sup> p → N4π</td></tr><tr><td>1689 ± 20</td><td>102</td><td>9 BARTSCH</td><td>70b</td><td>HBC +</td><td>8 π<sup>+</sup> p → N2p</td></tr><tr><td>1705 ± 21</td><td></td><td>CASO</td><td>70</td><td>HBC +</td><td>11.2 π<sup>-</sup> p → nρ2π</td></tr></tbody></table>
# Meson Particle Listings

## $\rho_3(1690)$

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

<table><tr><td>1718 ± 10</td><td>10 EVANGELIS...</td><td>81</td><td>OMEG</td><td>—</td><td>12 π<sup>+</sup> p → p4π</td></tr><tr><td>1673 ± 9</td><td>11 EVANGELIS...</td><td>81</td><td>OMEG</td><td>—</td><td>12 π<sup>−</sup> p → p4π</td></tr><tr><td>1733 ± 9</td><td>66</td><td>9 KLIGER</td><td>74</td><td>HBC</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>1630 ± 15</td><td></td><td>HOLMES</td><td>72</td><td>HBC</td><td>+</td><td>10–12 K<sup>+</sup> p</td></tr><tr><td>1720 ± 15</td><td></td><td>BALTAY</td><td>68</td><td>HBC</td><td>+</td><td>7, 8.5 π<sup>+</sup> p</td></tr></table>

8 From $\rho^−\rho^0$ mode, not independent of the other two EVANGELISTA 81 entries.

9 From $\rho^±\rho^0$ mode.

10 From $\rho_2(1320)^−\pi^0$ mode, not independent of the other two EVANGELISTA 81 entries.

11 From $\rho_2(1320)^0\pi^−$ mode, not independent of the other two EVANGELISTA 81 entries.

## $\omega\pi$ MODE

VALUE (MeV) DOCUMENT ID TECN CHG COMMENT

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

### 1681 ± 7 OUR AVERAGE

<table><tr><td>1670 ± 25</td><td>12 ALDE</td><td>95</td><td>GAM2</td><td>38 π<sup>−</sup> p → ωπ<sup>0</sup> n</td></tr><tr><td>1690 ± 15</td><td>EVANGELIS...</td><td>81</td><td>OMEG</td><td>—</td><td>12 π<sup>−</sup> p → ωπ p</td></tr><tr><td>1666 ± 14</td><td>GESSAROLI</td><td>77</td><td>HBC</td><td>11 π<sup>−</sup> p → ωπ p</td></tr><tr><td>1686 ± 9</td><td>THOMPSON</td><td>74</td><td>HBC</td><td>+</td><td>13 π<sup>+</sup> p</td></tr></table>

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

<table><tr><td>1654 ± 24</td><td>BARNHAM</td><td>70</td><td>HBC</td><td>+</td><td>10 K<sup>+</sup> p → ωπ X</td></tr></table>

12 Supersedes ALDE 92C.

## $\eta\pi^+\pi^−$ MODE

(For difficulties with MMS experiments, see the $a_2(1320)$ mini-review in the 1973 edition.)

VALUE (MeV) DOCUMENT ID TECN CHG COMMENT

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

### 1682 ± 12 OUR AVERAGE

<table><tr><td>1685 ± 10 ± 20</td><td>AMELIN</td><td>00</td><td>VES</td><td>37 π<sup>−</sup> p → ηπ<sup>+</sup> π<sup>−</sup> n</td></tr><tr><td>1680 ± 15</td><td>FUKUI</td><td>88</td><td>SPEC</td><td>8.95 π<sup>−</sup> p → ηπ<sup>+</sup> π<sup>−</sup> n</td></tr></table>

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

<table><tr><td>1700 ± 47</td><td>13 ANDERSON</td><td>69</td><td>MMS</td><td>—</td><td>16 π<sup>−</sup> p backward</td></tr><tr><td>1632 ± 15</td><td>13,14 FOCACCI</td><td>66</td><td>MMS</td><td>—</td><td>7–12 π<sup>−</sup> p → pMM</td></tr><tr><td>1700 ± 15</td><td>13,14 FOCACCI</td><td>66</td><td>MMS</td><td>—</td><td>7–12 π<sup>−</sup> p → pMM</td></tr><tr><td>1748 ± 15</td><td>13,14 FOCACCI</td><td>66</td><td>MMS</td><td>—</td><td>7–12 π<sup>−</sup> p → pMM</td></tr></table>

13 Seen in 2.5–3 GeV/c $p\bar{p}$. $2\pi^+2\pi^-$, with 0, 1, $2\pi^+\pi^-$ pairs in $\rho$ band not seen by OREN 74 (2.3 GeV/c $p\bar{p}$) with more statistics. (Jan. 1976)

14 Not seen by BOWEN 72.

## $\rho_3(1690)$ WIDTH

### $2\pi, K\bar{K}, \text{AND } K\bar{K}\pi$ MODES

VALUE (MeV) DOCUMENT ID

161 ± 10 OUR AVERAGE Includes data from the 5 datablocks that follow this one. Error includes scale factor of 1.5. See the ideogram below.

WEIGHTED AVERAGE
161 ± 10 (Error scaled by 1.5)

<figure><img src="image_484.png" /></figure>

$\rho_3(1690)$ width, $2\pi, K\bar{K}$, and $K\bar{K}\pi$ modes (MeV)

### $2\pi$ MODE

VALUE (MeV) EVTS DOCUMENT ID TECN CHG COMMENT

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

186 ± 14 OUR AVERAGE Error includes scale factor of 1.3. See the ideogram below.

<table><tr><td>220 ± 29</td><td>DENNEY</td><td>83</td><td>LASS</td><td>10 π<sup>+</sup> N</td></tr><tr><td>246 ± 37</td><td>EVANGELIS...</td><td>81</td><td>OMEG</td><td>—</td><td>12 π<sup>−</sup> p → 2π p</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>116 ± 30</td><td>476</td><td>BALTAY</td><td>78B</td><td>HBC</td><td>0</td><td>15 π<sup>+</sup> p → π<sup>+</sup> π<sup>−</sup> n</td></tr><tr><td>162 ± 50</td><td>175</td><td>15 ANTIPOV</td><td>77</td><td>CIBS</td><td>0</td><td>25 π<sup>−</sup> p → p3π</td></tr><tr><td>167 ± 40</td><td>600</td><td>ENGLER</td><td>74</td><td>DBC</td><td>0</td><td>6 π<sup>+</sup> n → π<sup>+</sup> π<sup>−</sup> p</td></tr><tr><td>200 ± 18</td><td></td><td>16 GRAYER</td><td>74</td><td>ASPK</td><td>0</td><td>17 π<sup>−</sup> p → π<sup>+</sup> π<sup>−</sup> n</td></tr><tr><td>156 ± 36</td><td></td><td>MATTHEWS</td><td>71C</td><td>DBC</td><td>0</td><td>7 π<sup>+</sup> N</td></tr><tr><td>171 ± 65</td><td></td><td>ARMENISE</td><td>70</td><td>DBC</td><td>0</td><td>9 π<sup>+</sup> d</td></tr></table>

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

<table><tr><td>322 ± 35</td><td>17 CORDEN</td><td>79</td><td>OMEG</td><td>12–15 π<sup>−</sup> p → n2π</td></tr><tr><td>240 ± 30</td><td>16,18 ESTABROOKS</td><td>75</td><td>RVUE</td><td>17 π<sup>−</sup> p → π<sup>+</sup> π<sup>−</sup> n</td></tr><tr><td>180 ± 30</td><td>122</td><td>BARTSCH</td><td>70B</td><td>HBC</td><td>+</td><td>8 π<sup>+</sup> p → N2π</td></tr><tr><td>267<sup>+72</sup><sub>−46</sub></td><td></td><td>STUNTEBECK</td><td>70</td><td>HDBC</td><td>0</td><td>8 π<sup>−</sup> p, 5.4 π<sup>+</sup> d</td></tr><tr><td>188 ± 49</td><td></td><td>ARMENISE</td><td>68</td><td>DBC</td><td>0</td><td>5.1 π<sup>+</sup> d</td></tr><tr><td>180 ± 40</td><td></td><td>GOLDBERG</td><td>65</td><td>HBC</td><td>0</td><td>6 π<sup>+</sup> d, 8 π<sup>−</sup> p</td></tr></table>

15 Width errors enlarged by us to $4\Gamma/\sqrt{n}$; see the note with the $K^*(892)$ mass.

16 Uses same data as HYAMS 75 and BECKER 79.

17 From a phase shift solution containing a $\tau_2^+(1525)$ width two times larger than the $K\bar{K}$ result.

18 From phase-shift analysis. Error takes account of spread of different phase-shift solutions.

WEIGHTED AVERAGE
186 ± 14 (Error scaled by 1.3)

<figure><img src="image_485.png" /></figure>

(Confidence Level = 0.128)

$\rho_3(1690)$ width, $2\pi$ mode (MeV)

### $K\bar{K}$ AND $K\bar{K}\pi$ MODES

VALUE (MeV) EVTS DOCUMENT ID TECN CHG COMMENT

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

### 204 ± 18 OUR AVERAGE

<table><tr><td>199 ± 40</td><td>6000</td><td>19 MARTIN</td><td>78d</td><td>SPEC</td><td>10 π p → K<sup>0</sup> K<sup>−</sup> p</td></tr><tr><td>205 ± 20</td><td></td><td>BLUM</td><td>75</td><td>ASPK</td><td>0</td><td>18.4 π<sup>−</sup> p → nK<sup>+</sup> K<sup>−</sup></td></tr></table>

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

<table><tr><td>219 ± 4</td><td>ALPER</td><td>80</td><td>CNTR</td><td>0</td><td>62 π<sup>−</sup> p → K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>−</sup> n</td></tr><tr><td>186 ± 11</td><td>20 COSTA</td><td>80</td><td>OMEG</td><td>—</td><td>10 π<sup>−</sup> p → K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>−</sup> n</td></tr><tr><td>112 ± 60</td><td>ADERHOLZ</td><td>69</td><td>HBC</td><td>+</td><td>8 π<sup>+</sup> p → K\bar{K}\pi</td></tr></table>

19 From a fit to $J^P = 3^−$ partial wave.

20 They cannot distinguish between $\rho_3(1690)$ and $\omega_3(1670)$.

### $(4\pi)^±$ MODE

VALUE (MeV) EVTS DOCUMENT ID TECN CHG COMMENT

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

### 129 ± 10 OUR AVERAGE

<table><tr><td>123 ± 13</td><td>21 EVANGELIS...</td><td>81</td><td>OMEG</td><td>—</td><td>12 π<sup>−</sup> p → p4π</td></tr><tr><td>105 ± 30</td><td>177</td><td>BALTAY</td><td>78B</td><td>HBC</td><td>+</td><td>15 π<sup>+</sup> p → p4π</td></tr><tr><td>169<sup>+70</sup><sub>−48</sub></td><td></td><td>CASON</td><td>73</td><td>HBC</td><td>—</td><td>8,18.5 π<sup>−</sup> p</td></tr><tr><td>135 ± 30</td><td>144</td><td>BARTSCH</td><td>70B</td><td>HBC</td><td>+</td><td>8 π<sup>+</sup> p → N4π</td></tr><tr><td>160 ± 30</td><td>102</td><td>BARTSCH</td><td>70B</td><td>HBC</td><td>+</td><td>8 π<sup>+</sup> p → N2p</td></tr></table>

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

<table><tr><td>230 ± 28</td><td>22 EVANGELIS...</td><td>81</td><td>OMEG</td><td>—</td><td>12 π<sup>−</sup> p → p4π</td></tr><tr><td>184 ± 33</td><td>23 EVANGELIS...</td><td>81</td><td>OMEG</td><td>—</td><td>12 π<sup>−</sup> p → p4π</td></tr><tr><td>150</td><td>66</td><td>24 KLIGER</td><td>74</td><td>HBC</td><td>—</td><td>4.5 π<sup>−</sup> p → p4π</td></tr><tr><td>106 ± 25</td><td></td><td>THOMPSON</td><td>74</td><td>HBC</td><td>+</td><td>13 π<sup>+</sup> p</td></tr><tr><td>125<sup>+83</sup><sub>−35</sub></td><td></td><td>24 CASON</td><td>73</td><td>HBC</td><td>—</td><td>8,18.5 π<sup>−</sup> p</td></tr><tr><td>130 ± 30</td><td></td><td>HOLMES</td><td>72</td><td>HBC</td><td>+</td><td>10–12 K<sup>+</sup> p</td></tr><tr><td>180 ± 30</td><td>90</td><td>24 BARTSCH</td><td>70B</td><td>HBC</td><td>+</td><td>8 π<sup>+</sup> p → N a<sub>2</sub> π</td></tr><tr><td>100 ± 35</td><td></td><td>BALTAY</td><td>68</td><td>HBC</td><td>+</td><td>7, 8.5 π<sup>+</sup> p</td></tr></table>

21 From $\rho^−\rho^0$ mode, not independent of the other two EVANGELISTA 81 entries.

22 From $a_2(1320)^−\pi^0$ mode, not independent of the other two EVANGELISTA 81 entries.

23 From $a_2(1320)^0\pi^−$ mode, not independent of the other two EVANGELISTA 81 entries.

24 From $\rho^±\rho^0$ mode.
### $\omega\pi$ MODE

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

### 190±40 OUR AVERAGE

<table><tr><td>230±65</td><td>25 ALDE</td><td>95</td><td>GAM2</td><td>38 π<sup>-</sup> p → ωπ<sup>0</sup> n</td></tr><tr><td>190±65</td><td>EVANGELIS...</td><td>81</td><td>OMEG</td><td>12 π<sup>-</sup> p → ωπ p</td></tr><tr><td>160±56</td><td>GESSAROLI</td><td>77</td><td>HBC</td><td>11 π<sup>-</sup> p → ωπ p</td></tr></table>

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

<table><tr><td>89±25</td><td>THOMPSON</td><td>74</td><td>HBC</td><td>+</td><td>13 π<sup>+</sup> p</td></tr><tr><td>130<sup>+73</sup><sub>-43</sub></td><td>BARNHAM</td><td>70</td><td>HBC</td><td>+</td><td>10 K<sup>+</sup> p → ωπX</td></tr></table>

25 Supersedes ALDE 92c.

### $\eta\pi^+\pi^-$ MODE

(For difficulties with MMS experiments, see the $\alpha_2(1320)$ mini-review in the 1973 edition.)

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

<table><tr><td>130±40 OUR AVERAGE</td><td>Error includes scale factor of 1.8.</td></tr><tr><td>220±30±50</td><td>AMELIN 00 VES 37 π<sup>-</sup> p → ηπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup> n</td></tr><tr><td>106±27</td><td>FUKUI 88 SPEC 0 8.95 π<sup>-</sup> p → ηπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup> n</td></tr></table>

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

<table><tr><td>195</td><td>26 ANDERSON</td><td>69</td><td>MMS</td><td>16 π<sup>+</sup> p backward</td></tr><tr><td>&lt; 21</td><td>26,27 FOCACCI</td><td>66</td><td>MMS</td><td>7-12 π<sup>-</sup> p → pMM</td></tr><tr><td>&lt; 30</td><td>26,27 FOCACCI</td><td>66</td><td>MMS</td><td>7-12 π<sup>-</sup> p → pMM</td></tr><tr><td>&lt; 38</td><td>26,27 FOCACCI</td><td>66</td><td>MMS</td><td>7-12 π<sup>-</sup> p → pMM</td></tr></table>

26 Seen in 2.5-3 GeV/c $\bar{p}p$. $2\pi^+2\pi^-$, with 0, 1, 2 $\pi^+\pi^-$ pairs in $\rho^0$ band not seen by OREN 74 (2.3 GeV/c $\bar{p}p$) with more statistics. (Jan. 1979)

27 Not seen by BOWEN 72.

### $\rho_3(1690)$ DECAY MODES

<table><thead><tr><th>Mode</th><th>Fraction ($\Gamma_f/\Gamma$)</th><th>Scale factor</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>$\Gamma_1$</td><td>(71.1 ± 1.9) %</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>$\Gamma_2$</td><td>$\pi^+\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$</td><td>(67 ± 22) %</td></tr><tr><td>$\Gamma_3$</td><td>$\omega\pi$</td><td>(16 ± 6) %</td></tr><tr><td>$\Gamma_4$</td><td>$\pi\pi$</td><td>(23.6 ± 1.3) %</td></tr><tr><td>$\Gamma_5$</td><td>$K\bar{K}\pi$</td><td>(3.8 ± 1.2) %</td></tr><tr><td>$\Gamma_6$</td><td>$K\bar{K}$</td><td>(1.58 ± 0.26) %</td></tr><tr><td>$\Gamma_7$</td><td>$\eta\pi^+\pi^-$</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>$\Gamma_8$</td><td>$\rho(770)\eta_1$</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>$\Gamma_9$</td><td>$\pi\pi\rho$</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>$\Gamma_{10}$</td><td>$\alpha_2(1320)\pi$</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>$\Gamma_{11}$</td><td>$\rho\rho$</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>$\Gamma_{12}$</td><td>$\phi\pi$</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>$\Gamma_{13}$</td><td>$\eta\pi$</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>$\Gamma_{14}$</td><td>$\pi^+2\pi^+2\pi^-\pi^0$</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

### CONSTRAINED FIT INFORMATION

An overall fit to 5 branching ratios uses 10 measurements and one constraint to determine 4 parameters. The overall fit has a $\chi^2 = 14.7$ for 7 degrees of freedom.

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

<figure><img src="image_486.png" /></figure>

### $\rho_3(1690)$ BRANCHING RATIOS

$\Gamma(\pi\pi)/\Gamma_{total}$

0.236±0.013 OUR FIT

0.243±0.013 OUR AVERAGE

<table><tr><td>0.259<sup>+0.018</sup><sub>-0.019</sub></td><td>BECKER</td><td>79</td><td>ASPK</td><td>0</td><td>17 π<sup>-</sup> p polarized</td></tr><tr><td>0.23 ± 0.02</td><td>CORDEN</td><td>79</td><td>OMEG</td><td>12-15 π<sup>-</sup> p → n2π</td></tr><tr><td>0.22 ± 0.04</td><td><sup>28</sup>MATTHEWS</td><td>71C</td><td>HDBC</td><td>0</td><td>7 π<sup>+</sup> n → π<sup>-</sup> p</td></tr></table>

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

<table><tr><td>0.245 ± 0.006</td><td><sup>29</sup>ESTABROOKS</td><td>75</td><td>RVUE</td><td>17 π<sup>-</sup> p → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup> n</td></tr></table>

28 One-pion-exchange model used in this estimation.

29 From phase-shift analysis of HYAMS 75 data.

$\Gamma(\pi\pi)/\Gamma(\pi^\pm\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0)$

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

<table><tr><td>&lt;0.2</td><td>HOLMES</td><td>72</td><td>HBC</td><td>+</td><td>10-12 K<sup>+</sup> p</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;0.12</td><td>BALLAM</td><td>71B</td><td>HBC</td><td>-</td><td>16 π<sup>-</sup> p</td></tr></table>

$\Gamma(\pi\pi)/\Gamma(4\pi)$

<table><tr><td>0.332±0.026 OUR FIT</td><td>Error includes scale factor of 1.1.</td></tr><tr><td>0.30 ± 0.10</td><td>BALTAY</td><td>78B</td><td>HBC</td><td>0</td><td>15 π<sup>+</sup> p → p4π</td></tr></table>

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

0.067±0.011 OUR FIT

Error includes scale factor of 1.2.

0.118<sup>+0.040</sup><sub>-0.032</sub> OUR AVERAGE

below.

<table><tr><td>0.191<sup>+0.040</sup><sub>-0.037</sub></td><td>GORLICH</td><td>80</td><td>ASPK</td><td>0</td><td>17,18 π<sup>-</sup> p polarized</td></tr><tr><td>0.08 ± 0.03</td><td>BARTSCH</td><td>70B</td><td>HBC</td><td>+</td><td>8 π<sup>+</sup> p</td></tr><tr><td>0.08<sup>+0.08</sup><sub>-0.03</sub></td><td>CRENNELL</td><td>68B</td><td>HBC</td><td></td><td>6.0 π<sup>-</sup> p</td></tr></table>

WEIGHTED AVERAGE
0.118±0.040-0.032 (Error scaled by 1.7)

<figure><img src="image_487.png" /></figure>

Values above of weighted average, error, and scale factor are based upon the data in this ideogram only. They are not necessarily the same as our 'best' values, obtained from a least-squares constrained fit utilizing measurements of other (related) quantities as additional information.

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

0.16±0.05 OUR FIT

30 BARTSCH 70B HBC + 8 π<sup>+</sup> p

$[\Gamma(\pi\pi\rho) + \Gamma(\alpha_2(1320)\pi) + \Gamma(\rho\rho)]/\Gamma(\pi^\pm\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0)$

<table><tr><td>0.94±0.09 OUR AVERAGE</td><td>BALTAY</td><td>78B</td><td>HBC</td><td>+</td><td>15 π<sup>+</sup> p → p4π</td></tr><tr><td>0.88±0.15</td><td>BALLAM</td><td>71B</td><td>HBC</td><td>-</td><td>16 π<sup>-</sup> p</td></tr><tr><td>1 ± 0.15</td><td>BARTSCH</td><td>70B</td><td>HBC</td><td>+</td><td>8 π<sup>+</sup> p</td></tr><tr><td>consistent with 1</td><td>CASO</td><td>68</td><td>HBC</td><td>-</td><td>11 π<sup>-</sup> p</td></tr></table>

$\Gamma(\rho\rho)/\Gamma(\pi^\pm\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0)$

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

<table><tr><td>0.12±0.11</td><td>BALTAY</td><td>78B</td><td>HBC</td><td>+</td><td>15 π<sup>+</sup> p → p4π</td></tr><tr><td>0.56</td><td>KLIGER</td><td>74</td><td>HBC</td><td>-</td><td>4.5 π<sup>-</sup> p → p4π</td></tr><tr><td>0.13±0.09</td><td>31 THOMPSON</td><td>74</td><td>HBC</td><td>+</td><td>13 π<sup>+</sup> p</td></tr><tr><td>0.7 ± 0.15</td><td>BARTSCH</td><td>70B</td><td>HBC</td><td>+</td><td>8 π<sup>+</sup> p</td></tr></table>

31 $\rho\rho$ and $\alpha_2(1320)\pi$ modes are indistinguishable.

$\Gamma(\rho\rho)/[\Gamma(\pi\pi\rho) + \Gamma(\alpha_2(1320)\pi) + \Gamma(\rho\rho)]$

<table><tr><td>0.48±0.16</td><td>CASO</td><td>68</td><td>HBC</td><td>-</td><td>11 π<sup>-</sup> p</td></tr></table>

$\Gamma(\alpha_2(1320)\pi)/\Gamma(\pi^\pm\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0)$

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

<table><tr><td>0.66±0.08</td><td>BALTAY</td><td>78B</td><td>HBC</td><td>+</td><td>15 π<sup>+</sup> p → p4π</td></tr><tr><td>0.36±0.14</td><td>32 THOMPSON</td><td>74</td><td>HBC</td><td>+</td><td>13 π<sup>+</sup> p</td></tr><tr><td>not seen</td><td>CASON</td><td>73</td><td>HBC</td><td>-</td><td>8,18,5 π<sup>-</sup> p</td></tr><tr><td>0.6 ± 0.15</td><td>BARTSCH</td><td>70B</td><td>HBC</td><td>+</td><td>8 π<sup>+</sup> p</td></tr><tr><td>0.6</td><td>BALTAY</td><td>68</td><td>HBC</td><td>+</td><td>7,8,5 π<sup>+</sup> p</td></tr></table>

32 $\rho\rho$ and $\alpha_2(1320)\pi$ modes are indistinguishable.
$$\Gamma(\omega\pi)/\Gamma(\pi^{\pm}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^{0})$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>CHG</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="6"><strong>0.23±0.05 OUR AVERAGE</strong></td></tr><tr><td>0.33±0.07</td><td></td><td>THOMPSON</td><td>74</td><td>HBC</td><td>+</td><td>13 π<sup>+</sup> p</td></tr><tr><td>0.12±0.07</td><td></td><td>BALLAM</td><td>71b</td><td>HBC</td><td>-</td><td>16 π<sup>-</sup> p</td></tr><tr><td>0.25±0.10</td><td></td><td>BALTAY</td><td>68</td><td>HBC</td><td>+</td><td>7,8,5 π<sup>+</sup> p</td></tr><tr><td>0.25±0.10</td><td></td><td>JOHNSTON</td><td>68</td><td>HBC</td><td>-</td><td>7.0 π<sup>-</sup> p</td></tr></tbody></table>

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

<table><tbody><tr><td>&lt;0.11</td><td>95</td><td>BALTAY</td><td>78b</td><td>HBC</td><td>+</td><td>15 π<sup>+</sup> p → p4π</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;0.09</td><td></td><td>KLIGER</td><td>74</td><td>HBC</td><td>-</td><td>4.5 π<sup>-</sup> p → p4π</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$\Gamma(\phi\pi)/\Gamma(\pi^{\pm}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^{0})$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>CHG</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>0.11</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc.</strong></td></tr><tr><td>&lt;0.11</td><td>BALTAY</td><td>68</td><td>HBC</td><td>+ 7,8,5 π<sup>+</sup> p</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$\Gamma(\pi^{\pm}2\pi^{-}\pi^{0})/\Gamma(\pi^{\pm}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^{0})$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>CHG</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc.</strong></td></tr><tr><td>&lt;0.15</td><td>BALTAY</td><td>68</td><td>HBC</td><td>+ 7,8,5 π<sup>+</sup> p</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$\Gamma(\eta\pi)/\Gamma(\pi^{\pm}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^{0})$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>CHG</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc.</strong></td></tr><tr><td>&lt;0.02</td><td>THOMPSON</td><td>74</td><td>HBC</td><td>+ 13 π<sup>+</sup> p</td></tr></tbody></table>

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

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>CHG</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>0.0158±0.0026 OUR FIT</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>0.0130±0.0024 OUR AVERAGE</strong></td></tr><tr><td>0.013±0.003</td><td>COSTA</td><td>80</td><td>OMEG</td><td>10 π<sup>-</sup> p → K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup> n</td></tr><tr><td>0.013±0.004</td><td>33 MARTIN</td><td>78b</td><td>SPEC</td><td>10 π<sup>+</sup> p → K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> K<sup>-</sup> p</td></tr></tbody></table>

³³From $(\Gamma_4\Gamma_6)^{1/2} = 0.056 \pm 0.034$ assuming $B(\rho_3(1690) \to \pi\pi) = 0.24$.

$$\Gamma(\omega\pi)/[\Gamma(\omega\pi) + \Gamma(\rho\rho)]$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>CHG</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc.</strong></td></tr><tr><td>0.22±0.08</td><td>CASON</td><td>73</td><td>HBC</td><td>- 8,18,5 π<sup>-</sup> p</td></tr></tbody></table>

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

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>seen</td><td>FUKUI</td><td>88</td><td>SPEC 8.95 π<sup>-</sup> p → ηπ<sup>+</sup> π<sup>-</sup> n</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$\Gamma(\sigma_2(1320)\pi)/\Gamma(\rho(770)\eta)$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>5.5±2.0</td><td>AMELIN</td><td>00</td><td>VES 37 π<sup>-</sup> p → ηπ<sup>+</sup> π<sup>-</sup> n</td></tr></tbody></table>

## $\rho_3(1690)$ REFERENCES

<table><tbody><tr><td>AMELIN</td><td>00</td><td>NP A668 83</td><td>D. Amelin et al.</td><td>(VES Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ALDE</td><td>95</td><td>ZPHY C66 379</td><td>D.M. Alde et al.</td><td>(GAMS Collab.) JP</td></tr><tr><td>ALDE</td><td>92C</td><td>ZPHY C54 553</td><td>D.M. Alde et al.</td><td>(BELG, SERP, KEK, LANL+)</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>DENNEY</td><td>83</td><td>PR D28 2726</td><td>D.L. Denney et al.</td><td>(IOWA, MICH)</td></tr><tr><td>EVANGELIS...</td><td>81</td><td>NP B178 197</td><td>C. Evangelista et al.</td><td>(BARI, BONN, CERN+)</td></tr><tr><td>ALPER</td><td>80</td><td>PL 94B 422</td><td>A.D. Alper et al.</td><td>(AMST, CERN, CRAC, MPIM+)</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+)</td></tr><tr><td>GORLICH</td><td>80</td><td>NP B174 16</td><td>L. Gorlich et al.</td><td>(CRAC, MPIM, CERN+)</td></tr><tr><td>BECKER</td><td>79</td><td>NP B151 46</td><td>H. Becker et al.</td><td>(MPIM, CERN, ZEEM, CRAC)</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+) JP</td></tr><tr><td>BALTAY</td><td>78B</td><td>PR D17 62</td><td>C. Baltay et al.</td><td>(COLU, BING)</td></tr><tr><td>MARTIN</td><td>78B</td><td>NP D140 158</td><td>A.D. Martin et al.</td><td>(DURH, GEVA)</td></tr><tr><td>MARTIN</td><td>78D</td><td>PL 74B 417</td><td>A.D. Martin et al.</td><td>(DURH, GEVA)</td></tr><tr><td>ANTIPOV</td><td>77</td><td>NP B119 45</td><td>Y.M. Antipov et al.</td><td>(SERP, GEVA)</td></tr><tr><td>GESSAROLI</td><td>77</td><td>NP B126 382</td><td>R. Gessaroli et al.</td><td>(BNGA, FIRZ, GENO+)</td></tr><tr><td>BLUM</td><td>75</td><td>PL 57B 403</td><td>W. Blum et al.</td><td>(CERN, MPIM) JP</td></tr><tr><td>ESTABROOKS</td><td>75</td><td>NP B95 322</td><td>P.G. Estabrooks, A.D. Martin</td><td>(DURH)</td></tr><tr><td>HYAMS</td><td>75</td><td>NP B100 205</td><td>B.D. Hyams et al.</td><td>(CERN, MPIM)</td></tr><tr><td>ENGLER</td><td>74</td><td>PR D10 2070</td><td>A. Engler et al.</td><td>(CMU, CASE)</td></tr><tr><td>GRAYER</td><td>74</td><td>NP B75 189</td><td>G. Grayer et al.</td><td>(CERN, MPIM)</td></tr><tr><td>KLIGER</td><td>74</td><td>SJNP 19 428</td><td>G.K. Kliger et al.</td><td>(ITEP)</td></tr><tr><td>OREN</td><td>74</td><td>NP B71 189</td><td>Y. Oren et al.</td><td>(ANL, OXF)</td></tr><tr><td>THOMPSON</td><td>74</td><td>NP B69 220</td><td>G. Thompson et al.</td><td>(PURD)</td></tr><tr><td>CASON</td><td>73</td><td>PR D7 1971</td><td>N.M. Cason et al.</td><td>(NDAM)</td></tr><tr><td>BOWEN</td><td>72</td><td>PRL 29 890</td><td>D.R. Bowen et al.</td><td>(NEAS, STON)</td></tr><tr><td>HOLMES</td><td>72</td><td>PR D6 3366</td><td>R. Holmes et al.</td><td>(ROCH)</td></tr><tr><td>BALLAM</td><td>71B</td><td>PR D3 2606</td><td>J. Ballam et al.</td><td>(SLAC)</td></tr><tr><td>MATTHEWS</td><td>71C</td><td>NP B33 1</td><td>J.A.J. Matthews et al.</td><td>(TNTO, WISC) JP</td></tr><tr><td>ARMENISE</td><td>71C</td><td>LNC 4 199</td><td>N. Armenise et al.</td><td>(BARI, BNGA, FIRZ)</td></tr><tr><td>BARNHAM</td><td>70</td><td>PRL 24 1083</td><td>K.W.J. Barnham et al.</td><td>(BIRM)</td></tr><tr><td>BARTSCH</td><td>70B</td><td>NP B22 109</td><td>J. Bartsch et al.</td><td>(AACH, BERL, CERN)</td></tr><tr><td>CASO</td><td>70</td><td>LNC 3 707</td><td>C. Caso et al.</td><td>(GENO, HAMB, MILA, SACL)</td></tr><tr><td>STUNTEBECK</td><td>70</td><td>PL 32B 391</td><td>P.H. Stuntebeck et al.</td><td>(NDAM)</td></tr><tr><td>ADERHOLZ</td><td>69</td><td>NP 511 259</td><td>M. Aderholz et al.</td><td>(AACH3, BERL, CERN+)</td></tr><tr><td>ANDERSON</td><td>69</td><td>PRL 22 1390</td><td>E.W. Anderson et al.</td><td>(BNL, CMU)</td></tr><tr><td>ARMENISE</td><td>68</td><td>NC 54A 999</td><td>N. Armenise et al.</td><td>(BARI, BNGA, FIRZ+)</td></tr><tr><td>BALTAY</td><td>68</td><td>PRL 20 887</td><td>C. Baltay et al.</td><td>(COLU, ROCH, RUTG, YALE) I</td></tr><tr><td>CASO</td><td>68</td><td>NC 54A 983</td><td>C. Caso et al.</td><td>(GENO, HAMB, MILA, SACL)</td></tr><tr><td>CRENNELL</td><td>68B</td><td>PRL 28B 136</td><td>D.J. Crennell et al.</td><td>(BNL)</td></tr><tr><td>JOHNSTON</td><td>68</td><td>PRL 20 1414</td><td>T.F. Johnston et al.</td><td>(TNTO, WISC) IJP</td></tr><tr><td>FOCACCI</td><td>66</td><td>PRL 17 890</td><td>M.N. Focacci et al.</td><td>(CERN)</td></tr><tr><td>GOLDBERG</td><td>65</td><td>PL 17 354</td><td>M. Goldberg et al.</td><td>(CERN, EPOL, ORSAN+)</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$\rho(1700)$$

$$\iota^G(JPC) = 1^+(1^-^-)$$

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

## $\rho(1700)$ MASS

### $\eta\rho^0$ AND $\pi^+\pi^-$ MODES

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

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

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

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>1834±12</td><td>13.4k</td><td><sup>1</sup> GRIBANOV</td><td>20</td><td>CMD3</td><td>1.1-2.0 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → ηπ<sup>+</sup> π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1840±10</td><td>7.4k</td><td><sup>2</sup> ACHASOV</td><td>18</td><td>SND</td><td>1.22-2.00 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → ηπ<sup>+</sup> π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1740±20</td><td></td><td>ANTONELLI</td><td>88</td><td>DM2</td><td>e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → ηπ<sup>+</sup> π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1701±15</td><td></td><td><sup>3</sup> FUKUI</td><td>88</td><td>SPEC</td><td>8.95 π<sup>-</sup> p → ηπ<sup>+</sup> π<sup>-</sup> n</td></tr></tbody></table>

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

²From 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.

³Assuming $\rho_1 f_6(1370)$ decay mode interferes with $a_1(1260)^{+\pi}$ background. From a two Breit-Wigner fit.

### $\pi\pi$ 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.

<table><tbody><tr><td>1770.54 ± 5.49</td><td></td><td><sup>1</sup> BARTOS</td><td>17</td><td>RVUE</td><td>e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>+</sup> π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1718.50 ± 65.44</td><td></td><td><sup>2</sup> BARTOS</td><td>17A</td><td>RVUE</td><td>e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>+</sup> π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1766.80 ± 52.36</td><td></td><td><sup>3</sup> BARTOS</td><td>17A</td><td>RVUE</td><td>τ<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>-</sup> π<sup>0</sup>ν<sub>T</sub></td></tr><tr><td>1644 ± 36</td><td>20k</td><td><sup>4</sup> LEES</td><td>17C</td><td>BABR</td><td>J/ψ → π<sup>+</sup> π<sup>-</sup> π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1780 ± 20</td><td><sup>+15</sup><sub>-20</sub></td><td><sup>5</sup> ABRAMOWICZ</td><td>12k</td><td>ZEUS</td><td>e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → eπ<sup>+</sup> π<sup>-</sup> p</td></tr><tr><td>1861 ± 17</td><td></td><td><sup>6</sup> LEES</td><td>12G</td><td>BABR</td><td>e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>+</sup> π<sup>-</sup> γ</td></tr><tr><td>1728 ± 17</td><td>±89</td><td><sup>7,8</sup> FUJIKAWA</td><td>08</td><td>BELL</td><td>τ<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>-</sup> π<sup>0</sup>ν<sub>T</sub></td></tr><tr><td>1780 ± 37</td><td></td><td><sup>9</sup> ABELE</td><td>5.4M</td><td>CBAR</td><td>pπ<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>-</sup> π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1719 ± 15</td><td></td><td><sup>9</sup> BERTIN</td><td>97C</td><td>OBLX</td><td>0 pπ<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>+</sup> π<sup>-</sup> π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1730 ± 30</td><td></td><td>CLEGG</td><td>94</td><td>RVUE</td><td>e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>+</sup> π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1768 ± 21</td><td></td><td>BISELLO</td><td>89</td><td>D2M</td><td>e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>+</sup> π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1745.7 ± 91.9</td><td></td><td>DUBNICKA</td><td>89</td><td>RVUE</td><td>e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>+</sup> π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1546 ± 26</td><td></td><td>GESHKEN...</td><td>89</td><td>RVUE</td><td>17 π<sup>-</sup> p → π<sup>+</sup> π<sup>-</sup> n</td></tr><tr><td>1650</td><td></td><td><sup>10</sup> ERKAL</td><td>85</td><td>RVUE</td><td>20-70 γp → γπ</td></tr><tr><td>1550 ± 70</td><td></td><td>ABE</td><td>84B</td><td>HYBR</td><td>20 γp → π<sup>+</sup> π<sup>-</sup> p</td></tr><tr><td>1590 ± 20</td><td></td><td><sup>11</sup> ASTON</td><td>80</td><td>OMEG</td><td>20-70 γp → p2π</td></tr><tr><td>1600 ± 10</td><td></td><td><sup>12</sup> ATIYA</td><td>79B</td><td>SPEC</td><td>50 γC → C2π</td></tr><tr><td>1598 ± 24</td><td></td><td>BECKER</td><td>79</td><td>ASPK</td><td>17 π<sup>-</sup> p polarized</td></tr><tr><td>1659 ± 25</td><td></td><td><sup>10</sup> LANG</td><td>79</td><td>RVUE</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1575</td><td></td><td><sup>11</sup> MARTIN</td><td>78C</td><td>RVUE</td><td>17 π<sup>-</sup> p → π<sup>+</sup> π<sup>-</sup> n</td></tr><tr><td>1610 ± 30</td><td></td><td><sup>10</sup> FROGGATT</td><td>77</td><td>RVUE</td><td>17 π<sup>-</sup> p → π<sup>+</sup> π<sup>-</sup> n</td></tr><tr><td>1590 ± 20</td><td></td><td><sup>13</sup> HYAMS</td><td>73</td><td>ASPK</td><td>17 π<sup>-</sup> p → π<sup>+</sup> π<sup>-</sup> n</td></tr></tbody></table>

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

²Applies 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.

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

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

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

⁶Using 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$|F_\pi(0)|^2$ fixed to 1.

⁸From the GOUNARIS 68 parametrization of the pion form factor.

⁹T-matrix pole.

¹⁰From phase shift analysis of HYAMS 73 data.

¹¹Simple relativistic Breit-Wigner fit with constant width.

¹²An additional 40 MeV uncertainty in both the mass and width is present due to the choice of the background shape.

¹³Included in BECKER 79 analysis.

### $\pi\omega$ MODE

<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>1723 ± 2</td><td></td><td><sup>1</sup> ACHASOV</td><td>23A</td><td>SND</td><td>e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → ωπ<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1708 ± 41</td><td>7815</td><td><sup>2</sup> ACHASOV</td><td>13</td><td>SND</td><td>1.05-2.00 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup>γ</td></tr><tr><td>1550 to 1620</td><td></td><td><sup>3</sup> ACHASOV</td><td>00I</td><td>SND</td><td>e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup>γ</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td>1580 to 1710</td><td>4 ACHASOV</td><td>001</td><td>SND</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup>γ</td></tr><tr><td>1710 ± 90</td><td>ACHASOV</td><td>97</td><td>RVUE</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ωπ<sup>0</sup></td></tr></table>

¹ 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 VEP2-2M collider below 1.02 GeV and from LEES 17H and ABLIKIM 21A above 1.5GeV.

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.

³ Taking into account both $\rho(1450)$ and $\rho(1700)$ contributions. Using the data of ACHASOV 001 on $e^+e^- \to \omega\pi^0$ and of EDWARDS 00A on $\tau^- \to \omega\pi^-\nu_\tau$, $\rho(1450)$ mass and width fixed at 1400 MeV and 500 MeV respectively.

⁴ Taking into account the $\rho(1700)$ contribution only. Using the data of ACHASOV 001 on $e^+e^- \to \omega\pi^0$ and of EDWARDS 00A on $\tau^- \to \omega\pi^-\nu_\tau$.

### K$\pi$ 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>1688.7 ± 3.1<sup>+141.1</sup><sub>-1.3</sub></td><td>1 ALBRECHT</td><td>20</td><td>RVUE</td><td>0.9 p̄p → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1541 ± 12 ± 33</td><td>190k</td><td>2 AAIJ</td><td>16N</td><td>LHCB</td><td>D<sup>0</sup> → K<sub>S</sub><sup>0</sup>K<sup>±</sup>π<sup>∓</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1740.8 ± 22.2</td><td>27k</td><td>3 ABELE</td><td>99D</td><td>CBAR</td><td>0.0 p̄p → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1582 ± 36</td><td>1600</td><td>CLELAND</td><td>82B</td><td>SPEC</td><td>50 πp → K<sub>S</sub><sup>0</sup>K<sup>±</sup>p</td></tr></table>

¹ T-matrix pole, 2 poles, 3 channels, including $\pi\pi$ scattering width from HYAMS 75.

² Using the GOUNARIS 68 parameterization with a fixed width. Value is average using different $K\pi$ S-wave parameterizations in fit.

³ K-matrix pole. Isospin not determined, could be $\omega(1650)$ or $\phi(1680)$.

### 2 ($\pi^+\pi^-$) 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>1851<sup>+27</sup><sub>-24</sub></td><td>ACHASOV</td><td>97</td><td>RVUE</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → 2(π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>)</td></tr><tr><td>1570 ± 20</td><td>1 CORDIER</td><td>82</td><td>DM1</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → 2(π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>)</td></tr><tr><td>1520 ± 30</td><td>2 ASTON</td><td>81E</td><td>OMEG</td><td>20-70 γp → p4π</td></tr><tr><td>1654 ± 25</td><td>3 DIBIANCA</td><td>81</td><td>DBC</td><td>π<sup>+</sup>d → pp2(π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>)</td></tr><tr><td>1666 ± 39</td><td>1 BACCI</td><td>80</td><td>FRAG</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → 2(π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>)</td></tr><tr><td>1780</td><td>34</td><td>KILLIAN</td><td>80</td><td>SPEC</td><td>11 e<sup>-</sup>p → 2(π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>)</td></tr><tr><td>1500</td><td>4 ATIYA</td><td>79B</td><td>SPEC</td><td>50 γC → C4π<sup>±</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1570 ± 60</td><td>5 ALEXANDER</td><td>75</td><td>HBC</td><td>7.5 γp → p4π</td></tr><tr><td>1550 ± 60</td><td>2 CONVERSI</td><td>74</td><td>OSPK</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → 2(π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>)</td></tr><tr><td>1550 ± 50</td><td>160</td><td>SCHACHT</td><td>74</td><td>STRC</td><td>5.5-9 γp → p4π</td></tr><tr><td>1450 ± 100</td><td>340</td><td>SCHACHT</td><td>74</td><td>STRC</td><td>9-18 γp → p4π</td></tr><tr><td>1430 ± 50</td><td>400</td><td>BINGHAM</td><td>72B</td><td>HBC</td><td>9.3 γp → p4π</td></tr></table>

¹ Simple relativistic Breit-Wigner fit with model dependent width.

² Simple relativistic Breit-Wigner fit with constant width.

³ One peak fit result.

⁴ Parameters roughly estimated, not from a fit.

⁵ Skew mass distribution compensated by Ross-Stodolsky factor.

### $\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0\pi^0$ MODE

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</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. • • •

1660 ± 30 ATKINSON 85B OMEG 20-70 γp

### 3($\pi^+\pi^-$) AND 2($\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$) MODES

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</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>1730 ± 34</td><td>1 FRABETTI</td><td>04</td><td>E687</td><td>γp → 3π<sup>+</sup>3π<sup>-</sup>ρ</td></tr><tr><td>1783 ± 15</td><td>CLEGG</td><td>90</td><td>RVUE</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → 3(π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>)2(π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup>)</td></tr></table>

¹ From a fit with two resonances with the JACOB 72 continuum.

$m_{\rho(1700)^0} - m_{\rho(1700)^\pm}$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</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>-48.30 ± 83.81</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>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup>ν<sub>τ</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.

### $\rho(1700)$ WIDTH

$\eta\rho^0$ AND $\pi^+\pi^-$ MODES

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

250 ± 100 OUR ESTIMATE

$\eta\rho^0$ MODE

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

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>47 ± 19</td><td>13.4k</td><td>1 GRIBANOV</td><td>20</td><td>CMD3</td><td>1.1-2.0 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ηπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>132 ± 40</td><td>7.4k</td><td>2 ACHASOV</td><td>18</td><td>SND</td><td>1.22-2.00 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ηπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>150 ± 30</td><td>ANTONELLI</td><td>88</td><td>DM2</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ηπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>282 ± 44</td><td>3 FUKUI</td><td>88</td><td>SPEC</td><td>8.95 π<sup>-</sup>p → ηπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr></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 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 $\pi, \pi$, respectively.

³ Assuming $\rho^+\rho^0(1370)$ decay mode interferes with $a_1(1260)^{+\pi}$ background. From a two Breit-Wigner fit.

### $\pi\pi$ 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>

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>268.98 ± 11.40</td><td>1 BARTOS</td><td>17</td><td>RVUE</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>489.58 ± 16.95</td><td>2 BARTOS</td><td>17A</td><td>RVUE</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>414.71 ± 119.48</td><td>3 BARTOS</td><td>17A</td><td>RVUE</td><td>τ<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup>ν<sub>τ</sub></td></tr><tr><td>109 ± 19</td><td>4 LEES</td><td>17C</td><td>BABR</td><td>J/ψ → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>310 ± 30</td><td>1 + 25<sub>-35</sub></td><td>63.5k</td><td>ZEUS</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>p → eπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>p</td></tr><tr><td>316 ± 26</td><td>6 LEES</td><td>12G</td><td>BABR</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>γ</td></tr><tr><td>164 ± 21</td><td>1 + 89<sub>-26</sub></td><td>5.4M</td><td>7,8 FUJIKAWA</td><td>τ<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup>ν<sub>τ</sub></td></tr><tr><td>275 ± 45</td><td>9 ABELE</td><td>97</td><td>CBAR</td><td>p̄n → π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>310 ± 40</td><td>9 BERTIN</td><td>97C</td><td>OBXL</td><td>0.0 p̄p → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>400 ± 100</td><td>CLEGG</td><td>94</td><td>RVUE</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>224 ± 22</td><td>BISELLO</td><td>89</td><td>DM2</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>242.5 ± 163.0</td><td>DUBNICKA</td><td>89</td><td>RVUE</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>620 ± 60</td><td>GESHKEN...</td><td>89</td><td>RVUE</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>&lt;315</td><td>10 ERKAL</td><td>85</td><td>RVUE</td><td>20-70 γp → γπ</td></tr><tr><td>280 ± 30</td><td>ABE</td><td>84B</td><td>HYBR</td><td>20 γp → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>230 ± 80</td><td>11 ASTON</td><td>80</td><td>OMEG</td><td>20-70 γp → p2π</td></tr><tr><td>283 ± 14</td><td>12 ATIYA</td><td>79B</td><td>SPEC</td><td>50 γC → C2π</td></tr><tr><td>175 ± 98<sub>-53</sub></td><td>BECKER</td><td>79</td><td>ASPK</td><td>17 π<sup>-</sup>p polarized</td></tr><tr><td>232 ± 34</td><td>10 LANG</td><td>79</td><td>RVUE</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>340</td><td>10 MARTIN</td><td>78C</td><td>RVUE</td><td>17 π<sup>-</sup>p → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>n</td></tr><tr><td>300 ± 100</td><td>10 FROGGATT</td><td>77</td><td>RVUE</td><td>17 π<sup>-</sup>p → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>n</td></tr><tr><td>180 ± 50</td><td>13 HYAMS</td><td>73</td><td>ASPK</td><td>17 π<sup>-</sup>p → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>n</td></tr></table>

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

⁸ From the GOUNARIS 68 parametrization of the pion form factor.

⁹ T-matrix pole.

¹⁰ From phase shift analysis of HYAMS 73 data.

¹¹ Simple relativistic Breit-Wigner fit with constant width.

¹² An additional 40 MeV uncertainty in both the mass and width is present due to the choice of the background shape.

¹³ Included in BECKER 79 analysis.

### K$\pi$ 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>150.9 ± 2.5<sup>+60</sup><sub>-10.6</sub></td><td>1 ALBRECHT</td><td>20</td><td>RVUE</td><td>0.9 p̄p → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>187.2 ± 26.7</td><td>27k</td><td>2 ABELE</td><td>99d</td><td>CBAR ±</td><td>0.0 p̄p → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>265 ± 120</td><td>1600</td><td>CLELAND</td><td>82b</td><td>SPEC</td><td>50 πp → K<sub>S</sub><sup>0</sup>K<sup>±</sup>p</td></tr></table>

¹ T-matrix pole, 2 poles, 3 channels, including $\pi\pi$ scattering data from HYAMS 75.

² K-matrix pole. Isospin not determined, could be $\omega(1650)$ or $\phi(1680)$.

### 2 ($\pi^+\pi^-$) 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>510 ± 40</td><td>1 CORDIER</td><td>82</td><td>DM1</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → 2(π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>)</td></tr><tr><td>400 ± 50</td><td>2 ASTON</td><td>81E</td><td>OMEG</td><td>20-70 γp → p4π</td></tr><tr><td>400 ± 146</td><td>3 DIBIANCA</td><td>81</td><td>DBC</td><td>π<sup>+</sup>d → pp2(π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>)</td></tr><tr><td>700 ± 160</td><td>1 BACCI</td><td>80</td><td>FRAG</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → 2(π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>)</td></tr><tr><td>100</td><td>34</td><td>KILLIAN</td><td>80</td><td>SPEC</td><td>11 e<sup>-</sup>p → 2(π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>)</td></tr><tr><td>600</td><td>4 ATIYA</td><td>79B</td><td>SPEC</td><td>50 γC → C4π<sup>±</sup></td></tr><tr><td>340 ± 160</td><td>5 ALEXANDER</td><td>75</td><td>HBC</td><td>7.5 γp → p4π</td></tr><tr><td>360 ± 100</td><td>2 CONVERSI</td><td>74</td><td>OSPK</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → 2(π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>)</td></tr><tr><td>400 ± 120</td><td>160</td><td>STRC</td><td>5.5-9 γp → p4π</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>850 ± 200</td><td>340</td><td>SCHACHT</td><td>74</td><td>STRC</td><td>9-18 γp → p4π</td></tr><tr><td>650 ± 100</td><td>400</td><td>BINGHAM</td><td>72B</td><td>HBC</td><td>9.3 γp → p4π</td></tr></table>

¹ Simple relativistic Breit-Wigner fit with model-dependent width.

² Simple relativistic Breit-Wigner fit with constant width.

³ One peak fit result.

⁴ Parameters roughly estimated, not from a fit.

⁵ Skew mass distribution compensated by Ross-Stodolsky factor.

⁶ Width errors enlarged by $4\Gamma/\sqrt{N}$; see the note with the $K^*(892)$ mass.
# Meson Particle Listings

## ρ(1700)

### π⁺π⁻π⁰π⁰ 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. • • •

300 ± 50 ATKINSON 85B OMEG 20-70 γρ

### ωπ⁰ 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>371 ± 3</td><td>1 ACHASOV</td><td>23A</td><td>SND</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ωπ<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>350 to 580</td><td>2 ACHASOV</td><td>00I</td><td>SND</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup>γ</td></tr><tr><td>490 to 1040</td><td>3 ACHASOV</td><td>00I</td><td>SND</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup>γ</td></tr></table>

¹ From a vector dominance fit to the Born cross section between 1.05 and 2.0 GeV with ρ(770), ρ(1570), ρ(1700), ρ(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.

² Taking into account both ρ(1450) and ρ(1700) contributions. Using the data of ACHASOV 001 on e⁺e⁻ → ωπ⁰ and of EDWARDS 00A on τ⁻ → ωπ⁻ντ, ρ(1450) mass and width fixed at 1400 MeV and 500 MeV respectively.

³ Taking into account the ρ(1700) contribution only. Using the data of ACHASOV 001 on e⁺e⁻ → ωπ⁰ and of EDWARDS 00A on τ⁻ → ωπ⁻ντ.

### 3(π⁺π⁻) AND 2(π⁺π⁻π⁰) MODES

<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>315 ± 100</td><td>1 FRABETTI</td><td>04</td><td>E687</td><td>γp → 3π<sup>+</sup>3π<sup>-</sup>ρ</td></tr><tr><td>285 ± 20</td><td>CLEGG</td><td>90</td><td>RVUE</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → 3(π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>)2(π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup>)</td></tr></table>

¹ From a fit with two resonances with the JACOB 72 continuum.

$$ \Gamma(\rho(1700)^0) - \Gamma(\rho(1700)^\pm) $$

<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. • • •

74.87 ± 120.67 ¹BARTOS 17A RVUE e⁺e⁻ → π⁺π⁻, τ⁻ → π⁻π⁰ντ

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.

## ρ(1700) DECAY MODES

<table><thead><tr><th>Mode</th><th>Fraction (Γ<sub>j</sub>/Γ)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Γ<sub>1</sub> 4π</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>2</sub> 2(π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>)</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>3</sub> ρππ</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>4</sub> ρ<sup>0</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>5</sub> ρ<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>6</sub> ρ<sup>±</sup>π<sup>∓</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>7</sub> a<sub>1</sub>(1260)π</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>8</sub> n<sub>1</sub>(1170)π</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>9</sub> π(1300)π</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>10</sub> ρρ</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>11</sub> π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>12</sub> ππ</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>13</sub> K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup>(892) + c.c.</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>14</sub> ηρ</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>15</sub> a<sub>2</sub>(1320)π</td><td>not seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>16</sub> K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup></td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>17</sub> e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup></td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>18</sub> π<sup>0</sup>ω</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>19</sub> π<sup>0</sup>γ</td><td>not seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>20</sub> f<sub>0</sub>(1500)γ</td><td>not seen</td></tr></tbody></table>

### ρ(1700) Γ(i)Γ(e⁺e⁻)/Γ(total)

This combination of a partial width with the partial width into e⁺e⁻ and with the total width is obtained from the cross-section into channel i in e⁺e⁻ annihilation.

### Γ(2(π⁺π⁻)) × Γ(e⁺e⁻)/Γ<sub>total</sub> Γ<sub>217/Γ</sub>

<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>2.6 ± 0.2</td><td>DELCOURT</td><td>81B</td><td>DM1</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → 2(π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>)</td></tr><tr><td>2.83 ± 0.42</td><td>BACCI</td><td>80</td><td>FRAG</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → 2(π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>)</td></tr></table>

### Γ(π⁺π⁻) × Γ(e⁺e⁻)/Γ<sub>total</sub> Γ<sub>117Γ<sub>17</sub>/Γ</sub>

<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>0.13</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><tr><td>0.029<sup>+0.016</sup><sub>-0.012</sub></td><td>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 = 220 MeV.

### Γ(K̄K<sup>+</sup>(892) + c.c.) × Γ(e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>)/Γ<sub>total</sub> Γ<sub>13Γ<sub>17</sub>/Γ</sub>

<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. • • •

0.305 ± 0.071 ¹BIZOT 80 DM1 e⁺e⁻

¹ Model dependent.

### Γ(ηρ) × Γ(e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>)/Γ<sub>total</sub> Γ<sub>14Γ<sub>17</sub>/Γ</sub>

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (keV)</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>1.35 ± 0.53</td><td>0.08</td><td>13.4k</td><td>1 GRIBANOV</td><td>20</td><td>CMD3</td><td>1.1-2.0 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ηπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>84 ± 26</td><td>± 4</td><td>2 LEES</td><td>18</td><td>BABR</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ηπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>7 ± 3</td><td></td><td>ANTONELLI</td><td>88</td><td>DM2</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → ηπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr></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 Includes non-resonant contribution. The selected fit model includes three ρ excited states. Model uncertainty is 80%.

### Γ(K̄K<sup>+</sup>) × Γ(e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>)/Γ<sub>total</sub> Γ<sub>16Γ<sub>17</sub>/Γ</sub>

<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. • • •

0.035 ± 0.029 ¹BIZOT 80 DM1 e⁺e⁻

¹ Model dependent.

### Γ(ρππ) × Γ(e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>)/Γ<sub>total</sub> Γ<sub>3Γ<sub>17</sub>/Γ</sub>

<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. • • •

3.510 ± 0.090 ¹BIZOT 80 DM1 e⁺e⁻

¹ Model dependent.

### ρ(1700) Γ(i)/Γ(total) × Γ(e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>)/Γ(total)

### Γ(π⁰ω)/Γ<sub>total</sub> × Γ(e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>)/Γ<sub>total</sub> Γ<sub>18/Γ × Γ<sub>17</sub>/Γ</sub>

<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>

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

<table><tr><td>0.09 ± 0.05</td><td>10.2k</td><td>1 ACHASOV</td><td>16D</td><td>SND</td><td>1.05-2.00 e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup>γ</td></tr><tr><td>1.7 ± 0.4</td><td>7815</td><td>2 ACHASOV</td><td>13</td><td>SND</td><td>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 ρ(700), ρ(1450), and ρ(1700). The ρ(1700) mass and width are fixed at 1720 MeV and 250 MeV, respectively. Systematic uncertainty not estimated. Supersedes ACHASOV 13.

² 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.

### Γ(ηρ)/Γ<sub>total</sub> × Γ(e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>)/Γ<sub>total</sub> Γ<sub>14/Γ × Γ<sub>17</sub>/Γ</sub>

<table><thead><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>8.3<sup>+3.8</sup><sub>-3.1</sub></td><td>7.4k</td><td>1 ACHASOV</td><td>18</td><td>SND</td><td>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 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.

## ρ(1700) BRANCHING RATIOS

### Γ(ρππ)/Γ(4π) Γ<sub>3/Γ<sub>1</sub></sub>

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</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. • • •

0.28 ± 0.06 ¹ABELE 01B CBAR 0.0 p̄n → 5π

¹ ωπ not included.

### Γ(ρ⁰π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>)/Γ(2(π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>)) Γ<sub>4/Γ<sub>2</sub></sub>

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</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>~1.0</td><td>DELCOURT</td><td>81B</td><td>DM1</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → 2(π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>)</td></tr><tr><td>0.7 ± 0.1</td><td>SCHACHT</td><td>74</td><td>STRC</td><td>5.5-18 γp → p4π</td></tr><tr><td>0.80</td><td>1 BINGHAM</td><td>72B</td><td>HBC</td><td>9.3 γp → p4π</td></tr></table>

¹ The ππ system is in S-wave.

### Γ(ρ⁰π⁰π⁰)/Γ(ρ±π∓π⁰) Γ<sub>5/Γ<sub>6</sub></sub>

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</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>&lt;0.10</td><td>ATKINSON</td><td>85B</td><td>OMEG</td><td>20-70 γp</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;0.15</td><td>ATKINSON</td><td>82</td><td>OMEG 0</td><td>20-70 γp → p4π</td></tr></table>

### Γ(a<sub>1</sub>(1260)π)/Γ(4π) Γ<sub>7/Γ<sub>1</sub></sub>

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</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. • • •

0.16 ± 0.05 ¹ABELE 01B CBAR 0.0 p̄n → 5π

¹ ωπ not included.
$$\Gamma(\hbar_1(1170)\pi)/\Gamma(4\pi)$$

$$\Gamma_8/\Gamma_1$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>• • •</td><td></td><td></td><td>We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc.</td></tr><tr><td>0.17 ± 0.06</td><td>1 ABELE</td><td>01B</td><td>CBAR 0.0 p̄n → 5π</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ωπ not included.

$$\Gamma(\pi(1300)\pi)/\Gamma(4\pi)$$

$$\Gamma_9/\Gamma_1$$

<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>We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc.</td></tr><tr><td>0.30 ± 0.10</td><td>1 ABELE</td><td>01B</td><td>CBAR 0.0 p̄n → 5π</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ωπ not included.

$$\Gamma(\rho\rho)/\Gamma(4\pi)$$

$$\Gamma_{10}/\Gamma_1$$

<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>We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc.</td></tr><tr><td>0.09 ± 0.03</td><td>1 ABELE</td><td>01B</td><td>CBAR 0.0 p̄n → 5π</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ωπ not included.

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

$$\Gamma_{11}/\Gamma$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>• • •</td><td></td><td></td><td>We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc.</td></tr><tr><td>0.108 ± 0.017<sup>+0.162</sup><sub>-0.004</sub></td><td>1 ALBRECHT</td><td>20</td><td>RVUE 0.9 p̄p → K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup> π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>0.287<sup>+0.043</sup><sub>-0.042</sub></td><td>BECKER</td><td>79</td><td>ASPK 17 π<sup>-</sup> p polarized</td></tr><tr><td>0.15 to 0.30</td><td>2 MARTIN</td><td>78c</td><td>RVUE 17 π<sup>-</sup> p → π<sup>+</sup> π<sup>-</sup> n</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;0.20</td><td>3 COSTA...</td><td>77b</td><td>RVUE e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → 2π, 4π</td></tr><tr><td>0.30 ± 0.05</td><td>2 FROGGATT</td><td>77</td><td>RVUE 17 π<sup>-</sup> p → π<sup>+</sup> π<sup>-</sup> n</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;0.15</td><td>4 EISENBERG</td><td>73</td><td>HBC 5 π<sup>+</sup> p → Δ<sup>++</sup> 2π</td></tr><tr><td>0.25 ± 0.05</td><td>5 HYAMS</td><td>73</td><td>ASPK 17 π<sup>-</sup> p → π<sup>+</sup> π<sup>-</sup> n</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹Residue from T-matrix pole, 2 poles, 3 channels, Chew-Mandelstam functions and simplified analytic continuation for the 4π channel. Includes scattering data from HYAMS 75 and model-independent calculation of GARCIA-MARTIN 11a.

²From phase shift analysis of HYAMS 73 data.

³Estimate using unitarity, time reversal invariance, Breit-Wigner.

⁴Estimated using one-pion-exchange model.

⁵Included in BECKER 79 analysis.

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

$$\Gamma_{16}/\Gamma$$

<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>We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc.</td></tr><tr><td>0.007 ± 0.006<sup>+0.041</sup><sub>-0.002</sub></td><td>1 ALBRECHT</td><td>20</td><td>RVUE 0.9 p̄p → K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup> π<sup>0</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹Residue from T-matrix pole, 2 poles, 3 channels, Chew-Mandelstam functions and simplified analytic continuation for the 4π channel. Includes scattering data from HYAMS 75 and model-independent calculation of GARCIA-MARTIN 11a.

$$\Gamma(\pi^+\pi^-)/\Gamma(2(\pi^+\pi^-))$$

$$\Gamma_{11}/\Gamma_2$$

<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>We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc.</td></tr><tr><td>0.13 ± 0.05</td><td>ASTON</td><td>80</td><td>OMEG 20-70 γp → ρ2π</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;0.14</td><td>1 DAVIER</td><td>73</td><td>STRC 6-18 γp → p4π</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;0.2</td><td>2 BINGHAM</td><td>72b</td><td>HBC 9.3 γp → p2π</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹Upper limit is estimate.

²σ upper limit.

$$\Gamma(\pi\pi)/\Gamma(4\pi)$$

$$\Gamma_{12}/\Gamma_1$$

<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>We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc.</td></tr><tr><td>0.16 ± 0.04</td><td>1,2 ABELE</td><td>01B</td><td>CBAR 0.0 p̄n → 5π</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹Using ABELE 97.

²ωπ not included.

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

$$\Gamma_{13}/\Gamma$$

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

$$\Gamma(K\bar{K}^*(892)+\text{c.c.})/\Gamma(2(\pi^+\pi^-))$$

$$\Gamma_{13}/\Gamma_2$$

<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>We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc.</td></tr><tr><td>0.15 ± 0.03</td><td>1 DELCOURT</td><td>81B</td><td>DM1 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → K̄Kπ</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹Assuming ρ(1700) and ω radial excitations to be degenerate in mass.

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

$$\Gamma_{14}/\Gamma$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>• • •</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc.</td></tr><tr><td>possibly seen</td><td>AKHMETSHIN 00D</td><td>CMD2</td><td>e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → ηπ<sup>+</sup> π<sup>-</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>&lt;0.04</td><td>DONNACHE</td><td>87b</td><td>RVUE</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>&lt;0.02</td><td>ATKINSON</td><td>86b</td><td>OMEG 20-70 γp</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

$$\Gamma(\eta\rho)/\Gamma(2(\pi^+\pi^-))$$

$$\Gamma_{14}/\Gamma_2$$

<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>We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc.</td></tr><tr><td>0.123 ± 0.027</td><td>DELCOURT</td><td>82</td><td>DM1 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>+</sup> π<sup>-</sup> MM</td></tr><tr><td>~ 0.1</td><td>ASTON</td><td>80</td><td>OMEG 20-70 γp</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹Upper limit. Background not subtracted.

$$\Gamma(\pi^+\pi^- \text{ neutrals})/\Gamma(2(\pi^+\pi^-))$$

$$\Gamma(5+\Gamma_6+0.714\Gamma_{14})/\Gamma_2$$

<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>We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc.</td></tr><tr><td>2.6 ± 0.4</td><td>1 BALLAM</td><td>74</td><td>HBC 9.3 γp</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹Upper limit. Background not subtracted.

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

$$\Gamma_{15}/\Gamma$$

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

$$\Gamma(K\bar{K})/\Gamma(2(\pi^+\pi^-))$$

$$\Gamma_{16}/\Gamma_2$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>CHG</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>• • •</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc.</td></tr><tr><td>0.015 ± 0.010</td><td>1 DELCOURT</td><td>81b</td><td>DM1 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → K̄K</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>&lt;0.04</td><td>95</td><td>BINGHAM</td><td>72b</td><td>HBC 0</td><td>9.3 γp</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹Assuming ρ(1700) and ω radial excitations to be degenerate in mass.

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

$$\Gamma_{16}/\Gamma_{13}$$

<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>We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc.</td></tr><tr><td>0.052 ± 0.026</td><td>BUON</td><td>82</td><td>DM1 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → hadrons</td></tr></tbody></table>

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

$$\Gamma_{18}/\Gamma$$

<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></td><td></td><td></td><td>We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc.</td></tr><tr><td>not seen</td><td>MATVIENKO</td><td>15</td><td>BELL B̄0 → D<sup>+</sup> π<sup>-</sup> π<sup>+</sup></td><td></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>not seen</td><td>2382</td><td>AKHMETSHIN 03B</td><td>CMD2 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>0</sup> π<sup>0</sup> γ</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>seen</td><td></td><td>ACHASOV</td><td>97</td><td>RVUE e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → ωπ<sup>0</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

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

$$\Gamma_{19}/\Gamma$$

<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>1 ACHASOV</td><td>10d</td><td>SND 1.075-2.0 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>0</sup> γ</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹From a fit of a VMD model with two effective resonances with masses of 1450 MeV and 1700 MeV to describe the excited vector state ω(1420), ρ(1450), ω(1650), and ρ(1700). The width of the highest mass effective resonance is fixed at 315 MeV.

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

$$\Gamma_{20}/\Gamma$$

<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>1 ACHASOV</td><td>22</td><td>SND 1.17-2.00 e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → ηηγ</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td>The 90% CL upper limit on the Born cross sections σ(e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → φ(1680) → f'<sub>2</sub>(1525) γ → ηηγ) and σ(e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>-</sup> → ρ(1700) → f<sub>0</sub>(1500) γ → ηηγ) is 10.6 pb.</td></tr></tbody></table>

## ρ(1700) REFERENCES

<table><tbody><tr><td>ACHASOV</td><td>23A</td><td>PR D108</td><td>092012</td><td>M.N. Achasov et al.</td><td>(SND Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ACHASOV</td><td>22</td><td>EPJ C82</td><td>168</td><td>M.N. Achasov et al.</td><td>(SND Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>21A</td><td>PL B813</td><td>136059</td><td>M. Ablikim et al.</td><td>(BESIII Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ALBRECHT</td><td>20</td><td>EPJ C80</td><td>453</td><td>M. Abrecht et al.</td><td>(Crystal Barrel Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>GRIBANOV</td><td>20</td><td>JHEP 2001</td><td>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</td><td>012008</td><td>M.N. Achasov et al.</td><td>(SND Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>LEES</td><td>18</td><td>PR D97</td><td>052007</td><td>J.P. Lees et al.</td><td>(BABAR Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BARTOS</td><td>17</td><td>PR D96</td><td>113004</td><td>E. Bartos et al.</td><td>(BABAR Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BARTOS</td><td>17A</td><td>JMP A32</td><td>1750154</td><td>E. Bartos et al.</td><td>(BABAR Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>LEES</td><td>17C</td><td>PR D95</td><td>072007</td><td>J.P. Lees et al.</td><td>(BABAR Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>LEES</td><td>17H</td><td>PR D96</td><td>092009</td><td>J.P. Lees et al.</td><td>(BABAR Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AALI</td><td>16N</td><td>PR D93</td><td>052018</td><td>R. Aalij et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>16C</td><td>PL B753</td><td>629</td><td>M. Ablikim et al.</td><td>(BESIII Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AACHASOV</td><td>16D</td><td>PR D94</td><td>112001</td><td>M.N. Achasov et al.</td><td>(SND Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AUCHENKNO</td><td>15</td><td>PR D91</td><td>052013</td><td>V.M. Aulchenko et al.</td><td>(SND Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>MATVIENKO</td><td>15</td><td>PR D92</td><td>012013</td><td>D. Matvienko et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ACHASOV</td><td>13</td><td>PR D88</td><td>054013</td><td>M.N. Achasov et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ABRAMOWICZ</td><td>12</td><td>EPI C72</td><td>1869</td><td>H. Abramowicz et al.</td><td>(ZEUS Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ACHASOV</td><td>12</td><td>JETPL 94</td><td>734</td><td>M.N. Achasov et al.</td><td>(ZEUS Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>LEES</td><td>12G</td><td>PR D86</td><td>032013</td><td>F. Jees et al.</td><td>(BABAR Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AMBROSINO</td><td>11A</td><td>PL B700</td><td>102</td><td>J. Ambrosino et al.</td><td>(KLOE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>GARCIA-MAR...</td><td>11A</td><td>PR D83</td><td>074004</td><td>R. Garcia-Martín et al.</td><td>(MADR, CRAC) (SND Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ACHASOV</td><td>10D</td><td>PR D98</td><td>112001</td><td>M.N. Achasov et al.</td><td>(SND Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>DUBNICKA</td><td>10</td><td>APS 60</td><td>1</td><td>S. Dubnicka, A.Z. Dubnickova</td><td>(BABAR Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AUBERT</td><td>09AS</td><td>PRL 103</td><td>231801</td><td>B. Aubert et al.</td><td>(BABAR Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>FUJIKAWA</td><td>08</td><td>PR D78</td><td>072006</td><td>M. Fujikawa et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AKHMETSHIN</td><td>07</td><td>PR B648</td><td>28</td><td>R.R. Akhmetshin et al.</td><td>(Novosibirsk CMD-2 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ACHASOV</td><td>06</td><td>JETP 103</td><td>380</td><td>M.N. Achasov et al.</td><td>(Novosibirsk SND Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>COAN</td><td>04</td><td>PRL 92</td><td>232001</td><td>T.E. Coan et al.</td><td>(CLEO Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>FRABETTI</td><td>04</td><td>PL B578</td><td>290</td><td>P.L. Frabetti et al.</td><td>(FNAL E687 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AKHMETSHIN</td><td>03B</td><td>PL B562</td><td>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</td><td>261</td><td>A. Abele et al.</td><td>(Crystal Barrel Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ACHASOV</td><td>001</td><td>PL B486</td><td>29</td><td>M.N. Achasov et al.</td><td>(Novosibirsk SND Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AKHMETSHIN</td><td>00D</td><td>PL B489</td><td>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</td><td>83</td><td>D. Amelin et al.</td><td>(VES Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>EDWARDS</td><td>00A</td><td>PR D61</td><td>072003</td><td>K.W. Edwards et al.</td><td>(CLEO Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ABELE</td><td>99D</td><td>PL B468</td><td>178</td><td>A. Abele et al.</td><td>(Crystal Barrel Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ABELE</td><td>97</td><td>PL B391</td><td>191</td><td>A. Abele et al.</td><td>(Crystal Barrel Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ACHASOV</td><td>97</td><td>PR D55</td><td>2663</td><td>N.N. Achasov et al.</td><td>(NOVM)</td></tr><tr><td>BERTIN</td><td>97C</td><td>PL B408</td><td>476</td><td>A. Bertin et al.</td><td>(OBELIX Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>CLEGG</td><td>94</td><td>ZPHY C62</td><td>455</td><td>A.B. Clegg, A. Donnachie</td><td>(LANC, MCHS)</td></tr><tr><td>CLEGG</td><td>90</td><td>ZPHY C45</td><td>677</td><td>A.B. Clegg, A. Donnachie</td><td>(LANC, MCHS)</td></tr></tbody></table>
# Meson Particle Listings

$\rho(1700), a_2(1700)$

<table><tbody><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>BISSELLO</td><td>89</td><td>PL B220 321</td><td>D. Bisello et al.</td><td>(DM2 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>DUBNICKA</td><td>89</td><td>JP G15 1349</td><td>S. Dubnicka et al.</td><td>(JINR, SLOV)</td></tr><tr><td>GESHKEN...</td><td>89</td><td>ZPHY C45 351</td><td>B.V. Geschenbein</td><td>(ITEP)</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>DIEMKAN</td><td>88</td><td>PRPL 159 99</td><td>B. Diekmann</td><td>(BONN)</td></tr><tr><td>FUKUK</td><td>88</td><td>PL B202 441</td><td>S. Fukui et al.</td><td>(SUGI, NAGO, KEK, KYOT+)</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>ATKINSON</td><td>86B</td><td>ZPHY C30 531</td><td>M. ATKINSON et al.</td><td>(BONN, CERN, GLAS+)</td></tr><tr><td>ATKINSON</td><td>85B</td><td>ZPHY C26 499</td><td>M. ATKINSON et al.</td><td>(BONN, CERN, GLAS+)</td></tr><tr><td>ERKAL</td><td>85</td><td>ZPHY C29 485</td><td>C. Erkal, M.G. Olson</td><td>(WISC)</td></tr><tr><td>ABE</td><td>84B</td><td>PRL 53 751</td><td>K. Abe et al.</td><td>(SLAC HFP Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>KURDADZE</td><td>83</td><td>JETP 37 733</td><td>L.M. Kurdadze et al.</td><td>(NOVO)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Translated from ZETF 37 613.</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ATKINSON</td><td>82</td><td>PL 108B 55</td><td>M. ATKINSON et al.</td><td>(BONN, CERN, GLAS+)</td></tr><tr><td>BUON</td><td>82</td><td>PL 118B 221</td><td>J. Buon et al.</td><td>(LALO, MONP)</td></tr><tr><td>CLELAND</td><td>82B</td><td>PL 120B 228</td><td>W.E. Deland et al.</td><td>(DURH, GEVA, LAUS+)</td></tr><tr><td>CORDIER</td><td>82</td><td>PL 109B 129</td><td>A. Cordier et al.</td><td>(LALO)</td></tr><tr><td>DELCOURT</td><td>82</td><td>PL 113B 93</td><td>B. Dekourt et al.</td><td>(LALO)</td></tr><tr><td>ASTON</td><td>81E</td><td>NP B189 19</td><td>D. Aston</td><td>(BONN, CERN, EPOL, GLAS, LANC+)</td></tr><tr><td>DELCOURT</td><td>81B</td><td>Bonn Conf. 205</td><td>B. Dekourt</td><td>(ORSAY)</td></tr><tr><td>Ako</td><td></td><td>PL 109B 129</td><td>A. Cordier et al.</td><td>(LALO)</td></tr><tr><td>DIBIANCA</td><td>81</td><td>NP D23 595</td><td>F.A. Bianca et al.</td><td>(CASE, CMU)</td></tr><tr><td>ASTON</td><td>80</td><td>PL 92B 215</td><td>D. Aston</td><td>(BONN, CERN, EPOL, GLAS, LANC+)</td></tr><tr><td>BACCI</td><td>80</td><td>PL 95B 139</td><td>C. Bacci et al.</td><td>(ROMA, FRAS)</td></tr><tr><td>BIZOT</td><td>80</td><td>Madison Conf. 546</td><td>J.C. Bizot et al.</td><td>(LALO, MONP)</td></tr><tr><td>KILLIAN</td><td>80</td><td>PR D21 3005</td><td>T.J. Killian et al.</td><td>(CORN)</td></tr><tr><td>ATIYA</td><td>79B</td><td>PRL 43 1691</td><td>M.S. Atiya et al.</td><td>(COLU, ILL, FNAL)</td></tr><tr><td>BECKER</td><td>79</td><td>NP B151 46</td><td>H. Becker et al.</td><td>(MPIM, CERN, ZEEM, CRAC)</td></tr><tr><td>LANG</td><td>79</td><td>PR D19 956</td><td>C.B. Lang, A. Mas-Parareeda</td><td>(GRAZ)</td></tr><tr><td>MARTIN</td><td>78C</td><td>ANP 114 1</td><td>A.D. Martin, M.R. Pennington</td><td>(CERN)</td></tr><tr><td>COSTA...</td><td>77B</td><td>PL 71B 345</td><td>B. Costa de Beauregard, B. Pire, T.N. Truong</td><td>(EPOL)</td></tr><tr><td>FROGGATT</td><td>77</td><td>NP B129 89</td><td>C.D. Froggatt, J.L. Petersen</td><td>(GLAS, NORD)</td></tr><tr><td>ALEXANDER</td><td>75</td><td>PL 57B 487</td><td>G. Alexander et al.</td><td>(TELA)</td></tr><tr><td>HYAMS</td><td>75</td><td>NP B100 205</td><td>B.D. Hyams et al.</td><td>(CERN, MPIM)</td></tr><tr><td>BALLAM</td><td>74</td><td>NP B76 375</td><td>J. Ballam et al.</td><td>(SLAC, LBL, MPIM)</td></tr><tr><td>CONVERSI</td><td>74</td><td>PL 52B 493</td><td>M. Conversi et al.</td><td>(ROMA, FRAS)</td></tr><tr><td>SCHACHT</td><td>74</td><td>NP B81 205</td><td>P. Schacht et al.</td><td>(MPIM)</td></tr><tr><td>DEJER</td><td>73</td><td>NP B58 31</td><td>M. Davier et al.</td><td>(SLAC)</td></tr><tr><td>EISENBERG</td><td>73</td><td>PL 43B 149</td><td>Y. Eisenberg et al.</td><td>(REHO)</td></tr><tr><td>HYAMS</td><td>73</td><td>NP B64 134</td><td>B.D. Hyams et al.</td><td>(CERN, MPIM)</td></tr><tr><td>BINGHAM</td><td>72B</td><td>PL 41B 635</td><td>H.H. Bingham et al.</td><td>(LBL, UCB, SLAC) IGJP</td></tr><tr><td>JACOB</td><td>72</td><td>PR D5 1847</td><td>M. Jacob, R. Stansky</td><td></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></tbody></table>

$a_2(1700)$

$I^G(JPC^c) = 1^{-2(2+\epsilon)}$

$a_2(1700) \text{ T-MATRIX POLE } \sqrt{s}$

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

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="4">(1630-1780) - i (60-250) OUR ESTIMATE</td></tr><tr><td>(1686 ± 22<sup>+19</sup><sub>-29</sub>) - i (211 ± 38<sup>+32</sup><sub>-29</sub>)</td><td>1 KOPF</td><td>21</td><td>RVUE 0.9 p̄p → π<sup>0</sup>η<sup>0</sup>η, π<sup>0</sup>K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup> and 191 π<sup>-</sup>p → π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>ρ</td></tr><tr><td>(1638.9 ± 2.3<sup>+57.4</sup><sub>-0.1</sub>) - i(112.0 ± 1.3<sup>+9</sup><sub>-24.2</sub>)</td><td>2 ALBRECHT</td><td>20</td><td>RVUE 0.9 p̄p → π<sup>0</sup>η<sup>0</sup>η, π<sup>0</sup>K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>(1722 ± 15 ± 67) - i(124 ± 9 ± 32)</td><td>3 RODAS</td><td>19</td><td>RVUE 191 π<sup>-</sup>p → π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>-</sup>ρ</td></tr><tr><td>(1698 ± 44) - i (133 ± 28)</td><td>AMSLER</td><td>02</td><td>CBAR 0.9 p̄p → π<sup>0</sup>ηη</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Based on combined fit of Crystal Barrel and ππ scattering data (ALBRECHT 20), and COMPASS data (ADOLPH 15), using a coupled-channel model of ηη, ππ and Kπ systems.

² Based on 2 poles, 2 channels (ηη, Kπ).

³ The coupled-channel analysis of both the ηπ and ππ systems using ADOLPH 15 data.

$a_2(1700) \text{ MASS}$

<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><strong>1706±14 OUR AVERAGE</strong></td><td></td><td>Error includes scale factor of 1.2.</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1681<sup>+22</sup><sub>-35</sub></td><td>46M</td><td>1,2 AGHASYAN</td><td>18B COMP</td><td>190 π<sup>-</sup>p → π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>ρ</td></tr><tr><td>1726 ± 12 ± 25</td><td></td><td>2 ABLIKIM</td><td>17K BES3</td><td>ψ(2S) → γηπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1722 ± 9 ± 15</td><td>18k</td><td>3 SCHEGELSKY</td><td>06 RVUE</td><td>γγ → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1660 ± 40</td><td></td><td>2 ABELLE</td><td>99B CBAR</td><td>1.94 p̄p → π<sup>0</sup>ηη</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1720 ± 10 ± 60</td><td></td><td>4 JACKURA</td><td>18 RVUE</td><td>π<sup>-</sup>p → ηπ<sup>-</sup>ρ</td></tr><tr><td>1675 ± 25</td><td></td><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>09 RVUE</td><td>0.0 p̄p, πN</td></tr><tr><td>1702 ± 7</td><td>80k</td><td>5 UMAN</td><td>06 E835</td><td>5.2 p̄p → ηηπ<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>1721 ± 13 ± 44</td><td>145k</td><td>LU</td><td>05 B852</td><td>18 π<sup>-</sup>p → ωπ<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup>ρ</td></tr><tr><td>1737 ± 5 ± 7</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>1767 ± 14</td><td>221</td><td>6 ACCIARRI</td><td>01H L3</td><td>γγ → K<sup>0</sup>S K<sup>0</sup>S, E<sup>ee</sup>cm = 91, 183-209 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>~ 1775</td><td></td><td>7 GRYGOREV</td><td>99 SPEC</td><td>40 π<sup>-</sup>p → K<sup>0</sup>S K<sup>0</sup>S π</td></tr><tr><td>1752 ± 21 ± 4</td><td></td><td>ACCIARRI</td><td>97T L3</td><td>γγ → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Statistical error negligible.

² Breit-Wigner mass.

³ From analysis of L3 data at 183-209 GeV.

⁴ Superseded by RODAS 19.

⁵ Statistical error only.

⁶ Spin 2 dominant, isospin not determined, could also be l=1.

⁷ Possibly two $J^P = 2^+$ resonances with isospins 0 and 1.

$a_2(1700) \text{ WIDTH}$

<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><strong>380<sup>+60</sup><sub>-50</sub> OUR AVERAGE</strong></td><td></td><td>Error includes scale factor of 3.9. See the ideogram below.</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>436<sup>+20</sup><sub>-16</sub></td><td>46M</td><td>1,2 AGHASYAN</td><td>18B COMP</td><td>190 π<sup>-</sup>p → π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>ρ</td></tr><tr><td>190 ± 18 ± 30</td><td></td><td>2 ABLIKIM</td><td>17K BES3</td><td>ψ(2S) → γηπ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>336 ± 20 ± 20</td><td>18k</td><td>3 SCHEGELSKY</td><td>06 RVUE</td><td>γγ → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>280 ± 70</td><td></td><td>2 ABELLE</td><td>99B CBAR</td><td>1.94 p̄p → π<sup>0</sup>ηη</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>280 ± 10 ± 70</td><td></td><td>4 JACKURA</td><td>18 RVUE</td><td>π<sup>-</sup>p → ηπ<sup>-</sup>ρ</td></tr><tr><td>270<sup>+50</sup><sub>-20</sub></td><td></td><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>09 RVUE</td><td>0.0 p̄p, πN</td></tr><tr><td>417 ± 19</td><td>80k</td><td>5 UMAN</td><td>06 E835</td><td>5.2 p̄p → ηηπ<sup>0</sup></td></tr><tr><td>279 ± 49 ± 66</td><td>145k</td><td>LU</td><td>05 B852</td><td>18 π<sup>-</sup>p → ωπ<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup>ρ</td></tr><tr><td>151 ± 22 ± 24</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>187 ± 60</td><td>221</td><td>6 ACCIARRI</td><td>01H L3</td><td>γγ → K<sup>0</sup>S K<sup>0</sup>S, E<sup>ee</sup>cm = 91, 183-209 GeV</td></tr><tr><td>150 ± 110 ± 34</td><td></td><td>ACCIARRI</td><td>97T L3</td><td>γγ → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Statistical error negligible.

² Breit-Wigner width.

³ From analysis of L3 data at 183-209 GeV.

⁴ Superseded by RODAS 19.

⁵ Statistical error only.

⁶ Spin 2 dominant, isospin not determined, could also be l=1.

<figure><img src="image_488.png" /><figcaption>$a_2(1700)$ width (MeV)</figcaption></figure>

$a_2(1700) \text{ DECAY MODES}$

<table><thead><tr><th>Mode</th><th>Fraction (Γ<sub>i</sub>/Γ)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Γ<sub>1</sub> ηπ</td><td>(2.5±0.6) %</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>2</sub> η'π</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>3</sub> γγ</td><td>(7.9±1.7) × 10<sup>-7</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>4</sub> ρπ</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>5</sub> f<sub>2</sub>(1270)π</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>6</sub> Kπ</td><td>(1.3±0.8) %</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>7</sub> ωπ<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>8</sub> ωρ</td><td>seen</td></tr></tbody></table>

$a_2(1700) \text{ PARTIAL WIDTHS}$

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(ηπ)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>9.5±2.0</strong></td><td>870</td><td>1 SCHEGELSKY 06A</td><td>RVUE</td><td>γγ → K<sup>0</sup>S K<sup>0</sup>S</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From analysis of L3 data at 91 and 183-209 GeV, using $a_2(1700)$ mass of 1730 MeV and width of 340 MeV, and SU(3) relations.

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(γγ)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>0.30±0.05</strong></td><td>870</td><td>1 SCHEGELSKY 06A</td><td>RVUE</td><td>γγ → K<sup>0</sup>S K<sup>0</sup>S</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From analysis of L3 data at 91 and 183-209 GeV, using $a_2(1700)$ mass of 1730 MeV and width of 340 MeV, and SU(3) relations.

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(Kπ)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>5.0±3.0</strong></td><td>870</td><td>1 SCHEGELSKY 06A</td><td>RVUE</td><td>γγ → K<sup>0</sup>S K<sup>0</sup>S</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From analysis of L3 data at 91 and 183-209 GeV, using $a_2(1700)$ mass of 1730 MeV and width of 340 MeV, and SU(3) relations.