$$T_{c\bar{c}}(4100)^{+}$$

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

OMITTED FROM SUMMARY TABLE

was $X(4100)^{\pm}$

Properties incompatible with a $q\bar{q}$ structure (exotic state). See the review on non-$q\bar{q}$ states.

Reported by AAIJ 18AN in the $\eta_c(1S)\pi^-$ invariant mass distribution in $B^0 \to \eta_c(1S)K^+\pi^-$ decays with a significance of 3.4σ. $J^P = 0^+ + 1^-$ assignment consistent with data.

### $T_{c\bar{c}}(4100)^{+}$ MASS

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>4096 ± 20<sup>+18</sup><sub>-22</sub></td><td>AAIJ</td><td>18AN LHCB</td><td>B<sup>0</sup> → η<sub>c</sub>(1S)K<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

### $T_{c\bar{c}}(4100)^{+}$ WIDTH

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>152 ± 58<sup>+60</sup><sub>-35</sub></td><td>AAIJ</td><td>18AN LHCB</td><td>B<sup>0</sup> → η<sub>c</sub>(1S)K<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

### $T_{c\bar{c}}(4100)^{+}$ DECAY MODES

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Mode</th><th>Fraction (Γ<sub>j</sub>/Γ)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Γ<sub>1</sub></td><td>η<sub>c</sub>(1S)π<sup>-</sup></td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>2</sub></td><td>π<sup>±</sup>ψ(3770)</td><td>not seen</td></tr></tbody></table>

### $T_{c\bar{c}}(4100)^{+}$ BRANCHING RATIOS

$$\frac{\Gamma(\eta_c(1S)\pi^-)/\Gamma_{\text{total}}}{\Gamma_1/\Gamma}$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>seen</td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>18AN LHCB</td><td>B<sup>0</sup> → η<sub>c</sub>(1S)K<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹AAIJ 18AN quotes a fit fraction for $B^0 \to T_{c\bar{c}}(4100)^-K^+ \to \eta_c(1S)\pi^-K^+$ of $(3.3 \pm 1.1^{+1.2}_{-1.1})\%$ from an amplitude analysis.

$$\frac{\Gamma(\pi^{\pm}\psi(3770))/\Gamma_{\text{total}}}{\Gamma_2/\Gamma}$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>not seen</td><td>1 ABLIKIM</td><td>19AR BES3</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>D̄D̄</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹From a measurement of $\sigma(e^+e^- \to \pi^+\pi^-D\bar{D})$ between $\sqrt{s} = 4.08$ and 4.6 GeV.

### $T_{c\bar{c}}(4100)^{+}$ REFERENCES

ABLIKIM 19AR PR D100 032005

M. Ablikim et al.

(BESIII Collab.)

AAIJ 18AN EPJ C78 1019

R. Aaij et al.

(LHCb Collab.)

$$T_{c\bar{c}1}(4200)^{+}$$

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

I, G, C need confirmation.

OMITTED FROM SUMMARY TABLE

was $Z_c(4200)$, $X(4200)^{\pm}$

This state shows properties different from a conventional $q\bar{q}$ state. A candidate for an exotic structure. See the review on non-$q\bar{q}$ states.

Reported by CHILIKIN 14 in $J/\psi\pi^+$ at a significance of 6.2σ. Assignments of 0$^-$, 1$^-$, 2$^-$, and 2$^+$ excluded at 6.1σ, 7.4σ, 4.4σ, and 7.0σ level, respectively. Needs confirmation.

### $T_{c\bar{c}1}(4200)^{+}$ MASS

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>4196<sup>+31</sup><sub>-29</sub><sup>+17</sup><sub>-13</sub></td><td>CHILIKIN</td><td>14</td><td>B̄<sup>0</sup> → J/ψK<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

### $T_{c\bar{c}1}(4200)^{+}$ WIDTH

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>370 ± 70<sup>+70</sup><sub>-132</sub></td><td>CHILIKIN</td><td>14</td><td>B̄<sup>0</sup> → J/ψK<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

### $T_{c\bar{c}1}(4200)^{+}$ DECAY MODES

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Mode</th><th>Fraction (Γ<sub>j</sub>/Γ)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Γ<sub>1</sub></td><td>J/ψπ<sup>+</sup></td><td>seen</td></tr></tbody></table>

### $T_{c\bar{c}1}(4200)^{+}$ BRANCHING RATIOS

$$\frac{\Gamma(J/\psi K^+)/\Gamma_{\text{total}}}{\Gamma_1/\Gamma}$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>seen</td><td>CHILIKIN</td><td>14</td><td>B̄<sup>0</sup> → J/ψK<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

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

possibly seen ¹AAIJ 19R LHCB $B^0 \to K^+\pi^-J/\psi + \text{c.c.}$

¹From a model-independent analysis.

### $T_{c\bar{c}1}(4200)^{+}$ REFERENCES

AAIJ 19R PRL 122 152002

R. Aaij et al.

(LHCb Collab.)

CHILIKIN 14 PR D90 112009

K. Chilikin et al.

(BELLE Collab.)

$$T_{c\bar{c}51}(4220)^{+}$$

$$I(J^P) = \frac{1}{2}(1^+)$$

OMITTED FROM SUMMARY TABLE

was $Z_{cs}(4220)^{+}$

Properties incompatible with a $q\bar{q}$ structure (exotic state). See the review on "Heavy Non-$q\bar{q}$ Mesons."

Seen by AAIJ 21E in $B^+ \to T_{c\bar{c}51}(4220)^+\phi$ with $T_{c\bar{c}51}(4220)^+ \to J/\psi K^+$ using an amplitude analysis of $B^+ \to J/\psi\phi K^+$ with a significance (accounting for systematic uncertainties) of 5.9 σ. The $J^P = 1^+$ assignment is favored over $1^-$ with a significance of 2 σ and other assignments are disfavored by 4.9 σ.

### $T_{c\bar{c}51}(4220)^{+}$ 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>4216 ± 24<sup>+43</sup><sub>-30</sub></td><td>24k</td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>21E LHCB</td><td>B<sup>+</sup> → J/ψφK<sup>+</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹From an amplitude analysis of the decay $B^+ \to J/\psi\phi K^+$ with a significance of 5.9 σ.

### $T_{c\bar{c}51}(4220)^{+}$ 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>233 ± 52<sup>+97</sup><sub>-73</sub></td><td>24k</td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>21E LHCB</td><td>B<sup>+</sup> → J/ψφK<sup>+</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹From an amplitude analysis of the decay $B^+ \to J/\psi\phi K^+$ with a significance of 5.9 σ.

### $T_{c\bar{c}51}(4220)^{+}$ DECAY MODES

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Mode</th><th>Fraction (Γ<sub>j</sub>/Γ)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Γ<sub>1</sub></td><td>J/ψK<sup>+</sup></td><td>seen</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$\frac{\Gamma(J/\psi K^+)/\Gamma_{\text{total}}}{\Gamma_1/\Gamma}$$

<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>24k</td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>21E LHCB</td><td>B<sup>+</sup> → J/ψφK<sup>+</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹From an amplitude analysis of the decay $B^+ \to J/\psi\phi K^+$ with a significance of 5.9 σ.

### $T_{c\bar{c}51}(4220)^{+}$ REFERENCES

AAIJ 21E PRL 127 082001

R. Aaij et al.

(LHCb Collab.) JP

$$T_{c\bar{c}0}(4240)^{+}$$

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

OMITTED FROM SUMMARY TABLE

was $R_{c0}(4240)$, $X(4240)^{\pm}$

Properties incompatible with a $q\bar{q}$ structure (exotic state). See the review on non-$q\bar{q}$ states.

Spin and parity assignment $J^P = 0^-$ is favored over $1^-$, $2^-$, and $2^+$ by 8 σ and over $1^+$ by 1 σ, according to the four-dimensional amplitude analysis of AAIJ 14AG.

### $T_{c\bar{c}0}(4240)^{+}$ MASS

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>4239 ± 18<sup>+45</sup><sub>-10</sub></td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>14AG LHCB</td><td>B<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>ψ(2S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹From a 4-dimensional analysis when a second, lower mass resonance is allowed in the $T_{c\bar{c}1}(4430)$ fit, with significance 6 σ including systematic variations.
$T_c\bar{c}0(4240)^+$ WIDTH

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>220±47<sup>+108</sup><sub>-74</sub></td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>14AG LHCB</td><td>B<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>ψ(2S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From a 4-dimensional analysis when a second, lower mass resonance is allowed in the $T_c\bar{c}1(4430)$ fit, with significance 6 σ including systematic variations.

$T_c\bar{c}0(4240)^+$ 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> π<sup>-</sup>ψ(2S)</td><td>seen</td></tr></tbody></table>

$T_c\bar{c}0(4240)^+$ BRANCHING RATIOS

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(π<sup>-</sup>ψ(2S))/Γ<sub>total</sub></th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>seen</td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>14AG LHCB</td><td>B<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>ψ(2S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From a 4-dimensional analysis when a second, lower mass resonance is allowed in the $T_c\bar{c}1(4430)$ fit. No partial branching fraction quoted.

$T_c\bar{c}0(4240)^+$ REFERENCES

AAIJ 14AG PRL 112 222002 R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collab.)

$T_c\bar{c}(4250)^+$

$$I^G(J^{PC}) = 1-(?+?)^I, \quad I, G, C \text{ need confirmation.}$$

OMITTED FROM SUMMARY TABLE
was X(4250)±

Properties incompatible with a $q\bar{q}$ structure (exotic state). See the review on non-$q\bar{q}$ states.

Observed by MIZUK 08 in the $π^+\chi_{c1}(1P)$ invariant mass distribution in $B^0 → K^−π^+\chi_{c1}(1P)$ decays. Not seen by LEES 12B in this same mode after accounting for $Kπ$ resonant mass and angular structure.

$T_c\bar{c}(4250)^+$ MASS

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>4248<sup>+44</sup><sub>-29</sub><sup>+180</sup><sub>-35</sub></td><td>1 MIZUK</td><td>08</td><td>BELL B<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>χ<sub>c1</sub>(1P)</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From a Dalitz plot analysis with two Breit-Wigner amplitudes.

$T_c\bar{c}(4250)^+$ WIDTH

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>177<sup>+54</sup><sub>-39</sub><sup>+316</sup><sub>-61</sub></td><td>1 MIZUK</td><td>08</td><td>BELL B<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>χ<sub>c1</sub>(1P)</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From a Dalitz plot analysis with two Breit-Wigner amplitudes.

$T_c\bar{c}(4250)^+$ 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> π<sup>+</sup>χ<sub>c1</sub>(1P)</td><td>seen</td></tr></tbody></table>

$T_c\bar{c}(4250)^+$ BRANCHING RATIOS

<table><thead><tr><th>Γ(π<sup>+</sup>χ<sub>c1</sub>(1P))/Γ<sub>total</sub></th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>seen</td><td>1 MIZUK</td><td>08</td><td>BELL B<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>χ<sub>c1</sub>(1P)</td></tr></tbody></table>

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

not seen ² LEES 12B BABR B → Kπχ<sub>c1</sub>(1P)

¹ With a product branching fraction measurement of $B(B^0 → K^−T_c\bar{c}(4250)^+) × B(T_c\bar{c}(4250)^+ → π^+\chi_{c1}(1P)) = (4.0^{+2.3}_{-0.9}+19.7) × 10^{-5}$.

² With a product branching fraction limit of $B(B^0 → T_c\bar{c}(4250)^+K^−) × B(T_c\bar{c}(4250)^+ → χ_{c1}π^+) < 4.0 × 10^{-5}$ at 90% CL.

$T_c\bar{c}(4250)^+$ REFERENCES

LEES 12B PR D85 052003 J.P. Lees et al. (BABAR Collab.)
MIZUK 08 PR D78 072004 R. Mizuk et al. (BELLE Collab.)

$T_c\bar{c}1(4430)^+$

$$I^G(J^{PC}) = 1+(1-?)^G, \quad G, C \text{ need confirmation.}$$

was $Z_c(4430), X(4430)^±$

Properties incompatible with a $q\bar{q}$ structure (exotic state). See the review on non-$q\bar{q}$ states.

First seen by CHOI 08 in $B → Kπ^+ψ(2S)$ decays, confirmed by AAIJ 14AG, and confirmed in a model-independent way by AAIJ 15BH. Also seen by CHILIKIN 14 in $B → K^+πJ/ψ$ decays. $J^P$ was determined by CHILIKIN 13 and AAIJ 14AG.

$T_c\bar{c}1(4430)^+$ MASS

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>4478<sup>+15</sup><sub>-18</sub> OUR AVERAGE</strong></td></tr><tr><td>4475 ± 7<sup>+15</sup><sub>-25</sub></td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>14AG LHCB</td><td>B<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>ψ(2S)</td></tr><tr><td>4485 ± 22<sup>+28</sup><sub>-11</sub></td><td>1 CHILIKIN</td><td>13 BELL</td><td>B<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>ψ(2S)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>4443<sup>+15</sup><sub>-12</sub><sup>+19</sup><sub>-13</sub></td><td>2 MIZUK</td><td>09 BELL</td><td>B → Kπ<sup>+</sup>ψ(2S)</td></tr><tr><td>4433 ± 4 ± 2</td><td>3 CHOI</td><td>08 BELL</td><td>B → Kπ<sup>+</sup>ψ(2S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From a four-dimensional amplitude analysis.

² From a Dalitz plot analysis. Superseded by CHILIKIN 13.

³ Superseded by MIZUK 09 and CHILIKIN 13.

$T_c\bar{c}1(4430)^+$ WIDTH

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>181±31 OUR AVERAGE</strong></td></tr><tr><td>172±13<sup>+37</sup><sub>-34</sub></td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>14AG LHCB</td><td>B<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>ψ(2S)</td></tr><tr><td>200<sup>+41</sup><sub>-46</sub><sup>+26</sup><sub>-35</sub></td><td>1 CHILIKIN</td><td>13 BELL</td><td>B<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>ψ(2S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

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

<table><tbody><tr><td>107<sup>+86</sup><sub>-43</sub><sup>+74</sup><sub>-56</sub></td><td>2 MIZUK</td><td>09 BELL</td><td>B → Kπ<sup>+</sup>ψ(2S)</td></tr><tr><td>45<sup>+18</sup><sub>-13</sub><sup>+30</sup><sub>-13</sub></td><td>3 CHOI</td><td>08 BELL</td><td>B → Kπ<sup>+</sup>ψ(2S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From a four-dimensional amplitude analysis.

² From a Dalitz plot analysis. Superseded by CHILIKIN 13.

³ Superseded by MIZUK 09 and CHILIKIN 13.

$T_c\bar{c}1(4430)^+$ 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> π<sup>+</sup>ψ(2S)</td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>2</sub> π<sup>+</sup>J/ψ</td><td>seen</td></tr></tbody></table>

$T_c\bar{c}1(4430)^+$ BRANCHING RATIOS

$Γ(π<sup>+</sup>ψ(2S))/Γ<sub>total</sub> Γ<sub>1</sub>/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>1 AAIJ</td><td>14AG LHCB</td><td>B<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>ψ(2S)</td></tr><tr><td>seen</td><td>2 CHILIKIN</td><td>13 BELL</td><td>B<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>ψ(2S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

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

<table><tbody><tr><td>not seen</td><td>3 AUBERT</td><td>09AA BABR</td><td>B → Kπ<sup>+</sup>ψ(2S)</td></tr><tr><td>seen</td><td>4 MIZUK</td><td>09 BELL</td><td>B → Kπ<sup>+</sup>ψ(2S)</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From a four-dimensional amplitude analysis. No product of branching fractions quoted.

² From a four-dimensional amplitude analysis. Measured a product of branching fractions $B(B^0 → T_c\bar{c}1(4430)^−K^+)×B(T_c\bar{c}1(4430)^− → ψ(2S)π^−) = (6.0^{+1.7}_{-2.0}+2.5) × 10^{-5}$.

³ AUBERT 09AA quotes $B(B^+ → K^0T_c\bar{c}1(4430)^+) × B(T_c\bar{c}1(4430)^+ → π^+ψ(2S)) < 4.7 × 10^{-5}$ and $B(B^0 → K^−T_c\bar{c}1(4430)^+) × B(T_c\bar{c}1(4430)^+ → π^+ψ(2S)) < 3.1 × 10^{-5}$ at 95% CL.

⁴ Measured a product of branching fractions $B(B^0 → K^−T_c\bar{c}1(4430)^+) × B(T_c\bar{c}1(4430)^+ → π^+ψ(2S)) = (3.2^{+1.8}_{-0.9}+5.3) × 10^{-5}$. Superseded by CHILIKIN 13.

$Γ(π<sup>+</sup>J/ψ)/Γ<sub>total</sub> Γ<sub>2</sub>/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>1,2 CHILIKIN</td><td>14 BELL</td><td>B<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>J/ψ</td></tr></tbody></table>

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

<table><tbody><tr><td>not seen</td><td>3 AUBERT</td><td>09AA BABR</td><td>B → Kπ<sup>+</sup>J/ψ</td></tr><tr><td>seen</td><td>1 CHILIKIN</td><td>14 CHILIKIN</td><td>B<sup>0</sup> → K<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>J/ψ</td></tr></tbody></table>

² A broad enhancement seen by AAIJ 19R in the decays $B^0 → J/ψπ^+K^−$ at 4600 MeV can be due to an interplay of $T_c\bar{c}1(4430)$, $T_c\bar{c}1(4200)$ and the fitting polynomials.

³ AUBERT 09AA quotes $B(B^+ → K^0T_c\bar{c}1(4430)^+) × B(T_c\bar{c}1(4430)^+ → π^+J/ψ) < 1.5 × 10^{-5}$ and $B(B^0 → K^−T_c\bar{c}1(4430)^+) × B(T_c\bar{c}1(4430)^+ → π^+J/ψ) < 0.4 × 10^{-5}$ at 95% CL.
$T_{c\bar{c}1}(4430)^{+}$, $T_{b\bar{s}}(5568)^{+}$, $T_{cc\bar{c}}(6900)^{0}$, $T_{b\bar{b}1}(10610)$

### $T_{cc1}(4430)^{+}$ REFERENCES

<table><tr><td>AAU</td><td>19R PRL 122 152002</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AAU</td><td>15BH PR D92 112009</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AAU</td><td>14AG PRL 112 222002</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.) JP</td></tr><tr><td>CHILIKIN</td><td>14 PR D90 112009</td><td>K. Chilikin et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>CHILIKIN</td><td>13 PR D88 074026</td><td>K. Chilikin et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.) JP</td></tr><tr><td>AUBERT</td><td>09AA PR D79 112001</td><td>B. Aubert et al.</td><td>(BABAR Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>MIZUK</td><td>09 PR D80 031104</td><td>R. Mizuk et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>CHOI</td><td>08 PRL 100 142001</td><td>S.-K. Choi et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr></table>

### $T_{b\bar{s}}(5568)^{+}$ REFERENCES

<table><tr><td>AABOUD</td><td>18L PRL 120 200207</td><td>M. Aaboud et al.</td><td>(ATLAS Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AALTONEN</td><td>18A PRL 120 200206</td><td>T. Aaltonen et al.</td><td>(CDF Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ABAZOV</td><td>18A PR D97 092004</td><td>V.M. Abazov et al.</td><td>(D0 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>SIRUNYAN</td><td>18J PRL 120 200205</td><td>A.M. Sirunyan et al.</td><td>(CMS Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AAIJ</td><td>16AI PRL 117 152003</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ABAZOV</td><td>16E PRL 117 022003</td><td>V.M. Abazov et al.</td><td>(D0 Collab.)</td></tr></table>

$$T_{b\bar{s}}(5568)^{+}$$

$$I(J^P) = 1(??)$$

OMITTED FROM SUMMARY TABLE

was $X(5568)^{\pm}$

Seen as a peak in the $B_S \pi^{\pm}$ mass spectrum with a significance of more than $3\sigma$ by ABAZOV 16E and ABAZOV 18A in inclusive $p\bar{p}$ collisions at 1.96 TeV. Not seen by AAIJ 16AI, AABOUD 18L, AALTONEN 18A, and SIRUNYAN 18J. Needs confirmation.

### $T_{b\bar{s}}(5568)^{+}$ 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>5566.9<sup>+3.2</sup><sub>-3.1</sub><sup>+0.6</sup></td><td>278</td><td>1 ABAZOV</td><td>18A D0</td><td>$p\bar{p} \to B_S^0 \pi^{\pm} X$</td></tr></tbody></table>

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

<table><tr><td>5567.8 ± 2.9<sup>+0.9</sup><sub>-1.9</sub></td><td>133</td><td>2 ABAZOV</td><td>16E D0</td><td>$p\bar{p} \to B_S^0 \pi^{\pm} X$</td></tr></table>

¹ From the combined analysis of $B_S^0 \to J/\psi\phi$ and $B_S^0 \to D_S^{\pm} \mu^{\mp} X$ decays.

²Assumes $T_{b\bar{s}}(5568)^{\pm} \to B_S \pi^{\pm} \text{decay}$. If $T_{b\bar{s}}(5568)^{\pm} \to B_S^* \pi^{\pm} \text{decay}$ is assumed, the mass shifts upward by 49 MeV.

### $T_{b\bar{s}}(5568)^{+}$ 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>18.6<sup>+7.9</sup><sub>-6.1</sub><sup>+3.5</sup></td><td>278</td><td>1 ABAZOV</td><td>18A D0</td><td>$p\bar{p} \to B_S^0 \pi^{\pm} X$</td></tr></tbody></table>

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

<table><tr><td>21.9 ± 6.4<sup>+5.0</sup><sub>-2.5</sub></td><td>133</td><td>ABAZOV</td><td>16E D0</td><td>$p\bar{p} \to B_S^0 \pi^{\pm} X$</td></tr></table>

¹ From the combined analysis of $B_S^0 \to J/\psi\phi$ and $B_S^0 \to D_S^{\pm} \mu^{\mp} X$ decays.

### $T_{b\bar{s}}(5568)^{+}$ DECAY MODES

<table><thead><tr><th>Mode</th><th>Fraction ($\Gamma_f/\Gamma$)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>$\Gamma_1$ $B_S \pi^{\pm}$</td><td>seen</td></tr></tbody></table>

### $T_{b\bar{s}}(5568)^{+}$ BRANCHING RATIOS

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="6">$\Gamma(B_S \pi^{\pm})/\Gamma_{\text{total}}$</th></tr><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th><th>$\Gamma_1/\Gamma$</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>seen</td><td>145</td><td>1 ABAZOV</td><td>18A D0</td><td>$p\bar{p} \to B_S^0 \pi^{\pm} X$</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>seen</td><td>133</td><td>2 ABAZOV</td><td>16E D0</td><td>$p\bar{p} \to B_S^0 \pi^{\pm} X$</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th colspan="6">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>not seen</td><td>3 AABOUD</td><td>18L ATLS</td><td>pp → $B_S^0 \pi^{\pm} X$</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>not seen</td><td>4 AALTONEN</td><td>18A CDF</td><td>p$\bar{p} \to B_S^0 \pi^{\pm} X$</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>not seen</td><td>5 SIRUNYAN</td><td>18J CMS</td><td>pp → $B_S^0 \pi^{\pm} X$</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>not seen</td><td>6 AAIJ</td><td>16AI LHCB</td><td>pp → $B_S^0 \pi^{\pm} X$</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ With $B_S$ mesons reconstructed in decays to $D_S^{\pm} \mu^{\mp} X$.

²Seen in $p\bar{p}$ collisions at 1.96 TeV at a rate of $(8.6 \pm 1.9 \pm 1.4)\%$ relative to inclusive $B_S$ production in the kinematic region $10^- < p_T(B_S) < 30$ GeV/c, with $B_S$ mesons reconstructed in decays to $J/\psi\phi$. An alternative possibility, $T_{b\bar{s}}(5568)^{\pm} \to B_S^* \pi^{\pm}$ with a missing $\gamma$, could not be ruled out.

³Not seen in $24.4 \text{ fb}^{-1}$ of $pp$ collision data at $\sqrt{s} = 7$ and 8 TeV with $B_S$ mesons reconstructed in decays to $J/\psi\phi$. An upper limit on the production rate times branching fraction for $T_{b\bar{s}}(5568)^{\pm} \to B_S \pi^{\pm}$ relative to inclusive $B_S$ production is less than 1.5% at $p_T(B_S) > 10$ GeV/c and less than 1.6% at $p_T(B_S) > 15$ GeV/c at 95% CL.

⁴Not seen in $9.6 \text{ fb}^{-1}$ of $p\bar{p}$ collision data at $\sqrt{s} = 1.96$ TeV with $B_S$ mesons reconstructed in decays to $J/\psi\phi$. An upper limit on the production rate times branching fraction for $T_{b\bar{s}}(5568)^{\pm} \to B_S \pi^{\pm}$ relative to inclusive $B_S$ production is less than 6.7% at 95% CL.

⁵Not seen in $19.7 \text{ fb}^{-1}$ of $pp$ collisions data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV with $B_S$ mesons reconstructed in decays to $J/\psi\phi$. An upper limit on the production rate times branching fraction for $T_{b\bar{s}}(5568)^{\pm} \to B_S \pi^{\pm}$ relative to inclusive $B_S$ production is less than 1.1% at $p_T(B_S) > 10$ GeV/c and less than 1.0% at $p_T(B_S) > 15$ GeV/c at 95% CL.

⁶Not seen in $3 \text{ fb}^{-1}$ of $pp$ collision data at $\sqrt{s} = 7$ and 8 TeV in a scan over the $T_{b\bar{s}}(5568)$ mass and width, with $B_S$ mesons reconstructed in decays to $D_S^{\pm} \pi^{\pm}$ or $J/\psi\phi$. An upper limit on the production rate times branching fraction for $T_{b\bar{s}}(5568)^{\pm} \to B_S \pi^{\pm}$ relative to inclusive $B_S$ production is less than 2.1% at $p_T(B_S) > 10$ GeV/c at 90% CL.

$$T_{cc\bar{c}}(6900)^{0}$$

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

OMITTED FROM SUMMARY TABLE
was $X(6900)$

State incompatible with a $q\bar{q}$ structure. See the review on "Heavy Non-$q\bar{q}$ Mesons."

### $T_{cc\bar{c}}(6900)^{0}$ MASS

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>6899±12 OUR AVERAGE</strong> Error includes scale factor of 1.1.</td></tr><tr><td>6910±10±10</td><td>1 AAD</td><td>23BL ATLS</td><td>pp → J/ψJ/ψX</td></tr><tr><td>6886±11±11</td><td>2 AAIJ</td><td>20AY LHCB</td><td>pp → J/ψJ/ψX</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>6960±50±30</td><td>3 AAD</td><td>23BL ATLS</td><td>pp → J/ψψ(2S)X</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹In a model with two resonances, one describing the broad structure above threshold (mass 6650 ± $20^{+30}_{-20}$ MeV, width $440 \pm 50^{+60}_{-50}$ MeV) interfering with single parton scattering, and a non-interfering $T_{cc\bar{c}}(6900)$.

²In a model where the broad structure above threshold interferes with non-resonant single parton scattering. Without interference the mass is 6905 ± 11 ± 7 MeV.

³Assuming a single resonance (could be another state). A $3\sigma$ signal is observed for an additional resonance with mass $7220 \pm 30^{+10}_{-40}$ MeV and width $90 \pm 60^{+60}_{-50}$ MeV.

### $T_{cc\bar{c}}(6900)^{0}$ WIDTH

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>153± 29 OUR AVERAGE</strong></td></tr><tr><td>150 ± 30 ± 10</td><td>1 AAD</td><td>23BL ATLS</td><td>pp → J/ψJ/ψX</td></tr><tr><td>168 ± 33 ± 69</td><td>2 AAIJ</td><td>20AY LHCB</td><td>pp → J/ψJ/ψX</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>510 ± 170<sup>+110</sup><sub>-100</sub></td><td>3 AAD</td><td>23BL ATLS</td><td>pp → J/ψψ(2S)X</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹In a model with two resonances, one describing the broad structure above threshold (mass 6650 ± $20^{+30}_{-20}$ MeV, width $440 \pm 50^{+60}_{-50}$ MeV) interfering with single parton scattering, and a non-interfering $T_{cc\bar{c}}(6900)$.

²In a model where the broad structure above threshold interferes with non-resonant single parton scattering. Without interference the width is 80 ± 38 MeV.

³Assuming a single resonance (could be another state). A $3\sigma$ signal is observed for an additional resonance with mass $7220 \pm 30^{+10}_{-40}$ MeV and width $90 \pm 60^{+60}_{-50}$ MeV.

### $T_{cc\bar{c}}(6900)^{0}$ DECAY MODES

<table><thead><tr><th>Mode</th><th>Fraction ($\Gamma_f/\Gamma$)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>$\Gamma_1$ J/ψJ/ψ</td><td>seen</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="6">$\Gamma(J/\psi J/\psi)/\Gamma_{\text{total}}$</th></tr><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th><th>$\Gamma_1/\Gamma$</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>seen</td><td>AAD</td><td>23BL ATLS</td><td>pp → J/ψJ/ψX</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>seen</td><td>AAIJ</td><td>20AY LHCB</td><td>pp → J/ψJ/ψX</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

### $T_{cc\bar{c}}(6900)^{0}$ REFERENCES

<table><tr><td>AAD</td><td>23BL PRL 131 151902</td><td>G. Aad et al.</td><td>(ATLAS)</td></tr><tr><td>AAIJ</td><td>20AY SCIB 65 1983</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr></table>

$$T_{b\bar{b}1}(10610)$$

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

was $Z_b(10610)$, $X(10610)$

Properties incompatible with a $q\bar{q}$ structure (exotic state). See the review on non-$q\bar{q}$ states.

Observed by BONDAR 12 in $\Gamma(55)$ decays to $\Gamma(nS)\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ ($n = 1, 2, 3$) and $h_b(mP)\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ ($m = 1, 2$). $J^P = 1^+$ is favored from angular analyses.
$T_{b\bar{b}1}(10610)$

$T_{b\bar{b}1}(10610)^{\pm}$ MASS

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><b>10607.2±2.0</b></td><td><sup>1</sup>BONDAR</td><td>12</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → hadrons</td></tr><tr><td>10608.5±3.4<sup>+3.7</sup><sub>-1.4</sub></td><td>2</td><td>GARMASH</td><td>15 BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → T(1S)π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>10608.1±1.2<sup>+1.5</sup><sub>-0.2</sub></td><td>2</td><td>GARMASH</td><td>15 BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → T(2S)π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>10607.4±1.5<sup>+0.8</sup><sub>-0.2</sub></td><td>2</td><td>GARMASH</td><td>15 BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → T(3S)π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>10611 ±4 ±3</td><td>3</td><td>BONDAR</td><td>12 BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → T(1S)π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>10609 ±2 ±3</td><td>3</td><td>BONDAR</td><td>12 BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → T(2S)π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>10608 ±2 ±3</td><td>3</td><td>BONDAR</td><td>12 BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → T(3S)π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>10605 ±2 <sup>+3</sup><sub>-1</sub></td><td>3</td><td>BONDAR</td><td>12 BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → h<sub>b</sub>(1P)π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>10599 <sup>+6</sup><sub>-3</sub></td><td>3</td><td>BONDAR</td><td>12 BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → h<sub>b</sub>(2P)π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹Average of the BONDAR 12 measurements in separate channels.

²Correlated with the corresponding result from BONDAR 12.

³Superseded by the average measurement of BONDAR 12.

$T_{b\bar{b}1}(10610)^{0}$ MASS

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><b>10609±4±4</b></td><td><sup>1</sup>KROKOVNY</td><td>13</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → T(2S)/T(3S)π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹From a simultaneous fit to the KROKOVNY 13 Dalitz analysis of $e^+e^- \to T(2S)/T(3S)\pi^0\pi^0$ decays with fixed width $\Gamma(T_{b\bar{b}1}(10610)^0) = 18.4$ MeV.

$T_{b\bar{b}1}(10610)^{\pm}$ WIDTH

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><b>18.4±2.4</b></td><td><sup>1</sup>BONDAR</td><td>12</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → hadrons</td></tr><tr><td>18.5±5.3<sup>+6.1</sup><sub>-2.3</sub></td><td>2</td><td>GARMASH</td><td>15 BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → T(1S)π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>20.8±2.5<sup>+0.3</sup><sub>-2.1</sub></td><td>2</td><td>GARMASH</td><td>15 BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → T(2S)π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>18.7±3.4<sup>+2.5</sup><sub>-1.3</sub></td><td>2</td><td>GARMASH</td><td>15 BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → T(3S)π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>22.3±7.7<sup>+3.0</sup><sub>-4.0</sub></td><td>3</td><td>BONDAR</td><td>12 BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → T(1S)π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>24.2±3.1<sup>+2.0</sup><sub>-3.0</sub></td><td>3</td><td>BONDAR</td><td>12 BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → T(2S)π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>17.6±3.0±3.0</td><td>3</td><td>BONDAR</td><td>12 BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → T(3S)π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>11.4<sup>+4.5</sup><sub>-3.9</sub></td><td>3</td><td>BONDAR</td><td>12 BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → h<sub>b</sub>(1P)π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>13<sup>+10</sup><sub>-8</sub></td><td>3</td><td>BONDAR</td><td>12 BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → h<sub>b</sub>(2P)π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹Average of the BONDAR 12 measurements in separate channels.

²Correlated with the corresponding result from BONDAR 12.

³Superseded by the average measurement of BONDAR 12.

$T_{b\bar{b}1}(10610)$ 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> T(1S)π<sup>+</sup></td><td>( 5.4<sup>+1.9</sup><sub>-1.5</sub> ) × 10<sup>-3</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>2</sub> T(1S)π<sup>0</sup></td><td>not seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>3</sub> T(2S)π<sup>+</sup></td><td>( 3.6<sup>+1.1</sup><sub>-0.8</sub> ) %</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>4</sub> T(2S)π<sup>0</sup></td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>5</sub> T(3S)π<sup>+</sup></td><td>( 2.1<sup>+0.8</sup><sub>-0.6</sub> ) %</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>6</sub> T(3S)π<sup>0</sup></td><td>seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>7</sub> h<sub>b</sub>(1P)π<sup>+</sup></td><td>( 3.5<sup>+1.2</sup><sub>-0.9</sub> ) %</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>8</sub> h<sub>b</sub>(2P)π<sup>+</sup></td><td>( 4.7<sup>+1.7</sup><sub>-1.3</sub> ) %</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>9</sub> B<sup>+</sup>B<sup>0</sup></td><td>not seen</td></tr><tr><td>Γ<sub>10</sub> B<sup>+</sup>B<sup>*0</sup> + B<sup>*+</sup>B<sup>0</sup></td><td>(85.6<sup>+2.1</sup><sub>-2.9</sub> ) %</td></tr></tbody></table>

$T_{b\bar{b}1}(10610)$ BRANCHING RATIOS

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-3</sup>)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><b>5.4<sup>+1.6</sup><sub>-1.3</sub></b></td><td><sup>1</sup>GARMASH</td><td>16</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>-</sup>B<sup>+</sup>B<sup>*0</sup>, π<sup>+</sup>B<sup>0</sup>B<sup>*+</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

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

<table><tbody><tr><td>seen</td><td>GARMASH</td><td>15</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → T(1S)π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>seen</td><td>BONDAR</td><td>12</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → T(1S)π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹Assuming the $T_{b\bar{b}1}(10610)$ decay width is saturated by the channels $\pi^+\Gamma(1S, 2S, 3S)$, $\pi^+h_b(1P, 2P)$, and $B^+\bar{B}^*+\bar{B}^0B^{*+}$, and using the results from BONDAR 12 and MIZUK 16.

<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></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><b>3.62<sup>+0.76</sup><sub>-0.59</sub></b></td><td><sup>1</sup>GARMASH</td><td>16</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>-</sup>B<sup>+</sup>B<sup>*0</sup>, π<sup>+</sup>B<sup>0</sup>B<sup>*+</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

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

<table><tbody><tr><td>seen</td><td>GARMASH</td><td>15</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → T(2S)π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>seen</td><td>BONDAR</td><td>12</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → T(2S)π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹Assuming the $T_{b\bar{b}1}(10610)$ decay width is saturated by the channels $\pi^+\Gamma(1S, 2S, 3S)$, $\pi^+h_b(1P, 2P)$, and $B^+\bar{B}^*+\bar{B}^0B^{*+}$, and using the results from BONDAR 12 and MIZUK 16.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><b>Γ(2S)π<sup>0</sup>/Γ<sub>total</sub></b></td><td><sup>1</sup>KROKOVNY</td><td>13</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → T(2S)π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹Combined significance in $e^+e^- \to T(2S)/T(3S)\pi^0\pi^0$, including systematics, of 6.5σ.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><b>2.15<sup>+0.55</sup><sub>-0.42</sub></b></td><td><sup>1</sup>GARMASH</td><td>16</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>-</sup>B<sup>+</sup>B<sup>*0</sup>, π<sup>+</sup>B<sup>0</sup>B<sup>*+</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

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

<table><tbody><tr><td>seen</td><td>GARMASH</td><td>15</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → T(3S)π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>seen</td><td>BONDAR</td><td>12</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → T(3S)π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹Assuming the $T_{b\bar{b}1}(10610)$ decay width is saturated by the channels $\pi^+\Gamma(1S, 2S, 3S)$, $\pi^+h_b(1P, 2P)$, and $B^+\bar{B}^*+\bar{B}^0B^{*+}$, and using the results from BONDAR 12 and MIZUK 16.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><b>Γ(3S)π<sup>0</sup>/Γ<sub>total</sub></b></td><td><sup>1</sup>KROKOVNY</td><td>13</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → T(3S)π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹Combined significance in $e^+e^- \to T(2S)/T(3S)\pi^0\pi^0$, including systematics, of 6.5σ.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><b>3.45<sup>+0.87</sup><sub>-0.71</sub></b></td><td><sup>1</sup>GARMASH</td><td>16</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>-</sup>B<sup>+</sup>B<sup>*0</sup>, π<sup>+</sup>B<sup>0</sup>B<sup>*+</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

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

<table><tbody><tr><td>possibly seen</td><td>MIZUK</td><td>16</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → h<sub>b</sub>(1P)π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>seen</td><td>BONDAR</td><td>12</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → h<sub>b</sub>(1P)π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹Assuming the $T_{b\bar{b}1}(10610)$ decay width is saturated by the channels $\pi^+\Gamma(1S, 2S, 3S)$, $\pi^+h_b(1P, 2P)$, and $B^+\bar{B}^*+\bar{B}^0B^{*+}$, and using the results from BONDAR 12 and MIZUK 16.

²Using $e^+e^-$ energies near the $\Gamma(11020)$.

³Using $e^+e^-$ energies near the $\Gamma(10860)$.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><b>4.67<sup>+1.24</sup><sub>-1.00</sub></b></td><td><sup>1</sup>GARMASH</td><td>16</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>-</sup>B<sup>+</sup>B<sup>*0</sup>, π<sup>+</sup>B<sup>0</sup>B<sup>*+</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

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

<table><tbody><tr><td>possibly seen</td><td>MIZUK</td><td>16</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → h<sub>b</sub>(2P)π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>seen</td><td>BONDAR</td><td>12</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → h<sub>b</sub>(2P)π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹Assuming the $T_{b\bar{b}1}(10610)$ decay width is saturated by the channels $\pi^+\Gamma(1S, 2S, 3S)$, $\pi^+h_b(1P, 2P)$, and $B^+\bar{B}^*+\bar{B}^0B^{*+}$, and using the results from BONDAR 12 and MIZUK 16.

²Using $e^+e^-$ energies near the $\Gamma(11020)$.

³Using $e^+e^-$ energies near the $\Gamma(10860)$.

<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></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><b>85.6<sup>+1.5</sup><sub>-2.0</sub></b></td><td><sup>1</sup>GARMASH</td><td>16</td><td>BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → π<sup>-</sup>B<sup>+</sup>B<sup>*0</sup>, π<sup>+</sup>B<sup>0</sup>B<sup>*0</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹Assuming the $T_{b\bar{b}1}(10610)$ decay width is saturated by the channels $\pi^+\Gamma(1S, 2S, 3S)$, $\pi^+h_b(1P, 2P)$, and $B^+\bar{B}^*+\bar{B}^0B^{*+}$, and using the results from BONDAR 12 and MIZUK 16. Using the mass and width of the $T_{b\bar{b}1}(10610)$ from BONDAR 12.
$$ \frac{[\Gamma(\mathbf{B}^+\bar{\mathbf{B}}^0) + \Gamma(\mathbf{B}^*\bar{\mathbf{B}}^0)]}{[\Gamma(\mathcal{T}(15)\pi^+) + \Gamma(\mathcal{T}(25)\pi^+) + \Gamma(\mathcal{T}(35)\pi^+) + \Gamma(\mathcal{h}_b(1P)\pi^+) + \Gamma(\mathcal{h}_b(2P)\pi^+)]} \quad \Gamma_{10}/(\Gamma_1+\Gamma_3+\Gamma_5+\Gamma_7+\Gamma_8) $$

$$ \text{VALUE (units } 10^{-2}) \quad \text{EVTS} \quad \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \quad \text{COMMENT} $$

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

$$ 5.93^{+0.99}_{-0.69} + 0.01 \qquad 357 \quad 1 \text{ GARMASH} \quad 16 \quad \text{BELL} \quad e^+e^- \to \pi^-\mathbf{B}^+\bar{\mathbf{B}}^0, \quad \pi^-\bar{\mathbf{B}}^0\mathbf{B}^*+ $$

¹Combined with the results of BONDAR 12 and MIZUK 16. Not independent from $T_{b\bar{b}1}(10610)$ branching fractions to $\pi^+\mathcal{T}(15, 2S, 3S)$, $\pi^+\mathcal{h}_b(1P, 2P)$, and $\mathbf{B}^+\bar{\mathbf{B}}^0 + \bar{\mathbf{B}}^0\mathbf{B}^*+$.

### $T_{b\bar{b}1}(10610)$ REFERENCES

<table><tr><td>GARMASH</td><td>16</td><td>PRL 116 212001</td><td>A. Garmash et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>MIZUK</td><td>16</td><td>PRL 117 142001</td><td>R. Mizuk et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>GARMASH</td><td>15</td><td>PR D91 072003</td><td>A. Garmash et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>KROKOVNY</td><td>13</td><td>PR D88 052016</td><td>P. Krokovny et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BONDAR</td><td>12</td><td>PRL 108 122001</td><td>A. Bondar et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr></table>

$$ T_{b\bar{b}1}(10650)^+ $$

$$ I^G(JPC) = 1^+(1^-) \\ I, G, C \text{ need confirmation.} $$

was $Z_b(10650)$, $X(10650)^\pm$

Properties incompatible with a $q\bar{q}$ structure (exotic state). See the review on non-$q\bar{q}$ states.

Observed by BONDAR 12 in $\mathcal{T}(5S)$ decays to $\mathcal{T}(5S)\pi^+\pi^-$ (n = 1, 2, 3) and $\mathcal{h}_b(mP)\pi^+\pi^-$ (m = 1, 2). $J^P = 1^+$ is favored from angular analyses.

### $T_{b\bar{b}1}(10650)^+ \text{ MASS}$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><b>10652.2±1.5</b></td><td><b>1</b></td><td><b>BONDAR</b></td><td><b>12</b> e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → hadrons</td></tr><tr><td>10656.7±5.0<sup>+1.1</sup><sub>-3.1</sub></td><td>2</td><td>GARMASH</td><td>15 BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → <i>T</i>(15)π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>10650.7±1.5<sup>+0.5</sup><sub>-0.2</sub></td><td>2</td><td>GARMASH</td><td>15 BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → <i>T</i>(25)π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>10651.2±1.0<sup>+0.4</sup><sub>-0.3</sub></td><td>2</td><td>GARMASH</td><td>15 BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → <i>T</i>(35)π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>10657 ±6</td><td>3 BONDAR</td><td>12 BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → <i>T</i>(15)π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>10651 ±2</td><td>3 BONDAR</td><td>12 BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → <i>T</i>(25)π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>10652 ±1</td><td>2 BONDAR</td><td>12 BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → <i>T</i>(35)π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>10654 ±3</td><td>3 BONDAR</td><td>12 BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → <i>h</i><sub>b</sub>(1P)π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>10651<sup>+2</sup><sub>-3</sub></td><td>3 BONDAR</td><td>12 BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → <i>h</i><sub>b</sub>(2P)π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹Average of the BONDAR 12 measurements in separate channels.

²Correlated with the corresponding result from BONDAR 12.

³Superseded by the average measurement of BONDAR 12.

### $T_{b\bar{b}1}(10650)^+ \text{ WIDTH}$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><b>11.5±2.2</b></td><td><b>1</b></td><td><b>BONDAR</b></td><td><b>12</b> BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → hadrons</td></tr><tr><td>12.1<sup>+11.3</sup><sub>-4.8</sub></td><td>2</td><td>GARMASH</td><td>15 BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → <i>T</i>(15)π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>14.2±3.7<sup>+0.9</sup><sub>-0.4</sub></td><td>2</td><td>GARMASH</td><td>15 BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → <i>T</i>(25)π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>9.3±2.2<sup>+0.3</sup><sub>-0.5</sub></td><td>2</td><td>GARMASH</td><td>15 BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → <i>T</i>(35)π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>16.3±9.8<sup>+6.0</sup><sub>-2.0</sub></td><td>3</td><td>BONDAR</td><td>12 BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → <i>T</i>(15)π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>13.3±3.3<sup>+4.0</sup><sub>-3.0</sub></td><td>3</td><td>BONDAR</td><td>12 BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → <i>T</i>(25)π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>8.4±2.0±2.0</td><td>3 BONDAR</td><td>12 BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → <i>T</i>(35)π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>20.9<sup>+5.4</sup><sub>-4.7</sub></td><td>3 BONDAR</td><td>12 BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → <i>h</i><sub>b</sub>(1P)π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>19 ±7<sup>+11</sup><sub>-7</sub></td><td>3 BONDAR</td><td>12 BELL e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → <i>h</i><sub>b</sub>(2P)π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹Average of the BONDAR 12 measurements in separate channels.

²Correlated with the corresponding result from BONDAR 12.

³Superseded by the average measurement of BONDAR 12.

### $T_{b\bar{b}1}(10650)^+ \text{ DECAY MODES}$

$T_{b\bar{b}1}(10650)^-$ decay modes are charge conjugates of the modes below.

<table><thead><tr><th>Mode</th><th>Fraction ($\Gamma_f/\Gamma$)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>$\Gamma_1$</td><td>( 1.7<sup>+0.8</sup><sub>-0.6</sub> ) × 10<sup>-3</sup></td></tr><tr><td>$\Gamma_2$</td><td>( 1.4<sup>+0.6</sup><sub>-0.4</sub> ) %</td></tr><tr><td>$\Gamma_3$</td><td>( 1.6<sup>+0.7</sup><sub>-0.5</sub> ) %</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><tr><td>$\Gamma_4$</td><td>$\mathcal{h}_b(1P)\pi^+$</td><td>( 8.4<sup>+2.9</sup><sub>-2.4</sub> ) %</td></tr><tr><td>$\Gamma_5$</td><td>$\mathcal{h}_b(2P)\pi^+$</td><td>( 15 ± 4 ) %</td></tr><tr><td>$\Gamma_6$</td><td>$\mathbf{B}^+\bar{\mathbf{B}}^0$</td><td>not seen</td></tr><tr><td>$\Gamma_7$</td><td>$\mathbf{B}^+\bar{\mathbf{B}}^0 + \mathbf{B}^{*+}\bar{\mathbf{B}}^0$</td><td>not seen</td></tr><tr><td>$\Gamma_8$</td><td>$\mathbf{B}^{*+}\bar{\mathbf{B}}^0$</td><td>( 74<sup>+4</sup><sub>-6</sub> ) %</td></tr></table>

### $T_{b\bar{b}1}(10650)^+ \text{ BRANCHING RATIOS}$

$$ \begin{array}{l} \frac{\Gamma(\mathcal{T}(15)\pi^+) / \Gamma_{\text{total}}}{\text{VALUE (units } 10^{-3})} \\ \quad 1.7^{+0.7}_{-0.6}^{+0.3}_{-0.2} \end{array} \qquad \begin{array}{l} \frac{\text{DOCUMENT ID}}{\text{TECN}} \\ 1 \text{ GARMASH} \quad 16 \text{ BELL} \end{array} \qquad \frac{\Gamma_1 / \Gamma}{\text{COMMENT}} \qquad e^+e^- \to \pi^-\mathbf{B}^{*+}\bar{\mathbf{B}}^0 $$

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

<table><tr><td>seen</td><td>GARMASH</td><td>15 BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → <i>T</i>(15)π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>seen</td><td>BONDAR</td><td>12 BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → <i>T</i>(15)π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr></table>

¹Assuming the $T_{b\bar{b}1}(10650)$ decay width is saturated by the channels $\pi^+\mathcal{T}(15, 2S, 3S)$, $\pi^+\mathcal{h}_b(1P, 2P)$, and $\mathbf{B}^+\bar{\mathbf{B}}^0$, and using the results from BONDAR 12 and MIZUK 16.

$$ \begin{array}{l} \frac{\Gamma(\mathcal{T}(2S)\pi^+) / \Gamma_{\text{total}}}{\text{VALUE (units } 10^{-2})} \\ \quad 1.39^{+0.48}_{-0.38}^{+0.34}_{-0.23} \end{array} \qquad \begin{array}{l} \frac{\text{DOCUMENT ID}}{\text{TECN}} \\ 1 \text{ GARMASH} \quad 16 \text{ BELL} \end{array} \qquad \frac{\Gamma_2 / \Gamma}{\text{COMMENT}} \qquad e^+e^- \to \pi^-\mathbf{B}^{*+}\bar{\mathbf{B}}^0 $$

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

<table><tr><td>seen</td><td>GARMASH</td><td>15 BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → <i>T</i>(2S)π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>seen</td><td>BONDAR</td><td>12 BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → <i>T</i>(2S)π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr></table>

¹Assuming the $T_{b\bar{b}1}(10650)$ decay width is saturated by the channels $\pi^+\mathcal{T}(15, 2S, 3S)$, $\pi^+\mathcal{h}_b(1P, 2P)$, and $\mathbf{B}^+\bar{\mathbf{B}}^0$, and using the results from BONDAR 12 and MIZUK 16.

$$ \begin{array}{l} \frac{\Gamma(\mathcal{T}(3S)\pi^+) / \Gamma_{\text{total}}}{\text{VALUE (units } 10^{-2})} \\ \quad 1.63^{+0.53}_{-0.42}^{+0.39}_{-0.28} \end{array} \qquad \begin{array}{l} \frac{\text{DOCUMENT ID}}{\text{TECN}} \\ 1 \text{ GARMASH} \quad 16 \text{ BELL} \end{array} \qquad \frac{\Gamma_3 / \Gamma}{\text{COMMENT}} \qquad e^+e^- \to \pi^-\mathbf{B}^{*+}\bar{\mathbf{B}}^0 $$

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

<table><tr><td>seen</td><td>GARMASH</td><td>15 BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → <i>T</i>(3S)π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr><tr><td>seen</td><td>BONDAR</td><td>12 BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → <i>T</i>(3S)π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr></table>

¹Assuming the $T_{b\bar{b}1}(10650)$ decay width is saturated by the channels $\pi^+\mathcal{T}(15, 2S, 3S)$, $\pi^+\mathcal{h}_b(1P, 2P)$, and $\mathbf{B}^+\bar{\mathbf{B}}^0$, and using the results from BONDAR 12 and MIZUK 16.

$$ \begin{array}{l} \frac{\Gamma(\mathcal{h}_b(1P)\pi^+) / \Gamma_{\text{total}}}{\text{VALUE (units } 10^{-2})} \\ \quad 8.41^{+2.43}_{-2.12}^{+1.49}_{-1.06} \end{array} \qquad \begin{array}{l} \frac{\text{DOCUMENT ID}}{\text{TECN}} \\ 1 \text{ GARMASH} \quad 16 \text{ BELL} \end{array} \qquad \frac{\Gamma_4 / \Gamma}{\text{COMMENT}} \qquad e^+e^- \to \pi^-\mathbf{B}^{*+}\bar{\mathbf{B}}^0 $$

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

<table><tr><td>seen</td><td>2 MIZUK</td><td>16 BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → $\mathcal{h}_b(1P)\pi^+\pi^-$</td></tr><tr><td>seen</td><td>3 BONDAR</td><td>12 BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → $\mathcal{h}_b(1P)\pi^+\pi^-$</td></tr></table>

¹Assuming the $T_{b\bar{b}1}(10650)$ decay width is saturated by the channels $\pi^+\mathcal{T}(15, 2S, 3S)$, $\pi^+\mathcal{h}_b(1P, 2P)$, and $\mathbf{B}^+\bar{\mathbf{B}}^0$, and using the results from BONDAR 12 and MIZUK 16.

²Using $e^+e^-$ energies near the $\mathcal{T}(11020)$.

³Using $e^+e^-$ energies near the $\mathcal{T}(10860)$.

$$ \begin{array}{l} \frac{\Gamma(\mathcal{h}_b(2P)\pi^+) / \Gamma_{\text{total}}}{\text{VALUE (units } 10^{-2})} \\ \quad 14.7^{+3.2}_{-2.8}^{+2.8}_{-2.3} \end{array} \qquad \begin{array}{l} \frac{\text{DOCUMENT ID}}{\text{TECN}} \\ 1 \text{ GARMASH} \quad 16 \text{ BELL} \end{array} \qquad \frac{\Gamma_5 / \Gamma}{\text{COMMENT}} \qquad e^+e^- \to \pi^-\mathbf{B}^{*+}\bar{\mathbf{B}}^0 $$

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

<table><tr><td>possibly seen</td><td>2 MIZUK</td><td>16 BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → $\mathcal{h}_b(2P)\pi^+\pi^-$</td></tr><tr><td>seen</td><td>3 BONDAR</td><td>12 BELL</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → $\mathcal{h}_b(2P)\pi^+\pi^-$</td></tr></table>

¹Assuming the $T_{b\bar{b}1}(10650)$ decay width is saturated by the channels $\pi^+\mathcal{T}(15, 2S, 3S)$, $\pi^+\mathcal{h}_b(1P, 2P)$, and $\mathbf{B}^+\bar{\mathbf{B}}^0$, and using the results from BONDAR 12 and MIZUK 16.

²Using $e^+e^-$ energies near the $\mathcal{T}(11020)$.

³Using $e^+e^-$ energies near the $\mathcal{T}(10860)$.

$$ \begin{array}{l} \frac{\Gamma(\mathbf{B}^+\bar{\mathbf{B}}^0) / \Gamma_{\text{total}}}{\text{VALUE}} \\ \quad \text{not seen} \end{array} \qquad \begin{array}{l} \frac{\text{DOCUMENT ID}}{\text{TECN}} \\ 1 \text{ GARMASH} \quad 16 \text{ BELL} \end{array} \qquad \frac{\Gamma_6 / \Gamma}{\text{COMMENT}} \qquad e^+e^- \to \pi^-\mathbf{B}^+\bar{\mathbf{B}}^0 $$

$$ \begin{array}{l} \frac{[\Gamma(\mathbf{B}^+\bar{\mathbf{B}}^0) + \Gamma(\mathbf{B}^*+\bar{\mathbf{B}}^0)] / \Gamma_{\text{total}}}{\text{VALUE}} \\ \quad \text{not seen} \end{array} \qquad \begin{array}{l} \frac{\text{DOCUMENT ID}}{\text{TECN}} \\ 1 \text{ GARMASH} \quad 16 \text{ BELL} \end{array} \qquad \frac{\Gamma_7 / \Gamma}{\text{COMMENT}} \qquad e^+e^- \to \pi^-\mathbf{B}^+\bar{\mathbf{B}}^0, \quad \pi^-\bar{\mathbf{B}}^0\mathbf{B}^*+ $$

$$ \begin{array}{l} \frac{\Gamma(\mathbf{B}^*+\bar{\mathbf{B}}^0) / \Gamma_{\text{total}}}{\text{VALUE (units } 10^{-2})} \\ \quad 73.7^{+3.4}_{-4.4}^{+2.7}_{-3.5} \end{array} \qquad \begin{array}{l} \frac{\text{DOCUMENT ID}}{\text{TECN}} \\ 1 \text{ GARMASH} \quad 16 \text{ BELL} \end{array} \qquad \frac{\Gamma_8 / \Gamma}{\text{COMMENT}} \qquad e^+e^- \to \pi^-\mathbf{B}^+\bar{\mathbf{B}}^0 $$

¹Assuming the $T_{b\bar{b}1}(10650)$ decay width is saturated by the channels $\pi^+\mathcal{T}(15, 2S, 3S)$, $\pi^+\mathcal{h}_b(1P, 2P)$, and $\mathbf{B}^+\bar{\mathbf{B}}^0$, and using the results from BONDAR 12 and MIZUK 16. Using the mass and width of the $T_{b\bar{b}1}(10650)$ from BONDAR 12.
$$
\begin{aligned}
& \Gamma(\mathbf{B}^+ + \mathbf{B}^- 0) / [\Gamma(\mathcal{T}(15)\pi^+) + \Gamma(\mathcal{T}(25)\pi^+) + \Gamma(\mathcal{T}(35)\pi^+) + \\
& \quad \Gamma(\mathbf{h}_b(1P)\pi^+) + \Gamma(\mathbf{h}_b(2P)\pi^+)] \\
& \Gamma_8 / (\Gamma_1 + \Gamma_2 + \Gamma_3 + \Gamma_4 + \Gamma_5)
\end{aligned}
$$

$$
\text{VALUE (units } 10^{-2}) \quad \text{EVTS} \quad \text{DOCUMENT ID} \quad \text{TECN} \quad \text{COMMENT}
$$

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

$$
2.80^{+0.69}_{-0.40}^{+0.54}_{-0.36} \quad 161 \quad 1 \text{ GARMASH} \quad 16 \quad \text{BELL} \quad e^+e^- \to \pi^- \mathbf{B}^{*+} \mathbf{B}^{*-0}
$$

¹ Combined with the results of BONDAR 12 and MIZUK 16. Not independent from $T_b \bar{b} \Gamma_1 (10650)$ branching fractions to $\pi^+ \Gamma(15, 25, 35)$, $\pi^+ h_b (1P, 2P)$, and $B^{*+} \bar{B}^{*-0}$.

$T_b \bar{b} \Gamma_1 (10650)^{+}$ REFERENCES

GARMASH 16 PRL 116 212001 A. Garmash et al. (BELLE Collab.)

MIZUK 16 PRL 117 142001 R. Mizuk et al. (BELLE Collab.)

GARMASH 15 PR D91 072003 A. Garmash et al. (BELLE Collab.)

BONDAR 12 PRL 108 122001 A. Bondar et al. (BELLE Collab.)

Further States

OMITTED FROM SUMMARY TABLE

This section contains states observed by a single group or states
poorly established that thus need confirmation.

QUANTUM NUMBERS, MASSES, WIDTHS, AND BRANCHING RATIOS

$$
\begin{array}{lccccccc}
\mathbf{X}(360) & I^G(J^{PC}) = ?(?^2+) & & & & & \\
\mathbf{MASS} (\text{MeV}) & \mathbf{WIDTH} (\text{MeV}) & \mathbf{EVTS} & \mathbf{DOCUMENT ID} & \mathbf{TECN} & \mathbf{COMMENT} & \\
360 \pm 7 \pm 9 & 64 \pm 18 & 2.3k & 1 \text{ ABRAAMYAN} & 09 & \text{CNTR} & 2.75 d C \rightarrow \gamma\gamma X
\end{array}
$$

¹ Not seen in pC → γγX at 5.5 GeV/c.

$$
\begin{array}{lccccccc}
\mathbf{X}(1070) & I^G(J^{PC}) = ?(0^+ + +) & & & & & \\
\mathbf{MASS} (\text{MeV}) & \mathbf{WIDTH} (\text{MeV}) & \mathbf{EVTS} & \mathbf{DOCUMENT ID} & \mathbf{TECN} & \mathbf{COMMENT} & \\
1072 \pm 1 & 3.5 \pm 0.5 & 1 & \text{VLADIMIRSK...08} & 40 \pi^{-} p \rightarrow K_{S}^{0} K_{S}^{0} n + m\pi^{0}
\end{array}
$$

¹ Supersedes GRIGOR'EV 05.

$$
\begin{array}{lccccccc}
\mathbf{X}(1110) & I^G(J^{PC}) = 0^+(\text{even} + +) & & & & & \\
\mathbf{MASS} (\text{MeV}) & \mathbf{WIDTH} (\text{MeV}) & \mathbf{DOCUMENT ID} & \mathbf{TECN} & \mathbf{COMMENT} & & \\
1107 \pm 4 & 111 \pm 8 \pm 15 & \text{DAFTARI} & 87 & \text{DBC} & 0. \bar{p}n \rightarrow \rho^{-} \pi^{+} \pi^{-} &
\end{array}
$$

$$
\begin{array}{lccccccc}
\mathbf{f_6}(1200-1600) & I^G(J^{PC}) = 0^+(0^+ + +) & & & & & \\
\mathbf{MASS} (\text{MeV}) & \mathbf{WIDTH} (\text{MeV}) & \mathbf{DOCUMENT ID} & \mathbf{TECN} & \mathbf{COMMENT} & & \\
1323 \pm 8 & 237 \pm 20 & \text{VLADIMIRSK...06} & \text{SPEC} & 40 \pi^{-} p \rightarrow K_{S}^{0} K_{S}^{0} n & & \\
1480^{+100}_{-150} & 1030^{+80}_{-170} & 1 & \text{ANISOVICH} & 03 & \text{SPEC} & & \\
1530^{+90}_{-250} & 560 \pm 40 & 2 & \text{ANISOVICH} & 03 & \text{SPEC} & &
\end{array}
$$

¹ K-matrix pole from combined analysis of $\pi^{-} p \to \pi^{0} \pi^{0} n$, $\pi^{-} p \to K \bar{K} n$, $\pi^{+} \pi^{-} \to \pi^{+} \pi^{-}$, $\bar{p} p \to \pi^{0} \pi^{0} \pi^{0}$, $\pi^{0} \eta \eta$, $\pi^{0} \pi^{0} \eta$, $\pi^{+} \pi^{-} \to K^{+} K^{-} \pi^{0}$, $K^{+} K_{S}^{0} \pi^{-}$ at rest, $\bar{p} n \to \pi^{-} \pi^{-} \pi^{+}$, $K_{S}^{0} K^{-} \pi^{0}$, $K_{S}^{0} K_{S}^{0} \pi^{-}$ at rest.

² K-matrix pole from combined analysis of $\pi^{-} p \to \pi^{0} \pi^{0} n$, $\pi^{-} p \to K \bar{K} n$, $\bar{p} p \to \pi^{0} \pi^{0} \pi^{0}$, $\pi^{0} \eta \eta$, $\pi^{0} \pi^{0} \eta$ at rest.

$$
\begin{array}{lccccccc}
\mathbf{X}(1420) & I^G(J^{PC}) = 2^+(0^+ + +) & & & & & \\
\mathbf{MASS} (\text{MeV}) & \mathbf{WIDTH} (\text{MeV}) & \mathbf{DOCUMENT ID} & \mathbf{TECN} & \mathbf{COMMENT} & & \\
1420 \pm 20 & 160 \pm 10 & \text{FILIPI} & 00 & \text{OBLX} & 0 \pi p \rightarrow \pi^+ \pi^+ \pi^- &
\end{array}
$$

$$
\begin{array}{lccccccc}
\mathbf{X}(1545) & I^G(J^{PC}) = ?(?^2 + +) & & & & & \\
\mathbf{MASS} (\text{MeV}) & \mathbf{WIDTH} (\text{MeV}) & \mathbf{DOCUMENT ID} & \mathbf{TECN} & \mathbf{COMMENT} & & \\
1545 \pm 3 & 6.0 \pm 2.5 & 1 & \text{VLADIMIRSK...08} & 40 \pi^{-} p \rightarrow K_{S}^{0} K_{S}^{0} n + m\pi^{0} & &
\end{array}
$$

¹ Supersedes VLADIMIRSKII 00.

$$
\begin{array}{lccccccc}
\mathbf{X}(1575) & I^G(J^{PC}) = ?(1^- + +) & & & & & \\
\mathbf{MASS} (\text{MeV}) & \mathbf{WIDTH} (\text{MeV}) & \mathbf{DOCUMENT ID} & \mathbf{TECN} & \mathbf{COMMENT} & & \\
1576^{+49}_{-55}^{+98}_{-91} & 818^{+22}_{-23}^{+64}_{-133} & 1 & \text{ABLIKIM} & 06s & \text{BES} & J/\psi \rightarrow K^{+} K^{-} \pi^{0} &
\end{array}
$$

¹ A broad peak observed at $K^+K^-$ invariant mass. Mass and width above are its pole position. The observed branching ratio is $B(J/\psi \to X\pi^0) B(X \to K^+K^-) = (8.5 \pm 0.6_{-3.6}^{+2.7}) \times 10^{-4}$.

$$
\begin{array}{lccccccc}
\mathbf{X}(1600) & I^G(J^{PC}) = 2^+(2^+ + +) & & & & & \\
\mathbf{MASS} (\text{MeV}) & \mathbf{WIDTH} (\text{MeV}) & \mathbf{DOCUMENT ID} & \mathbf{TECN} & \mathbf{COMMENT} & & \\
1600 \pm 100 & 400 \pm 200 & 1 & \text{ALBRECHT} & 91F & \text{ARG} & 10.2 e^+ e^- \to e^+ e^- 2(\pi^+ \pi^-) &
\end{array}
$$

¹ Our estimate.

$$
\begin{array}{lccccccc}
\mathbf{X}(1650) & I^G(J^{PC}) = 0^-(?^2 -) & & & & & \\
\mathbf{MASS} (\text{MeV}) & \mathbf{WIDTH} (\text{MeV}) & \mathbf{EVTS} & \mathbf{DOCUMENT ID} & \mathbf{TECN} & \mathbf{COMMENT} & \\
1652 \pm 7 & <50 & 100 & \text{PROKOSHKIN} & 96 & \text{GAM2} & 32,38 \pi p \to \omega \eta n &
\end{array}
$$

$$
\begin{array}{lccccccc}
\mathbf{X}(1730) & I^G(J^{PC}) = ?(?^2 +) & & & & & \\
\mathbf{MASS} (\text{MeV}) & \mathbf{WIDTH} (\text{MeV}) & \mathbf{EVTS} & \mathbf{DOCUMENT ID} & \mathbf{TECN} & \mathbf{COMMENT} & \\
1731.0 \pm 1.2 \pm 2.0 & 3.2 \pm 0.8 \pm 1.3 & 58 & \text{VLADIMIRSK...07} & \text{SPEC} & \text{RVUE} & 40 \pi^{-} p \rightarrow K_{S}^{0} K_{S}^{0} X &
\end{array}
$$

$$
\begin{array}{lccccccc}
\mathbf{f_2}(1750) & I^G(J^{PC}) = 0^+(2^+ + +) & & & & & \\
\mathbf{MASS} (\text{MeV}) & \mathbf{WIDTH} (\text{MeV}) & \mathbf{EVTS} & \mathbf{DOCUMENT ID} & \mathbf{TECN} & \mathbf{COMMENT} & \\
1755 \pm 10 & 67 \pm 12 & 870 & 1 & \text{SCHEGELSKY} & 06A & \text{RVUE} & \gamma\gamma \to K_S^0 K_S^0 &
\end{array}
$$

$$
\begin{array}{lccccccc}
\mathbf{\Gamma(K\bar{K})} & & & & & & \\
\mathbf{VALUE} (\text{MeV}) & \mathbf{EVTS} & \mathbf{DOCUMENT ID} & \mathbf{TECN} & \mathbf{COMMENT} & & \\
17 \pm 5 & 870 & 2 & \text{SCHEGELSKY} & 06A & \text{RVUE} & \gamma\gamma \to K_S^0 K_S^0 &
\end{array}
$$

$$
\begin{array}{lccccccc}
\mathbf{\Gamma(\gamma\gamma)} & & & & & & \\
\mathbf{VALUE} (\text{keV}) & \mathbf{EVTS} & \mathbf{DOCUMENT ID} & \mathbf{TECN} & \mathbf{COMMENT} & & \\
0.13 \pm 0.04 & 870 & 2 & \text{SCHEGELSKY} & 06A & \text{RVUE} & \gamma\gamma \to K_S^0 K_S^0 &
\end{array}
$$

$$
\begin{array}{lccccccc}
\mathbf{\Gamma(\pi\pi)} & & & & & & \\
\mathbf{VALUE} (\text{MeV}) & \mathbf{EVTS} & \mathbf{DOCUMENT ID} & \mathbf{TECN} & \mathbf{COMMENT} & & \\
1.3 \pm 1.0 & 870 & 2 & \text{SCHEGELSKY} & 06A & \text{RVUE} & \gamma\gamma \to K_S^0 K_S^0 &
\end{array}
$$

$$
\begin{array}{lccccccc}
\mathbf{\Gamma(\eta\eta)} & & & & & & \\
\mathbf{VALUE} (\text{MeV}) & \mathbf{EVTS} & \mathbf{DOCUMENT ID} & \mathbf{TECN} & \mathbf{COMMENT} & & \\
2.0 \pm 0.5 & 870 & 2 & \text{SCHEGELSKY} & 06A & \text{RVUE} & \gamma\gamma \to K_S^0 K_S^0 &
\end{array}
$$

¹ From analysis of L3 data at 91 and 183-209 GeV.

² From analysis of L3 data at 91 and 183-209 GeV and using SU(3) relations.

$$
\begin{array}{lccccccc}
\mathbf{X}(1775) & I^G(J^{PC}) = 1^-(?^- + +) & & & & & \\
\mathbf{MASS} (\text{MeV}) & \mathbf{WIDTH} (\text{MeV}) & \mathbf{DOCUMENT ID} & \mathbf{TECN} & \mathbf{COMMENT} & & \\
1763 \pm 20 & 192 \pm 60 & \text{CONDO} & 91 & \text{SHF} & \gamma p \to (\rho\pi^+) (\pi^+\pi^-\pi^-) & \\
1787 \pm 18 & 118 \pm 60 & \text{CONDO} & 91 & \text{SHF} & \gamma p \to n\pi^+\pi^+\pi^- &
\end{array}
$$

$$
\begin{array}{lccccccc}
\mathbf{X}(1850 - 3100) & I^G(J^{PC}) = ?(1^- - -) & & & & & \\
\Gamma(e^+ e^-) B(X \to \text{hadrons}) (eV) & \text{CL\%} & \mathbf{DOCUMENT ID} & \mathbf{TECN} & \mathbf{COMMENT} & & \\
<120 & 90 & 1 & \text{ANASHIN} & 11 & \text{KEDR} & e^+ e^- \to \text{hadrons} &
\end{array}
$$

¹ This limit is center-of-mass energy dependent. We quote the most stringent one.

$$
\begin{array}{lccccccc}
\mathbf{X}(1855) & I^G(J^{PC}) = ?(?^2 + +) & & & & & \\
\mathbf{MASS} (\text{MeV}) & \mathbf{WIDTH} (\text{MeV}) & \mathbf{DOCUMENT ID} & \mathbf{TECN} & \mathbf{COMMENT} & & \\
1856.6 \pm 5 & 20 \pm 5 & \text{BRIDGES} & 86d & \text{SPEC} & 0. \bar{p}d \rightarrow \pi\pi N &
\end{array}
$$

$$
\begin{array}{lccccccc}
\mathbf{X}(1870) & I^G(J^{PC}) = ?(?^2 + +) & & & & & \\
\mathbf{MASS} (\text{MeV}) & \mathbf{WIDTH} (\text{MeV}) & \mathbf{DOCUMENT ID} & \mathbf{TECN} & \mathbf{COMMENT} & & \\
1870 \pm 40 & 250 \pm 30 & \text{ALDE} & 86d & \text{GAM4} & 100 \pi^{-} p \rightarrow 2\eta X &
\end{array}
$$

$$
\begin{array}{lccccccc}
\mathbf{a_3}(1875) & I^G(J^{PC}) = 1^-(3^+ + +) & & & & & \\
\mathbf{MASS} (\text{MeV}) & \mathbf{WIDTH} (\text{MeV}) & \mathbf{DOCUMENT ID} & \mathbf{TECN} & \mathbf{COMMENT} & & \\
1874 \pm 43 \pm 96 & 385 \pm 121 \pm 114 & \text{CHUNG} & 02 & \text{B852} & 18.3 \pi^{-} p \rightarrow &
\end{array}
$$

$$
\begin{array}{lccccccc}
\mathbf{B(a_3(1875) \to f_2(1270)\pi)/B(a_3(1875) \to \rho\pi)} & & & & & & \\
\mathbf{VALUE} & & & & & & \\
0.8 \pm 0.2 & & & & & & \\
& \mathbf{DOCUMENT ID} & \mathbf{TECN} & \mathbf{COMMENT} & & & \\
& 1 & \text{CHUNG} & 02 & \text{B852} & 18.3 \pi^{-} p \to \pi^{+} \pi^{-} \pi^{-} p &
\end{array}
$$

¹ Using the observable fractions of 50.0% $\rho\pi$, 56.5% $f_2\pi$, and 11.8% $\rho_3\pi$.

$$
\begin{array}{lccccccc}
\mathbf{B(a_3(1875) \to \rho_3(1690)\pi)/B(a_3(1875) \to \rho\pi)} & & & & & & \\
\mathbf{VALUE} & & & & & & \\
0.9 \pm 0.3 & & & & & & \\
& \mathbf{DOCUMENT ID} & \mathbf{TECN} & \mathbf{COMMENT} & & & \\
& 1 & \text{CHUNG} & 02 & \text{B852} & 18.3 \pi^{-} p \to \pi^{+} \pi^{-} \pi^{-} p &
\end{array}
$$

¹ Using the observable fractions of 50.0% $\rho\pi$, 56.5% $f_2\pi$, and 11.8% $\rho_3\pi$.

$$
\begin{array}{lccccccc}
\mathbf{a_1}(1930) & I^G(J^{PC}) = 1^-(1^+ + +) & & & & & \\
\mathbf{MASS} (\text{MeV}) & \mathbf{WIDTH} (\text{MeV}) & \mathbf{DOCUMENT ID} & \mathbf{TECN} & \mathbf{COMMENT} & & \\
1930^{+30}_{-70} & 155 \pm 45 & \text{ANISOVICH} & 01F & \text{SPEC} & 2.0 \bar{p} p \to 3\pi^0, \pi^0 \eta, \pi^0 \eta' &
\end{array}
$$

$$
\begin{array}{lccccccc}
\mathbf{X}(1935) & I^G(J^{PC}) = 1^+(1^- ?) & & & & & \\
\mathbf{MASS} (\text{MeV}) & \mathbf{WIDTH} (\text{MeV}) & \mathbf{DOCUMENT ID} & \mathbf{TECN} & \mathbf{COMMENT} & & \\
1935 \pm 20 & 215 \pm 30 & \text{EVANGELIS...} & 79 & \text{OMEG} & 10,16 \pi^{-} p \to \bar{p} p n &
\end{array}
$$
$$ \rho_2(1940) \quad I^G(J^{PC}) = 1^+(2^--) $$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1940 ± 40</td><td>155 ± 40</td><td>1 ANISOVICH</td><td>02</td><td>0.6–1.9 p p̄ → ωπ<sup>0</sup>,<br>ωηπ<sup>0</sup>, π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>−</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From the combined analysis of ANISOVICH 00J, ANISOVICH 01D, ANISOVICH 01E, and ANISOVICH 02.

$$ \omega_3(1945) \quad I^G(J^{PC}) = 0^-(3^--) $$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1945 ± 20</td><td>115 ± 22</td><td>1 ANISOVICH</td><td>02B</td><td>0.6–1.9 p p̄ → ωη, ωπ<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From the combined analysis of ANISOVICH 00D, ANISOVICH 01C, and ANISOVICH 02B.

$$ \alpha_2(1950) \quad I^G(J^{PC}) = 1^-(2^++) $$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1950<sup>+30</sup><sub>-70</sub></td><td>180<sup>+30</sup><sub>-70</sub></td><td>1 ANISOVICH</td><td>01F</td><td>1.96–2.41 p p̄</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From the combined analysis of ANISOVICH 99C, ANISOVICH 99E, and ANISOVICH 01F.

$$ \omega_6(1960) \quad I^G(J^{PC}) = 0^-(1^--) $$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1960 ± 25</td><td>195 ± 60</td><td>1 ANISOVICH</td><td>02B</td><td>0.6–1.9 p p̄ → ωη, ωπ<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From the combined analysis of ANISOVICH 00D, ANISOVICH 01C, and ANISOVICH 02B.

$$ \beta_1(1960) \quad I^G(J^{PC}) = 1^+(1^+-) $$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1960 ± 35</td><td>230 ± 50</td><td>1 ANISOVICH</td><td>02</td><td>0.6–1.9 p p̄ → ωπ<sup>0</sup>,<br>ωηπ<sup>0</sup>, π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>−</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From the combined analysis of ANISOVICH 00J, ANISOVICH 01D, ANISOVICH 01E, and ANISOVICH 02.

$$ \eta_1(1965) \quad I^G(J^{PC}) = 0^-(1^+-) $$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1965 ± 45</td><td>345 ± 75</td><td>1 ANISOVICH</td><td>02B</td><td>0.6–1.9 p p̄ → ωη, ωπ<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From the combined analysis of ANISOVICH 00D, ANISOVICH 01C, and ANISOVICH 02B.

$$ \eta_1(1970) \quad I^G(J^{PC}) = 0^+(1^+-) $$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1971 ± 15</td><td>240 ± 45</td><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>00J</td><td>SPEC</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \chi_1(1970) \quad I^G(J^{PC}) = ?^?(???) $$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1970 ± 10</td><td>40 ± 20</td><td>CHLIAPNIK...</td><td>80</td><td>32 K<sup>+</sup> p → 2K<sup>0</sup> S 2πX</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \chi_1(1975) \quad I^G(J^{PC}) = ?^?(???) $$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1973 ± 15</td><td>80</td><td>30</td><td>CASO</td><td>70</td><td>11.2 π<sup>−</sup> p → p2π</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \omega_2(1975) \quad I^G(J^{PC}) = 0^-(2^--) $$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1975 ± 20</td><td>175 ± 25</td><td>1 ANISOVICH</td><td>02B</td><td>0.6–1.9 p p̄ → ωη, ωπ<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From the combined analysis of ANISOVICH 00D, ANISOVICH 01C, and ANISOVICH 02B.

$$ \alpha_2(1990) \quad I^G(J^{PC}) = 1^-(2^++) $$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2050 ± 10 ± 40</td><td>190 ± 22 ± 100</td><td>18k</td><td>1 SCHEGELSKY</td><td>06</td><td>RVUE</td></tr><tr><td>2003 ± 10 ± 19</td><td>249 ± 23 ± 32</td><td>LU</td><td>05</td><td>B852</td><td>18 π<sup>−</sup> p →<br>ωπ<sup>−</sup>π<sup>0</sup>ρ</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From analysis of L3 data at 183–209 GeV.

$$ \Gamma(\gamma\gamma) \quad \Gamma(\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0) / \Gamma(\text{total}) $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (keV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.11 ± 0.04 ± 0.05</td><td>18k</td><td>1 SCHEGELSKY</td><td>06</td><td>RVUE</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From analysis of L3 data at 183–209 GeV.

$$ \rho(2000) \quad I^G(J^{PC}) = 1^+(1^--) $$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2000 ± 30</td><td>260 ± 45</td><td>1 BUGG</td><td>04C</td><td>RVUE</td></tr><tr><td>~ 1988</td><td>~ 244</td><td>HASAN</td><td>94</td><td>RVUE</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From the combined analysis of ANISOVICH 00J, ANISOVICH 01D, ANISOVICH 01E, and ANISOVICH 02.

$$ \eta_2(2000) \quad I^G(J^{PC}) = 0^+(2^++) $$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2001 ± 10</td><td>312 ± 32</td><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>00J</td><td>SPEC</td></tr><tr><td>~ 1996</td><td>~ 134</td><td>HASAN</td><td>94</td><td>RVUE</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \chi_2(2000) \quad I^G(J^{PC}) = 1^-(?^+?) $$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1964 ± 35</td><td>225 ± 50</td><td>1 ARMSTRONG</td><td>93D</td><td>E760</td></tr><tr><td>~ 2100</td><td>~ 500</td><td>1 ANTIPOV</td><td>77</td><td>CIBS</td></tr><tr><td>2214 ± 15</td><td>355 ± 21</td><td>2 BALTAY</td><td>77</td><td>HBC</td></tr><tr><td>2080 ± 40</td><td>340 ± 80</td><td>KALELKAR</td><td>75</td><td>HBC</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Cannot determine spin to be 3.

² BALTAY 77 favors $J^P = ,3^+$.

$$ \chi_2(2000) \quad I^G(J^{PC}) = ?^?(4^+ +) $$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1998 ± 3 ± 5</td><td>&lt;15</td><td>VLADIMIRSK...</td><td>03</td><td>SPEC</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \eta_2(2010) \quad I^G(J^{PC}) = 0^+(0^+-) $$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2010<sup>+35</sup><sub>-60</sub></td><td>270 ± 60</td><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>00J</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \pi_1(2015) \quad I^G(J^{PC}) = 1^-(1^+-) $$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2014 ± 20 ± 16</td><td>230 ± 32 ± 73</td><td>145k</td><td>LU</td><td>05</td><td>B852 18 π<sup>−</sup> p → ωπ<sup>−</sup>π<sup>0</sup>ρ</td></tr><tr><td>2001 ± 30 ± 92</td><td>333 ± 52 ± 49</td><td>69k</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>

$$ \alpha_0(2020) \quad I^G(J^{PC}) = 1^-(0^++) $$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2025 ± 30</td><td>330 ± 75</td><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>99C</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \chi_2(2020) \quad I^G(J^{PC}) = ?^?(???) $$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2015 ± 3</td><td>10 ± 4</td><td>FERRER</td><td>99</td><td>RVUE</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ \eta_3(2025) \quad I^G(J^{PC}) = 0^-(3^+-) $$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2025 ± 20</td><td>145 ± 30</td><td>1 ANISOVICH</td><td>02B</td><td>SPEC</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From the combined analysis of ANISOVICH 00D, ANISOVICH 01C, and ANISOVICH 02B.

$$ \beta_3(2030) \quad I^G(J^{PC}) = 1^+(3^+-) $$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2032 ± 12</td><td>117 ± 11</td><td>1 ANISOVICH</td><td>02</td><td>SPEC</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From the combined analysis of ANISOVICH 00J, ANISOVICH 01D, ANISOVICH 01E, and ANISOVICH 02.

$$ \alpha_2(2030) \quad I^G(J^{PC}) = 1^-(2^++) $$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2030 ± 20</td><td>205 ± 30</td><td>1 ANISOVICH</td><td>01F</td><td>SPEC</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From the combined analysis of ANISOVICH 99C, ANISOVICH 99E, and ANISOVICH 01F.

$$ \alpha_3(2030) \quad I^G(J^{PC}) = 1^-(3^++) $$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2031 ± 12</td><td>150 ± 18</td><td>1 ANISOVICH</td><td>01F</td><td>SPEC</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From the combined analysis of ANISOVICH 99C, ANISOVICH 99E, and ANISOVICH 01F.

$$ \eta_2(2030) \quad I^G(J^{PC}) = 0^+(2^--) $$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2030 ± 5 ± 15</td><td>205 ± 10 ± 15</td><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>00E</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ B(a_2 \pi)_{L=0}/B(a_2 \pi)_{L=2} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.05 ± 0.03</td><td>1 ANISOVICH</td><td>11</td><td>SPEC</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Reanalysis of ADOMEIT 96 and ANISOVICH 00E.

$$ B(a_0 \pi)/B(a_2 \pi)_{L=2} $$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.10 ± 0.08</td><td>1 ANISOVICH</td><td>11</td><td>SPEC</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Reanalysis of ADOMEIT 96 and ANISOVICH 00E.
$$B(f_2\eta)/B(a_2\pi)_{L=2}$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.13±0.06</td><td>1 ANISOVICH</td><td>11</td><td>SPEC 0.9-1.94 p<span style="text-decoration: overline">p</span></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹Reanalysis of ADOMEIT 96 and ANISOVICH 00E.

$$f_5(2050)$$

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

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2048±8</td><td>213 ± 34</td><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>00J</td><td>SPEC 2.0 p<span style="text-decoration: overline">p</span> → ηπ<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

$$f_6(2060)$$

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

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>~ 2050</td><td>~ 120</td><td>1 OAKDEN</td><td>94</td><td>RVUE 0.36-1.55 p<span style="text-decoration: overline">p</span> → ππ</td></tr><tr><td>~ 2060</td><td>~ 50</td><td>1 OAKDEN</td><td>94</td><td>RVUE 0.36-1.55 p<span style="text-decoration: overline">p</span> → ππ</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹See SEMENOV 99 and KLOET 96.

$$\pi(2070)$$

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

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2070±35</td><td>310<sup>+100</sup><sub>-50</sub></td><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>01F</td><td>SPEC 2.0 p<span style="text-decoration: overline">p</span> → 3π<sup>0</sup>, π<sup>0</sup>η, π<sup>0</sup>η'</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$\chi(2075)$$

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

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2084<sup>+4</sup><sub>-2</sub>±9</td><td>58<sup>+4</sup><sub>-3</sub> ± 25</td><td>1,2 ABLIKIM</td><td>23BG BES3</td><td>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> → pK<sup>-</sup>Λ</td></tr><tr><td>2075±12±5</td><td>90 ± 35 ± 9</td><td>3 ABLIKIM</td><td>04J BES2</td><td>J/ψ → K<sup>-</sup>pΛ</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹The reported mass and width are the pole positions in the complex (M, Γ) plane.

²Signal observed with a statistical significance >20σ comes from 3883 candidate events. Spin parity determined to be J<sup>P</sup> = 1<sup>+</sup> with a statistical significance >5σ over 0<sup>-</sup>, 1<sup>-</sup>, 2<sup>+</sup> hypotheses, and in the range within 3.1-7.5 σ with respect to 2<sup>-</sup>.

³From a fit in the region M<sub>pΛ</sub> - M<sub>P</sub> - M<sub>Λ</sub> < 150 MeV. 5-wave in the pΛ system preferred. A similar near-threshold enhancement in the pΛ system is observed in B<sup>+</sup> → pΛD<sup>0</sup> by CHEN 11F.

$$\chi(2080)$$

$$I^G(JPC) = ?(???)$$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2080±10</td><td>110 ± 20</td><td>KREYMER</td><td>80</td><td>STRC 13 π<sup>-</sup> d → p<span style="text-decoration: overline">p</span>n<sub>S</sub></td></tr></tbody></table>

$$\chi(2080)$$

$$I^G(JPC) = ?(3^- +)$$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2080±10</td><td>190 ± 15</td><td>ROZANSKA</td><td>80</td><td>SPRK 18 π<sup>-</sup> p → p<span style="text-decoration: overline">p</span>n</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$a_1(2095)$$

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

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2096±17±121</td><td>451 ± 41 ± 81</td><td>69k</td><td>KUHN</td><td>04 B852</td><td>18 π<sup>-</sup> p → ηπ<sup>+</sup> π<sup>-</sup> π<sup>-</sup> p</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$B(a_1(2095) \rightarrow f_1(1285\pi) / B(a_1(2095) \rightarrow a_1(1260)))$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>3.18±0.64</td><td>69k</td><td>KUHN</td><td>04 B852</td><td>18 π<sup>-</sup> p → ηπ<sup>+</sup> π<sup>-</sup> π<sup>-</sup> p</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$\eta(2100)$$

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

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2050<sup>+30</sup><sub>-24</sub> ± 75</td><td>250<sup>+36</sup><sub>-30</sub> ± 181</td><td>1 ABLIKIM</td><td>16N BES3</td><td>J/ψ → γK<sup>+</sup></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2103±50</td><td>187 ± 75</td><td>586</td><td>2 BISELLO</td><td>89b DM2</td><td>K<sup>-</sup>K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>-</sup><br>J/ψ → 4πγ</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹From a partial wave analysis of J/ψ → γφφ, for which the primary signal is η(2225) → φφ, and that also finds significant signals for for 0<sup>-</sup> + phase space, f<sub>0</sub>(2100), f<sub>2</sub>(2010), f<sub>2</sub>(2300), f<sub>2</sub>(2340), and a previously unseen 0<sup>-</sup> + state X(2500) (M = 2470<sup>-15</sup><sub>-19</sub> + 101 MeV, Γ = 230<sup>+64</sup><sub>-35</sub> + 56 MeV).

²ASTON 81B sees no peak, has 850 events in Ajinenko+Barth bins. ARESTOV 80 sees no peak.

$$\chi(2100)$$

$$I^G(JPC) = ?(0??)$$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2100±40</td><td>250 ± 40</td><td>ALDE</td><td>86D GAM4</td><td>100 π<sup>-</sup> p → 2ηX</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$\chi(2110)$$

$$I^G(JPC) = 1^+(3^- -)$$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2110±10</td><td>330 ± 20</td><td>EVANGELIS...</td><td>79 OMEG</td><td>10,16 π<sup>-</sup> p → p<span style="text-decoration: overline">p</span>n</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$\chi(2120)$$

$$I^G(JPC) = ?(0??)$$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2122.4±6.7<sup>+4.7</sup><sub>-2.7</sub></td><td>83 ± 16<sup>+31</sup><sub>-11</sub></td><td>647</td><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>11C BES3</td><td>J/ψ → γπ<sup>+</sup> π<sup>-</sup> η'</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$f_2(2140)$$

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

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2141±12</td><td>49 ± 28</td><td>389</td><td>GREEN</td><td>86</td><td>MPSF 400 pA → 4K<sup>+</sup>X</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$\chi(2150)$$

$$I^G(JPC) = ?(2^+ +)$$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2150±10</td><td>260 ± 10</td><td>ROZANSKA</td><td>80</td><td>SPRK 18 π<sup>-</sup> p → p<span style="text-decoration: overline">p</span>n</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$a_2(2175)$$

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

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2175±40</td><td>310<sup>+90</sup><sub>-45</sub></td><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>01F SPEC</td><td>2.0 p<span style="text-decoration: overline">p</span> → 3π<sup>0</sup>, π<sup>0</sup>η, π<sup>0</sup>η'</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$\eta(2190)$$

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

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2190±50</td><td>850 ± 100</td><td>BUGG</td><td>99 BES</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$\omega_2(2195)$$

$$I^G(JPC) = 0^-(2^- -)$$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2195±30</td><td>225 ± 40</td><td>1 ANISOVICH</td><td>02B SPEC</td><td>0.6-1.9 p<span style="text-decoration: overline">p</span> → ωη, ωπ<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹From the combined analysis of ANISOVICH 00D, ANISOVICH 01C, and ANISOVICH 02B.

$$\chi(2210)$$

$$I^G(JPC) = ?(???)$$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2210<sup>+79</sup><sub>-21</sub></td><td>203<sup>+437</sup><sub>-87</sub></td><td>EVANGELIS...</td><td>79b OMEG</td><td>10 π<sup>-</sup> p → K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>-</sup> n</td></tr><tr><td>2207±22</td><td>130</td><td>CASO</td><td>70 HBC</td><td>11.2 π<sup>-</sup> p</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$\chi_2(2210)$$

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

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2210±60</td><td>360 ± 120</td><td>1 KLEMPT</td><td>22 RVUE</td><td>J/ψ → γπ<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup>,<br>γK<sup>0</sup>S K<sup>0</sup>S</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹Fit of the tensor partial waves from BES3 in the multipole basis. Might be a cluster of JPC = 2<sup>+</sup> + resonances. The ratio of decay widths K<sup>-</sup>K<sup>-</sup>/ππ is 0.23 ± 0.05.

$$\eta_1(2215)$$

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

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2215±40</td><td>325 ± 55</td><td>1 ANISOVICH</td><td>02B SPEC</td><td>0.6-1.9 p<span style="text-decoration: overline">p</span> → ωη, ωπ<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹From the combined analysis of ANISOVICH 00D, ANISOVICH 01C, and ANISOVICH 02B.

$$\eta_2(2225)$$

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

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2225±35</td><td>335<sup>+100</sup><sub>-50</sub></td><td>1 ANISOVICH</td><td>02 SPEC</td><td>0.6-1.9 p<span style="text-decoration: overline">p</span> → ωπ<sup>0</sup>,<br>ωηπ<sup>0</sup>, π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹From the combined analysis of ANISOVICH 00J, ANISOVICH 01D, ANISOVICH 01E, and ANISOVICH 02.

$$\eta_3(2230)$$

$$I^G(JPC) = 1^+(4^- -)$$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2230±25</td><td>210 ± 30</td><td>1 ANISOVICH</td><td>02 SPEC</td><td>0.6-1.9 p<span style="text-decoration: overline">p</span> → ωπ<sup>0</sup>,<br>ωηπ<sup>0</sup>, π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹From the combined analysis of ANISOVICH 00J, ANISOVICH 01D, ANISOVICH 01E, and ANISOVICH 02.

$$\eta_4(2240)$$

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

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2240±35</td><td>320 ± 85</td><td>1 ANISOVICH</td><td>02 SPEC</td><td>0.6-1.9 p<span style="text-decoration: overline">p</span> → ωπ<sup>0</sup>,<br>ωηπ<sup>0</sup>, π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹From the combined analysis of ANISOVICH 00J, ANISOVICH 01D, ANISOVICH 01E, and ANISOVICH 02.

$$\eta_5(2240)$$

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

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2240±15</td><td>241 ± 30</td><td>1 ANISOVICH</td><td>00J SPEC</td><td>1.92-2.41 p<span style="text-decoration: overline">p</span></td></tr></tbody></table>

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

~ 2226 ~ 226 HASAN 94 RVUE p<span style="text-decoration: overline">p</span> → ππ

¹From the combined analysis of ANISOVICH 99C, ANISOVICH 99F, ANISOVICH 99J, ANISOVICH 99K, and ANISOVICH 00B. See also ANISOVICH 12.
$$b_3(2245) \quad I^G(J^{PC}) = 1^+(3^--)$$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2245 ± 50</td><td>320 ± 70</td><td>1 BUGG</td><td>04C RVUE</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From the combined analysis of ANISOVICH 00J, ANISOVICH 01D, ANISOVICH 01E, and ANISOVICH 02B.

$$\eta_2(2250) \quad I^G(J^{PC}) = 0^+(2^--)$$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2248 ± 20</td><td>280 ± 20</td><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>00I SPEC</td></tr><tr><td>2267 ± 14</td><td>290 ± 50</td><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>00J SPEC</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$\pi_4(2250) \quad I^G(J^{PC}) = 1^-(4^+-)$$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2250 ± 15</td><td>215 ± 25</td><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>01F SPEC</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$\omega_4(2250) \quad I^G(J^{PC}) = 0^-(4^--)$$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2250 ± 30</td><td>150 ± 50</td><td>1 ANISOVICH</td><td>02B SPEC</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From the combined analysis of ANISOVICH 00D, ANISOVICH 01C, and ANISOVICH 02B.

$$\omega_5(2250) \quad I^G(J^{PC}) = 0^-(5^--)$$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2250 ± 70</td><td>320 ± 95</td><td>1 BUGG</td><td>04 RVUE</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From the combined analysis of ANISOVICH 00D, ANISOVICH 01C, and ANISOVICH 02B.

$$\omega_3(2255) \quad I^G(J^{PC}) = 0^-(3^--)$$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2255 ± 15</td><td>175 ± 30</td><td>1 ANISOVICH</td><td>02B SPEC</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From the combined analysis of ANISOVICH 00D, ANISOVICH 01C, and ANISOVICH 02B.

$$a_2(2255) \quad I^G(J^{PC}) = 1^-(4^++)$$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2237 ± 5</td><td>291 ± 12</td><td>UMAN</td><td>06 E835</td></tr><tr><td>2255 ± 40</td><td>330<sup>+110</sup><sub>-50</sub></td><td>1 ANISOVICH</td><td>01F SPEC</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From the combined analysis of ANISOVICH 99C, ANISOVICH 99E, and ANISOVICH 01F.

$$a_2(2255) \quad I^G(J^{PC}) = 1^-(2^++)$$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2255 ± 20</td><td>230 ± 15</td><td>1 ANISOVICH</td><td>01G SPEC</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From the combined analysis of ANISOVICH 99C, ANISOVICH 99E, ANISOVICH 01F, and ANISOVICH 01G.

$$\chi(2260) \quad I^G(J^{PC}) = 0^+(4^+?)$$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2260 ± 20</td><td>400 ± 100</td><td>EVANGELIS...</td><td>79 OMEG</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$\rho(2270) \quad I^G(J^{PC}) = 1^+(1^--)$$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2265 ± 40</td><td>325 ± 80</td><td>1 ANISOVICH</td><td>02 SPEC</td></tr><tr><td>2280 ± 50</td><td>440 ± 110</td><td>ATKINSON</td><td>85 OMEG</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From the combined analysis of ANISOVICH 00J, ANISOVICH 01D, ANISOVICH 01E, and ANISOVICH 02B.

$$a_1(2270) \quad I^G(J^{PC}) = 1^-(1^++)$$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2270<sup>+55</sup><sub>-40</sub></td><td>305<sup>+70</sup><sub>-40</sub></td><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>01F SPEC</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$\eta_3(2275) \quad I^G(J^{PC}) = 0^-(3^+-)$$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2275 ± 25</td><td>190 ± 45</td><td>1 ANISOVICH</td><td>02B SPEC</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From the combined analysis of ANISOVICH 00D, ANISOVICH 01C, and ANISOVICH 02B.

$$a_3(2275) \quad I^G(J^{PC}) = 1^-(3^++)$$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2275 ± 35</td><td>350<sup>+100</sup><sub>-50</sub></td><td>1 ANISOVICH</td><td>01G SPEC</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From the combined analysis of ANISOVICH 99C, ANISOVICH 99E, ANISOVICH 01F, and ANISOVICH 01G.

$$\pi_2(2285) \quad I^G(J^{PC}) = 1^-(2^--)$$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2285 ± 20 ± 25</td><td>250 ± 20 ± 25</td><td>1 ANISOVICH</td><td>11 SPEC</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Reanalysis of ADOMEIT 96 and ANISOVICH 00E.

$$\omega_3(2285) \quad I^G(J^{PC}) = 0^-(3^--)$$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2278 ± 28</td><td>224 ± 50</td><td>1 BUGG</td><td>04A RVUE</td></tr><tr><td>2285 ± 60</td><td>230 ± 40</td><td>2 ANISOVICH</td><td>02B SPEC</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Partial wave analysis of the data on $p\bar{p} \to \Lambda\Lambda$ from BARNES 00.

² From the combined analysis of ANISOVICH 00D, ANISOVICH 01C, and ANISOVICH 02B.

$$\omega(2290) \quad I^G(J^{PC}) = 0^-(1^--)$$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2290 ± 20</td><td>275 ± 35</td><td>1 BUGG</td><td>04A RVUE</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Partial wave analysis of the data on $p\bar{p} \to \Lambda\Lambda$ from BARNES 00.

$$f_2(2295) \quad I^G(J^{PC}) = 0^+(2^++)$$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2293 ± 13</td><td>216 ± 37</td><td>1 ANISOVICH</td><td>00J SPEC</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From the combined analysis of ANISOVICH 99C, ANISOVICH 99F, ANISOVICH 99J, ANISOVICH 99K, and ANISOVICH 00B. See also ANISOVICH 12.

$$f_3(2300) \quad I^G(J^{PC}) = 0^+(3^++)$$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2334 ± 25</td><td>200 ± 20</td><td>1 BUGG</td><td>04A RVUE</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Partial wave analysis of the data on $p\bar{p} \to \Lambda\Lambda$ from BARNES 00.

$$f_1(2310) \quad I^G(J^{PC}) = 0^+(1^++)$$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2310 ± 60</td><td>255 ± 70</td><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>00J SPEC</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$\eta(2320) \quad I^G(J^{PC}) = 0^+(0^+-)$$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2320 ± 15</td><td>230 ± 35</td><td>1 ANISOVICH</td><td>00M SPEC</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From the combined analysis of $p\bar{p} \to \eta\eta\eta$ from ANISOVICH 00M and $p\bar{p} \to \eta\pi^0\pi^0$ from ANISOVICH 00J.

$$\eta_4(2330) \quad I^G(J^{PC}) = 0^+(4^+-)$$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2328 ± 38</td><td>240 ± 90</td><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>00J SPEC</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$\omega(2330) \quad I^G(J^{PC}) = 0^-(1^--)$$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2330 ± 30</td><td>435 ± 75</td><td>ATKINSON</td><td>88 OMEG</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$\chi(2340) \quad I^G(J^{PC}) = ?(???)$$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2340 ± 20</td><td>180 ± 60</td><td>126</td><td>1 BALTAY</td><td>75 HBC</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Dominant decay into $\rho^0\rho^0\pi^+$. BALTAY 78 finds confirmation in $2\pi^+\pi^-2\pi^0$ events which contain $\rho^+\rho^0\pi^0$ and $2\rho^+\pi^-\pi^0$.

$$\pi(2360) \quad I^G(J^{PC}) = 1^-(0^+-)$$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2360 ± 25</td><td>300<sup>+100</sup><sub>-50</sub></td><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>01F SPEC</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$\chi(2360) \quad I^G(J^{PC}) = ?(4^+?)$$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2360 ± 10</td><td>430 ± 30</td><td>ROZANSKA</td><td>80 SPRK</td></tr></tbody></table>

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

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2356 ± 7 ± 15</td><td>304 ± 28 ± 54</td><td>1 ABLIKIM</td><td>23AY BES3</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Assuming $J^{PC} = 1^--$.

$$\chi(2440) \quad I^G(J^{PC}) = ?(5^--)$$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2440 ± 10</td><td>310 ± 20</td><td>ROZANSKA</td><td>80 SPRK</td></tr></tbody></table>
$$a_g(2450) \quad I^G(JPC) = 1^{-}(6^{++})$$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2450 ± 130</td><td>400 ± 250</td><td>CLELAND</td><td>82B</td><td>50 πp → K<sup>0</sup> K<sup>±</sup> p</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$X(2540) \quad I^G(JPC) = 0^{+}(0^{++})$$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2539 ± 14<sup>+38</sup><sub>-14</sub></td><td>274<sup>+77</sup><sub>-61</sub> + 126<br/>-163</td><td>UEHARA</td><td>13</td><td>BELL γγ → K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub></td></tr></tbody></table>

$$\Gamma(\gamma\gamma) \times B(K\bar{K})$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (eV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>40 + 9 + 17<br/>-7 - 40</td><td>UEHARA</td><td>13</td><td>BELL γγ → K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub></td></tr></tbody></table>

$$X(2600) \quad I^G(JPC) = ?(????^2)$$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2618.3 ± 2.0<sup>+16.3</sup><sub>-1.4</sub></td><td>195 ± 5<sup>+26</sup><sub>-17</sub></td><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>22G</td><td>BES3 J/ψ → γπ<sup>+</sup> π<sup>−</sup> η'</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$B(J/ψ → γX(2600)) \times B(X(2600) → f_0(1500)η') \times B(f_0(1500) → π^+π^-)$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-5</sup>)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>3.09 ± 0.21<sup>+1.14</sup><sub>-0.77</sub></td><td>1 ABLIKIM</td><td>22G</td><td>BES3 J/ψ → γπ<sup>+</sup> π<sup>−</sup> η'</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ The π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>−</sup> mass spectrum is described by a coherent sum of two Breit-Wigner resonances, f<sub>0</sub>(1500) and a new X(1540) with mass 1540.2 ± 7.0<sup>+36.3</sup><sub>-6.1</sub> MeV and width 157 ± 19<sup>+11</sup><sub>-77</sub> MeV.

$$B(J/ψ → γX(2600)) \times B(X(2600) → X(1540)η') \times B(X(1540) → π^+π^-)$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-5</sup>)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2.69 ± 0.19<sup>+0.38</sup><sub>-1.21</sub></td><td>1 ABLIKIM</td><td>22G</td><td>BES3 J/ψ → γπ<sup>+</sup> π<sup>−</sup> η'</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ The π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>−</sup> mass spectrum is described by a coherent sum of two Breit-Wigner resonances, f<sub>0</sub>(1500) and a new X(1540) with mass 1540.2 ± 7.0<sup>+36.3</sup><sub>-6.1</sub> MeV and width 157 ± 19<sup>+11</sup><sub>-77</sub> MeV.

$$K^*_0(2600) \quad I^J(JPC) = 1/2(0^+)$$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2662 ± 59 ± 201</td><td>480 ± 47 ± 72</td><td>1 AAIJ</td><td>23AH</td><td>LHCB D<sup>+</sup> → K<sup>+</sup> (K<sup>0</sup> S Kπ)</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From Dalitz plot analyses of η<sub>C</sub>(1S, 2S) → K<sup>0</sup> S K<sup>+</sup> π<sup>−</sup> + c.c..

$$X(2632) \quad I^G(JPC) = ?(????^2)$$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2635.2 ± 3.3</td><td></td><td>1 EVDOKIMOV</td><td>04</td><td>SELX X(2632) → D<sup>+</sup><sub>S</sub> η</td></tr><tr><td>2631.6 ± 2.1</td><td>&lt; 17</td><td>2 EVDOKIMOV</td><td>04</td><td>SELX X(2632) → D<sup>0</sup> K<sup>+</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From a mass difference to D<sup>+</sup><sub>S</sub> of 666.9 ± 3.3 MeV.

² From a mass difference to D<sup>0</sup> of 767.0 ± 2.0 MeV.

$$B(X(2632) → D^0 K^+) / B(X(2632) → D^0 η)$$

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0.14 ± 0.06</td><td>1 EVDOKIMOV</td><td>04</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Possible interpretation of this decay pattern is discussed by YASUI 07.

$$X(2680) \quad I^G(JPC) = ?(????^2)$$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2676 ± 27</td><td>150</td><td>CASO</td><td>70</td><td>HBC 11.2 π<sup>−</sup> p → pπ<sup>−</sup> π<sup>+</sup> π<sup>−</sup> p</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$X(2710) \quad I^G(JPC) = ?(6+?^2)$$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2710 ± 20</td><td>170 ± 40</td><td>ROZANSKA</td><td>80</td><td>SPRK 18 π<sup>−</sup> p → p p̄ n</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$X(2750) \quad I^G(JPC) = ?(?^2-?^2)$$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2747 ± 32</td><td>195 ± 75</td><td>DENNEY</td><td>83</td><td>LASS 10 π<sup>+</sup> p → K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>−</sup> π<sup>+</sup> p</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$f_0(3100) \quad I^G(JPC) = 0^{+}(6^{++})$$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>3100 ± 100</td><td>700 ± 130</td><td>BINON</td><td>05</td><td>GAMS 33 π<sup>−</sup> p → ηη n</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$X(3250) \quad I^G(JPC) = ?(?(???)^2) \quad 3-Body Decays$$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>3250 ± 8 ± 20</td><td>45 ± 18</td><td>ALEEV</td><td>93</td><td>BIS2 X(3250) → λpK<sup>+</sup></td></tr><tr><td>3265 ± 7 ± 20</td><td>40 ± 18</td><td>ALEEV</td><td>93</td><td>BIS2 X(3250) → λpK<sup>−</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

$$X(3250) \quad I^G(JPC) = ?(?(???)^2) \quad 4-Body Decays$$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>3245 ± 8 ± 20</td><td>25 ± 11</td><td>ALEEV</td><td>93</td><td>BIS2 X(3250) → λpK<sup>+</sup> π<sup>+</sup></td></tr><tr><td>3250 ± 9 ± 20</td><td>50 ± 20</td><td>ALEEV</td><td>93</td><td>BIS2 X(3250) → λpK<sup>−</sup> π<sup>+</sup></td></tr><tr><td>3270 ± 8 ± 20</td><td>25 ± 11</td><td>ALEEV</td><td>93</td><td>BIS2 X(3250) → K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub> p p̄ K<sup>±</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

$$X(3350) \quad I^G(JPC) = ?(?(???)^2)$$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>3350 + 10<sup>+20</sup><sub>-20</sub> ± 20</td><td>70<sup>+40</sup><sub>-30</sub> ± 40</td><td>50 ± 10</td><td>1 GABYSHEV</td><td>06A BELL B<sup>−</sup> → λ<sup>+</sup><sub>C</sub> pπ<sup>−</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ A similar enhancement in the λ<sup>+</sup><sub>C</sub> p̄ final state is also reported by BABAR collaboration in AUBERT 10h.

$$\psi(4500) \quad I^G(JPC) = 0^{-}(1^{--})$$

<table><thead><tr><th>MASS (MeV)</th><th>WIDTH (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>4469.1 ± 26.2 ± 3.6</td><td>246.3 ± 36.7 ± 9.4</td><td>1 ABLIKIM</td><td>23X BES3</td><td>e<sup>+</sup><sub>0</sub> → D<sup>+</sup> D<sup>−</sup> π<sup>+</sup> π<sup>−</sup></td></tr><tr><td>4484.7 ± 13.3 ± 24.1</td><td>111.1 ± 30 ± 15.2</td><td>2 ABLIKIM</td><td>22AU BES3</td><td>e<sup>+</sup><sub>0</sub> → K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>−</sup> J/ψ</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ From a cross-section measurement of e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>−</sup> → D<sup>+</sup> D<sup>−</sup> π<sup>+</sup> between 4.189 and 4.951 GeV, assuming a coherent sum of 3 Breit-Wigner resonances plus a continuum amplitude. Γ( e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>−</sup> )-B( D<sup>+</sup> D<sup>−</sup> π<sup>+</sup> ) = 107-1744 eV depending on solutions I-VIII with the same fit qualities. The two other resonances have masses (widths) 4209.6 ± 7.5 (81.6 ± 19.9) MeV and 4675.3 ± 29.7 (218.3 ± 73.5) MeV.

² ABLIKIM 22AU cross sections analysis of the process e<sup>+</sup> e<sup>−</sup> → K<sup>+</sup> K<sup>−</sup> J/ψ at c.m. energies 4.127-4.600 GeV from 15.6 fb<sup>-1</sup> of data.

## REFERENCES for Further States

<table><tbody><tr><td>AALI</td><td>23AH PR D108 032010</td><td>R. Aaij et al.</td><td>(LHCb Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>22BY PR D107 112001</td><td>M. Ablikim et al.</td><td>(BESIII Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>23G PRL 131 151901</td><td>M. Ablikim et al.</td><td>(BESIII Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>23X PR 130 121901</td><td>M. Ablikim et al.</td><td>(BESIII Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>22AU CP C46 111002</td><td>M. Ablikim et al.</td><td>(BESIII Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>22G PRL 129 042001</td><td>M. Ablikim et al.</td><td>(BESIII Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>KLEMP</td><td>22 PL B830 137171</td><td>E. Klempt et al.</td><td>(BONN)</td></tr><tr><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>16N PR D93 112011</td><td>M. Ablikim</td><td>(BESIII Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>UEHARA</td><td>13 PTEP 2013 123C01</td><td>S. Uehara et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>12 PR D85 014001</td><td>A.V. Anisovich et al.</td><td>(BESIII Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>11C PR 106 072002</td><td>M. Ablikim et al.</td><td>(KEDR Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ANASHIN</td><td>11 PL B703 543</td><td>V.V. Anashin et al.</td><td>(LOQM, RAL, PNP)</td></tr><tr><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>11 EPJ C71 1511</td><td>A.V. Anisovich et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>CHEN</td><td>11F PR B84 071501</td><td>P. Chen et al.</td><td>(BABAR Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>AUBERT</td><td>10H PR D82 031102</td><td>B. Aubert et al.</td><td>(BABAR Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ABROAMYAN</td><td>09 PR C80 034001</td><td>Kh.U. Abraamyan et al.</td><td>(BESIII Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>VLADIMIRSK... 08</td><td>PAN 71 2129<br/>Translated from YAF 71 2166.</td><td>V.V. Vladimirsky et al.</td><td>(ITEP)</td></tr><tr><td>VLADIMIRSK... 07</td><td>PAN 70 1706<br/>Translated from YAF 70 1751.</td><td>V. Vladimirsky et al.</td><td>(ITEP)</td></tr><tr><td>YASUI</td><td>07 PR D76 034009</td><td>S. Yasui, M. Oka</td><td>(BES Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>06S PRL 97 142002</td><td>M. Ablikim et al.</td><td>(BELLE Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>GABYSHEV</td><td>06A PRL 97 242001</td><td>N. Gabyshev et al.</td><td>(BESIII Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>SCHEGELSKY</td><td>06 EPJ A27 199</td><td>V.A. Schegelsky et al.</td><td>(BESIII Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>SCHEGELSKY</td><td>06A EPJ A27 207</td><td>V.A. Schegelsky et al.</td><td>(BESIII Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>UMAN</td><td>06P PR D73 052009</td><td>I. Uman et al.</td><td>(FNAL E835)</td></tr><tr><td>VLADIMIRSK... 06</td><td>PAN 69 493<br/>Translated from YAF 69 515.</td><td>V.V. Vladimirsky et al.</td><td>(ITEP, Moscow)</td></tr><tr><td>BINON</td><td>05 PR B68 960<br/>Translated from YAF 68 998.</td><td>F. Binon et al.</td><td>(ITEP)</td></tr><tr><td>GRIGOR'EV</td><td>06 Translated from YAF 68 1324.</td><td>V.K. Grigor'ev et al.</td><td>(ITEP)</td></tr><tr><td>LU</td><td>05 PR 94 032002</td><td>M. Lu et al.</td><td>(BNL E852 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ABLIKIM</td><td>04J PR 93 112002</td><td>M. Ablikim et al.</td><td>(BES Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BUGG</td><td>04 PL B595 556 (errat.)</td><td>D.V. Bugg</td><td>(BNL E852 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BUGG</td><td>04A EPJ C36 161</td><td>D.V. Bugg</td><td>(BNL E852 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BUGG</td><td>04C PRPL 397 257</td><td>D.V. Bugg</td><td>(BNL E852 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>EVDOKIMOV</td><td>04 PR 93 242001</td><td>A.V. Evdokimov et al.</td><td>(SELEX Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>KUHN</td><td>04 PL B595 109</td><td>J. Kuhn et al.</td><td>(BNL E852 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>03 EPJ A16 229</td><td>V.V. Anisovich et al.</td><td>(BNL E852 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>VLADIMIRSK... 03</td><td>PAN 66 700<br/>Translated from YAF 66 729.</td><td>V.V. Vladimirsky et al.</td><td>(BNL E852 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>02 PL B542 8</td><td>A.V. Anisovich et al.</td><td>(BNL E852 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>02B PL B542 19</td><td>A.V. Anisovich et al.</td><td>(BNL E852 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>CHUNG</td><td>02 PL D05 072001</td><td>S.U. Chung et al.</td><td>(BNL E852 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>01C PL B507 23</td><td>A.V. Anisovich et al.</td><td>(BNL E852 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>01D PL B508 6</td><td>A.V. Anisovich et al.</td><td>(BNL E852 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>01E PL B513 281</td><td>A.V. Anisovich et al.</td><td>(BNL E852 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>01F PL B517 261</td><td>A.V. Anisovich et al.</td><td>(BNL E852 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>01G PL B517 273</td><td>A.V. Anisovich et al.</td><td>(BNL E852 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>00B NP A662 319</td><td>A.V. Anisovich et al.</td><td>(BNL E852 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>00D PL B476 15</td><td>A.V. Anisovich et al.</td><td>(BNL E852 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>00E PL B477 19</td><td>A.V. Anisovich et al.</td><td>(BNL E852 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>00I PL B491 40</td><td>A.V. Anisovich et al.</td><td>(BNL E852 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>00J PL B491 47</td><td>A.V. Anisovich et al.</td><td>(BNL E852 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>00M PR C69 145</td><td>A.V. Anisovich et al.</td><td>(BNL E852 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BARNES</td><td>00 PR C62 055203</td><td>P.D. Barnes et al.</td><td>(OBELIX Experiment)</td></tr><tr><td>FILIPPI</td><td>00 PL B495 284</td><td>A. Filippi et al.</td><td>(OBELIX Experiment)</td></tr><tr><td>VLADIMIRSKII 00</td><td>JETPL 72 486<br/>Translated from ZETF P 72 698.</td><td>V.V. Vladimirsikii et al.</td><td>(OBELIX Experiment)</td></tr><tr><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>99C PL B452 173</td><td>A.V. Anisovich et al.</td><td>(BNL E852 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>99E NP A651 253</td><td>A.V. Anisovich et al.</td><td>(BNL E852 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>99F PL B471 271</td><td>A.V. Anisovich et al.</td><td>(BNL E852 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ANISOVICH</td><td>99K PL B468 309</td><td>A.V. Anisovich et al.</td><td>(BNL E852 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BUGG</td><td>99 PL B458 511</td><td>D.V. Bugg et al.</td><td>(BNL E852 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>FERRER</td><td>99 EPJ C10 249</td><td>A. Ferrer et al.</td><td>(BNL E852 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>SEMENOV</td><td>99 SPU 42 847<br/>Translated from UFN 42 937.</td><td>S.V. Semenov</td><td>(BNL E852 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ADOMEIT</td><td>96 J. Adomeit et al.</td><td>J. Adomeit et al.</td><td>(Crystal Barrel Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>KLOET</td><td>96 PR D53 6120</td><td>W.M. Kloet, F. Myhrer</td><td>(RUTG, NORD)</td></tr><tr><td>PROKOSHKIN</td><td>96 PD 41 247<br/>Translated from DANS 348 481.</td><td>Y.D. Prokoshkin, V.D. Samoilenko</td><td>(SERP)</td></tr><tr><td>HASAN</td><td>94 A. Hasan, D.V. Bugg</td><td>A. Hasan, D.V. Bugg</td><td>(LOQM)</td></tr><tr><td>OAKDEN</td><td>94 M.N. Oakden, M.R. Pennington</td><td>M.N. Oakden, M.R. Pennington</td><td>(DURH)</td></tr><tr><td>ALEEV</td><td>93 PAN 56 1358</td><td>A.N. Akeev et al.</td><td>(BIS-2 Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>ARMSTRONG</td><td>93D PL B307 399<br/>91F PR C50 1</td><td>T.A. Armstrong et al.</td><td>(FNAL, FERR, GENO+)</td></tr><tr><td>ALBRECHT</td><td>91 PR D43 2787</td><td>H. Albrecht et al.</td><td>(ARGUS Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>CONDO</td><td>91 PR D43 2787</td><td>G.T. Condo et al.</td><td>(SLAC Hybrid Collab.)</td></tr><tr><td>BISELLO</td><td>89B PR D39 701</td><td>G. Busetto et al.</td><td>(DM2 Collab.)</td></tr></tbody></table>
See key on page 1171

Meson Particle Listings

Further States

<table><tr><td>ATKINSON</td><td>88</td><td>ZPHY C38 535</td></tr><tr><td>DAFTARI</td><td>87</td><td>PRL 58 859</td></tr><tr><td>ALDE</td><td>86D</td><td>NP B269 485</td></tr><tr><td>BRIDGES</td><td>86D</td><td>PL B180 313</td></tr><tr><td>GREEN</td><td>86</td><td>PRL 56 1639</td></tr><tr><td>ATKINSON</td><td>85</td><td>ZPHY C29 333</td></tr><tr><td>DENNEY</td><td>83</td><td>PR D28 2726</td></tr><tr><td>CLELAND</td><td>82B</td><td>NP B208 228</td></tr><tr><td>ASTON</td><td>81B</td><td>NP B189 205</td></tr><tr><td>ARESTOV</td><td>80</td><td>IHEP 80-165</td></tr><tr><td>CHLIAPNIK...</td><td>80</td><td>ZPHY C3 285</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>M. Atkinson et al.</td></tr><tr><td>I.K. Daftari et al.</td></tr><tr><td>D.M. Alde et al.</td></tr><tr><td>D.L. Bridges et al.</td></tr><tr><td>D.R. Green et al.</td></tr><tr><td>M. Atkinson et al.</td></tr><tr><td>D.L. Denney et al.</td></tr><tr><td>W.E. Cleland et al.</td></tr><tr><td>D. Aston et al.</td></tr><tr><td>Y.I. Arestov et al.</td></tr><tr><td>P.V. Chliapnikov et al.</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>(BONN, CERN, GLAS+)</td></tr><tr><td>(SYRA)</td></tr><tr><td>(BELG, LAPP, SERP, CERN+)</td></tr><tr><td>(SYRA, BNL, CASE+)</td></tr><tr><td>(FNAL, ARIZ, FSU+)</td></tr><tr><td>(BONN, CERN, GLAS+)</td></tr><tr><td>(IOWA, MICH)</td></tr><tr><td>(DURH, GEVA, LAUS+)</td></tr><tr><td>(BONN, CERN, EPOL, GLAS+)</td></tr><tr><td>(SERP)</td></tr><tr><td>(SERP, BRUX, MONS)</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>KREYMER</td><td>80</td><td>PR D22 36</td></tr><tr><td>ROZANSKA</td><td>80</td><td>NP B162 505</td></tr><tr><td>EVANGELIS...</td><td>79</td><td>NP B153 253</td></tr><tr><td>EVANGELIS...</td><td>79B</td><td>NP B154 381</td></tr><tr><td>BALTAY</td><td>78</td><td>PR D17 52</td></tr><tr><td>ANTIPOV</td><td>77</td><td>NP B119 45</td></tr><tr><td>BALTAY</td><td>77</td><td>PRL 39 591</td></tr><tr><td>BALTAY</td><td>75</td><td>PRL 35 891</td></tr><tr><td>KALELKAR</td><td>75</td><td>Thesis Nevis 207</td></tr><tr><td>CASO</td><td>70</td><td>LNC 3 707</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>A.E. Kreymer et al.</td><td>(IND, PURD, SLAC+)</td></tr><tr><td>M. Rozanska et al.</td><td>(MPIM, CERN)</td></tr><tr><td>C. Evangelista et al.</td><td>(BARI, BONN, CERN+)</td></tr><tr><td>C. Evangelista et al.</td><td>(BARI, BONN, CERN+)</td></tr><tr><td>C. Baltay et al.</td><td>(COLU, BING)</td></tr><tr><td>Y.M. Antipov et al.</td><td>(SERP, GEVA)</td></tr><tr><td>C. Baltay, C.V. Cautlis, M. Kalelkar</td><td>(COLU)</td></tr><tr><td>C. Baltay et al.</td><td>(COLU, BING)</td></tr><tr><td>M.S. Kalelkar</td><td>(COLU)</td></tr><tr><td>C. Caso et al.</td><td>(GENO, HAMB, MILA, SACL)</td></tr></table>
N BARYONS (S = 0, I = 1/2)

<table><tr><td>p</td><td>2081</td></tr><tr><td>n</td><td>2091</td></tr><tr><td>N resonances</td><td>2096</td></tr></table>

Δ BARYONS (S = 0, I = 3/2)

<table><tr><td>Δ resonances</td><td>2137</td></tr></table>

Λ BARYONS (S = -1, I = 0)

<table><tr><td>Λ</td><td>2161</td></tr><tr><td>Λ resonances</td><td>2164</td></tr></table>

Σ BARYONS (S = -1, I = 1)

<table><tr><td>Σ<sup>+</sup></td><td>2187</td></tr><tr><td>Σ<sup>0</sup></td><td>2189</td></tr><tr><td>Σ<sup>-</sup></td><td>2190</td></tr><tr><td>Σ resonances</td><td>2192</td></tr></table>

Ξ BARYONS (S = -2, I = 1/2)

<table><tr><td>Ξ<sup>0</sup></td><td>2218</td></tr><tr><td>Ξ<sup>-</sup></td><td>2221</td></tr><tr><td>Ξ resonances</td><td>2224</td></tr></table>

Ω BARYONS (S = -3, I = 0)

<table><tr><td>Ω<sup>-</sup></td><td>2231</td></tr><tr><td>Ω resonances</td><td>2233</td></tr></table>

CHARMED BARYONS (C = +1)

<table><tr><td>Λ<sub>c</sub><sup>+</sup></td><td>2234</td></tr><tr><td>Λ<sub>c</sub>(2595)<sup>+</sup></td><td>2243</td></tr><tr><td>Λ<sub>c</sub>(2625)<sup>+</sup></td><td>2244</td></tr><tr><td>Λ<sub>c</sub>(2765)<sup>+</sup> aka Σ<sub>c</sub>(2765)</td><td>2245</td></tr><tr><td>Λ<sub>c</sub>(2860)<sup>+</sup></td><td>2245</td></tr><tr><td>Λ<sub>c</sub>(2880)<sup>+</sup></td><td>2245</td></tr><tr><td>Λ<sub>c</sub>(2910)<sup>+</sup></td><td>2246</td></tr><tr><td>Λ<sub>c</sub>(2940)<sup>+</sup></td><td>2246</td></tr><tr><td>Σ<sub>c</sub>(2455)</td><td>2246</td></tr><tr><td>Σ<sub>c</sub>(2520)</td><td>2247</td></tr><tr><td>Σ<sub>c</sub>(2800)</td><td>2248</td></tr><tr><td>Ξ<sub>c</sub><sup>+</sup></td><td>2249</td></tr><tr><td>Ξ<sub>c</sub><sup>0</sup></td><td>2250</td></tr><tr><td>Ξ<sub>c</sub><sup>'+</sup></td><td>2252</td></tr><tr><td>Ξ<sub>c</sub><sup>'0</sup></td><td>2253</td></tr><tr><td>Ξ<sub>c</sub>(2645)</td><td>2253</td></tr><tr><td>Ξ<sub>c</sub>(2790)</td><td>2253</td></tr><tr><td>Ξ<sub>c</sub>(2815)</td><td>2254</td></tr><tr><td>Ξ<sub>c</sub>(2882)</td><td>2255</td></tr><tr><td>Ξ<sub>c</sub>(2923)</td><td>2255</td></tr><tr><td>Ξ<sub>c</sub>(2930)</td><td>2255</td></tr><tr><td>Ξ<sub>c</sub>(2970) was Ξ<sub>c</sub>(2980)</td><td>2256</td></tr><tr><td>Ξ<sub>c</sub>(3055)</td><td>2257</td></tr><tr><td>Ξ<sub>c</sub>(3080)</td><td>2257</td></tr><tr><td>Ξ<sub>c</sub>(3123)</td><td>2257</td></tr><tr><td>Ω<sub>c</sub><sup>0</sup></td><td>2258</td></tr><tr><td>Ω<sub>c</sub>(2770)<sup>0</sup></td><td>2259</td></tr><tr><td>Ω<sub>c</sub>(3000)<sup>0</sup></td><td>2259</td></tr><tr><td>Ω<sub>c</sub>(3050)<sup>0</sup></td><td>2260</td></tr><tr><td>Ω<sub>c</sub>(3065)<sup>0</sup></td><td>2260</td></tr><tr><td>Ω<sub>c</sub>(3090)<sup>0</sup></td><td>2260</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>Ω<sub>c</sub>(3120)<sup>0</sup></td><td>2261</td></tr><tr><td>Ω<sub>c</sub>(3185)<sup>0</sup></td><td>2261</td></tr><tr><td>Ω<sub>c</sub>(3327)<sup>0</sup></td><td>2261</td></tr><tr><td>Ξ<sup>+</sup><sub>cc</sub></td><td>2262</td></tr><tr><td>Ξ<sup>++</sup><sub>cc</sub></td><td>2262</td></tr></table>

BOTTOM (BEAUTY) BARYONS (B = -1)

<table><tr><td>Λ<sub>b</sub><sup>0</sup></td><td>2263</td></tr><tr><td>Λ<sub>b</sub>(5912)<sup>0</sup></td><td>2271</td></tr><tr><td>Λ<sub>b</sub>(5920)<sup>0</sup></td><td>2272</td></tr><tr><td>Λ<sub>b</sub>(6070)<sup>0</sup></td><td>2272</td></tr><tr><td>Λ<sub>b</sub>(6146)<sup>0</sup></td><td>2272</td></tr><tr><td>Λ<sub>b</sub>(6152)<sup>0</sup></td><td>2273</td></tr><tr><td>Σ<sub>b</sub></td><td>2273</td></tr><tr><td>Σ<sup>*</sup><sub>b</sub></td><td>2273</td></tr><tr><td>Σ<sub>b</sub>(6097)<sup>+</sup></td><td>2274</td></tr><tr><td>Σ<sub>b</sub>(6097)<sup>-</sup></td><td>2274</td></tr><tr><td>Ξ<sup>-</sup><sub>b</sub></td><td>2275</td></tr><tr><td>Ξ<sup>0</sup><sub>b</sub></td><td>2277</td></tr><tr><td>Ξ<sup>'</sup><sub>b</sub>(5935)<sup>-</sup></td><td>2278</td></tr><tr><td>Ξ<sub>b</sub>(5945)<sup>0</sup></td><td>2278</td></tr><tr><td>Ξ<sub>b</sub>(5955)<sup>-</sup></td><td>2279</td></tr><tr><td>Ξ<sub>b</sub>(6087)<sup>0</sup></td><td>2279</td></tr><tr><td>Ξ<sub>b</sub>(6095)<sup>0</sup></td><td>2279</td></tr><tr><td>Ξ<sub>b</sub>(6100)<sup>-</sup></td><td>2279</td></tr><tr><td>Ξ<sub>b</sub>(6227)<sup>-</sup></td><td>2280</td></tr><tr><td>Ξ<sub>b</sub>(6227)<sup>0</sup></td><td>2280</td></tr><tr><td>Ξ<sub>b</sub>(6327)<sup>0</sup></td><td>2280</td></tr><tr><td>Ξ<sub>b</sub>(6333)<sup>0</sup></td><td>2281</td></tr><tr><td>Ξ<sup>0</sup><sub>bc</sub></td><td>2281</td></tr><tr><td>Ω<sup>-</sup><sub>b</sub></td><td>2281</td></tr><tr><td>Ω<sub>b</sub>(6316)<sup>-</sup></td><td>2282</td></tr><tr><td>Ω<sub>b</sub>(6330)<sup>-</sup></td><td>2282</td></tr><tr><td>Ω<sub>b</sub>(6340)<sup>-</sup></td><td>2282</td></tr><tr><td>Ω<sub>b</sub>(6350)<sup>-</sup></td><td>2283</td></tr><tr><td>b-baryon ADMIXTURE (Λ<sub>b</sub>, Ξ<sub>b</sub>, Ω<sub>b</sub>)</td><td>2283</td></tr></table>

EXOTIC BARYONS

<table><tr><td>P<sub>c<span style="text-decoration: overline">c</span></sub>(4312)<sup>+</sup></td><td>2285</td></tr><tr><td>P<sub>c<span style="text-decoration: overline">c</span>s</sub>(4338)<sup>0</sup></td><td>2285</td></tr><tr><td>P<sub>c<span style="text-decoration: overline">c</span></sub>(4380)<sup>+</sup></td><td>2285</td></tr><tr><td>P<sub>c<span style="text-decoration: overline">c</span></sub>(4440)<sup>+</sup></td><td>2285</td></tr><tr><td>P<sub>c<span style="text-decoration: overline">c</span></sub>(4457)<sup>+</sup> was P<sub>c</sub>(4450)</td><td>2286</td></tr><tr><td>P<sub>c<span style="text-decoration: overline">c</span>s</sub>(4459)<sup>0</sup></td><td>2286</td></tr></table>

Notes in the Listings

<table><tr><td>Radiative hyperon decays</td><td>2219</td></tr><tr><td>Ξ resonances (rev.)</td><td>2223</td></tr></table>

Related Reviews in Volume 1

<table><tr><td>80. Baryon decay parameters</td><td>1001</td></tr><tr><td>81. N and Δ resonances</td><td>1002</td></tr><tr><td>82. Λ and Σ resonances</td><td>1007</td></tr><tr><td>83. Pole structure of the Λ(1405) region</td><td>1010</td></tr><tr><td>84. Pentaquarks (rev.)</td><td>1012</td></tr></table>
<figure><img src="image_711.png" /></figure>
N BARYONS

$$ (S = 0, I = 1/2) $$

$$ p, N^+ = uud; \quad n, N^0 = udd $$

p

$$ I(J^P) = \frac{1}{2}(\frac{1}{2}+) \quad \text{Status: ****} $$

p MASS (atomic mass units u)

The mass is known more precisely in u (atomic mass units) than in MeV. See the next data block.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (u)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1.007276466621 ± 0.000000000053</td><td><strong>OUR EVALUATION</strong></td><td>2018 CODATA</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1.007276466574 ± 0.000000000010</td><td>1 FINK</td><td>21</td><td>SPEC Penning trap</td></tr><tr><td>1.007276466621 ± 0.000000000053</td><td>2 TIESINGA</td><td>21</td><td>RVUE 2018 CODATA value</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>1.007276466598 ± 0.000000000033</td><td>3 HEISSE</td><td>19</td><td>SPEC Penning Trap</td></tr><tr><td>1.007276466583 ± 0.000000000032</td><td>4 HEISSE</td><td>17</td><td>SPEC See HEISSE 19</td></tr><tr><td>1.007276466879 ± 0.000000000091</td><td>MOHR</td><td>16</td><td>RVUE 2014 CODATA value</td></tr><tr><td>1.007276466812 ± 0.000000000090</td><td>MOHR</td><td>12</td><td>RVUE 2010 CODATA value</td></tr><tr><td>1.00727646677 ± 0.00000000010</td><td>MOHR</td><td>08</td><td>RVUE 2006 CODATA value</td></tr><tr><td>1.00727646688 ± 0.00000000013</td><td>MOHR</td><td>05</td><td>RVUE 2002 CODATA value</td></tr><tr><td>1.00727646688 ± 0.00000000013</td><td>MOHR</td><td>99</td><td>RVUE 1998 CODATA value</td></tr><tr><td>1.0072764670 ± 0.000000012</td><td>COHEN</td><td>87</td><td>RVUE 1986 CODATA value</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ FINK 21 simultaneously measure the cyclotron frequencies of an $H_2^-$ ion and a deuteron in a coupled magnetron orbit. The proton mass is extracted using the precise deuteron mass value.

² The 2018 CODATA combination in TIESINGA 21 includes data from HEISSE 17, but does not include updates in HEISSE 19, which superseded HEISSE 17. Consequently, we do not average HEISSE 19 and TIESINGA 21. Updating the 2018 CODATA combination to use HEISSE 19 would shift the central value for the proton mass upwards by less than half a standard deviation. Therefore, we take the 2018 CODATA result in TIESINGA 21 as the recommended value for the proton mass.

³ The value is an update of HEISSE 17; the result is shifted by $1.5 \times 10^{-11}$ u, corresponding to $0.45 \sigma$ due to the corrected motional temperatures of the particles. The statistical and total systematic uncertainties are given as 16 and 29 in the last two digits.

⁴ The statistical and systematic errors are 15 and 29 in the last two places of the value. Superseded by HEISSE 19.

p MASS (MeV)

The mass is known more precisely in u (atomic mass units) than in MeV.

The conversion is: 1 u = 931.494 102 42(28) MeV/c² (2018 CODATA value, TIESINGA 21).

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (MeV)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>938.27208816 ± 0.000000029</td><td><strong>OUR EVALUATION</strong></td><td>2018 CODATA</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>938.27208812 ± 0.000000029</td><td>1 FINK</td><td>21</td><td>SPEC Penning trap</td></tr><tr><td>938.27208816 ± 0.000000029</td><td>TIESINGA</td><td>21</td><td>RVUE 2018 CODATA value</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>938.2720813 ± 0.00000058</td><td>MOHR</td><td>16</td><td>RVUE 2014 CODATA value</td></tr><tr><td>938.272046 ± 0.000021</td><td>MOHR</td><td>12</td><td>RVUE 2010 CODATA value</td></tr><tr><td>938.272013 ± 0.000023</td><td>MOHR</td><td>08</td><td>RVUE 2006 CODATA value</td></tr><tr><td>938.272029 ± 0.000080</td><td>MOHR</td><td>05</td><td>RVUE 2002 CODATA value</td></tr><tr><td>938.271998 ± 0.000038</td><td>MOHR</td><td>99</td><td>RVUE 1998 CODATA value</td></tr><tr><td>938.27231 ± 0.00028</td><td>COHEN</td><td>87</td><td>RVUE 1986 CODATA value</td></tr><tr><td>938.2796 ± 0.0027</td><td>COHEN</td><td>73</td><td>RVUE 1973 CODATA value</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ FINK 21 quote the more precise mass in atomic mass units.

$m_p - m_{\bar{p}}/m_p$

A test of CPT invariance. Note that the comparison of the $\bar{p}$ and $p$ charge-to-mass ratio, given in the next data block, is much better determined.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;7 × 10<sup>-10</sup></td><td>90</td><td>1 HORI</td><td>11</td><td>SPEC <span style="text-decoration: overline;">p</span>e<sup>-</sup> He atom</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;2 × 10<sup>-9</sup></td><td>90</td><td>1 HORI</td><td>06</td><td>SPEC <span style="text-decoration: overline;">p</span>e<sup>-</sup> He atom</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;1.0 × 10<sup>-8</sup></td><td>90</td><td>1 HORI</td><td>03</td><td>SPEC <span style="text-decoration: overline;">p</span>e<sup>-</sup> 4He, <span style="text-decoration: overline;">p</span>e<sup>-</sup> 3He</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;6 × 10<sup>-7</sup></td><td>90</td><td>1 HORI</td><td>01</td><td>SPEC <span style="text-decoration: overline;">p</span>e<sup>-</sup> He atom</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;5 × 10<sup>-7</sup></td><td>90</td><td>2 TORII</td><td>01</td><td>SPEC <span style="text-decoration: overline;">p</span>e<sup>-</sup> He atom</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ HORI 01, HORI 03, HORI 06, and HORI 11 use the more-precisely-known constraint on the $\bar{p}$ charge-to-mass ratio of GABRIELSE 99 (see below) to get their results. Their results are not independent of the HORI 01, HORI 03, HORI 06, and HORI 11 values for $|q_p + \bar{q}_p|/e$, below.

² TORII 99 uses the more-precisely-known constraint on the $\bar{p}$ charge-to-mass ratio of GABRIELSE 95 (see below) to get this result. This is not independent of the TORII 99 value for $|q_p + \bar{q}_p|/e$, below.

$\bar{p}/p$ CHARGE-TO-MASS RATIO, $|\frac{q_p}{m_p}|/|\frac{q_p}{m_p}|$

A test of CPT invariance. Listed here are measurements involving the inertial masses. For a discussion of what may be inferred about the ratio of $\bar{p}$ and $p$ gravitational masses, see ERICSON 90; they obtain an upper bound of $10^{-6}-10^{-7}$ for violation of the equivalence principle for $\bar{p}$'s.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1.00000000003 ± 0.00000000016</td><td><strong>OUR AVERAGE</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1.00000000003 ± 0.00000000016</td><td>BORCHERT</td><td>22</td><td>TRAP Penning trap</td></tr><tr><td>1.00000000001 ± 0.00000000069</td><td>ULMER</td><td>15</td><td>TRAP Penning trap</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>0.9999999991 ± 0.00000000009</td><td>GABRIELSE</td><td>99</td><td>TRAP Penning trap</td></tr><tr><td>1.0000000015 ± 0.0000000011</td><td>1 GABRIELSE</td><td>95</td><td>TRAP Penning trap</td></tr><tr><td>1.0000000023 ± 0.0000000042</td><td>2 GABRIELSE</td><td>90</td><td>TRAP Penning trap</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Equation (2) of GABRIELSE 95 should read $M(\bar{p})/M(p) = 0.999 999 9985$ (11) (G. Gabriele, private communication).

² GABRIELSE 90 also measures $m_p/m_e = 1836.152660 \pm 0.000083$ and $m_p/m_e = 1836.152680 \pm 0.000088$. Both are completely consistent with the 1986 CODATA (COHEN 87) value for $m_p/m_e$ of 1836.152701 $\pm 0.000037$.

$|\frac{q_p}{m_p} - \frac{q_p}{\bar{p}}|/\frac{q_p}{m_p}$

A test of CPT invariance. Taken from the $\bar{p}/p$ charge-to-mass ratio, above.

VALUE DOCUMENT ID
(0.3±1.6) × 10⁻¹¹ OUR EVALUATION

$|q_p + q_{\bar{p}}|/e$

A test of CPT invariance. Note that the comparison of the $\bar{p}$ and $p$ charge-to-mass ratios given above is much better determined. See also a similar test involving the electron.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;7 × 10<sup>-10</sup></td><td>90</td><td>1 HORI</td><td>11</td><td>SPEC <span style="text-decoration: overline;">p</span>e<sup>-</sup> He atom</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;2 × 10<sup>-9</sup></td><td>90</td><td>1 HORI</td><td>06</td><td>SPEC <span style="text-decoration: overline;">p</span>e<sup>-</sup> He atom</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;1.0 × 10<sup>-8</sup></td><td>90</td><td>1 HORI</td><td>03</td><td>SPEC <span style="text-decoration: overline;">p</span>e<sup>-</sup> 4He, <span style="text-decoration: overline;">p</span>e<sup>-</sup> 3He</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;6 × 10<sup>-7</sup></td><td>90</td><td>1 HORI</td><td>01</td><td>SPEC <span style="text-decoration: overline;">p</span>e<sup>-</sup> He atom</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;5 × 10<sup>-7</sup></td><td>90</td><td>2 TORII</td><td>99</td><td>SPEC <span style="text-decoration: overline;">p</span>e<sup>-</sup> He atom</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;2 × 10<sup>-5</sup></td><td>90</td><td>3 HUGHES</td><td>92</td><td>RVUE</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ HORI 01, HORI 03, HORI 06, and HORI 11 use the more-precisely-known constraint on the $\bar{p}$ charge-to-mass ratio of GABRIELSE 99 (see above) to get their results. Their results are not independent of the HORI 01, HORI 03, HORI 06, and HORI 11 values for $|m_p - m_{\bar{p}}|/m_p$, above.

² TORII 99 uses the more-precisely-known constraint on the $\bar{p}$ charge-to-mass ratio of GABRIELSE 95 (see above) to get this result. This is not independent of the TORII 99 value for $|m_p - m_{\bar{p}}|/m_p$, above.

³ HUGHES 92 uses recent measurements of Rydberg-energy and cyclotron-frequency ratios.

$|q_p + q_e|/e$

See BRESSI 11 for a summary of experiments on the neutrality of matter.

See also "n CHARGE" in the neutron Listings.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&lt;1 × 10<sup>-21</sup></td><td>1 BRESSI</td><td>11 Neutrality of SF<sub>6</sub></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;3.2 × 10<sup>-20</sup></td><td>2 SENGUPTA</td><td>00 binary pulsar</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;0.8 × 10<sup>-21</sup></td><td>1 MARINELLI</td><td>84 Magnetic levitation</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;1.0 × 10<sup>-21</sup></td><td>1 DYLLA</td><td>73 Neutrality of SF<sub>6</sub></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ BRESSI 11 uses the method of DYLLA 73 but finds serious errors in that experiment that greatly reduce its accuracy. The BRESSI 11 limit assumes that $n \rightarrow p e^{-} \nu_{e}$ conserves charge. Thus the limit applies equally to the charge of the neutron.

² SENGUPTA 00 uses the difference between the observed rate of rotational energy loss by the binary pulsar PSR B1913+16 and the rate predicted by general relativity to set this limit. See the paper for assumptions.

p MAGNETIC MOMENT

See the "Quark Model" review.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (μN)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2.79284734463 ± 0.00000000082</td><td>TIESINGA</td><td>21</td><td>RVUE 2018 CODATA value</td></tr></tbody></table>
• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>2.79284734462 ±0.00000000082</td><td>SCHNEIDER</td><td>17</td><td>TRAP</td><td>Double Penning trap</td></tr><tr><td>2.7928473508 ±0.0000000085</td><td>MOHR</td><td>16</td><td>RVUE</td><td>2014 CODATA value</td></tr><tr><td>2.792847356 ±0.000000023</td><td>MOHR</td><td>12</td><td>RVUE</td><td>2010 CODATA value</td></tr><tr><td>2.792847356 ±0.000000023</td><td>MOHR</td><td>08</td><td>RVUE</td><td>2006 CODATA value</td></tr><tr><td>2.792847351 ±0.000000028</td><td>MOHR</td><td>05</td><td>RVUE</td><td>2002 CODATA value</td></tr><tr><td>2.792847337 ±0.000000029</td><td>MOHR</td><td>99</td><td>RVUE</td><td>1998 CODATA value</td></tr><tr><td>2.792847386 ±0.000000063</td><td>COHEN</td><td>87</td><td>RVUE</td><td>1986 CODATA value</td></tr></table>

## p MAGNETIC MOMENT

A few early results have been omitted.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (μ<sub>N</sub>)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>-2.7928473441 ±0.0000000042</td><td>SMORRA</td><td>17</td><td>TRAP Hot/cold p frequencies, Penning traps</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>-2.7928465 ±0.0000023</td><td>NAGAHAMA</td><td>17</td><td>TRAP Single p, Penning trap</td></tr><tr><td>-2.792845 ±0.000012</td><td>DISCIACCA</td><td>13</td><td>TRAP Single p, Penning trap</td></tr><tr><td>-2.7862 ±0.0083</td><td>PASK</td><td>09</td><td>CNTR p He<sup>+</sup> hyperfine structure</td></tr><tr><td>-2.8005 ±0.0090</td><td>KREISSL</td><td>88</td><td>CNTR p <sup>208</sup>Pb 11→10 X-ray</td></tr><tr><td>-2.817 ±0.048</td><td>ROBERTS</td><td>78</td><td>CNTR</td></tr><tr><td>-2.791 ±0.021</td><td>HU</td><td>75</td><td>CNTR Exotic atoms</td></tr></tbody></table>

$$ (\mu_p + \mu_{\bar{p}}) / \mu_p $$

A test of CPT invariance.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (units 10<sup>-6</sup>)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>0.002 ± 0.004</strong></td><td>SMORRA</td><td>17</td><td>TRAP Hot/cold p frequencies, Penning traps</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>0.3 ± 0.8</td><td>NAGAHAMA</td><td>17</td><td>TRAP Single p, Penning trap</td></tr><tr><td>0 ± 5</td><td>DISCIACCA</td><td>13</td><td>TRAP Single p, Penning trap</td></tr></tbody></table>

## p ELECTRIC DIPOLE MOMENT

A nonzero value is forbidden by both T invariance and P invariance.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (10<sup>-23</sup> ecm)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>&lt; 0.021</strong></td><td>1 SAHOO</td><td>17</td><td>Theory plus <sup>199</sup>Hg atom EDM</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>&lt; 0.54</td><td>1 DMITRIEV</td><td>03</td><td>Theory plus <sup>199</sup>Hg atom EDM</td></tr><tr><td>- 3.7 ± 6.3</td><td>CHO</td><td>89</td><td>NMR TI F molecules</td></tr><tr><td>&lt; 400</td><td>DZUBA</td><td>85</td><td>THEO Uses <sup>129</sup>Xe moment</td></tr><tr><td>130 ± 200</td><td>2 WILKENING</td><td>84</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>900 ± 1400</td><td>3 WILKENING</td><td>84</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>700 ± 900</td><td>HARRISON</td><td>69</td><td>MBR Molecular beam</td></tr></tbody></table>

1 SAHOO 17 and DMITRIEV 03 are not direct measurements of the proton electric dipole moment. They use theory to calculate this limit from the limit on the electric dipole moment of the <sup>199</sup>Hg atom.

2 This WILKENING 84 value includes a finite-size effect and a magnetic effect.

3 This WILKENING 84 value is more cautious than the other and excludes the finite-size effect, which relies on uncertain nuclear integrals.

## p ELECTRIC POLARIZABILITY α<sub>p</sub>

For a very complete review of the "polarizability of the nucleon and Compton scattering," see SCHUMACHER 05, updated in SCHUMACHER 19.

See LI 22d and therein for measurements of the mean square proton electric polarizability radius.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (10<sup>-4</sup> fm<sup>3</sup>)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>11.2 ±0.4 OUR AVERAGE</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>10.65 ±0.35 ±0.36</td><td>MCGOVERN</td><td>13</td><td>RVUE χEFT + Compton scattering</td></tr><tr><td>12.1 ±1.1 ±0.5</td><td>1 BEANE</td><td>03</td><td>EFT + γp</td></tr><tr><td>11.82 ±0.98<sup>+0.52</sup><sub>-0.98</sub></td><td>2 BLANPIED</td><td>01</td><td>LEGS p(γ̃,γ̃), p(γ̃,π<sup>0</sup>), p(γ̃,π<sup>+</sup>)</td></tr><tr><td>11.9 ±0.5 ±1.3</td><td>3 OLMOSDEL...</td><td>01</td><td>CNTR γp Compton scattering</td></tr><tr><td>12.1 ±0.8 ±0.5</td><td>4 MACGIBBON</td><td>95</td><td>RVUE global average</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>12.03<sup>+0.48</sup><sub>-0.54</sub></td><td>5 PASQUINI</td><td>19</td><td>fit of RCS data sets</td></tr><tr><td>11.7 ±0.8 ±0.7</td><td>6 BARANOV</td><td>01</td><td>RVUE Global average</td></tr><tr><td>12.5 ±0.6 ±0.9</td><td>MACGIBBON</td><td>95</td><td>CNTR γp Compton scattering</td></tr><tr><td>9.8 ±0.4 ±1.1</td><td>HALLIN</td><td>93</td><td>CNTR γp Compton scattering</td></tr><tr><td>10.62<sup>+1.25</sup><sub>-1.19</sub> ±1.03</td><td>9 ZIEGER</td><td>92</td><td>CNTR γp Compton scattering</td></tr><tr><td>10.9 ±2.2 ±1.3</td><td>7 FEDERSPIEL</td><td>91</td><td>CNTR γp Compton scattering</td></tr></tbody></table>

1 BEANE 03 uses effective field theory and low-energy γp and γd Compton-scattering data. It also gets for the isoscalar polarizabilities (see the erratum) α<sub>N</sub> = (13.0 ± 1.9<sup>+3.9</sup><sub>-1.5</sub>) × 10<sup>-4</sup> fm<sup>3</sup> and β<sub>N</sub> = (-1.8 ± 1.9<sup>+2.1</sup><sub>-0.9</sub>) × 10<sup>-4</sup> fm<sup>3</sup>.

2 BLANPIED 01 gives α<sub>p</sub> + β<sub>p</sub> and α<sub>p</sub> - β<sub>p</sub>. The separate α<sub>p</sub> and β<sub>p</sub> are provided to us by A. Sandorfi. The first error above is statistics plus systematics; the second is from the model.

3 This OLMOSDELEON 01 result uses the TAPS data alone, and does not use the (re-evaluated) sum-rule constraint that α + β = (13.8 ± 0.4) × 10<sup>-4</sup> fm<sup>3</sup>. See the paper for a discussion.

4 MACGIBBON 95 combine the results of ZIEGER 92, FEDERSPIEL 91, and their own experiment to get a "global average" in which model errors and systematic errors are treated in a consistent way. See MACGIBBON 95 for a discussion.

5 PASQUINI 19 fit data sets for the unpolarized proton RCS cross section, using fixed-t subtracted dispersion relations and a bootstrap-based fitting technique.

6 BARANOV 01 combines the results of 10 experiments from 1958 through 1995 to get a global average that takes into account both systematic and model errors and does not use the theoretical constraint on the sum α<sub>p</sub> + β<sub>p</sub>.

7 FEDERSPIEL 91 obtains for the (static) electric polarizability α<sub>p</sub>, defined in terms of the induced electric dipole moment by D = 4πε<sub>0</sub>α<sub>p</sub>E, the value (7.0 ± 2.2 ± 1.3) × 10<sup>-4</sup> fm<sup>3</sup>.

## p MAGNETIC POLARIZABILITY β<sub>p</sub>

The electric and magnetic polarizabilities are subject to a dispersion sum-rule constraint σ̄ + β̄ = (14.2 ± 0.5) × 10<sup>-4</sup> fm<sup>3</sup>. Errors here are anticorrelated with those on ᾱ<sub>p</sub> due to this constraint.

See LI 22d and therein for measurements of the mean square proton magnetic polarizability radius.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (10<sup>-4</sup> fm<sup>3</sup>)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>2.5 ±0.4 OUR AVERAGE</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td>Error includes scale factor of 1.2.</td></tr><tr><td>3.15 ±0.35 ±0.36</td><td>MCGOVERN</td><td>13</td><td>RVUE χEFT + Compton scattering</td></tr><tr><td>3.4 ±1.1 ±0.1</td><td>1 BEANE</td><td>03</td><td>EFT + γp</td></tr><tr><td>1.43 ±0.98<sup>+0.52</sup><sub>-0.98</sub></td><td>2 BLANPIED</td><td>01</td><td>LEGS p(γ̃,γ̃), p(γ̃,π<sup>0</sup>), p(γ̃,π<sup>+</sup>)</td></tr><tr><td>1.2 ±0.7 ±0.5</td><td>3 OLMOSDEL...</td><td>01</td><td>CNTR γp Compton scattering</td></tr><tr><td>2.1 ±0.8 ±0.5</td><td>4 MACGIBBON</td><td>95</td><td>RVUE global average</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>1.77<sup>+0.52</sup><sub>-0.54</sub></td><td>5 PASQUINI</td><td>19</td><td>fit of RCS data sets</td></tr><tr><td>2.3 ±0.9 ±0.7</td><td>6 BARANOV</td><td>01</td><td>RVUE Global average</td></tr><tr><td>1.7 ±0.6 ±0.9</td><td>MACGIBBON</td><td>95</td><td>CNTR γp Compton scattering</td></tr><tr><td>4.4 ±0.4 ±1.1</td><td>HALLIN</td><td>93</td><td>CNTR γp Compton scattering</td></tr><tr><td>3.58<sup>+1.19</sup><sub>-1.25</sub> ±1.03</td><td>ZIEGER</td><td>92</td><td>CNTR γp Compton scattering</td></tr><tr><td>3.3 ±2.2 ±1.3</td><td>FEDERSPIEL</td><td>91</td><td>CNTR γp Compton scattering</td></tr></tbody></table>

1 BEANE 03 uses effective field theory and low-energy γp and γd Compton-scattering data. It also gets for the isoscalar polarizabilities (see the erratum) α<sub>N</sub> = (13.0 ± 1.9<sup>+3.9</sup><sub>-1.5</sub>) × 10<sup>-4</sup> fm<sup>3</sup> and β<sub>N</sub> = (-1.8 ± 1.9<sup>+2.1</sup><sub>-0.9</sub>) × 10<sup>-4</sup> fm<sup>3</sup>.

2 BLANPIED 01 gives α<sub>p</sub> + β<sub>p</sub> and α<sub>p</sub> - β<sub>p</sub>. The separate α<sub>p</sub> and β<sub>p</sub> are provided to us by A. Sandorfi. The first error above is statistics plus systematics; the second is from the model.

3 This OLMOSDELEON 01 result uses the TAPS data alone, and does not use the (re-evaluated) sum-rule constraint that α + β = (13.8 ± 0.4) × 10<sup>-4</sup> fm<sup>3</sup>. See the paper for a discussion.

4 MACGIBBON 95 combine the results of ZIEGER 92, FEDERSPIEL 91, and their own experiment to get a "global average" in which model errors and systematic errors are treated in a consistent way. See MACGIBBON 95 for a discussion.

5 PASQUINI 19 fit data sets for the unpolarized proton RCS cross section, using fixed-t subtracted dispersion relations and a bootstrap-based fitting technique.

6 BARANOV 01 combines the results of 10 experiments from 1958 through 1995 to get a global average that takes into account both systematic and model errors and does not use the theoretical constraint on the sum α<sub>p</sub> + β<sub>p</sub>.

## p CHARGE RADIUS

This is the rms electric charge radius, $\sqrt{\langle r_E^2 \rangle}$.

There are three kinds of measurements of the proton radius: via transitions in atomic hydrogen; via electron scattering off hydrogen; and via muonic hydrogen Lamb shift. Most measurements of the radius of the proton involve electron-proton interactions, the most recent of which is the electron scattering measurement r<sub>p</sub> = 0.831(14) fm (XIONG 19), and the atomic-hydrogen value, r<sub>p</sub> = 0.833(10) fm (BEZGINOV 19). These agree well with another recent atomic-hydrogen value r<sub>p</sub> = 0.8335(95) fm (BEYER 17), and with the best measurement using muonic hydrogen r<sub>p</sub> = 0.84087(39) fm (ANTOGNINI 13), that is far more precise.

The MOHR 16 value (2014 CODATA), obtained from the electronic results available at the time, was 0.8751(61) fm. This differs by 5.6 standard deviations from the muonic hydrogen value, leading to the so-called proton charge radius puzzle. See our 2018 edition (Physical Review D98 030001 (2018)) for a further discussion of interpretations of this puzzle. However, reflecting the new electronic measurements, the 2018 CODATA, TIESINGA 21, recommended value is 0.8414(19) fm, and the puzzle appears to be resolved.

See our 2014 edition (Chinese Physics C38 070001 (2014)) for values published before 2003.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (fm)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>0.8409 ±0.0004 OUR AVERAGE</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>0.833 ±0.010</td><td>1 BEZGINOV</td><td>19</td><td>LASR 2S-2P transition in H</td></tr><tr><td>0.831 ±0.007 ±0.012</td><td>2 XIONG</td><td>19</td><td>SPEC e<sub>p</sub> → e<sub>p</sub> form factor</td></tr><tr><td>0.84087 ±0.00026 ±0.00029</td><td>ANTOGNINI</td><td>13</td><td>LASR μp-atom Lamb shift</td></tr></tbody></table>
• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •

<table><tr><td>0.847</td><td>±0.008</td><td><sup>3</sup>CUI</td><td>21</td><td>FIT</td><td>use existing <i>ep</i> data</td></tr><tr><td>0.878</td><td>±0.011</td><td>±0.031</td><td><sup>4</sup>MIHOVILOVICI</td><td>21</td><td>ISR <i>ep</i> → <i>ep</i> reanalysis</td></tr><tr><td>0.877</td><td>±0.013</td><td><sup>5</sup>FLEURBAEY</td><td>18</td><td>LASR</td><td>1S-3S transition in H</td></tr><tr><td>0.8335</td><td>±0.0095</td><td><sup>6</sup>BEYER</td><td>17</td><td>LASR</td><td>2S-4P transition in H</td></tr><tr><td>0.8751</td><td>±0.0061</td><td>MOHR</td><td>16</td><td>RVUE</td><td>2014 CODATA value</td></tr><tr><td>0.895</td><td>±0.014</td><td>±0.014</td><td><sup>7</sup>LEE</td><td>15</td><td>SPEC Just 2010 Mainz data</td></tr><tr><td>0.916</td><td>±0.024</td><td>LEE</td><td>15</td><td>SPEC World data, no Mainz</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>0.8775</td><td>±0.0051</td><td>MOHR</td><td>12</td><td>RVUE</td><td>2010 CODATA, <i>ep</i> data</td></tr><tr><td>0.875</td><td>±0.008</td><td>±0.006</td><td>ZHAN</td><td>11</td><td>SPEC Recoil polarimetry</td></tr><tr><td>0.879</td><td>±0.005</td><td>±0.006</td><td>BERNAUER</td><td>10</td><td>SPEC <i>ep</i> → <i>ep</i> form factor</td></tr><tr><td>0.912</td><td>±0.009</td><td>±0.007</td><td>BORISYUK</td><td>10</td><td>reanalyzes old <i>ep</i> data</td></tr><tr><td>0.871</td><td>±0.009</td><td>±0.003</td><td>HILL</td><td>10</td><td>z-expansion reanalysis</td></tr><tr><td>0.8418±0.00036±0.00056</td><td></td><td>POHL</td><td>10</td><td>LASR</td><td>See ANTOGNINI 13</td></tr><tr><td>0.8768</td><td>±0.0069</td><td>MOHR</td><td>08</td><td>RVUE</td><td>2006 CODATA value</td></tr><tr><td>0.844</td><td>±0.008</td><td>BELUSHKIN</td><td>07</td><td></td><td>Dispersion analysis</td></tr><tr><td>0.897</td><td>±0.018</td><td>BLUNDEN</td><td>05</td><td></td><td>SICK 03 + 2γ correction</td></tr><tr><td>0.8750</td><td>±0.0068</td><td>MOHR</td><td>05</td><td>RVUE</td><td>2002 CODATA value</td></tr><tr><td>0.895</td><td>±0.010</td><td>±0.013</td><td>SICK</td><td>03</td><td><i>ep</i> → <i>ep</i> reanalysis</td></tr></table>

¹BEZGINOV 19 measures the $2S_{1/2}$ to $2P_{1/2}$ transition frequency in atomic hydrogen using the frequency-offset separated oscillatory field (FOSOF) technique. The result agrees well with the muonic hydrogen Lamb shift value.

²The XIONG 19 value from $ep → ep$ scattering and supports the muonic hydrogen Lamb shift value.

³CUI 21 employ a new mathematical procedure (statistical SPM, Schlessinger point method) based on form-unbiased interpolations of existing $ep$ scattering data.

⁴MIHOVILOVICI 21 reports a value of $0.878 ± 0.011 ± 0.031 ± 0.002$ fm where the last uncertainty comes from the dependence on the model form factor function.

⁵FLEURBAEY 18 measures the 1S-3S transition frequency in hydrogen and in combination with the 1S-2S transition frequency deduces the proton radius and the Rydberg constant.

⁶The BEYER 17 result is 3.3 combined standard deviations below the MOHR 16 (2014 CODATA) value. The experiment measures the 2S-4P transition in hydrogen and gets the proton radius and the Rydberg constant.

⁷Authors also provide values for combinations of all available data.

## p MAGNETIC RADIUS

This is the rms magnetic radius, $\sqrt{\langle r_M^2 \rangle}$.

<table><thead><tr><th>VALUE (fm)</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><b>0.851 ± 0.026</b></td><td><sup>1</sup>LEE</td><td>15</td><td>Combination of world and Mainz data</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>0.817 ± 0.027</td><td><sup>2</sup>CUI</td><td>21B</td><td>use existing <i>ep</i> data</td></tr><tr><td>0.87 ± 0.02</td><td>EPSTEIN</td><td>14</td><td>Using <i>ep</i>, <i>en</i>, ππ data</td></tr><tr><td>0.867 ± 0.009 ± 0.018</td><td>ZHAN</td><td>11</td><td>SPEC Recoil polarimetry</td></tr><tr><td>0.777 ± 0.013 ± 0.010</td><td>BERNAUER</td><td>10</td><td>SPEC <i>ep</i> → <i>ep</i> form factor</td></tr><tr><td>0.876 ± 0.010 ± 0.016</td><td>BORISYUK</td><td>10</td><td>Reanalyzes old <i>ep</i> → <i>ep</i> data</td></tr><tr><td>0.854 ± 0.005</td><td>BELUSHKIN</td><td>07</td><td>Dispersion analysis</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹In a consistent reanalysis LEE 2015 extract values separately for the Mainz 2010 data only (0.776+-0.034+-0.017) fm and for the world data without Mainz data (0.914+-0.035) fm. The quoted value is a simple combination of the two, which ignores possible discrepancies and unknown correlations and should be considered with caution.

²CUI 21B employ a new mathematical procedure (statistical SPM, Schlessinger point method) based on form-unbiased interpolations of existing $ep$ scattering data.

## p MEAN LIFE

A test of baryon conservation. See the “p Partial Mean Lives” section below for limits for identified final states. The limits here are to “anything” or are for “disappearance” modes of a bound proton ($p$) or ($n$). See also the $3\pi$ modes in the “Partial Mean Lives” section. Table 1 of BACK 03 is a nice summary.

<table><thead><tr><th>LIMIT<br>(years)</th><th>PARTICLE</th><th>CL%</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><b>&gt;0.96 × 10<sup>30</sup></b></td><td><b>p</b></td><td>90</td><td><sup>1</sup>ALLEGA</td><td>22</td><td>SNO+ <i>p</i> → invisible</td></tr><tr><td><b>&gt;0.9 × 10<sup>30</sup></b></td><td><b>n</b></td><td>90</td><td><sup>2</sup>ALLEGA</td><td>22</td><td>SNO+ <i>n</i> → invisible</td></tr><tr><td colspan="6">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>&gt;3.6 × 10<sup>29</sup></td><td><i>p</i></td><td>90</td><td><sup>3</sup>ANDERSON</td><td>19A</td><td>SNO+ <i>p</i> → invisible</td></tr><tr><td>&gt;2.5 × 10<sup>29</sup></td><td><i>n</i></td><td>90</td><td><sup>3</sup>ANDERSON</td><td>19A</td><td>SNO+ <i>n</i> → invisible</td></tr><tr><td>&gt;5.8 × 10<sup>29</sup></td><td><i>n</i></td><td>90</td><td><sup>4</sup>ARAKI</td><td>06</td><td>KLND <i>n</i> → invisible</td></tr><tr><td>&gt;2.1 × 10<sup>29</sup></td><td><i>p</i></td><td>90</td><td><sup>3</sup>AHMED</td><td>04</td><td>SNO <i>p</i> → invisible</td></tr><tr><td>&gt;1.9 × 10<sup>29</sup></td><td><i>n</i></td><td>90</td><td><sup>3</sup>AHMED</td><td>04</td><td>SNO <i>n</i> → invisible</td></tr><tr><td>&gt;1.8 × 10<sup>25</sup></td><td><i>n</i></td><td>90</td><td><sup>5</sup>BACK</td><td>03</td><td>BORX</td></tr><tr><td>&gt;1.1 × 10<sup>26</sup></td><td><i>p</i></td><td>90</td><td><sup>5</sup>BACK</td><td>03</td><td>BORX</td></tr><tr><td>&gt;3.5 × 10<sup>28</sup></td><td><i>p</i></td><td>90</td><td><sup>6</sup>DESENSKO</td><td>03</td><td><i>p</i> → invisible</td></tr><tr><td>&gt;1 × 10<sup>28</sup></td><td><i>p</i></td><td>90</td><td><sup>7</sup>AHMAD</td><td>02</td><td>SNO <i>p</i> → invisible</td></tr><tr><td>&gt;4 × 10<sup>23</sup></td><td><i>p</i></td><td>95</td><td>TRETYAK</td><td>01</td><td><i>d</i> → <i>n</i> + ?</td></tr><tr><td>&gt;1.9 × 10<sup>24</sup></td><td><i>p</i></td><td>90</td><td><sup>8</sup>BERNABEI</td><td>00b</td><td>DAMA</td></tr><tr><td>&gt;1.6 × 10<sup>25</sup></td><td><i>p</i>, <i>n</i></td><td>9,10</td><td>EVANS</td><td>77</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>&gt;3 × 10<sup>23</sup></td><td><i>p</i></td><td>10</td><td>DIX</td><td>70</td><td>CNTR</td></tr><tr><td>&gt;3 × 10<sup>23</sup></td><td><i>p</i>, <i>n</i></td><td>10,11</td><td>FLEROV</td><td>58</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ALLEGA 22 look for $\gamma$ rays from the de-excitation of a residual $^{15}$N* following the disappearance of $p$ in $^{16}$O.

²ALLEGA 22 look for $\gamma$ rays from the de-excitation of a residual $^{15}$O* following the disappearance of $n$ in $^{16}$O.

³AHMED 04 and ANDERSON 19A look for $\gamma$ rays from the de-excitation of a residual $^{15}$O* or $^{15}$N* following the disappearance of a neutron or proton in $^{16}$O.

⁴ARAKI 06 looks for signs of de-excitation of the residual nucleus after disappearance of a neutron from the s shell of $^{12}$C.

⁵BACK 03 looks for decays of unstable nuclides left after $N$ decays of parent $^{12}$C, $^{13}$C, $^{16}$O nuclei. These are “invisible channel” limits.

⁶DESENSKO 03 gets this limit on proton disappearance in deuterium by analyzing SNO data in AHMAD 02.

⁷AHMAD 02 (see its footnote 7) looks for neutrons left behind after the disappearance of the proton in deuterons.

⁸BERNABEI 00b looks for the decay of a $^{128}_{52}\text{I}$ nucleus following the disappearance of a proton in the otherwise-stable $^{129}_{54}\text{Xe}$ nucleus.

⁹EVANS 77 looks for the daughter nuclide $^{129}\text{Xe}$ from possible $^{130}\text{Te}$ decays in ancient Te ore samples.

¹⁰This mean-life limit has been obtained from a half-life limit by dividing the latter by $\ln(2) = 0.693$.

¹¹FLEROV 58 looks for the spontaneous fission of a $^{232}\text{Th}$ nucleus after the disappearance of one of its nucleons.

## p MEAN LIFE

Of the two astrophysical limits here, that of GEER 00D involves considerably more refinements in its modeling. The other limits come from direct observations of stored antiprotons. See also “p Partial Mean Lives” after “p Partial Mean Lives,” below, for exclusive-mode limits. The best (life-time/branching fraction) limit there is $7 \times 10^5$ years, for $\bar{p} \to e^-\gamma$. We advance only the exclusive-mode limits to our Summary Tables.

<table><thead><tr><th>LIMIT<br>(years)</th><th>CL%</th><th>EVTS</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th><th>COMMENT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&gt;5.0</td><td>90</td><td></td><td>SELLNER</td><td>17</td><td>TRAP Penning trap</td></tr><tr><td>&gt;8 × 10<sup>5</sup></td><td>90</td><td></td><td><sup>1</sup>GEER</td><td>00D</td><td>π/p ratio, cosmic rays</td></tr><tr><td>&gt;0.28</td><td></td><td></td><td>GABRIELSE</td><td>90</td><td>TRAP Penning trap</td></tr><tr><td>&gt;0.08</td><td>90</td><td>1</td><td>BELL</td><td>79</td><td>CNTR Storage ring</td></tr><tr><td>&gt;1 × 10<sup>7</sup></td><td></td><td></td><td>GOLDEN</td><td>79</td><td>SPEC π/p ratio, cosmic rays</td></tr><tr><td>&gt;3.7 × 10<sup>-3</sup></td><td></td><td></td><td>BREGMAN</td><td>78</td><td>CNTR Storage ring</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹GEER 00D uses agreement between a model of galactic $\bar{p}$ production and propagation and the observed $\bar{p}/p$ cosmic-ray spectrum to set this limit.

## p DECAY MODES

See the “Note on Nucleon Decay” in our 1994 edition (Phys. Rev. **D50**, 1173) for a short review.

The “partial mean life” limits tabulated here are the limits on $\tau/B_j$, where $\tau$ is the total mean life and $B_j$ is the branching fraction for the mode in question. For $N$ decays, $p$ and $n$ indicate proton and neutron partial lifetimes.

<table><thead><tr><th>Mode</th><th>Partial mean life<br>(10<sup>30</sup> years)</th><th>Confidence level</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>Antilepton + meson</strong></td></tr><tr><td>τ<sub>1</sub> N → e<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td><td>&gt; 5300 (n), &gt; 24000 (p)</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ<sub>2</sub> N → μ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td><td>&gt; 3500 (n), &gt; 16000 (p)</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ<sub>3</sub> N → νπ</td><td>&gt; 1100 (n), &gt; 390 (p)</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ<sub>4</sub> p → e<sup>+</sup>η</td><td>&gt; 10000</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ<sub>5</sub> p → μ<sup>+</sup>η</td><td>&gt; 4700</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ<sub>6</sub> n → νη</td><td>&gt; 158</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ<sub>7</sub> N → e<sup>+</sup>ρ</td><td>&gt; 217 (n), &gt; 720 (p)</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ<sub>8</sub> N → μ<sup>+</sup>ρ</td><td>&gt; 228 (n), &gt; 570 (p)</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ<sub>9</sub> N → νρ</td><td>&gt; 19 (n), &gt; 162 (p)</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ<sub>10</sub> p → e<sup>+</sup>ω</td><td>&gt; 1600</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ<sub>11</sub> p → μ<sup>+</sup>ω</td><td>&gt; 2800</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ<sub>12</sub> n → νω</td><td>&gt; 108</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ<sub>13</sub> N → e<sup>+</sup>K</td><td>&gt; 17 (n), &gt; 1000 (p)</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ<sub>14</sub> p → e<sup>+</sup>K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>τ<sub>15</sub> p → e<sup>+</sup>K<sup>0</sup><sub>L</sub></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>τ<sub>16</sub> N → μ<sup>+</sup>K</td><td>&gt; 26 (n), &gt; 4500 (p)</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ<sub>17</sub> p → μ<sup>+</sup>K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>τ<sub>18</sub> p → μ<sup>+</sup>K<sup>0</sup><sub>L</sub></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>τ<sub>19</sub> N → νK</td><td>&gt; 86 (n), &gt; 5900 (p)</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ<sub>20</sub> n → νK<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub></td><td>&gt; 260</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ<sub>21</sub> p → e<sup>+</sup>K*(892)<sup>0</sup></td><td>&gt; 84</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ<sub>22</sub> N → νK*(892)</td><td>&gt; 78 (n), &gt; 51 (p)</td><td>90%</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Antilepton + mesons

<table><tr><td>τ<sub>23</sub> p → e<sup>+</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td><td>&gt; 82</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ<sub>24</sub> p → e<sup>+</sup>π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td><td>&gt; 147</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ<sub>25</sub> n → e<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td><td>&gt; 52</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ<sub>26</sub> p → μ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td><td>&gt; 133</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ<sub>27</sub> p → μ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td><td>&gt; 101</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ<sub>28</sub> n → μ<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td><td>&gt; 74</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ<sub>29</sub> n → e<sup>+</sup>K<sup>0</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td><td>&gt; 18</td><td>90%</td></tr></table>
### Lepton + meson

<table><tr><td>τ30</td><td>n → e<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup></td><td>> 65</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ31</td><td>n → μ<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup></td><td>> 49</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ32</td><td>n → e<sup>-</sup>ρ<sup>+</sup></td><td>> 62</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ33</td><td>n → μ<sup>-</sup>ρ<sup>+</sup></td><td>> 7</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ34</td><td>n → e<sup>-</sup>K<sup>+</sup></td><td>> 32</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ35</td><td>n → μ<sup>-</sup>K<sup>+</sup></td><td>> 57</td><td>90%</td></tr></table>

### Lepton + mesons

<table><tr><td>τ36</td><td>p → e<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>+</sup></td><td>> 30</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ37</td><td>n → e<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td><td>> 29</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ38</td><td>p → μ<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>+</sup></td><td>> 17</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ39</td><td>n → μ<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td><td>> 34</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ40</td><td>p → e<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>K<sup>+</sup></td><td>> 75</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ41</td><td>p → μ<sup>-</sup>π<sup>+</sup>K<sup>+</sup></td><td>> 245</td><td>90%</td></tr></table>

### Antilepton + photon(s)

<table><tr><td>τ42</td><td>p → e<sup>+</sup>γ</td><td>> 670</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ43</td><td>p → μ<sup>+</sup>γ</td><td>> 478</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ44</td><td>n → νγ</td><td>> 550</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ45</td><td>p → e<sup>+</sup>γγ</td><td>> 100</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ46</td><td>n → νγγ</td><td>> 219</td><td>90%</td></tr></table>

### Antilepton + single massless

<table><tr><td>τ47</td><td>p → e<sup>+</sup>X</td><td>> 790</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ48</td><td>p → μ<sup>+</sup>X</td><td>> 410</td><td>90%</td></tr></table>

### Three (or more) leptons

<table><tr><td>τ49</td><td>p → e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup></td><td>> 34000</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ50</td><td>p → e<sup>+</sup>μ<sup>+</sup>μ<sup>-</sup></td><td>> 9200</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ51</td><td>p → e<sup>+</sup>νν</td><td>> 170</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ52</td><td>n → e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>ν</td><td>> 257</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ53</td><td>n → μ<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup>ν</td><td>> 83</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ54</td><td>n → μ<sup>+</sup>μ<sup>-</sup>ν</td><td>> 79</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ55</td><td>p → μ<sup>+</sup>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup></td><td>> 23000</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ56</td><td>p → μ<sup>-</sup>e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>+</sup></td><td>> 19000</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ57</td><td>p → μ<sup>+</sup>μ<sup>+</sup>μ<sup>-</sup></td><td>> 10000</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ58</td><td>p → μ<sup>+</sup>νν</td><td>> 220</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ59</td><td>p → e<sup>-</sup>μ<sup>+</sup>μ<sup>+</sup></td><td>> 11000</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ60</td><td>n → 3ν</td><td>> 5 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ61</td><td>n → 5ν</td><td></td><td></td></tr></table>

### Inclusive modes

<table><tr><td>τ62</td><td>N → e<sup>+</sup> anything</td><td>> 0.6 (n, p)</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ63</td><td>N → μ<sup>+</sup> anything</td><td>> 12 (n, p)</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ64</td><td>N → ν anything</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>τ65</td><td>N → e<sup>+</sup>π<sup>0</sup> anything</td><td>> 0.6 (n, p)</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ66</td><td>N → 2 bodies, ν-free</td><td></td><td></td></tr></table>

### ΔB = 2 dinucleon modes

The following are lifetime limits per iron nucleus.

<table><tr><td>τ67</td><td>p p → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>+</sup></td><td>> 72.2</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ68</td><td>p n → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td><td>> 170</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ69</td><td>n n → π<sup>+</sup>π<sup>-</sup></td><td>> 0.7</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ70</td><td>n n → π<sup>0</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td><td>> 404</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ71</td><td>p p → K<sup>+</sup>K<sup>+</sup></td><td>> 170</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ72</td><td>p p → e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>+</sup></td><td>> 5.8</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ73</td><td>p p → e<sup>+</sup>μ<sup>+</sup></td><td>> 3.6</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ74</td><td>p p → μ<sup>+</sup>μ<sup>+</sup></td><td>> 1.7</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ75</td><td>p n → e<sup>+</sup>ν</td><td>> 260</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ76</td><td>p n → μ<sup>+</sup>ν</td><td>> 200</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ77</td><td>p n → τ<sup>+</sup>ν<sub>τ</sub></td><td>> 29</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ78</td><td>n n → invisible</td><td>> 1.4</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ79</td><td>n n → ν<sub>e</sub>ν<sub>e</sub></td><td>> 1.4</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ80</td><td>n n → ν<sub>μ</sub>ν<sub>μ</sub></td><td>> 1.4</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ81</td><td>p n → invisible</td><td>> 0.06</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ82</td><td>p p → invisible</td><td>> 0.11</td><td>90%</td></tr></table>

### p DECAY MODES

<table><thead><tr><th>Mode</th><th>Partial mean life (years)</th><th>Confidence level</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>τ83</td><td>p → e<sup>-</sup>γ</td><td>> 7 × 10<sup>5</sup></td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ84</td><td>p → μ<sup>-</sup>γ</td><td>> 5 × 10<sup>4</sup></td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ85</td><td>p → e<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td><td>> 4 × 10<sup>5</sup></td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ86</td><td>p → μ<sup>-</sup>π<sup>0</sup></td><td>> 5 × 10<sup>4</sup></td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ87</td><td>p → e<sup>-</sup>η</td><td>> 2 × 10<sup>4</sup></td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ88</td><td>p → μ<sup>-</sup>η</td><td>> 8 × 10<sup>3</sup></td><td>90%</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><tr><td>τ89</td><td>p → e<sup>-</sup>K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub></td><td>> 900</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ90</td><td>p → μ<sup>-</sup>K<sup>0</sup><sub>S</sub></td><td>> 4 × 10<sup>3</sup></td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ91</td><td>p → e<sup>-</sup>K<sup>0</sup><sub>L</sub></td><td>> 9 × 10<sup>3</sup></td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ92</td><td>p → μ<sup>-</sup>K<sup>0</sup><sub>L</sub></td><td>> 7 × 10<sup>3</sup></td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ93</td><td>p → e<sup>-</sup>γγ</td><td>> 2 × 10<sup>4</sup></td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ94</td><td>p → μ<sup>-</sup>γγ</td><td>> 2 × 10<sup>4</sup></td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>τ95</td><td>p → e<sup>-</sup>ω</td><td>> 200</td><td>90%</td></tr></table>

### p PARTIAL MEAN LIVES

The "partial mean life" limits tabulated here are the limits on $\tau/B_j$, where $\tau$ is the total mean life for the proton and $B_j$ is the branching fraction for the mode in question.

Decaying particle: $p = proton, n = bound neutron$. The same event may appear under more than one partial decay mode. Background estimates may be accurate to a factor of two.

### Antilepton + meson

$\tau(N \rightarrow e^{+}\pi^{+})$

τ1

<table><thead><tr><th>LIMIT<br>(10<sup>30</sup> years)</th><th>PARTICLE</th><th>CL%</th><th>EVTS</th><th>BKGD EST</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TEC N</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>>24000</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td>0.59</td><td>1 TAKENAKA</td><td>20 SKAM</td></tr><tr><td>> 5300</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td>0.41</td><td>ABE</td><td>17D SKAM</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td colspan="7">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>>16000</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td>0.61</td><td>ABE</td><td>17 SKAM</td></tr><tr><td>> 2000</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td>0.27</td><td>NISHINO</td><td>12 SKAM</td></tr><tr><td>> 8200</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td>0.3</td><td>NISHINO</td><td>09 SKAM</td></tr><tr><td>> 540</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td>0.2</td><td>MCGREW</td><td>99 IMB3</td></tr><tr><td>> 158</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>MCGREW</td><td>99 IMB3</td></tr><tr><td>> 1600</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>SHIOZAWA</td><td>98 SKAM</td></tr><tr><td>> 70</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td>0.5</td><td>BERGER</td><td>91 FREJ</td></tr><tr><td>> 70</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td>≤ 0.1</td><td>BERGER</td><td>91 FREJ</td></tr><tr><td>> 550</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td>0.7</td><td>2 BECKER-SZ...</td><td>90 IMB3</td></tr><tr><td>> 260</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td>0.04</td><td>HIRATA</td><td>89C KAMI</td></tr><tr><td>> 130</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td>0.2</td><td>HIRATA</td><td>89C KAMI</td></tr><tr><td>> 310</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td>0.6</td><td>SEIDEL</td><td>88 IMB</td></tr><tr><td>> 100</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td>1.6</td><td>SEIDEL</td><td>88 IMB</td></tr><tr><td>> 1.3</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td></td><td>BARTELT</td><td>87 SOUD</td></tr><tr><td>> 1.3</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td></td><td>BARTELT</td><td>87 SOUD</td></tr><tr><td>> 250</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td>0.3</td><td>HAINES</td><td>86 IMB</td></tr><tr><td>> 31</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>8</td><td>9</td><td>HAINES</td><td>86 IMB</td></tr><tr><td>> 64</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td>0.4</td><td>ARISAKA</td><td>85 KAMI</td></tr><tr><td>> 26</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td>0.7</td><td>ARISAKA</td><td>85 KAMI</td></tr><tr><td>> 82</td><td>p (free)</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td>0.2</td><td>BLEWITT</td><td>85 IMB</td></tr><tr><td>> 250</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td>0.2</td><td>BLEWITT</td><td>85 IMB</td></tr><tr><td>> 25</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>PARK</td><td>85 IMB</td></tr><tr><td>> 15</td><td>p, n</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td></td><td>BATTISTONI</td><td>84 NUSX</td></tr><tr><td>> 0.5</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>1</td><td>0.3</td><td>3 BARTELT</td><td>83 SOUD</td></tr><tr><td>> 0.5</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>1</td><td>0.3</td><td>3 BARTELT</td><td>83 SOUD</td></tr><tr><td>> 5.8</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>2</td><td></td><td>4 KRISHNA...</td><td>82 KOLR</td></tr><tr><td>> 5.8</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>2</td><td></td><td>4 KRISHNA...</td><td>82 KOLR</td></tr><tr><td>> 0.1</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td></td><td></td><td>GURR</td><td>67 CNTR</td></tr></tfoot></table>

$\tau(N \rightarrow \mu^{+}\pi^{+})$

τ2

<table><thead><tr><th>LIMIT<br>(10<sup>30</sup> years)</th><th>PARTICLE</th><th>CL%</th><th>EVTS</th><th>BKGD EST</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TEC N</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>>16000</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>1</td><td>0.94</td><td>1 TAKENAKA</td><td>20 SKAM</td></tr><tr><td>> 3500</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>1</td><td>0.77</td><td>ABE</td><td>17D SKAM</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td colspan="7">• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •</td></tr><tr><td>> 7700</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>2</td><td>0.87</td><td>ABE</td><td>17 SKAM</td></tr><tr><td>> 1000</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>1</td><td>0.43</td><td>NISHINO</td><td>12 SKAM</td></tr><tr><td>> 6600</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td>0.3</td><td>NISHINO</td><td>09 SKAM</td></tr><tr><td>> 473</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td>0.6</td><td>MCGREW</td><td>99 IMB3</td></tr><tr><td>> 90</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>1</td><td>1.9</td><td>MCGREW</td><td>99 IMB3</td></tr><tr><td>> 81</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td>0.2</td><td>BERGER</td><td>91 FREJ</td></tr><tr><td>> 35</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>1</td><td>1.0</td><td>BERGER</td><td>91 FREJ</td></tr><tr><td>> 230</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td>0.07</td><td>HIRATA</td><td>89C KAMI</td></tr><tr><td>> 100</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td>0.2</td><td>HIRATA</td><td>89C KAMI</td></tr><tr><td>> 270</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td>0.5</td><td>SEIDEL</td><td>88 IMB</td></tr><tr><td>> 63</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td>0.5</td><td>SEIDEL</td><td>88 IMB</td></tr><tr><td>> 76</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>HAINES</td><td>86 IMB</td></tr><tr><td>> 23</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>8</td><td>7</td><td>HAINES</td><td>86 IMB</td></tr><tr><td>> 46</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td>0.4</td><td>ARISAKA</td><td>85 KAMI</td></tr><tr><td>> 20</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td>0.4</td><td>ARISAKA</td><td>85 KAMI</td></tr><tr><td>> 59</td><td>p (free)</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td>0.2</td><td>BLEWITT</td><td>85 IMB</td></tr><tr><td>> 100</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>1</td><td>0.4</td><td>BLEWITT</td><td>85 IMB</td></tr><tr><td>> 38</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>PARK</td><td>85 IMB</td></tr><tr><td>> 10</td><td>p, n</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td></td><td>BATTISTONI</td><td>84 NUSX</td></tr><tr><td>> 1.3</td><td>p, n</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td></td><td>ALEKSEEV</td><td>81 BAKS</td></tr></tfoot></table>

<footnote n="1">1 TAKENAKA 20 includes data of ABE 17, and thus supersedes ABE 17.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2 This BECKER-SZENDY 90 result includes data from SEIDEL 88.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">3 Limit based on zero events.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">4 We have calculated 90% CL limit from 1 confined event.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">5 We have converted half-life to 90% CL mean life.</footnote>

<footnote n="1">1 TAKENAKA 20 includes the data of ABE 17 and thus supersedes ABE 17.</footnote>
$\tau(N \to \nu\pi)$

LIMIT

<table><thead><tr><th>(10<sup>30</sup> years)</th><th>PARTICLE</th><th>CL%</th><th>EVTS</th><th>BKGD EST</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&gt; 390</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>52.8</td><td></td><td>ABE</td><td>14E SKAM</td></tr><tr><td>&gt;1100</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>19.1</td><td></td><td>ABE</td><td>14E SKAM</td></tr></tbody></table>

τ3

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

<table><tbody><tr><td>&gt; 16</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>6 6.7</td><td></td><td>WALL</td><td>00B SOU2</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 39</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>4 3.8</td><td></td><td>WALL</td><td>00B SOU2</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 10</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>15 20.3</td><td></td><td>MCGREW</td><td>99 IMB3</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 112</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>6 6.6</td><td></td><td>MCGREW</td><td>99 IMB3</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 13</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>1 1.2</td><td></td><td>BERGER</td><td>89 FREJ</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 10</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>11 14</td><td></td><td>BERGER</td><td>89 FREJ</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 25</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>32 32.8</td><td></td><td>BERGER</td><td>89 FREJ</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 100</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>1 3</td><td></td><td><sup>1</sup> HIRATA</td><td>89c KAMI</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 6</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>73 60</td><td></td><td>HIRATA</td><td>89c KAMI</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 2</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>16 13</td><td></td><td>HAINES</td><td>86 IMB</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 40</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>0 1</td><td></td><td>KAJITA</td><td>86 KAMI</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 7</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>28 19</td><td></td><td>KAJITA</td><td>86 KAMI</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 7</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td></td><td>PARK</td><td>85 IMB</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 2</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>&le; 3</td><td></td><td>BATTISTONI</td><td>84 NUSX</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 5.8</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>1</td><td></td><td>BATTISTONI</td><td>84 NUSX</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 0.3</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>2</td><td></td><td><sup>2</sup> KRISHNA...</td><td>82 KOLR</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 0.1</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td></td><td></td><td><sup>3</sup> CHERRY</td><td>81 HOME</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 0.1</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td></td><td></td><td><sup>4</sup> GURR</td><td>67 CNTR</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ In estimating the background, this HIRATA 89c limit (as opposed to the later limits of WALL 00B and MCGREW 99) does not take into account present understanding that the flux of $\nu_{\mu}$ originating in the upper atmosphere is depleted. Doing so would reduce the background and thus also would reduce the limit here.

² We have calculated 90% CL limit from 1 confined event.

³ We have converted 2 possible events to 90% CL limit.

⁴ We have converted half-life to 90% CL mean life.

$\tau(\rho \to e^+ \eta)$

LIMIT

<table><thead><tr><th>(10<sup>30</sup> years)</th><th>PARTICLE</th><th>CL%</th><th>EVTS</th><th>BKGD EST</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&gt;10000</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td>0.78</td><td>ABE</td><td>17D SKAM</td></tr></tbody></table>

τ4

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

<table><tbody><tr><td>&gt; 4200</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0 0.44</td><td></td><td>NISHINO</td><td>12 SKAM</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 81</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>1 1.7</td><td></td><td>WALL</td><td>00B SOU2</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 313</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0 0.2</td><td></td><td>MCGREW</td><td>99 IMB3</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 44</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0 0.1</td><td></td><td>BERGER</td><td>91 FREJ</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 140</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0 &lt;0.04</td><td></td><td>HIRATA</td><td>89c KAMI</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 100</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0 0.6</td><td></td><td>SEIDEL</td><td>88 IMB</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 200</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>5 3.3</td><td></td><td>HAINES</td><td>86 IMB</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 64</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0 &lt;0.8</td><td></td><td>ARISAKA</td><td>85 KAMI</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 64</td><td>p (free)</td><td>90</td><td>5 6.5</td><td></td><td>BLEWITT</td><td>85 IMB</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 200</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>5 4.7</td><td></td><td>BLEWITT</td><td>85 IMB</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 1.2</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>2</td><td></td><td><sup>1</sup> CHERRY</td><td>81 HOME</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ We have converted 2 possible events to 90% CL limit.

$\tau(\rho \to \mu^+ \eta)$

LIMIT

<table><thead><tr><th>(10<sup>30</sup> years)</th><th>PARTICLE</th><th>CL%</th><th>EVTS</th><th>BKGD EST</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&gt;4700</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>2</td><td>0.85</td><td>ABE</td><td>17D SKAM</td></tr></tbody></table>

τ5

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

<table><tbody><tr><td>&gt;1300</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>2 0.49</td><td></td><td>NISHINO</td><td>12 SKAM</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 89</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0 1.6</td><td></td><td>WALL</td><td>00B SOU2</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 126</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>3 2.8</td><td></td><td>MCGREW</td><td>99 IMB3</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 26</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>1 0.8</td><td></td><td>BERGER</td><td>91 FREJ</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 69</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>1 &lt;0.08</td><td></td><td>HIRATA</td><td>89c KAMI</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 1.3</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0 0.7</td><td></td><td>PHILLIPS</td><td>89 HPW</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 34</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>1 1.5</td><td></td><td>SEIDEL</td><td>88 IMB</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 46</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>7 6</td><td></td><td>HAINES</td><td>86 IMB</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 26</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>1 &lt;0.8</td><td></td><td>ARISAKA</td><td>85 KAMI</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 17</td><td>p (free)</td><td>90</td><td>6 6</td><td></td><td>BLEWITT</td><td>85 IMB</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 46</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>7 8</td><td></td><td>BLEWITT</td><td>85 IMB</td></tr></tbody></table>

$\tau(n \to \nu\eta)$

LIMIT

<table><thead><tr><th>(10<sup>30</sup> years)</th><th>PARTICLE</th><th>CL%</th><th>EVTS</th><th>BKGD EST</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&gt;158</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td>1.2</td><td>MCGREW</td><td>99 IMB3</td></tr></tbody></table>

τ6

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

<table><tbody><tr><td>&gt; 71</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>2 3.7</td><td></td><td>WALL</td><td>00B SOU2</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 29</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>0 0.9</td><td></td><td>BERGER</td><td>89 FREJ</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 54</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>2 0.9</td><td></td><td>HIRATA</td><td>89c KAMI</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 16</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>3 2.1</td><td></td><td>SEIDEL</td><td>88 IMB</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 25</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>7 6</td><td></td><td>HAINES</td><td>86 IMB</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 30</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>0 0.4</td><td></td><td>KAJITA</td><td>86 KAMI</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 18</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>4 3</td><td></td><td>PARK</td><td>85 IMB</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 0.6</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>2</td><td></td><td><sup>1</sup> CHERRY</td><td>81 HOME</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ We have converted 2 possible events to 90% CL limit.

$\tau(N \to e^+ \rho)$

LIMIT

<table><thead><tr><th>(10<sup>30</sup> years)</th><th>PARTICLE</th><th>CL%</th><th>EVTS</th><th>BKGD EST</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&gt;720</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>2</td><td>0.64</td><td>ABE</td><td>17D SKAM</td></tr><tr><td>&gt;217</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>4</td><td>4.8</td><td>MCGREW</td><td>99 IMB3</td></tr></tbody></table>

τ7

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

<table><tbody><tr><td>&gt; 30</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>4 0.87</td><td></td><td>ABE</td><td>17D SKAM</td></tr><tr><td>&gt;710</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0 0.35</td><td></td><td>NISHINO</td><td>12 SKAM</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 70</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>1 0.38</td><td></td><td>NISHINO</td><td>12 SKAM</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 29</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0 2.2</td><td></td><td>BERGER</td><td>91 FREJ</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 41</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>0 1.4</td><td></td><td>BERGER</td><td>91 FREJ</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 75</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>2 2.7</td><td></td><td>HIRATA</td><td>89c KAMI</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 58</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>0 1.9</td><td></td><td>HIRATA</td><td>89c KAMI</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 38</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>2 4.1</td><td></td><td>SEIDEL</td><td>88 IMB</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 1.2</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td></td><td>BARTELT</td><td>87 SOUD</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 1.5</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td></td><td>BARTELT</td><td>87 SOUD</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 17</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>7 7</td><td></td><td>HAINES</td><td>86 IMB</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 14</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>9 4</td><td></td><td>HAINES</td><td>86 IMB</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 12</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0 &lt;1.2</td><td></td><td>ARISAKA</td><td>85 KAMI</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 6</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>2 &lt;1</td><td></td><td>ARISAKA</td><td>85 KAMI</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 6.7</td><td>p (free)</td><td>90</td><td>6 6</td><td></td><td>BLEWITT</td><td>85 IMB</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 17</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>7 7</td><td></td><td>BLEWITT</td><td>85 IMB</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 12</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>4 2</td><td></td><td>PARK</td><td>85 IMB</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 0.6</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>1 0.3</td><td></td><td><sup>1</sup> BARTELT</td><td>83 SOUD</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 0.5</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>1 0.3</td><td></td><td><sup>1</sup> BARTELT</td><td>83 SOUD</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 0.8</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>1</td><td></td><td><sup>2</sup> KRISHNA...</td><td>82 KOLR</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 0.8</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>2</td><td></td><td><sup>3</sup> CHERRY</td><td>81 HOME</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ Limit based on zero events.

² We have calculated 90% CL limit from 0 confined events.

³ We have converted 2 possible events to 90% CL limit.

$\tau(N \to \mu^+ \rho)$

LIMIT

<table><thead><tr><th>(10<sup>30</sup> years)</th><th>PARTICLE</th><th>CL%</th><th>EVTS</th><th>BKGD EST</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&gt;570</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>1</td><td>1.30</td><td>ABE</td><td>17D SKAM</td></tr><tr><td>&gt;228</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>3</td><td>9.5</td><td>MCGREW</td><td>99 IMB3</td></tr></tbody></table>

τ8

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

<table><tbody><tr><td>&gt; 60</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>1 0.96</td><td></td><td>ABE</td><td>17D SKAM</td></tr><tr><td>&gt;160</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>1 0.42</td><td></td><td>NISHINO</td><td>12 SKAM</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 36</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>0 0.29</td><td></td><td>NISHINO</td><td>12 SKAM</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 12</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0 0.5</td><td></td><td>BERGER</td><td>91 FREJ</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 22</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>0 1.1</td><td></td><td>BERGER</td><td>91 FREJ</td></tr><tr><td>&gt;110</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0 1.7</td><td></td><td>HIRATA</td><td>89c KAMI</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 23</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>1 1.8</td><td></td><td>HIRATA</td><td>89c KAMI</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 4.3</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0 0.7</td><td></td><td>PHILLIPS</td><td>89 HPW</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 30</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0 0.5</td><td></td><td>SEIDEL</td><td>88 IMB</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 11</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>1 1.1</td><td></td><td>SEIDEL</td><td>88 IMB</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 16</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>4 4.5</td><td></td><td>HAINES</td><td>86 IMB</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 7</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>6 5</td><td></td><td>HAINES</td><td>86 IMB</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 12</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0 &lt;0.7</td><td></td><td>ARISAKA</td><td>85 KAMI</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 5</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>1 &lt;1.2</td><td></td><td>ARISAKA</td><td>85 KAMI</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 5.5</td><td>p (free)</td><td>90</td><td>4 5</td><td></td><td>BLEWITT</td><td>85 IMB</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 16</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>4 5</td><td></td><td>BLEWITT</td><td>85 IMB</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 9</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>1 2</td><td></td><td>PARK</td><td>85 IMB</td></tr></tbody></table>

$\tau(N \to \nu\rho)$

LIMIT

<table><thead><tr><th>(10<sup>30</sup> years)</th><th>PARTICLE</th><th>CL%</th><th>EVTS</th><th>BKGD EST</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&gt;162</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>18</td><td>21.7</td><td>MCGREW</td><td>99 IMB3</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 19</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td>0.5</td><td>SEIDEL</td><td>88 IMB</td></tr></tbody></table>

τ9

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

<table><tbody><tr><td>&gt; 9</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>4 2.4</td><td></td><td>BERGER</td><td>89 FREJ</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 24</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0 0.9</td><td></td><td>BERGER</td><td>89 FREJ</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 27</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>5 1.5</td><td></td><td>HIRATA</td><td>89c KAMI</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 13</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>4 3.6</td><td></td><td>HIRATA</td><td>89c KAMI</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 13</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>1 1.1</td><td></td><td>SEIDEL</td><td>88 IMB</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 8</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>6 5</td><td></td><td>HAINES</td><td>86 IMB</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 2</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>15 10</td><td></td><td>HAINES</td><td>86 IMB</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 11</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>2 1</td><td></td><td>KAJITA</td><td>86 KAMI</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 4</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>2 2</td><td></td><td>KAJITA</td><td>86 KAMI</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 4.1</td><td>p (free)</td><td>90</td><td>6</td><td></td><td>BLEWITT</td><td>85 IMB</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 8.4</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>6 5</td><td></td><td>BLEWITT</td><td>85 IMB</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 2</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>7 3</td><td></td><td>PARK</td><td>85 IMB</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 0.9</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>2</td><td></td><td><sup>1</sup> CHERRY</td><td>81 HOME</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 0.6</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>2</td><td></td><td><sup>1</sup> CHERRY</td><td>81 HOME</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ We have converted 2 possible events to 90% CL limit.

$\tau(\rho \to e^+ \omega)$

LIMIT

<table><thead><tr><th>(10<sup>30</sup> years)</th><th>PARTICLE</th><th>CL%</th><th>EVTS</th><th>BKGD EST</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&gt;1600</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>1</td><td>1.35</td><td>ABE</td><td>17D SKAM</td></tr></tbody></table>

τ10

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

<table><tbody><tr><td>&gt; 320</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>1 0.53</td><td></td><td>NISHINO</td><td>12 SKAM</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 107</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>7 10.8</td><td></td><td>MCGREW</td><td>99 IMB3</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 17</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0 1.1</td><td></td><td>BERGER</td><td>91 FREJ</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 45</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>2 1.45</td><td></td><td>HIRATA</td><td>89c KAMI</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 26</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>1 1.0</td><td></td><td>SEIDEL</td><td>88 IMB</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 1.5</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td></td><td>BARTELT</td><td>87 SOUD</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 37</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>6 5.3</td><td></td><td>HAINES</td><td>86 IMB</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 25</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>1 &lt;1.4</td><td></td><td>ARISAKA</td><td>85 KAMI</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 12</td><td>p (free)</td><td>90</td><td>6 7.5</td><td></td><td>BLEWITT</td><td>85 IMB</td></tr></tbody></table>
# Baryon Particle Listings

p

<table><tr><td>&gt; 37</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>6</td><td>5.7</td><td>BLEWITT</td><td>85</td><td>IMB</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 0.6</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>1</td><td>0.3</td><td>1 BARTELT</td><td>83</td><td>SOUD</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 9.8</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>1</td><td></td><td>2 KRISHNA...</td><td>82</td><td>KOLR</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 2.8</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>2</td><td></td><td>3 CHERRY</td><td>81</td><td>HOME</td></tr></table>

¹ Limit based on zero events.

² We have calculated 90% CL limit from 1 confined events.

³ We have converted 2 possible events to 90% CL limit.

## $\tau(p \to \mu^+\omega)$

τ11

<table><thead><tr><th>LIMIT<br>(10<sup>30</sup> years)</th><th>PARTICLE</th><th>CL%</th><th>EVTS</th><th>BKGD EST</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&gt;2800</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td>1.09</td><td>ABE</td><td>17D</td><td>SKAM</td></tr></tbody></table>

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

<table><tr><td>&gt; 780</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td>0.48</td><td>NISHINO</td><td>12</td><td>SKAM</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 117</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>11</td><td>12.1</td><td>MCGREW</td><td>99</td><td>IMB3</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 11</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td>1.0</td><td>BERGER</td><td>91</td><td>FREJ</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 57</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>2</td><td>1.9</td><td>HIRATA</td><td>89c</td><td>KAMI</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 4.4</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td>0.7</td><td>PHILLIPS</td><td>89</td><td>HPW</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 10</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>2</td><td>1.3</td><td>SEIDEL</td><td>88</td><td>IMB</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 23</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>HAINES</td><td>86</td><td>IMB</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 6.5</td><td>p (free)</td><td>90</td><td>9</td><td>8.7</td><td>BLEWITT</td><td>85</td><td>IMB</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 23</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>8</td><td>7</td><td>BLEWITT</td><td>85</td><td>IMB</td></tr></table>

## $\tau(n \to \nu\omega)$

τ12

<table><thead><tr><th>LIMIT<br>(10<sup>30</sup> years)</th><th>PARTICLE</th><th>CL%</th><th>EVTS</th><th>BKGD EST</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&gt;108</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>12</td><td>22.5</td><td>MCGREW</td><td>99</td><td>IMB3</td></tr></tbody></table>

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

<table><tr><td>&gt; 17</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>1</td><td>0.7</td><td>BERGER</td><td>89</td><td>FREJ</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 43</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>3</td><td>2.7</td><td>HIRATA</td><td>89c</td><td>KAMI</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 6</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>2</td><td>1.3</td><td>SEIDEL</td><td>88</td><td>IMB</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 12</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>6</td><td>6</td><td>HAINES</td><td>86</td><td>IMB</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 18</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>KAJITA</td><td>86</td><td>KAMI</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 16</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>PARK</td><td>85</td><td>IMB</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 2.0</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>2</td><td></td><td>1 CHERRY</td><td>81</td><td>HOME</td></tr></table>

¹ We have converted 2 possible events to 90% CL limit.

## $\tau(N \to e^+K)$

τ13

<table><thead><tr><th>LIMIT<br>(10<sup>30</sup> years)</th><th>PARTICLE</th><th>CL%</th><th>EVTS</th><th>BKGD EST</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&gt;1000</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>6</td><td>4.7</td><td>KOBAYASHI</td><td>05</td><td>SKAM</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 17</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>35</td><td>29.4</td><td>MCGREW</td><td>99</td><td>IMB3</td></tr></tbody></table>

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

<table><tr><td>&gt; 85</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>3</td><td>4.9</td><td>WALL</td><td>00</td><td>SOU2</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 31</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>23</td><td>25.2</td><td>MCGREW</td><td>99</td><td>IMB3</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 60</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td></td><td>BERGER</td><td>91</td><td>FREJ</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 150</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td>&lt;0.27</td><td>HIRATA</td><td>89c</td><td>KAMI</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 70</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td>1.8</td><td>SEIDEL</td><td>88</td><td>IMB</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 77</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>5</td><td>4.5</td><td>HAINES</td><td>86</td><td>IMB</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 38</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td>&lt;0.8</td><td>ARISAKA</td><td>85</td><td>KAMI</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 24</td><td>p (free)</td><td>90</td><td>7</td><td>8.5</td><td>BLEWITT</td><td>85</td><td>IMB</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 77</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>5</td><td>4</td><td>BLEWITT</td><td>85</td><td>IMB</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 1.3</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td></td><td>Alekseev</td><td>81</td><td>BAKS</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 1.3</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td></td><td>Alekseev</td><td>81</td><td>BAKS</td></tr></table>

## $\tau(p \to e^+K_S^0)$

τ14

<table><thead><tr><th>LIMIT<br>(10<sup>30</sup> years)</th><th>PARTICLE</th><th>CL%</th><th>EVTS</th><th>BKGD EST</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&gt;120</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>1</td><td>1.3</td><td>WALL</td><td>00</td><td>SOU2</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 76</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td>0.5</td><td>BERGER</td><td>91</td><td>FREJ</td></tr></tbody></table>

## $\tau(p \to e^+K_L^0)$

τ15

<table><thead><tr><th>LIMIT<br>(10<sup>30</sup> years)</th><th>PARTICLE</th><th>CL%</th><th>EVTS</th><th>BKGD EST</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&gt;51</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>2</td><td>3.5</td><td>WALL</td><td>00</td><td>SOU2</td></tr><tr><td>&gt;44</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td>&le; 0.1</td><td>BERGER</td><td>91</td><td>FREJ</td></tr></tbody></table>

## $\tau(N \to \mu^+K)$

τ16

<table><thead><tr><th>LIMIT<br>(10<sup>30</sup> years)</th><th>PARTICLE</th><th>CL%</th><th>EVTS</th><th>BKGD EST</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&gt;4500</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>1</td><td>3.08</td><td>1 MATSUMOTO 22</td><td>SKAM</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 26</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>20</td><td>28.4</td><td>MCGREW</td><td>99</td><td>IMB3</td></tr></tbody></table>

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

<table><tr><td>&gt; 40</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>7</td><td>6</td><td>HAINES</td><td>86</td><td>IMB</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 19</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>1</td><td>&lt;1.1</td><td>ARISAKA</td><td>85</td><td>KAMI</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 6.7</td><td>p (free)</td><td>90</td><td>11</td><td>13</td><td>BLEWITT</td><td>85</td><td>IMB</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 40</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>BLEWITT</td><td>85</td><td>IMB</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 6</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>1</td><td></td><td>BATTISTONI</td><td>84</td><td>NUSX</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 0.6</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td></td><td>4 BARTELT</td><td>83</td><td>SOUD</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 0.4</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td></td><td>4 BARTELT</td><td>83</td><td>SOUD</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 5.8</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>2</td><td></td><td>5 KRISHNA...</td><td>82</td><td>KOLR</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 2.0</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td></td><td>CHERRY</td><td>81</td><td>HOME</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 0.2</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td></td><td></td><td>6 GURR</td><td>67</td><td>CNTR</td></tr></table>

¹ MATSUMOTO 22 limit > 4500 × 10³⁰ is derived from the latest dataset SKA IV phase (from 2008 to 2018) with 0.20 Mton-years of exposure.

² MATSUMOTO 22 limit > 3600 × 10³⁰ is derived from a combination of all datasets SKA I,II, III and IV phase (from 1996 to 2018) with a total of 0.37 Mton-years of exposure. Note, the limit from only SKA IV is stronger, because there were some events observed in SKA II.

³ BARTELT 87 limit applies to $p \to \mu^+K_S^0$.

⁴ Limit based on zero events.

⁵ We have calculated 90% CL limit from 1 confined event.

⁶ We have converted half-life to 90% CL mean life.

## $\tau(p \to \mu^+K_S^0)$

τ17

<table><thead><tr><th>LIMIT<br>(10<sup>30</sup> years)</th><th>PARTICLE</th><th>CL%</th><th>EVTS</th><th>BKGD EST</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&gt;150</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td>&lt;0.8</td><td>WALL</td><td>00</td><td>SOU2</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 64</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td>1.2</td><td>BERGER</td><td>91</td><td>FREJ</td></tr></tbody></table>

## $\tau(p \to \mu^+K_L^0)$

τ18

<table><thead><tr><th>LIMIT<br>(10<sup>30</sup> years)</th><th>PARTICLE</th><th>CL%</th><th>EVTS</th><th>BKGD EST</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&gt;83</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td>0.4</td><td>WALL</td><td>00</td><td>SOU2</td></tr><tr><td>&gt;44</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td>&le; 0.1</td><td>BERGER</td><td>91</td><td>FREJ</td></tr></tbody></table>

## $\tau(N \to \nu K)$

τ19

<table><thead><tr><th>LIMIT<br>(10<sup>30</sup> years)</th><th>PARTICLE</th><th>CL%</th><th>EVTS</th><th>BKGD EST</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&gt;5900</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td>1.0</td><td>ABE</td><td>14G</td><td>SKAM</td></tr><tr><td>&gt; 86</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>0</td><td>2.4</td><td>HIRATA</td><td>89c</td><td>KAMI</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹ This ALLISON 98 limit is with no background subtraction; with subtraction the limit becomes > 46 × 10³⁰ years.

² BARTELT 87 limit applies to $n \to \nu K_S^0$.

³ Limit based on zero events.

⁴ We have calculated 90% CL limit from 1 confined event.

⁵ We have converted 2 possible events to 90% CL limit.

## $\tau(n \to \nu K_S^0)$

τ20

<table><thead><tr><th>LIMIT<br>(10<sup>30</sup> years)</th><th>PARTICLE</th><th>CL%</th><th>EVTS</th><th>BKGD EST</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&gt;260</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>34</td><td>30</td><td>1 KOBAYASHI</td><td>05</td><td>SKAM</td></tr></tbody></table>

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

<table><tr><td>&gt; 51</td><td>n</td><td>90</td><td>16</td><td>9.1</td><td>WALL</td><td>00</td><td>SOU2</td></tr></table>

¹ We have doubled the $n \to \nu K_S^0$ limit given in KOBAYASHI 05 to obtain this $n \to \nu K_S^0$ limit.

## $\tau(p \to e^+K^*(892)^0)$

τ21

<table><thead><tr><th>LIMIT<br>(10<sup>30</sup> years)</th><th>PARTICLE</th><th>CL%</th><th>EVTS</th><th>BKGD EST</th><th>DOCUMENT ID</th><th>TECN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>&gt;84</td><td>p</td><td>90</td><td>38</td><td>52.0</td><td>MCGREW</td><td>99</td><td>IMB3</td></tr></tbody></table>