pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.11717 · v2 · pith:R3JBPJLSnew · submitted 2026-06-10 · ✦ hep-ph · hep-th

Evidence for New D_s-Family Molecular States

Dan Jiang , Yin Huang , JiongJiong Zhao This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 09:25 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph hep-th
keywords molecular statesD_s resonancescharmed-strange mesonsmeson exchange potentialsGaussian expansion methodheavy quark flavor symmetryDK* bound states
0
0 comments X

The pith

D_s1(2700) is a pure P-wave DK* molecule and the 2860 states are D*K* molecular states with dominant 1P1 and 5P3 components.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper starts from the known molecular candidates D_s0(2317) and D_s1(2460) and asks whether other observed D_s resonances can be understood as additional K(*)D(*) bound states. It solves the Schrödinger equation for S- and higher partial waves using one-boson exchange potentials from σ, ρ, ω, π, and η mesons inside the Gaussian expansion method. The calculation reproduces the masses and quantum numbers of D_s1(2700), D_s1(2860), and D_s3(2860) as molecular states while also predicting further states with various J^P. If the assignment holds, the charmed-strange spectrum receives a molecular description that supplies concrete data on heavy-quark flavor symmetry breaking.

Core claim

Within the Gaussian expansion method the Schrödinger equation with σ, ρ, ω, π, and η exchange potentials yields bound states whose masses and quantum numbers match D_s1(2700) as a pure P-wave DK* molecule and D_s1(2860), D_s3(2860) as D*K* molecular states dominated by the 1P1 and 5P3 components, respectively; additional molecular states with assorted J^P are predicted.

What carries the argument

Gaussian expansion method solution of the Schrödinger equation for molecular bound states generated by light-meson exchange potentials.

If this is right

  • D_s1(2700) is assigned as a pure P-wave DK* molecule.
  • D_s1(2860) and D_s3(2860) are assigned as D*K* molecular states with dominant 1P1 and 5P3 components.
  • Further molecular states with various J^P quantum numbers are predicted in the same framework.
  • The results supply additional input for studies of heavy-quark flavor symmetry breaking between charm and bottom sectors.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Confirmation would sharpen predictions for unobserved K B(*) molecular states in the bottom-strange sector.
  • Decay patterns of the assigned states could be used to test whether the molecular picture distinguishes them from nearby conventional quark-model levels.
  • The same potential model could be applied to search for molecular partners of the predicted states in other flavor sectors.

Load-bearing premise

The observed D_s resonances are molecular bound states whose masses and quantum numbers are correctly reproduced by the chosen set of light-meson exchange potentials rather than by conventional quark-model configurations.

What would settle it

A precise measurement of the partial decay width of D_s1(2700) into DK* that deviates significantly from the value expected for a pure P-wave molecular state would falsify the assignment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.11717 by Dan Jiang, JiongJiong Zhao, Yin Huang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The explicit expressions are given as follows: MDK∗→DK∗ σ = −4gsg ′ s i q 2 − m2 σ (ǫ2 · ǫ † 4 )F 2 σ Cσ, (10) MDK∗→DK∗ ρ/ω = −2ββ′ gVg ′ V vµ i(−g µν + q µq ν /m 2 ρ/ω) q 2 − m2 ρ/ω (ǫ2 · ǫ † 4 )v ′ νF 2 ρ/ω Cρ/ω, (11) MD ∗K ∗→D ∗K ∗ σ = 4gsg ′ s (ǫ1 · ǫ † 3 ) i q 2 − m2 σ (ǫ2 · ǫ † 4 )F 2 σ Cσ, (12) MD ∗K ∗→D ∗K ∗ π/η = −4gg′ f 2 π ǫi jkǫ i 1 ǫ k† 3 q j i q 2 − m 2 π/η × ǫi jkǫ i 2 ǫ k† 4 q j F 2 π/η Cπ/… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: The presence of a repulsive interaction in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Motivated by the observed $KD^{(*)}$ molecular candidates $D_{s0}(2317)$ and $D_{s1}(2460)$, their bottom--strange counterparts, $K\bar{B}^{(*)}$ molecular states, are naturally expected, although not yet experimentally established. This discrepancy may reflect sizable heavy-quark flavor symmetry breaking, which introduces significant model uncertainties. Current studies of heavy-quark flavor symmetry breaking effects still exhibit strong parameter dependence, and further experimental input is required to constrain these effects, in particular regarding possible additional $K^{(*)}D^{(*)}$ and $K^{(*)}\bar{B}^{(*)}$ molecular states. In this work, we examine whether additional $K^{*}D^{(*)}$ molecular states can be identified among the observed $D_s$ resonances. Within the Gaussian expansion method, we solve the Schr\"{o}dinger equation using $\sigma$, $\rho$, $\omega$, $\pi$, and $\eta$ exchange potentials, systematically including $S$-wave and higher partial waves. We find that $D_{s1}(2700)$ can be interpreted as a pure $P$-wave $DK^{*}$ molecule, while $D_{s1}(2860)$ and $D_{s3}(2860)$ are well described as $D^{*}K^{*}$ molecular states dominated by the $^{1}P_{1}$ and $^{5}P_{3}$ components, respectively. We also predict additional molecular states with various $J^{P}$ quantum numbers. These results provide a new description of the charmed-strange spectrum, and once confirmed will provide additional input data for studies of heavy-quark flavor symmetry breaking effects.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses one-boson-exchange potentials (σ, ρ, ω, π, η) regularized by a monopole form factor and solved via the Gaussian expansion method to interpret observed D_s resonances as molecular states. It assigns D_s1(2700) as a pure P-wave DK* molecule and D_s1(2860), D_s3(2860) as D*K* molecular states (dominated by ^{1}P_{1} and ^{5}P_{3} components), while predicting additional states with various J^P.

Significance. If the assignments are robust, the work supplies a molecular picture of the charmed-strange spectrum and additional constraints on heavy-quark flavor symmetry breaking. The systematic inclusion of higher partial waves via the Gaussian expansion method is a methodological strength.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2] §2 (Formalism): The cutoff Λ in the form factor is adjusted to reproduce the masses of the established D_s0(2317) and D_s1(2460) states before assigning the higher resonances; no scan or error band on Λ is shown, yet the binding energies of the DK* and D*K* channels are known to be sensitive to this parameter, so the claimed matches for D_s1(2700), D_s1(2860) and D_s3(2860) lack demonstrated stability.
  2. [§4] §4 (Numerical results): The calculated masses are presented without uncertainty estimates arising from reasonable variations in the coupling constants or cutoff; this makes it impossible to judge whether the agreement with the experimental values of D_s1(2700) and the 2860 MeV states is within the model’s intrinsic precision.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract and §1 should explicitly state the numerical value(s) of Λ adopted in the fits.
  2. [Table 2] Tables listing the dominant partial-wave components would benefit from an additional column showing the experimental mass for direct comparison.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive report. The two major comments both concern the treatment of model parameters (primarily the cutoff Λ) and the absence of explicit uncertainty quantification. We address each point below and indicate the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§2] §2 (Formalism): The cutoff Λ in the form factor is adjusted to reproduce the masses of the established D_s0(2317) and D_s1(2460) states before assigning the higher resonances; no scan or error band on Λ is shown, yet the binding energies of the DK* and D*K* channels are known to be sensitive to this parameter, so the claimed matches for D_s1(2700), D_s1(2860) and D_s3(2860) lack demonstrated stability.

    Authors: We agree that a demonstration of stability with respect to Λ is desirable. In the present work Λ is fixed by a simultaneous fit to the two established states D_s0(2317) and D_s1(2460), which determines its value for all channels. In the revised manuscript we will add a short subsection (or appendix) that varies Λ within the narrow interval still compatible with the experimental masses of the two calibration states (within their quoted uncertainties) and shows the resulting spread in the predicted masses of the higher resonances. This will quantify the sensitivity and strengthen the robustness claim. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4] §4 (Numerical results): The calculated masses are presented without uncertainty estimates arising from reasonable variations in the coupling constants or cutoff; this makes it impossible to judge whether the agreement with the experimental values of D_s1(2700) and the 2860 MeV states is within the model’s intrinsic precision.

    Authors: We accept the criticism. The current tables list only central values. In the revision we will supplement the numerical results with uncertainty bands obtained by (i) the Λ variation described above and (ii) a modest variation of the coupling constants g_σ, g_ρ, g_ω, g_π, g_η within the ranges commonly adopted in the literature for similar one-boson-exchange studies. The revised tables and figures will display these bands, allowing a direct comparison with experimental errors. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; assignments emerge from numerical solution of fixed potentials

full rationale

The derivation applies the Gaussian expansion method to the Schrödinger equation with σ/ρ/ω/π/η exchange potentials taken from the literature. The abstract states that the method is used to interpret observed resonances as molecular states and to predict additional ones; no text indicates that cutoffs or couplings are refitted to the target Ds1(2700), Ds1(2860) or Ds3(2860) resonances themselves. The matching of masses and dominant partial waves is therefore an output of the calculation rather than an input by construction. No self-citation chain, uniqueness theorem, or ansatz smuggling is invoked to force the result. The framework remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review; the model necessarily relies on several fitted parameters in the meson-exchange potentials and on the assumption that the chosen potentials dominate the binding. No explicit free-parameter list or invented particles beyond the molecular interpretation itself can be extracted from the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5839 in / 1418 out tokens · 17991 ms · 2026-06-27T09:25:49.814330+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    For the D∗K∗→ D∗K∗channel, the exchanges of the π, η, ρ, and ω mesons are taken into account

    Specifically, for the elastic DK ∗→ DK ∗channel, the exchanges of theσ,ρ, andωmesons are included. For the D∗K∗→ D∗K∗channel, the exchanges of the π, η, ρ, and ω mesons are taken into account. To compute the potential V(r) corresponding to Fig. 1, the following e ffective Lagrangians, which describe the interac- 3 FIG. 1: Feynman diagram for the process D(∗...

  2. [2]

    The coe fficients are given by Cσ = 1, Cπ= −3 2 , Cη= 1 6 , Cρ= −3 2 , and Cω = 1 2 , which are obtained from the following isospin relations

    The explicit expressions are given as follows: MDK ∗→DK ∗ σ = −4gsg′ s i q2 −m2 σ (ǫ2 ·ǫ† 4 )F 2 σCσ, (10) MDK ∗→DK ∗ ρ/ω = −2ββ′gVg′ V vµ i(−gµν+ qµqν/ m2 ρ/ω) q2 −m2 ρ/ω (ǫ2 ·ǫ† 4 )v′ νF 2 ρ/ωCρ/ω, (11) MD∗K∗→D∗K∗ σ = 4gsg′ s(ǫ1 ·ǫ† 3 ) i q2 −m2 σ (ǫ2 ·ǫ† 4 )F 2 σCσ, (12) MD∗K∗→D∗K∗ π/η = −4gg′ f 2π ǫi jkǫi 1ǫk† 3 q j i q2 −m2 π/η ×ǫi jkǫi 2ǫk† 4 q j F ...

  3. [3]

    First, we investigate whether the DK ∗interaction alone can form a molecular state

    7. First, we investigate whether the DK ∗interaction alone can form a molecular state. The spin-parity quantum numbers of the system considered in this work are listed in Table I. Since the D and K∗mesons have JP = 0− and 1 −, respectively, a DK ∗molecular state with JP = 0+ is not allowed. In the table, the notation −is used to indicate the absence of th...

  4. [4]

    3 −4. 62 2 . 3 −4. 62

  5. [5]

    8 −12. 01 2 . 8 −12. 01 JP = 2+ 4. 2 −0. 54 JP = 3+ 4. 2 −0. 54

  6. [6]

    7 −4. 53 4 . 7 −4. 53

  7. [7]

    2 −9. 28 5 . 2 −9. 28 JP = 3− × × × × × × P[3S 1/ 3D1] P[3P2/ 3F2] JP = 1+ 0. 7 −0. 11 100 / 0 JP = 2− 1. 8 −0. 06 100 / 0

  8. [8]

    60 100 / 0 2

    2 −4. 60 100 / 0 2 . 3 −4. 62 100 / 0

  9. [9]

    56 100 / 0 2

    7 −14. 56 100 / 0 2 . 8 −12. 01 100 / 0 P[1S 0/ 5D0] P[3S 1/ 3D1/ 5D1] D∗K∗ JP = 0+ 0. 5 −0. 21 99 . 96/ 0. 04 JP = 1+ 0. 5 −0. 59 99 . 83/ 0. 17/ 0

  10. [10]

    8 −4. 30 99 . 99/ 0. 01 0 . 7 −3. 96 99 . 96/ 0. 04/ 0

  11. [11]

    99 100 / 0 0

    1 −14. 99 100 / 0 0 . 9 −11. 22 99 . 99/ 0. 01/ 0 P[1P1/ 3P1/ 5P1/ 5F1] P[1D2/ 3D2/ 5S 2/ 5D2] JP = 1− 1. 2 −1. 58 83 . 29/ 0/ 16. 66/ 0. 05 JP = 2+ 0. 6 −0. 38 0 . 25/ 0/ 99. 72/ 0. 03

  12. [12]

    4 −7. 04 83 . 32/ 0/ 16. 66/ 0. 01 0 . 8 −2. 65 0 . 07/ 0/ 99. 92/ 0. 01

  13. [13]

    6 −15. 52 83 . 33/ 0/ 16. 67/ 0. 01 1 . 0 −7. 29 0 . 03/ 0/ 99. 97/ 0 P[3P2/ 3F2/ 5P2/ 5F2] P[3D3/ 5D3] JP = 2− 1. 2 −0. 43 99 . 56/ 0. 44/ 0/ 0 JP = 3+ 2. 3 −1. 07 100 / 0

  14. [14]

    4 −4. 50 99 . 86/ 0. 14/ 0/ 0 2 . 5 −6. 69 100 / 0

  15. [15]

    6 −11. 10 99 . 94/ 0. 06/ 0/ 0 2 . 7 −14. 19 100 / 0 P[1F3/ 3F3/ 5P3/ 5F3] JP = 3− 1. 6 −0. 82 0 . 49/ 0/ 99. 45/ 0. 05 JP = 0− 0.6 -0.22

  16. [16]

    8 −3. 47 0 . 30/ 0/ 99. 67/ 0. 03 1.1 -8.70

  17. [17]

    0 −7. 16 0 . 21/ 0/ 99. 76/ 0. 02 1.6 -29.87 the value of unity in all three cases. In the present analysis , these channels are dominated solely by the 3D2, 3D3, and 3F3 partial waves, respectively. This feature naturally sugge sts similar bound-state properties for the JP = 2+ and JP = 3+ channels. Our numerical results indeed support this expect a- tio...

  18. [18]

    As αincreases to 0

    21 MeV. As αincreases to 0. 8 and 1. 1, the binding energy rises to 4. 30 MeV and 14. 99 MeV, respectively. We also find that the S -wave component is strongly dominant, contributing about 99. 96% at α= 0. 5, and increasing to nearly 100% as α grows to 1. 1. Another D∗K∗molecular state with a dominant S -wave component is found in the JP = 1+ and JP = 2+ c...

  19. [19]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. [Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  20. [20]

    Oset and A

    E. Oset and A. Ramos, Nucl. Phys. A 635 (1998), 99-120

    1998

  21. [21]

    S. K. Choi et al. [Belle], Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 262001 (2003)

    2003

  22. [22]

    L. Meng, B. Wang, G. J. Wang and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rept. 1019, 1-149 (2023)

    2023

  23. [23]

    Brambilla, S

    N. Brambilla, S. Eidelman, C. Hanhart, A. Nefediev, C. P . Shen, C. E. Thomas, A. V airo and C. Z. Y uan, Phys. Rept.873, 1-154 (2020)

    2020

  24. [24]

    H. X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, Y . R. Liu and S. L. Zhu, Rept. Prog. Phys. 86, 026201 (2023)

    2023

  25. [25]

    H. X. Chen, W. Chen and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 100, 051501 (2019)

    2019

  26. [26]

    F. K. Guo, H. J. Jing, U. G. Meißner and S. Sakai, Phys. Rev. D 99,091501 (2019)

    2019

  27. [27]

    C. W. Xiao, J. Nieves and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 100,014021 (2019)

    2019

  28. [28]

    J. He, Eur. Phys. J. C 79,393 (2019)

    2019

  29. [29]

    C. J. Xiao, Y . Huang, Y . B. Dong, L. S. Geng and D. Y . Chen, Phys. Rev. D 100,014022 (2019)

    2019

  30. [30]

    L. Roca, J. Nieves and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 92, 094003 (2015)

    2015

  31. [31]

    H. X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, T. G. Steele and S. L. Zhu, Phys . Rev. Lett. 115,172001 (2015)

    2015

  32. [32]

    R. Chen, X. Liu, X. Q. Li and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115,132002 (2015)

    2015

  33. [33]

    Yang and J

    G. Yang and J. Ping, Phys. Rev. D 95, 014010 (2017)

    2017

  34. [34]

    Huang, C

    H. Huang, C. Deng, J. Ping and F. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 624 (2016)

    2016

  35. [35]

    M. L. Du, V . Baru, F. K. Guo, C. Hanhart, U. G. Meißner, J. A. Oller and Q. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 (2020), 072001

    2020

  36. [36]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 072001 (2015)

    2015

  37. [37]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 082002 (2016)

    2016

  38. [38]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. Lett. 117,082003 (2016)

    2016

  39. [39]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 222001 (2019)

    2019

  40. [40]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024), 032001

    2024

  41. [41]

    Aubert et al

    B. Aubert et al. [BaBar], Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (2003), 242001

    2003

  42. [42]

    Mikami et al

    Y . Mikami et al. [Belle], Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004), 012002

    2004

  43. [43]

    Besson et al

    D. Besson et al. [CLEO], Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003), 032002 [er- ratum: Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007), 119908]

    2003

  44. [44]

    Godfrey and N

    S. Godfrey and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. D 32 (1985), 189-231

    1985

  45. [45]

    E. E. Kolomeitsev and M. F. M. Lutz, Phys. Lett. B 582 (2004), 39-48

    2004

  46. [46]

    Barnes, F

    T. Barnes, F. E. Close and H. J. Lipkin, Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003), 054006

    2003

  47. [47]

    Faessler, T

    A. Faessler, T. Gutsche, V . E. Lyubovitskij and Y . L. Ma, Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007), 014005

    2007

  48. [48]

    Z. X. Xie, G. Q. Feng and X. H. Guo, Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010), 036014

    2010

  49. [49]

    F. K. Guo, P . N. Shen, H. C. Chiang, R. G. Ping and B. S. Zou, Phys. Lett. B 641 (2006), 278-285

    2006

  50. [50]

    F. K. Guo, P . N. Shen and H. C. Chiang, Phys. Lett. B 647 (2007), 133-139

    2007

  51. [51]

    Gamermann, E

    D. Gamermann, E. Oset, D. Strottman and M. J. Vicente V ac as, Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007), 074016

    2007

  52. [52]

    Zhu and Y

    H. Zhu and Y . Huang, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019), 054031

    2019

  53. [53]

    Mohler, C

    D. Mohler, C. B. Lang, L. Leskovec, S. Prelovsek and R. M. Woloshyn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013), 222001

    2013

  54. [54]

    Altenbuchinger, L

    M. Altenbuchinger, L. S. Geng and W. Weise, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014), 014026

    2014

  55. [55]

    Isgur and M

    N. Isgur and M. B. Wise, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66 (1991), 1130- 1133

    1991

  56. [56]

    Y . R. Liu, H. X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 107, 237-320 (2019)

    2019

  57. [57]

    Z. Y . Wang, J. J. Qi, Q. X. Y u and X. H. Guo, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019), 096009

    2019

  58. [58]

    H. Y . Cheng and F. S. Y u, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014), 114017. 10

    2014

  59. [59]

    Colangelo, F

    P . Colangelo, F. De Fazio, F. Giannuzzi and S. Nicotri, P hys. Rev. D 86 (2012), 054024

    2012

  60. [60]

    Z. Yang, G. J. Wang, J. J. Wu, M. Oka and S. L. Zhu, JHEP 01 (2023), 058

    2023

  61. [61]

    C. B. Lang, D. Mohler, S. Prelovsek and R. M. Woloshyn, Ph ys. Lett. B 750 (2015), 17-21

    2015

  62. [62]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 152003 (2016)

    2016

  63. [63]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS], Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018), 202005

    2018

  64. [64]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. [A TLAS], Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018), 202007

    2018

  65. [65]

    Aaltonen et al

    T. Aaltonen et al. [CDF], Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018), 202006

    2018

  66. [66]

    Neubert, Phys

    M. Neubert, Phys. Rept. 245 (1994), 259-396

    1994

  67. [67]

    A. F. Falk and M. E. Luke, Phys. Lett. B 292 (1992), 119-127

    1992

  68. [68]

    M. E. Luke and A. V . Manohar, Phys. Lett. B 286 (1992), 348- 354

    1992

  69. [69]

    M. Endo, S. Iguro and S. Mishima, [arXiv:2604.27970 [he p- ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  70. [70]

    Becirevic, S

    D. Becirevic, S. Fajfer and S. Prelovsek, Phys. Lett. B 599 (2004), 55

    2004

  71. [71]

    H. Y . Cheng and F. S. Y u, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017), 668

    2017

  72. [72]

    Albertus, E

    C. Albertus, E. Hernandez, J. Nieves and J. M. V erde-V el asco, Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005), 113006

    2005

  73. [73]

    D. M. Li, P . F. Ji and B. Ma, Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011), 1582

    2011

  74. [74]

    F. E. Close, C. E. Thomas, O. Lakhina and E. S. Swanson, Ph ys. Lett. B 647 (2007), 159-163

    2007

  75. [75]

    Godfrey and I

    S. Godfrey and I. T. Jardine, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014), 074023

    2014

  76. [76]

    Z. G. Wang, Chin. Phys. C 32 (2008), 797-802

    2008

  77. [77]

    W. Hao, Y . Lu and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022), 074014

    2022

  78. [78]

    Z. G. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015), 25

    2015

  79. [79]

    Q. T. Song, D. Y . Chen, X. Liu and T. Matsuki, Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015), 30

    2015

  80. [80]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (2014), 162001

    2014

Showing first 80 references.