Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

QCD spin effects in the heavy hybrid potentials and spectra

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper derives a factorized form for the nonperturbative spin-dependent potentials of heavy quarkonium hybrids, in which the heavy-quark dependence sits entirely in known NRQCD coefficients and the rest is flavor-blind gluonic…

desk verdict The formal matching result is the real contribution here; the bottomonium spin-splitting predictions are conditional on a hierarchy assumption that is marginal for the charm fit. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.11699 v2 pith:VBIEG4V4 submitted 2019-08-30 hep-ph hep-exhep-lathep-th

Nora Brambilla , Wai Kin Lai , Jorge Segovia , Jaume Tarrús Castellà This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-exhep-lathep-th PACS 14.40.Pq14.40.Rt31.30.-i
keywords quarkoniumhybridsBorn-Oppenheimereffectivefieldtheoryspin-dependentpotentialsNRQCDmatchingcoefficientsgluoniccorrelatorscharmoniumhybridspectrumbottomoniumXYZstates
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper claims that the spin-dependent forces inside heavy quarkonium hybrids—mesons made of a heavy quark, a heavy antiquark, and a gluonic excitation—separate at short distances into a perturbative piece and a nonperturbative piece that is a product of a known NRQCD matching coefficient and a purely gluonic correlator. Because the gluonic correlator is independent of which heavy quark is present, the same nonperturbative constants fitted to the charmonium hybrid spectrum can be carried over to predict the spin splittings of bottomonium hybrids, which lattice QCD has not yet resolved. This gives an explicit factorized form of the hybrid spin potentials for the first time and a QCD-based route to the spin structure of XYZ states interpreted as hybrids.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the matching of the gauge-invariant two-point Green's function for a hybrid state between weakly-coupled pNRQCD and the Born-Oppenheimer effective field theory for hybrids. In the short-distance regime $r\ll 1/\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$, the heavy-quark pair sees the lowest gluelump with quantum numbers $K^{PC}=1^{+-}$, whose projected states are labeled by $\lambda=0,\pm1$ under the cylindrical symmetry group. The nonperturbative matching coefficients emerge as time-ordered integrals of gluonic field insertions along adjoint Wilson lines between gluelump operators; discrete-symmetry identities reduce these correlators to the few independent tensor components that appear in the final potentials.

What would settle it

Compute one of the gluonic correlators in Eq. (43) or Eqs. (49)-(63) directly on the lattice and compare it with the value extracted from the charmonium fit; disagreement would show that the factorized matching or the flavor-independence claim fails. A lattice computation of the bottomonium hybrid spin splittings compared with the predictions in Figs. 5 and 6 would settle the transfer directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the nonperturbative parts of the eight spin-dependent hybrid potentials $V_{SK}$, $V_{SKb}$, $V_{SLa}$, $V_{SLb}$, $V_{SLc}$, $V_{S2}$, and $V_{S12b}$ can be written as products of the NRQCD matching coefficients $c_F$ and $c_s$ with gauge-invariant gluonic correlators built from gluelump operators, adjoint Wilson lines, and insertions of chromoelectric or chromomagnetic fields. The paper computes the correlator structures explicitly, using charge conjugation, parity, and time reversal to reduce the pNRQCD two-point functions to the operator basis of the hybrid effective field theory. It also shows that the leading spin effect appears already at order $1/m$: a coupling between the angular momentum of the gluonic excitation and the total spin of the heavy-quark pair, which has no counterpart in standard quarkonium and dominates the splittings. Fitting the resulting constants to two lattice determinations of the charmonium hybrid spectrum yields coefficients of natural size, and the flavor-blindness of the correlators then turns those fits into predictions for the bottomonium hybrid spin splittings.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation requires the heavy-quark relative momentum $mv$ to be much larger than $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$; with the charmonium parameters used here ($m_c=1.477$ GeV, $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}=0.5$ GeV) that separation is numerically marginal, so the factorized fit is not quantitatively controlled for charmonium.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The nonperturbative constants extracted from the charmonium hybrid spectrum can be transferred, with only the one-loop mass dependence of $c_F$ and $c_s$, to predict the spin splittings of bottomonium hybrids before a direct lattice calculation exists.
  • Hybrid spin multiplets split differently from ordinary quarkonia because the leading spin-dependent operator is suppressed by only one power of the heavy-quark mass, not two.
  • In the fitted spectrum the nonperturbative contributions reverse the perturbative trend in the spin-triplet states, and the ordering of those states in the higher multiplets is not robustly determined; the paper quantifies that uncertainty.
  • The same operator structure persists at distances $r\sim 1/\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$, where the factorized potentials become generalized Wilson loops, so the present results are the short-distance limit of a more general description.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper, a direct lattice evaluation of one of the gluonic correlators in Eqs. (43) and (49)-(63) would either confirm or falsify the factorized form with no need for the charmonium fit.
  • The paper leaves implicit that the same flavor-blind correlators should control spin splittings in $B_c$ hybrids and, through the generalized BOEFT, possibly the fine structure of doubly heavy tetraquarks.
  • The two fitted lattice data sets differ in light-quark mass, so the drift in the extracted constants gives a rough map of the light-quark-mass dependence of the correlators; a physical-pion-mass spectrum would test whether that dependence is as mild as assumed.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper derives the short-distance matching of the spin-dependent hybrid potentials in the Born-Oppenheimer EFT for quarkonium hybrids from weakly-coupled pNRQCD, expressing the nonperturbative parts of the potentials as products of NRQCD matching coefficients and gauge-invariant gluonic correlators. It then fits eight nonperturbative coefficients to charmonium hybrid lattice spectra from two Hadron Spectrum Collaboration data sets and uses the resulting values to predict spin splittings in the bottomonium hybrid spectrum.

Significance. If the factorization result holds, it is a substantial step: it gives an explicit correlator representation of the spin-dependent hybrid potentials, with the heavy-quark flavor dependence cleanly separated into the NRQCD coefficients c_F and c_s, and it identifies objects that are in principle lattice-computable. The appendices supply the discrete-symmetry identities and angular matrix elements needed to make the calculation reproducible. The numerical section, however, is a calibration rather than a test, and its quantitative control is questionable; this limits the significance of the bottomonium predictions as they currently stand.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II; Sec. IV] The derivation relies on the hierarchy m >> mv >> Lambda_QCD >> mv^2, as stated in Sec. II, but the numerical extraction in Sec. IV uses charmonium with m_c^RS(1 GeV) = 1.477 GeV and Lambda_QCD = 0.5 GeV. For the hybrid wave functions of Ref. [15], typical interquark distances are r ~ 0.2-0.4 fm, giving r Lambda_QCD ~ 0.5-1 and 1/r ~ Lambda_QCD. Hence mv is not parametrically larger than Lambda_QCD for the very system used to determine the eight nonperturbative coefficients, so the multipole expansion and the factorized correlator forms in Eqs. (48) and (74)-(81) are not quantitatively controlled for the charm fit. Since the bottomonium predictions in Figs. 5 and 6 inherit these coefficients, those predictions rest on an assumption that is marginal for the fit. The paper should either present an explicit estimate of the missing O((r Lambda_QCD)^2) corrections or clearly restrict the numerical comparison to an exploratory calibration.
  2. [Sec. IV, Table II] The fitted coefficients are not stable across the two lattice data sets: Vnp(0)_SLa/Lambda^3 changes from +0.81 to -1.32 and Vnp(0)_S12b/Lambda^3 changes from +0.69 to -0.39, with sign changes, while the text itself states that the mass hierarchies among the spin-triplet states of H2 and H4 are not firmly determined. With eight parameters fitted to roughly ten spin splittings, chi^2/d.o.f. = 0.999 cannot be taken as strong support for the factorized form; the charm comparison is a calibration, not a validation. The paper should state this limitation explicitly and propagate the resulting uncertainty into the bottomonium figures.
  3. [Sec. III (after Eq. (41)); Sec. IV] The potentials in Eqs. (34)-(41) are explicitly valid only for 1/r >> Lambda_QCD, and for arbitrary r they should be replaced by generalized Wilson loops. Nevertheless, the Schroedinger equation solved in Sec. IV uses these short-distance forms at all r, and the wave functions from Ref. [15] have support at distances where the expansion parameter is not small. The paper does not estimate the error from integrating the r^2-truncated potentials over the large-r region. A quantitative estimate of this truncation error is needed before the fitted coefficient values and the bottomonium spin splittings can be considered reliable.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV] Table II uses the label Vnp(0)_p×S for the coefficient that Eqs. (34)-(41) and the text call Vnp(0)_SLc; please align the notation.
  2. [Sec. III] The text contains 'simpliest' instead of 'simplest' before Eq. (42); a similar typo ('vaccuum') appears in Appendix A.
  3. [Sec. V] The sentence referring to 'Figs. 6 and 5' should refer to 'Figs. 5 and 6' for consistency with the figure numbering.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the matching derivation is self-contained, the charmonium comparison is an explicitly labeled fit, and the bottomonium spin-splitting predictions are a genuine flavor transfer.

full rationale

The central derivation in Sec. III and Appendices A-B computes the nonperturbative hybrid spin potentials by matching weakly-coupled pNRQCD to the BOEFT, expressing the coefficients in Eqs. (48) and (74)-(81) in terms of newly defined gauge-invariant gluonic correlators in Eqs. (43) and (49)-(63). This derivation does not assume the target spectrum or the fitted values; it is a self-contained field-theory calculation. The numerical determination in Sec. IV is transparently a fit, not a prediction: the paper states 'The eight nonperturbative parameters ... are obtained by fitting the spin-splittings to corresponding splittings from the lattice determinations of the charmonium hybrid spectrum,' and Figs. 3-4 are described as 'The results of the fit'. Thus the charmonium spin splittings are calibrations, and the paper does not present them as independent confirmation. The only predictive step is the transfer to the bottomonium hybrid sector, which uses the derived flavor-independence of the purely gluonic correlators and is genuinely predictive conditional on the stated hierarchy m >> mv >> Lambda_QCD >> mv^2. The paper also explicitly notes the limitation that direct lattice evaluation of the correlators is not yet available, and that the factorization requires r << 1/Lambda_QCD. Self-citations to Refs. [15,19] supply the BOEFT framework, operator basis, and zeroth-order wave functions, but the spin-dependent matching calculation performed here is a new derivation and does not reduce to those citations. No equation is defined in terms of the quantity it purports to predict, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction for the same data set. Therefore no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central matching derivation introduces no new particles, forces, dimensions, or ad hoc constants. The only fitted inputs are the eight nonperturbative coefficients, which are calibrated to charmonium lattice data and then transferred to bottomonium. The main structural assumption is the scale hierarchy, which is stated explicitly and acknowledged as a future release in the conclusions.

free parameters (8)
  • \tilde V_SK^{(0)} / \Lambda_QCD^2 = 1.50 (Ref. [36]), 1.03 (Ref. [37])
    Leading 1/m spin-gluon coupling coefficient, fitted to charmonium hybrid lattice spin splittings.
  • V_SK^{(1)} / \Lambda_QCD^4 = -0.65 (Ref. [36]), -0.51 (Ref. [37])
    Next-to-leading multipole correction to the 1/m spin-gluon potential, fitted to lattice data.
  • V_SKb^{(0)} / \Lambda_QCD^4 = 0.22 (Ref. [36]), 0.28 (Ref. [37])
    Tensor-type 1/m spin-gluon coupling, fitted to lattice data.
  • V_SLa^{(0)} / \Lambda_QCD^3 = 0.81 (Ref. [36]), -1.32 (Ref. [37])
    Standard spin-orbit coefficient, fitted to lattice data.
  • V_SLb^{(0)} / \Lambda_QCD^3 = 1.18 (Ref. [36]), 2.44 (Ref. [37])
    Hybrid generalization of the spin-orbit coefficient, fitted to lattice data.
  • V_SLc^{(0)} / \Lambda_QCD^3 = 0.75 (Ref. [36]), 0.87 (Ref. [37])
    Coefficient of the p x S operator, listed as V_p x S in Table II, fitted to lattice data.
  • V_S2^{(0)} / \Lambda_QCD^3 = -0.26 (Ref. [36]), -0.33 (Ref. [37])
    Total spin-squared coefficient, fitted to lattice data.
  • V_S12b^{(0)} / \Lambda_QCD^3 = 0.69 (Ref. [36]), -0.39 (Ref. [37])
    Hybrid tensor-spin coefficient, fitted to lattice data.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The scale hierarchy m >> mv >> Lambda_QCD >> mv^2 holds for the systems considered.
    Stated in Sec. II; used to justify weakly-coupled pNRQCD and the factorization of nonperturbative correlators. Marginal for charmonium, where m v is not much larger than Lambda_QCD.
  • domain assumption The short-distance hybrid state is described by local gluelump operators G^ia_kappa, with the leading multiplet kappa = 1+-.
    Used in Sec. II B and throughout; the gluelump spectrum is taken from lattice results in Refs. [30-32].
  • standard math The QCD vacuum is invariant under C, P, and T, and the gluon fields and Wilson lines transform as listed in Appendix A.
    Appendix A, Eqs. (A1)-(A12); required to reduce the correlator tensor structures.
  • standard math The integrated gluonic correlators are rotationally invariant, so their tensors can be decomposed as in Eqs. (72) and (73).
    Used around Eqs. (45)-(46) and in Appendix B to project out the operator coefficients.
  • domain assumption The NRQCD matching coefficients c_F and c_s are set to 1 at tree level, except for a one-loop c_F in the leading V_SK coefficient.
    Stated in Sec. II A; used in Eqs. (48) and (74)-(81). O(alpha_s) corrections to most potentials are neglected.
  • domain assumption The eight nonperturbative parameters are heavy-quark-flavor independent and can be transferred from charmonium to bottomonium.
    Basis of the bottomonium prediction in Sec. IV and V. The differences between the two charm fits show residual dependence on light-quark mass, which is not fully controlled.
  • domain assumption Higher-order terms in 1/m and in the multipole expansion contribute only through the estimated uncertainties Delta_p, Delta_np, and Delta_high-order.
    Used in Sec. IV to define the uncertainty boxes; these are parametric estimates rather than computed corrections.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of QCD spin effects in the heavy hybrid potentials and spectra." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VBIEG4V4

@misc{pith2026190811699,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: QCD spin effects in the heavy hybrid potentials and spectra},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VBIEG4V4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.11699}
}
abstract

The spin-dependent operators for heavy quarkonium hybrids have been recently obtained in a nonrelativistic effective field theory approach up to next-to-leading order in the heavy-quark mass expansion. In the effective field theory for hybrids several operators not found in standard quarkonia appear, including an operator suppressed by only one power of the heavy-quark mass. We compute the matching coefficients for these operators in the short heavy-quark-antiquark distance regime, $r\ll 1/\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$, by matching weakly-coupled potential NRQCD to the effective field theory for hybrids. In this regime the perturbative and nonperturbative contributions to the matching coefficients factorize, and the latter can be expressed in terms of purely gluonic correlators whose form we explicitly calculate with the aid of the transformation properties of the gluon fields under discrete symmetries. We detail our previous comparison with direct lattice computations of the charmonium hybrid spectrum, from which the unknown nonperturbative contributions can be obtained, and extend it to data sets with different light-quark masses.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.11699 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The lowest hybrid static energies [33] and gluelump masses [30, 31] in units of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Matching of two-point function in the hybrid BOEFT on the left-hand side to weakly-coupled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Spectrum of the four lowest-lying charmonium hybrid multiplets. The lattice results from Ref. [36] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spectrum of the four lowest-lying charmonium hybrid multiplets. Same as in Figure 3, except [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Spectrum of the four lowest-lying bottomonium hybrids computed by adding the spin-dependent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Spectrum of the four lowest-lying bottomonium hybrids computed by adding the spin-dependent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Hybrid spin-dependent and hybrid-quarkonium mixing potentials at order $(1 /m_Q)^1$ from SU(3) lattice gauge theory

    hep-lat 2025-01 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    First SU(3) lattice computation of the four order-(1/m_Q)^1 hybrid spin-dependent and hybrid-quarkonium mixing potentials at a single lattice spacing.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [19]

    Brambilla, W

    N. Brambilla, W. K. Lai, J. Segovia, J. Tarr´ us Castell` a, and A. Vairo, Phys. Rev.,D99, 014017 (2019), arXiv:1805.07713 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2019

  2. [15]

    Berwein, N

    M. Berwein, N. Brambilla, J. Tarr´ us Castell` a, and A. Vairo, Phys. Rev., D92, 114019 (2015), arXiv:1510.04299 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2015

  3. [1]

    C. J. Morningstar and M. J. Peardon, Phys. Rev., D60, 034509 (1999), arXiv:hep-lat/9901004 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 1999

  4. [2]

    Chen et al., Phys

    Y. Chen et al., Phys. Rev., D73, 014516 (2006), arXiv:hep-lat/0510074 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2006

  5. [3]

    Brambilla et al., Eur

    N. Brambilla et al., Eur. Phys. J., C74, 2981 (2014), arXiv:1404.3723 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2014

  6. [4]

    S. L. Olsen, Front. Phys.(Beijing), 10, 121 (2015), arXiv:1411.7738 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2015

  7. [5]

    Esposito, A

    A. Esposito, A. Pilloni, and A. D. Polosa, Phys. Rept., 668, 1 (2016), arXiv:1611.07920 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2016

  8. [6]

    F.-K. Guo, C. Hanhart, U.-G. Meißner, Q. Wang, Q. Zhao, and B.-S. Zou, Rev. Mod. Phys., 90, 015004 (2018), arXiv:1705.00141 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2018

Show all 49 references
  1. [7]

    Brambilla, S

    N. Brambilla, S. Eidelman, C. Hanhart, A. Nefediev, C.-P. Shen, C. E. Thomas, A. Vairo, and C.-Z. Yuan, (2019), arXiv:1907.07583 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  2. [8]

    L. A. Griffiths, C. Michael, and P. E. L. Rakow, Phys. Lett., 129B, 351 (1983)

    1983

  3. [9]

    K. J. Juge, J. Kuti, and C. J. Morningstar, Contents of LAT97 proceedings, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl., 63, 326 (1998), arXiv:hep-lat/9709131 [hep-lat]

    1998 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Braaten, C

    E. Braaten, C. Langmack, and D. H. Smith, Phys. Rev., D90, 014044 (2014), arXiv:1402.0438 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Braaten, C

    E. Braaten, C. Langmack, and D. H. Smith, Phys. Rev. Lett., 112, 222001 (2014), arXiv:1401.7351 [hep-ph]. 43

    2014 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Braaten, Phys

    E. Braaten, Phys. Rev. Lett., 111, 162003 (2013), arXiv:1305.6905 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  7. [13]

    C. A. Meyer and E. S. Swanson, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 82, 21 (2015), arXiv:1502.07276 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  8. [14]

    R. F. Lebed, Phys. Rev., D96, 116003 (2017), arXiv:1709.06097 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Oncala and J

    R. Oncala and J. Soto, Phys. Rev., D96, 014004 (2017), arXiv:1702.03900 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Brambilla, G

    N. Brambilla, G. Krein, J. Tarr´ us Castell` a, and A. Vairo, Phys. Rev., D97, 016016 (2018), arXiv:1707.09647 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Tarr´ us Castell` a, in9th International Workshop on Charm Physics (CHARM 2018) Novosibirsk, Russia, May 21-25, 2018 (2019) arXiv:1901.09761 [hep-ph]

    J. Tarr´ us Castell` a, in9th International Workshop on Charm Physics (CHARM 2018) Novosibirsk, Russia, May 21-25, 2018 (2019) arXiv:1901.09761 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Soto, Proceedings, 20th High-Energy Physics International Conference in Quantum Chromodynam- ics (QCD 17): Montpellier, France, July 3-7, 2017 , Nucl

    J. Soto, Proceedings, 20th High-Energy Physics International Conference in Quantum Chromodynam- ics (QCD 17): Montpellier, France, July 3-7, 2017 , Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc., 294-296, 87 (2018), arXiv:1709.08038 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Pineda and J

    A. Pineda and J. Soto, Quantum chromodynamics. Proceedings, Conference, QCD’97, Montpellier, France, July 3-9, 1997, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl., 64, 428 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9707481 [hep-ph]

    1998 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Brambilla, A

    N. Brambilla, A. Pineda, J. Soto, and A. Vairo, Nucl. Phys., B566, 275 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9907240 [hep-ph]

    2000 arXiv

  15. [23]

    W. E. Caswell and G. P. Lepage, Phys. Lett., 167B, 437 (1986)

    1986

  16. [24]

    G. T. Bodwin, E. Braaten, and G. P. Lepage, Phys. Rev., D51, 1125 (1995), [Erratum: Phys. Rev.D55,5853(1997)], arXiv:hep-ph/9407339 [hep-ph]

    1995 arXiv

  17. [25]

    A. V. Manohar, Phys. Rev., D56, 230 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9701294 [hep-ph]

    1997 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Brambilla, A

    N. Brambilla, A. Pineda, J. Soto, and A. Vairo, Rev. Mod. Phys., 77, 1423 (2005), arXiv:hep- ph/0410047 [hep-ph]

    2005

  19. [27]

    Brambilla, D

    N. Brambilla, D. Gromes, and A. Vairo, Phys. Lett., B576, 314 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0306107 [hep-ph]

    2003 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Pineda, Phys

    A. Pineda, Phys. Rev., D55, 407 (1997), [Erratum: Phys. Rev.D59,099901(1999)], arXiv:hep- ph/9605424 [hep-ph]

    1997

  21. [29]

    Pineda and J

    A. Pineda and J. Soto, Phys. Rev., D58, 114011 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9802365 [hep-ph]

    1998 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Foster and C

    M. Foster and C. Michael (UKQCD), Phys. Rev., D59, 094509 (1999), arXiv:hep-lat/9811010 [hep-lat]

    1999 arXiv

  23. [31]

    G. S. Bali and A. Pineda, Phys. Rev., D69, 094001 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0310130 [hep-ph]

    2004 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Marsh and R

    K. Marsh and R. Lewis, Phys. Rev., D89, 014502 (2014), arXiv:1309.1627 [hep-lat]

    2014 arXiv

  25. [33]

    K. J. Juge, J. Kuti, and C. Morningstar, Phys. Rev. Lett., 90, 161601 (2003), arXiv:hep-lat/0207004 [hep-lat]

    2003 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Capitani, O

    S. Capitani, O. Philipsen, C. Reisinger, C. Riehl, and M. Wagner, Phys. Rev., D99, 034502 (2019), arXiv:1811.11046 [hep-lat]

    2019 arXiv

  27. [35]

    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Quantum Mechanics: Non-Relativistic Theory , 3rd ed., Course of 44 Theoretical Physics, Vol. 3 (Pergamon Press, 1977)

    1977

  28. [36]

    L. Liu, G. Moir, M. Peardon, S. M. Ryan, C. E. Thomas, P. Vilaseca, J. J. Dudek, R. G. Edwards, B. Joo, and D. G. Richards (Hadron Spectrum), JHEP, 07, 126 (2012), arXiv:1204.5425 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  29. [37]

    G. K. C. Cheung, C. O’Hara, G. Moir, M. Peardon, S. M. Ryan, C. E. Thomas, and D. Tims (Hadron Spectrum), JHEP, 12, 089 (2016), arXiv:1610.01073 [hep-lat]

    2016 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Pineda, JHEP, 06, 022 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0105008 [hep-ph]

    A. Pineda, JHEP, 06, 022 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0105008 [hep-ph]

    2001 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Liao and T

    X. Liao and T. Manke, Phys. Rev., D65, 074508 (2002), arXiv:hep-lat/0111049 [hep-lat]

    2002 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Mueller, O

    L. Mueller, O. Philipsen, C. Reisinger, and M. Wagner, (2019), arXiv:1907.01482 [hep-lat]

    2019 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Bicudo, N

    P. Bicudo, N. Cardoso, and M. Cardoso, Phys. Rev., D98, 114507 (2018), arXiv:1808.08815 [hep-lat]

    2018 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Bicudo, M

    P. Bicudo, M. Cardoso, and N. Cardoso, Proceedings, 35th International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory (Lattice 2017): Granada, Spain, June 18-24, 2017 , EPJ Web Conf., 175, 14009 (2018), arXiv:1803.04569 [hep-lat]

    2018 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Yanagihara and M

    R. Yanagihara and M. Kitazawa, (2019), arXiv:1905.10056 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Eichten and F

    E. Eichten and F. Feinberg, Phys. Rev., D23, 2724 (1981)

    1981

  37. [45]

    Brambilla, A

    N. Brambilla, A. Pineda, J. Soto, and A. Vairo, Phys. Rev., D63, 014023 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0002250 [hep-ph]

    2000 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Pineda and A

    A. Pineda and A. Vairo, Phys. Rev., D63, 054007 (2001), [Erratum: Phys. Rev.D64,039902(2001)], arXiv:hep-ph/0009145 [hep-ph]

    2001 arXiv

  39. [47]

    G. S. Bali, K. Schilling, and A. Wachter, in Quark confinement and the hadron spectrum II. Proceedings, 2nd International Conference on Quark Confinement and the Hadron Spectrum, Como, Italy, June 26- 29, 1996 (1996) pp. 277–280, arXiv:hep-ph/9611226 [hep-ph]

    1996 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Y. Koma, M. Koma, and H. Wittig, Proceedings, 25th International Symposium on Lattice field theory (Lattice 2007): Regensburg, Germany, July 30-August 4, 2007 , PoS, LA TTICE2007, 111 (2007), arXiv:0711.2322 [hep-lat]

    2007 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Koma and M

    Y. Koma and M. Koma, Proceedings, 30th International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory (Lattice 2012): Cairns, Australia, June 24-29, 2012 , PoS, LA TTICE2012, 140 (2012), arXiv:1211.6795 [hep- lat]

    2012 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.