Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 91 references

Strangeonium spectrum with the screening effects and interpretation of $h_1(1911)$ and $X(2300)$ observed by BESIII

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Two newly observed meson states are identified as radially excited P-wave strange-antistrange states.

desk verdict Systematic strangeonium spectrum with a plausible new X(2300)=3^1P1 assignment, weakened by sloppy width reporting and a missing 3P0 parameter. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.11498 v2 pith:RTUOKHSW submitted 2024-12-16 hep-ph

Wei Hao , M. Atif Sultan , Li-Juan Liu , En Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords strangeoniumscreeningeffectsmodifiedGodfrey-Isgurmodel3P0strongdecaysh1(1911)X(2300)phi(2170)
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

This paper aims to show that two recently observed states, h1(1911) and X(2300), are ordinary excited strangeonium mesons rather than exotic configurations. In the modified Godfrey-Isgur quark model with screening, the $2^1P_1$ and $3^1P_1$ $s\bar{s}$ states are predicted at 1934 MeV and 2301 MeV, close to the measured masses of 1911 and 2316 MeV. Using those wave functions, the $^3P_0$ model gives total widths near 100\,--\,120 MeV, again matching experiment. The payoff is a consistent assignment of both states into the strangeonium spectrum and a set of predicted decay channels that future experiments can test.

What carries the argument

The object that carries the argument is the modified Godfrey-Isgur Hamiltonian, a relativized quark model in which the linear confining term $br$ is replaced by the screened potential $V_{\rm scr}(r)=b(1-e^{-\mu r})/\mu$. The flattening of this potential at large $r$ lowers the high radial excitations relative to the unscreened model; the parameter $\mu$ and several other constants are fitted to the low-lying strangeonium benchmarks. The resulting meson wave functions are then inserted into the $^3P_0$ quark-pair-creation model, whose transition operator produces the partial-wave amplitudes and decay widths.

What would settle it

Measure the partial widths of h1(1911) and X(2300) in their observed production channels and compare the $K\bar K^*$ and $K^*\bar K^*$ fractions with the predicted values (about 56%/36% and 35%/12%). If those channels are absent or the total widths differ by more than the model's typical 20\,--\,30% uncertainty, the $2^1P_1$ and $3^1P_1$ assignments are falsified; alternatively, the predicted $3P$ partners near 2290\,--\,2330 MeV would settle the multiplet structure if found or excluded.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that h1(1911) is the $h_1(2^1P_1)$ strangeonium state and X(2300) is its $h_1(3^1P_1)$ partner. With the model parameters fixed to the well established states $\phi(1020)$, $\phi(1680)$, $h_1(1415)$, $f'_2(1525)$, and $\phi_3(1850)$, the calculation gives masses 1934 and 2301 MeV and widths 106 and 112 MeV, in agreement with the measured values of 1911$\pm 6\pm 14$ and 2316$\pm 9\pm 30$ MeV and 149$\pm 12\pm 23$ and 89$\pm 15\pm 26$ MeV. It also assigns X(2000) to $3^3S_1$, $\eta_2(1870)$ to $1^1D_2$, and $\phi(2170)$ to $2^3D_1$, and provides complete mass and width tables for $S$-, $P$-, and $D$-wave strangeonium states.

Load-bearing premise

The screened potential $V_{\rm scr}(r)=b(1-e^{-\mu r})/\mu$, with $\mu$ fitted to low-lying strangeonium states, is assumed to give reliable mass shifts at 1.9 and 2.3 GeV; if it fails there, the predicted masses move outside the experimental errors and the assignments collapse, and the unstated pair-creation strength $\gamma$ carries the width predictions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • h1(1911) should decay mainly to $K\bar K^*$ and $K^*\bar K^*$, with branching fractions about 56% and 36%, and a total width near 100 MeV.
  • X(2300) should decay mainly to $K\bar K^*$, $K^*\bar K^*$, $K^*\bar K_{1B}$, and $K\bar K^*_2(1430)$, with branching fractions about 35%, 12%, 22%, and 26%.
  • X(2000) is naturally placed as the $3^3S_1$ strangeonium state and $\phi(2170)$ as the $2^3D_1$ state, which would remove the need for exotic explanations of those two resonances.
  • The remaining $3P$-wave strangeonium partners $3^3P_0$, $3^3P_1$, and $3^3P_2$ are predicted near 2290\,--\,2329 MeV with widths of about 80\,--\,110 MeV, so their discovery would confirm the multiplet.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If these assignments are confirmed, screened quark models would be validated as quantitative tools for strangeonium up to 2.3 GeV, making exotic interpretations of X(2300) less necessary without ruling them out.
  • A natural extension the paper does not make is to compute electromagnetic and radiative transitions between the assigned states; those branching fractions would be sharper discriminators among quark-model, tetraquark, and molecular pictures.
  • The close spacing of the predicted $3P$ multiplet suggests the 2.3 GeV region contains several nearly degenerate states; high-statistics partial-wave analyses of $\phi\eta$ and $K^*\bar K$ channels could resolve them and provide a direct test.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper investigates the strangeonium mass spectrum and strong decays within a modified Godfrey-Isgur model that replaces the linear confining potential by a screened potential, Eq. (10). The model parameters are fit to five established s̄s states: φ(1020), φ(1680), h1(1415), f2′(1525), and φ3(1850). Using the resulting spectrum and 3P0 decay widths, the authors assign h1(1911) to the h1(2^1P1) s̄s state and X(2300) to the h1(3^1P1) s̄s state, with predicted masses 1934 and 2301 MeV and total widths around 100–120 MeV. They also discuss assignments for X(2000), η2(1870), and φ(2170), and provide predictions for many other S-, P-, and D-wave strangeonium states.

Significance. If the central assignments are correct, the paper gives a unified quark-model interpretation of two recently observed BESIII states as radially excited P-wave strangeonium, with explicit strong-decay branching fractions that can be tested in future experiments. The paper is useful as a systematic model comparison: Table II collects several quark-model predictions, and Tables III–V provide decay widths for a large set of strangeonium states. The authors also clearly state how the screening parameter is introduced and how the input states are selected. The main significance is conditional, however, because the X(2300) assignment depends on an extrapolated screening effect and because the quoted widths for the 2^1P1 state are internally inconsistent.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III.D, Table II, Eq. (10)] The assignment of X(2300) to h1(3^1P1) rests on the screened-potential prediction of 2301 MeV, which is 130–190 MeV below the predictions of the other models quoted in Table II (2435–2490 MeV). This shift comes from the screening term b(1−exp(−μr))/μ with μ=0.05 GeV, which is fitted to states below about 1.9 GeV; the 3^1P1 state therefore probes the saturation regime of the potential beyond the fitted range. The paper does not provide any check of the stability of this mass with respect to μ or to the form of the smearing in Eq. (11), nor an uncertainty estimate. A μ-stability test, or an explicit comparison of the screening shift for low-lying versus 3P-state wave functions, is needed to support the claim that X(2300) is 'well explained' as h1(3^1P1).
  2. [§III.C, Table IV, §IV] The total width of h1(2^1P1) is reported inconsistently: the text of Sec. III.C states 112 MeV and 96 MeV, Table IV gives 103.8 MeV (94.5 MeV with the experimental mass), and the summary in Sec. IV quotes 106 MeV. Since the width agreement with Γ=149±12±23 MeV is part of the evidence for the h1(1911)=h1(2^1P1) assignment, these three values must be reconciled and the convention (theoretical versus experimental input mass) must be stated clearly in every occurrence.
  3. [§II.B, Table I] The 3P0 pair-creation strength γ is never quoted. The transition operator in Eq. (13) is proportional to γ, so all absolute widths in Tables III–V depend directly on this parameter. The paper states that the model parameters are determined using the masses and widths of the five established states, but Table I lists no value for γ and the text mentions only fitting b, c, σ, s, and μ. The value of γ and how it was fixed (fit to which width, or taken from the literature) must be given, otherwise the width predictions are not reproducible and the width-based part of the assignments cannot be assessed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains the typo 'two news states'; it should read 'two new states'.
  2. [Introduction and Table II] The BESIII state is introduced as h1(1900) with mass 1911 MeV, but the paper later refers to it as h1(1911) and Table II labels it X(1911). Please standardize the name used throughout, preferably h1(1911) with a note that some experimental publications call it h1(1900).
  3. [Footnote 1] The footnote states that treating h1(1595) as the 1^1P1 s̄s state was re-evaluated and that the predicted mass 1460 MeV aligns better with h1(1415), but no numerical details of this re-evaluation are given. A sentence or a small table entry showing the h1(1595) mass prediction under the alternative assignment would make this choice transparent.
  4. [§III.F] In the final paragraph of Sec. III.F, the comparison 'the proportion of K̄K(13%) for state 2^3D1 is larger than the one (4%) for the 2^3D1 state' appears to contain a typo: the second state should presumably be 2^3D3.
  5. [Table II] The column headers and entries mix spectroscopic notation with particle names in a way that can be confusing: for example, '2^1P1 X(1911)' and '3^1P1 X(2300)' are used even though the states are axial-vector strangeonium candidates h1(1911) and X(2300). A clearer separation of the quantum-number label from the candidate name would improve readability.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

One minor circular step: the 1^1P1 benchmark h1(1415) is both a fit input and used to justify its own selection; central X(2300) assignment remains a genuine prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Footnote 1, Section III (page 4-5); Table II]
    "For strangeonium, we use ϕ(1020), ϕ(1680), h1(1415), f′2(1525), and ϕ3(1850), which can be regarded as good candidates of s¯s states [5], to fit the model parameters. ... Our analysis shows that the predicted mass (1460 MeV) of the 1 1P1 s¯s state aligns more closely with the h1(1415) than with the h1(1595). Therefore, in this work, we adopt the h1(1415) as the 1 1P1 s¯s state, consistent with Refs. [5,58]."

    The 1 1P1 mass 1460 MeV is the output of the MGI model whose parameters were fitted using h1(1415) (experimental mass ~1409 MeV) as one of the five benchmark states, as quoted above. Consequently, the predicted mass near 1409 MeV is a reproduction of an input, not an independent prediction. The footnote uses this agreement to justify selecting h1(1415) over h1(1595) as the 1 1P1 s¯s state; since h1(1595) was not part of the fitting set, the comparison is biased in favor of the fitted input. This is a fitted input being called a prediction to support an assignment.

full rationale

The central assignments h1(1911)=2^1P1 and X(2300)=3^1P1 are genuine predictions: the MGI model parameters are fitted to five established strangeonium states (φ(1020), φ(1680), h1(1415), f2'(1525), φ3(1850)), none of which are the target states. The predicted masses 1934 MeV and 2301 MeV are not tuned to the measured 1911 and 2316 MeV; they follow from the screened-potential fit and are compared a posteriori. The decay widths similarly use the 3P0 model with wave functions from the MGI model and are not fitted to the target widths. Therefore the central claim has independent content. The one circular step is the footnote: the model's predicted 1^1P1 mass (1460 MeV) is used to justify adopting h1(1415) rather than h1(1595) as the 1^1P1 s-sbar benchmark. But h1(1415) is one of the five states used to fit the model parameters, so the agreement is a reproduction of an input, not a prediction. This makes the benchmark selection partially self-definitional. It is minor, supported by external references [5,58], and does not affect the X(2300) assignment, which remains an extrapolated prediction. The omission of the 3P0 strength γ is a reproducibility gap, not circularity. Overall score: 2.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on five fitted model parameters plus an unreported 3P0 pair-creation strength, and on the domain assumptions that the benchmark states are pure strangeonium and that the screened potential form remains valid at high excitation energies. No new particles or entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • b (string tension) = 0.19318 GeV^2
    Fitted to the masses and widths of the five benchmark strangeonium states in Sec. III.
  • c (constant term) = -0.249 GeV
    Fitted to benchmark strangeonium masses in Sec. III.
  • sigma0 (smeared confinement width) = 1.8401 GeV
    Fitted in the MGI model; controls the smearing of the confining potential.
  • s (exponent for momentum-dependent factors) = 1.554
    Fitted; modifies the momentum dependence of spin-orbit and hyperfine terms.
  • mu (screening parameter) = 0.05 GeV
    Fitted in the screened potential V_scr(r); controls the saturation of the linear confining term.
  • gamma (3P0 pair-creation strength)
    Controls all strong decay widths in Tables III-V, but its value is never stated in the paper.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The five benchmark states phi(1020), phi(1680), h1(1415), f2'(1525), and phi3(1850) are pure s sbar states with negligible mixing and no significant exotic component.
    Used to calibrate the model parameters in Sec. III; if any benchmark has a large non-q qbar component, the fit is biased.
  • ad hoc to paper The screened potential V_scr(r) = b(1 - exp(-mu r))/mu is an adequate representation of unquenched effects for strangeonium at all energies considered.
    Eq. (10); the form is adopted from prior screened-potential models and its validity near 2.3 GeV is assumed without independent evidence.
  • domain assumption h1(1415) is the 1^1P1 s sbar state rather than h1(1595).
    Footnote 1; the choice is justified by the model's own predicted mass, which is a self-referential validation.
  • domain assumption The 3P0 model with MGI wave functions gives reliable absolute decay widths, with uncertainties of order 20-30%.
    Sec. II.B; the gamma parameter is not specified, so the overall scale of the width predictions is not fixed by the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Strangeonium spectrum with the screening effects and interpretation of $h_1(1911)$ and $X(2300)$ observed by BESIII." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RTUOKHSW

@misc{pith2026241211498,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Strangeonium spectrum with the screening effects and interpretation of $h_1(1911)$ and $X(2300)$ observed by BESIII},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RTUOKHSW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.11498}
}
abstract

Motivated by two news states $h_1(1911)$ and $X(2300)$ observed by BESIII, we have investigated the mass spectrum and the strong decay properties of the strangeonium mesons within the modified Godfrey-Isgur model by considering the screening effects. We have determined the free parameters using the masses and widths of the well established $s\bar{s}$ states $\phi(1020)$, $\phi(1680)$, $h_1(1415)$, $f_2^\prime(1525)$, and $\phi_3(1850)$. According to our results, $h_1(1911)$ and $X(2300)$ could be well explained as states $h_1(2^1P_1)$ and $h_1(3^1P_1)$ $s\bar{s}$ states, respectively. Meanwhile, the possible assignments of $X(2000)$, $\eta_2(1870)$, and $\phi(2170)$ as $3^3S_1$, $1^1D_2$, and $2^3D_1$ are also discussed. Furthermore, the masses and widths of the $2S$, $3S$, $1P$, $2P$, $3P$, $1D$, and $2D$ $s\bar{s}$ states are also given and compared with various theoretical predictions, which is helpful for the observations and confirmations of these states in future.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages

  1. [40]

    Higher bottomonium zoo

    Jun-Zhang Wang, Zhi-Feng Sun, Xiang Liu, and Takayuki Matsuki. Higher bottomonium zoo. Eur. Phys. J. C, 78(11):915, 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [1]

    Their conclusion that h1(1911) can be assigned as h1(21P1) aligns with our results

    They computed the mass spectrum and wave functions by di- agonalizing the Hamiltonian matrix using a harmonic os- cillator basis. Their conclusion that h1(1911) can be assigned as h1(21P1) aligns with our results. However, while we interpret X(2300) as h1(31P1), its mass and width remain unexplained in Ref. [40]. This article is organized as follows: In S...

    1911

  3. [2]

    Strange Quarkonium States at BESIII

    Pei-Lian Liu, Shuang-Shi Fang, and Xin-Chou Lou. Strange Quarkonium States at BESIII. Chin. Phys. C, 39(8):082001, 2015

    2015

  4. [3]

    Light-Meson Spectroscopy with COMPASS

    Bernhard Ketzer, Boris Grube, and Dmitry Ryabchikov. Light-Meson Spectroscopy with COMPASS. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 113:103755, 2020. 11

    2020

  5. [4]

    Thomas, Antonio Vairo, and Chang-Zheng Yuan

    Nora Brambilla, Simon Eidelman, Christoph Hanhart, Alexey Nefediev, Cheng-Ping Shen, Christopher E. Thomas, Antonio Vairo, and Chang-Zheng Yuan. The XY Z states: experimental and theoretical status and perspectives. Phys. Rept., 873:1–154, 2020

    2020

  6. [5]

    Modern meson spec- troscopy: the fundamental role of unitarity

    Eef van Beveren and George Rupp. Modern meson spec- troscopy: the fundamental role of unitarity. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 117:103845, 2021

    2021

  7. [6]

    Mass spectrum and strong decays of strangeonium in a constituent quark model

    Qi Li, Long-Cheng Gui, Ming-Sheng Liu, Qi-Fang L¨ u, and Xian-Hui Zhong. Mass spectrum and strong decays of strangeonium in a constituent quark model. Chin. Phys. C, 45(2):023116, 2021

    2021

  8. [7]

    Godfrey and Nathan Isgur

    S. Godfrey and Nathan Isgur. Mesons in a Relativized Quark Model with Chromodynamics. Phys. Rev. D, 32:189–231, 1985

    1985

Show all 91 references
  1. [8]

    Burakovsky and J

    L. Burakovsky and J. Terrance Goldman. Constraint on axial - vector meson mixing angle from nonrelativistic constituent quark model. Phys. Rev. D, 56:R1368–R1372, 1997

    1997

  2. [9]

    Excited states of ϕ meson

    Cheng-Qun Pang. Excited states of ϕ meson. Phys. Rev. D, 99(7):074015, 2019

    2019

  3. [10]

    Evaluation of the θK and the Mixing angle θh1

    Ya Gao, Yateng Zhang, Bo Zheng, Zhen-Hua Zhang, Wenbiao Yan, and Xiaohua Li. Evaluation of the θK and the Mixing angle θh1 . arXiv: 1911.06967, 2019

    1911 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Revisiting Axial-Vector Meson Mixing

    Hai-Yang Cheng. Revisiting Axial-Vector Meson Mixing. Phys. Lett. B, 707:116–120, 2012

    2012

  5. [12]

    Burakovsky and J

    L. Burakovsky and J. Terrance Goldman. Towards res- olution of the enigmas of P wave meson spectroscopy. Phys. Rev. D, 57:2879–2888, 1998

    1998

  6. [13]

    Regarding the axial- vector mesons

    De-Min Li, Bing Ma, and Hong Yu. Regarding the axial- vector mesons. Eur. Phys. J. A, 26:141–145, 2005

    2005

  7. [14]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. Study of the decay J/ψ → ϕπ0η. 11 2023

    2023

  8. [15]

    Observation and study of the de- cay J/ψ → ϕηη ′

    Medina Ablikim et al. Observation and study of the de- cay J/ψ → ϕηη ′. Phys. Rev. D, 99(11):112008, 2019

    2019

  9. [16]

    Observation of an axial-vector state in the study of ψ(3686) → ϕηη ′ decay

    Medina Ablikim et al. Observation of an axial-vector state in the study of ψ(3686) → ϕηη ′ decay. 10 2024

    2024

  10. [17]

    Brown and William I

    Lowell S. Brown and William I. Weisberger. Remarks on the Static Potential in Quantum Chromodynamics. Phys. Rev. D, 20:3239, 1979

    1979

  11. [18]

    Eichten and F

    E. Eichten and F. Feinberg. Spin Dependent Forces in QCD. Phys. Rev. D, 23:2724, 1981

    1981

  12. [19]

    S. N. Gupta and S. F. Radford. Quark Quark and Quark - Anti-quark Potentials. Phys. Rev. D, 24:2309–2323, 1981

    1981

  13. [20]

    Pantaleone, S

    James T. Pantaleone, S. H. Henry Tye, and Yee Jack Ng. Spin Splittings in Heavy Quarkonia. Phys. Rev. D, 33:777, 1986

    1986

  14. [21]

    Olga Lakhina and Eric S. Swanson. A Canonical Ds(2317)? Phys. Lett. B, 650:159–165, 2007

    2007

  15. [22]

    Coupled-Channel Effects for the Bottomonium with Re- alistic Wave Functions.Phys

    Yu Lu, Muhammad Naeem Anwar, and Bing-Song Zou. Coupled-Channel Effects for the Bottomonium with Re- alistic Wave Functions.Phys. Rev. D, 94(3):034021, 2016

    2016

  16. [23]

    Ferretti, G

    J. Ferretti, G. Galata, E. Santopinto, and A. Vassallo. Bottomonium self-energies due to the coupling to the meson-meson continuum. Phys. Rev. C, 86:015204, 2012

    2012

  17. [24]

    Ferretti, G

    J. Ferretti, G. Galat` a, and E. Santopinto. Interpreta- tion of the X(3872) as a charmonium state plus an extra component due to the coupling to the meson-meson con- tinuum. Phys. Rev. C, 88(1):015207, 2013

    2013

  18. [25]

    Ortega, Jorge Segovia, David R

    Pablo G. Ortega, Jorge Segovia, David R. Entem, and Francisco Fernandez. Molecular components in P -wave charmed-strange mesons. Phys. Rev. D, 94(7):074037, 2016

    2016

  19. [26]

    Coupled channel effects for the charmed-strange mesons

    Wei Hao, Yu Lu, and Bing-Song Zou. Coupled channel effects for the charmed-strange mesons. Phys. Rev. D, 106(7):074014, 2022

    2022

  20. [27]

    The mass spectrum and strong decay properties of the charmed-strange mesons within Godfrey–Isgur model considering the coupled-channel ef- fects

    Jing-Jing Yang, Wei Hao, Xiaoyu Wang, De-Min Li, Yu- Xiao Li, and En Wang. The mass spectrum and strong decay properties of the charmed-strange mesons within Godfrey–Isgur model considering the coupled-channel ef- fects. Eur. Phys. J. C, 83(12):1098, 2023

    2023

  21. [28]

    Beauty-charm meson fam- ily with coupled channel effects and their strong decays

    Wei Hao and Ruilin Zhu. Beauty-charm meson fam- ily with coupled channel effects and their strong decays. Chin. Phys. C, 48(12):123101, 2024

    2024

  22. [29]

    Atif Sultan, and En Wang

    Wei Hao, M. Atif Sultan, and En Wang. Spectrum and decay properties of the charmed mesons involving the coupled channel effects. arXiv: 2411.02976, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Laermann, F

    E. Laermann, F. Langhammer, I. Schmitt, and P. M. Zerwas. The Interquark Potential: SU(2) Color Gauge Theory With Fermions. Phys. Lett. B, 173:437–442, 1986

    1986

  24. [31]

    K. D. Born, E. Laermann, N. Pirch, T. F. Walsh, and P. M. Zerwas. Hadron Properties in Lattice QCD With Dynamical Fermions. Phys. Rev. D, 40:1653–1663, 1989

    1989

  25. [32]

    Beyond The Quenched (or Probe Brane) Approximation in Lattice (or Holographic) QCD

    Adi Armoni. Beyond The Quenched (or Probe Brane) Approximation in Lattice (or Holographic) QCD. Phys. Rev. D, 78:065017, 2008

    2008

  26. [33]

    Coupled- Channel and Screening Effects in Charmonium Spec- trum

    Bai-Qing Li, Ce Meng, and Kuang-Ta Chao. Coupled- Channel and Screening Effects in Charmonium Spec- trum. Phys. Rev. D, 80:014012, 2009

    2009

  27. [34]

    Canonical interpretation of the X(4140) state within the 3P0 model

    Wei Hao, Guan-Ying Wang, En Wang, Guan-Nan Li, and De-Min Li. Canonical interpretation of the X(4140) state within the 3P0 model. Eur. Phys. J. C, 80(7):626, 2020. 12

    2020

  28. [35]

    The assign- ments of the bottom mesons within the screened po- tential model and 3P0 model

    Xue-Chao Feng, Wei Hao, and li-Juan Liu. The assign- ments of the bottom mesons within the screened po- tential model and 3P0 model. Int. J. Mod. Phys. E, 31(07):2250066, 2022

    2022

  29. [36]

    The assignments of the Bs mesons within the screened potential model and 3P0 model

    Wei Hao, Yu Lu, and En Wang. The assignments of the Bs mesons within the screened potential model and 3P0 model. Eur. Phys. J. C, 83(6):520, 2023

    2023

  30. [37]

    Higher radial and orbital excitations in the charmed meson family.Phys

    Qin-Tao Song, Dian-Yong Chen, Xiang Liu, and Takayuki Matsuki. Higher radial and orbital excitations in the charmed meson family.Phys. Rev. D, 92(7):074011, 2015

    2015

  31. [38]

    Charmed-strange mesons revisited: mass spectra and strong decays

    Qin-Tao Song, Dian-Yong Chen, Xiang Liu, and Takayuki Matsuki. Charmed-strange mesons revisited: mass spectra and strong decays. Phys. Rev. D, 91:054031, 2015

    2015

  32. [39]

    Constructing J/ψ family with up- dated data of charmoniumlike Y states

    Jun-Zhang Wang, Dian-Yong Chen, Xiang Liu, and Takayuki Matsuki. Constructing J/ψ family with up- dated data of charmoniumlike Y states. Phys. Rev. D, 99(11):114003, 2019

    2019

  33. [41]

    New states X(1910) and X(2300) and higher light excited JPC=1+- mesons

    Ya-Rong Wang, Xiao-Hai Liu, Cheng-Qun Pang, and Hao Chen. New states X(1910) and X(2300) and higher light excited JPC=1+- mesons. Phys. Rev. D, 111(5):054005, 2025

    1910

  34. [42]

    Assignments of the Y(2040), ρ(1900), and ρ(2150) in the quark model

    Zheng-Ya Li, De-Min Li, En Wang, Wen-Cheng Yan, and Qin-Tao Song. Assignments of the Y(2040), ρ(1900), and ρ(2150) in the quark model. Phys. Rev. D, 104(3):034013, 2021

    1900

  35. [43]

    Mass spectra and decay properties of the higher excited ρ mesons

    Xue-Chao Feng, Zheng-Ya Li, De-Min Li, Qin-Tao Song, En Wang, and Wen-Cheng Yan. Mass spectra and decay properties of the higher excited ρ mesons. Phys. Rev. D, 106(7):076012, 2022

    2022

  36. [44]

    L. Micu. Decay rates of meson resonances in a quark model. Nucl. Phys. B, 10:521–526, 1969

    1969

  37. [45]

    Le Yaouanc, L

    A. Le Yaouanc, L. Oliver, O. Pene, and J. C. Raynal. Naive quark pair creation model of strong interaction vertices. Phys. Rev. D, 8:2223–2234, 1973

    1973

  38. [46]

    Le Yaouanc, L

    A. Le Yaouanc, L. Oliver, O. Pene, and J. C. Ray- nal. Naive quark pair creation model and baryon decays. Phys. Rev. D, 9:1415–1419, 1974

    1974

  39. [47]

    Canonical interpretation of the η2(1870)

    De-Min Li and En Wang. Canonical interpretation of the η2(1870). Eur. Phys. J. C, 63:297–304, 2009

    2009

  40. [48]

    Strong decays of the X(2500) newly observed by the BE- SIII Collaboration

    Ting-Ting Pan, Qi-Fang L¨ u, En Wang, and De-Min Li. Strong decays of the X(2500) newly observed by the BE- SIII Collaboration. Phys. Rev. D, 94(5):054030, 2016

    2016

  41. [49]

    Excited bottom and bottom-strange mesons in the quark model

    Qi-Fang L¨ u, Ting-Ting Pan, Yan-Yan Wang, En Wang, and De-Min Li. Excited bottom and bottom-strange mesons in the quark model. Phys. Rev. D, 94(7):074012, 2016

    2016

  42. [50]

    Strong decays of the higher isovector scalar mesons

    Guan-Ying Wang, Shi-Chen Xue, Guan-Nan Li, En Wang, and De-Min Li. Strong decays of the higher isovector scalar mesons. Phys. Rev. D, 97(3):034030, 2018

    2018

  43. [51]

    The possible members of the 51S0 meson nonet

    Shi-Chen Xue, Guan-Ying Wang, Guan-Nan Li, En Wang, and De-Min Li. The possible members of the 51S0 meson nonet. Eur. Phys. J. C, 78(6):479, 2018

    2018

  44. [52]

    Ferretti and E

    J. Ferretti and E. Santopinto. Higher mass bottomonia. Phys. Rev. D, 90(9):094022, 2014

    2014

  45. [53]

    Jacob and G

    M. Jacob and G. C. Wick. On the General Theory of Collisions for Particles with Spin. Annals Phys., 7:404– 428, 1959

    1959

  46. [54]

    Beyond the Wave Function at the Origin: Some Momentum Dependent Ef- fects in the Nonrelativistic Quark Model

    Cameron Hayne and Nathan Isgur. Beyond the Wave Function at the Origin: Some Momentum Dependent Ef- fects in the Nonrelativistic Quark Model. Phys. Rev. D, 25:1944, 1982

    1944

  47. [55]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. Review of particle physics. Phys. Rev. D, 110(3):030001, 2024

    2024

  48. [56]

    A possible explanation of the threshold en- hancement in the process e+e− → Λ ¯Λ

    Li-Ye Xiao, Xin-Zhen Weng, Xian-Hui Zhong, and Shi- Lin Zhu. A possible explanation of the threshold en- hancement in the process e+e− → Λ ¯Λ. Chin. Phys. C, 43(11):113105, 2019

    2019

  49. [57]

    Ebert, R

    D. Ebert, R. N. Faustov, and V. O. Galkin. Mass spectra and Regge trajectories of light mesons in the relativistic quark model. Phys. Rev. D, 79:114029, 2009

    2009

  50. [58]

    Light Quark Meson Spec- trum in the Covariant Oscillator Quark Model With One Gluon Exchange Effects

    Shin Ishida and Kenji Yamada. Light Quark Meson Spec- trum in the Covariant Oscillator Quark Model With One Gluon Exchange Effects. Phys. Rev. D, 35:265, 1987

    1987

  51. [59]

    Vijande, F

    J. Vijande, F. Fernandez, and A. Valcarce. Constituent quark model study of the meson spectra. J. Phys. G, 31:481, 2005

    2005

  52. [60]

    Moats, and E

    Stephen Godfrey, K. Moats, and E. S. Swanson. B and Bs Meson Spectroscopy. Phys. Rev. D, 94(5):054025, 2016

    2016

  53. [61]

    Bertanza et al

    L. Bertanza et al. Possible Resonances in the Ξ π and K ¯K Systems. Phys. Rev. Lett., 9:180–183, 1962

    1962

  54. [62]

    F. Mane, D. Bisello, J. C. Bizot, J. Buon, A. Cordier, and B. Delcourt. Study of e+e− → K 0 SK ±π∓ in the 1.4- GeV to 2.18-GeV Energy Range: A New Observation of an Isoscalar Vector Meson ϕ′ (1.65-GeV). Phys. Lett. B, 112:178–182, 1982. 13

    1982

  55. [63]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. Amplitude analysis of the KSKS sys- tem produced in radiative J/ψ decays. Phys. Rev. D, 98(7):072003, 2018

    2018

  56. [64]

    Albrecht et al

    M. Albrecht et al. Coupled channel analysis of ¯ pp → π0π0η, π0ηη and K +K −π0 at 900 MeV/c and of ππ- scattering data. Eur. Phys. J. C, 80(5):453, 2020

    2020

  57. [65]

    A. V. Sarantsev, I. Denisenko, U. Thoma, and E. Klempt. Scalar isoscalar mesons and the scalar glueball from ra- diative J/ψ decays. Phys. Lett. B, 816:136227, 2021

    2021

  58. [66]

    Observation of h1(1380) in the J/ψ → η′K ¯Kπ decay

    Medina Ablikim et al. Observation of h1(1380) in the J/ψ → η′K ¯Kπ decay. Phys. Rev. D, 98(7):072005, 2018

    2018

  59. [67]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. Partial wave analysis of J/ψ → γη ′η′. Phys. Rev. D, 105(7):072002, 2022

    2022

  60. [68]

    Sakai, Wei-Hong Liang, and E

    Sheng-Juan Jiang, S. Sakai, Wei-Hong Liang, and E. Oset. The χcJ decay to ϕK ∗ ¯K, ϕh1(1380) testing the nature of axial vector meson resonances. Phys. Lett. B, 797:134831, 2019

    2019

  61. [69]

    L. Roca, E. Oset, and J. Singh. Low lying axial-vector mesons as dynamically generated resonances. Phys. Rev. D, 72:014002, 2005

    2005

  62. [70]

    Is the f1(1420) Our First Hybrid Meson? Prog

    Shin Ishida, Masuho Oda, Haruhiko Sawazaki, and Kenji Yamada. Is the f1(1420) Our First Hybrid Meson? Prog. Theor. Phys., 82:119, 1989

    1989

  63. [71]

    Longacre

    Ronald S. Longacre. The E(1420) Meson as a K ¯Kπ Molecule. Phys. Rev. D, 42:874–883, 1990

    1990

  64. [72]

    V. R. Debastiani, F. Aceti, Wei-Hong Liang, and E. Oset. Revising the f1(1420) resonance. Phys. Rev. D, 95(3):034015, 2017

    2017

  65. [73]

    Abdallah et al

    J. Abdallah et al. Measurement of inclusive f1(1285) and f1(1420) production in Z decays with the DELPHI detector. Phys. Lett. B, 569:129–139, 2003

    2003

  66. [74]

    Barnes, N

    T. Barnes, N. Black, and P. R. Page. Strong decays of strange quarkonia. Phys. Rev. D, 68:054014, 2003

    2003

  67. [75]

    Roberts and B

    W. Roberts and B. Silvestre-Brac. Meson decays in a quark model. Phys. Rev. D, 57:1694–1702, 1998

    1998

  68. [76]

    L. S. Geng and E. Oset. Vector meson-vector meson interaction in a hidden gauge unitary approach. Phys. Rev. D, 79:074009, 2009

    2009

  69. [77]

    Tests on the molecular structure of f2(1270), f ′ 2(1525) from ψ(nS) and Υ( nS) decays

    Lianrong Dai and Eulogio Oset. Tests on the molecular structure of f2(1270), f ′ 2(1525) from ψ(nS) and Υ( nS) decays. Eur. Phys. J. A, 49:130, 2013

    2013

  70. [78]

    Ju-Jun Xie and E. Oset. ¯B0 and ¯B0 s decays into J/ψ and f0(1370), f0(1710), f2(1270), f′ 2(1525), K∗ 2 (1430). Phys. Rev. D, 90(9):094006, 2014

    2014

  71. [79]

    Nagahiro, L

    H. Nagahiro, L. Roca, E. Oset, and B. S. Zou. Role of meson loops in the f0 (1370), f0 (1500), and f0 (1710) decays into V gamma. Phys. Rev. D, 78:014012, 2008

    2008

  72. [80]

    Abreu, Lianrong Dai, and Eulogio Oset

    Luciano M. Abreu, Lianrong Dai, and Eulogio Oset. J/ ψ decay to ϕ,ω,K∗0 plus f0(1370), f0(1710), K0 ∗(1430), f2(1270), f2’(1525) and K2 ∗(1430): Role of the D-wave for tensor production. Phys. Lett. B, 843:137999, 2023

    2023

  73. [81]

    Karch et al

    K. Karch et al. Analysis of the ηπ 0π0 final state in photon-photon collisions. Z. Phys. C, 54:33–44, 1992

    1992

  74. [82]

    Al-Harran et al

    S. Al-Harran et al. Observation of a K ¯K Enhancement at 1.85-GeV in the Reaction K −P → K ¯KΛ at 8.25-GeV/c. Phys. Lett. B, 101:357–360, 1981

    1981

  75. [83]

    Aston et al

    D. Aston et al. Spin Parity Determination of the ϕJ (1850) From K −p Interactions at 11-GeV/ c. Phys. Lett. B, 208:324–330, 1988

    1988

  76. [84]

    A Structure at 2175-MeV in e+e− → ϕf0(980) Observed via Initial-State Radiation

    Bernard Aubert et al. A Structure at 2175-MeV in e+e− → ϕf0(980) Observed via Initial-State Radiation. Phys. Rev. D, 74:091103, 2006

    2006

  77. [85]

    Measurement of e+e− → ϕπ+π− cross sections at center-of-mass energies from 2.00 to 3.08 GeV

    Medina Ablikim et al. Measurement of e+e− → ϕπ+π− cross sections at center-of-mass energies from 2.00 to 3.08 GeV. Phys. Rev. D, 108(3):032011, 2023

    2023

  78. [86]

    ϕ(2170)(2170) production in the process γp → ηϕp

    Chen-Guang Zhao, Guan-Ying Wang, Guan-Nan Li, En Wang, and De-Min Li. ϕ(2170)(2170) production in the process γp → ηϕp. Phys. Rev. D, 99(11):114014, 2019

    2019

  79. [87]

    Strong Decays of the ϕ(2170) as a Fully Strange Tetraquark State

    Yi-Wei Jiang, Wei-Han Tan, Hua-Xing Chen, and Er- Liang Cui. Strong Decays of the ϕ(2170) as a Fully Strange Tetraquark State. Symmetry, 16(8):1021, 2024

    2024

  80. [88]

    Malabarba, K

    Brenda B. Malabarba, K. P. Khemchandani, and A. Mar- tinez Torres. ϕ(2170) decaying to ϕη and ϕη’. Phys. Rev. D, 108(3):036010, 2023

    2023

  81. [89]

    Malabarba, Xiu-Lei Ren, K

    Brenda B. Malabarba, Xiu-Lei Ren, K. P. Khem- chandani, and A. Martinez Torres. Partial decay widths of ϕ(2170) to kaonic resonances. Phys. Rev. D, 103(1):016018, 2021

    2021

  82. [90]

    Martinez Torres, K

    A. Martinez Torres, K. P. Khemchandani, L. S. Geng, M. Napsuciale, and E. Oset. The X(2175) as a reso- nant state of the phi K anti-K system. Phys. Rev. D, 78:074031, 2008

    2008

  83. [91]

    Alvarez-Ruso, J

    L. Alvarez-Ruso, J. A. Oller, and J. M. Alarcon. On the phi(1020) f0(980) S-wave scattering and the Y(2175) resonance. Phys. Rev. D, 80:054011, 2009

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.