Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 52 references

Fully heavy asymmetric scalar tetraquarks

T0 review · 2 major / 6 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 QCD sum rules predict two new tetraquarks, Tb and Tc, with masses 15.7 and 9.7 GeV and widths 36 and 55 MeV.

desk verdict Competent sum-rule paper, first quantitative fall-apart widths for these two tetraquarks, but the widths rest on an uncontrolled form-factor extrapolation and the T_b width error omits the dominant mass uncertainty. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.16068 v2 pith:LE5XWAIC submitted 2024-12-20 hep-ph hep-exhep-lat

S. S. Agaev , K. Azizi , H. Sundu This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-exhep-lat
keywords fullyheavytetraquarksscalarQCDsumrulesdiquark-antidiquarkstatesexotichadronsstrongdecaywidthbottom-charm
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 predicts two new fully heavy exotic mesons: a negatively charged scalar state $T_b$ with quark content $bb\bar{b}\bar{c}$ and mass $(15698\pm95)$ MeV, and a positively charged scalar $T_c$ with content $cc\bar{c}\bar{b}$ and mass $(9680\pm102)$ MeV. They are modeled as axial-vector diquark-antidiquark pairs and computed with QCD sum rules. Because both masses lie above the thresholds for decay into two ordinary heavy mesons, the paper argues they should be seen as narrow 'fall-apart' resonances: $T_b\to\eta_b B_c^-$ with width $(36.0\pm10.4)$ MeV, and $T_c\to\eta_c B_c^+$ plus $J/\psi B_c^{*+}$ with combined width $(54.7\pm12.6)$ MeV. These numbers give experimental searches a concrete target.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a pair of axial-vector diquark-antidiquark interpolating currents, e.g. $J(x)=b_a^T C\gamma_\mu b_b(x)\,[\bar b_a\gamma^\mu C\bar c_b^T-\bar b_b\gamma^\mu C\bar c_a^T]$, with an analogous $c$-quark current for $T_c$. These currents pick out the color-antisymmetric $[\mathbf{3}_c]\otimes[\mathbf{3}_c]$ diquark configuration. Two-point QCD sum rules for these currents yield the masses and current couplings, while three-point correlation functions involving the tetraquark current and two meson currents yield the strong form factors $G(q^2)$, $g_1(q^2)$, and $g_2(q^2)$. The widths follow from reading each form factor at its physical meson mass shell through an exponential fit, $G(Q^2)=G_0\exp[c_1 Q^2/m^2+c_2(Q^2/m^2)^2]$, to the Euclidean sum-rule points.

What would settle it

Search the $\eta_b B_c^-$ invariant-mass spectrum near 15.7 GeV and the $\eta_c B_c^+$ and $J/\psi B_c^{*+}$ spectra near 9.7 GeV: finding no peak at the predicted masses, or a peak whose width is far from $(36.0\pm10.4)$ MeV for $T_b$ and $(54.7\pm12.6)$ MeV for $T_c$, would refute the paper's central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's claim is that the scalar four-quark states $T_b=bb\bar{b}\bar{c}$ and $T_c=cc\bar{c}\bar{b}$ can be described as diquark-antidiquark systems built from axial-vector diquarks, and that QCD sum rules then determine their masses, current couplings, and strong decay widths. The extracted masses, $m=(15698\pm95)$ MeV and $\tilde{m}=(9680\pm102)$ MeV, lie above the lowest two-meson thresholds, $\eta_b B_c^-$ for $T_b$ and $\eta_c B_c^+$ for $T_c$, so both states are predicted to be unstable under fall-apart decays. Computing three-point sum rules for the relevant vertices gives $\Gamma[T_b\to\eta_b B_c^-]=(36.0\pm10.4)$ MeV and a combined $\Gamma[T_c]=(54.7\pm12.6)$ MeV from the $\eta_c B_c^+$ and $J/\psi B_c^{*+}$ channels. On this picture $T_b$ is a narrow, charged, near-threshold state, while $T_c$ decays through two open channels with comparable partial widths.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that each decay form factor, fitted to QCD sum rule points in the Euclidean region $Q^2=2$–$30$ GeV$^2$, can be extrapolated through an exponential function all the way to the timelike point $Q^2=-m_{B_c}^2\approx -39.4$ GeV$^2$; if that continuation is wrong, the predicted widths change substantially.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the $T_b$ mass prediction is correct, the state sits only about 25 MeV above the $\eta_b B_c^-$ threshold and should appear as a narrow peak that is separable from the threshold rise.
  • For $T_c$, both $\eta_c B_c^+$ and $J/\psi B_c^{*+}$ are open channels with partial widths near 27 and 28 MeV, so a search should cover both final states near 9.68 GeV.
  • The predicted masses fall within the spread of existing quark-model estimates, so a measurement would help decide which diquark-antidiquark interaction models are closest to QCD.
  • Since $T_b$ and $T_c$ are charged, negative and positive respectively, observing them would show that fully heavy tetraquarks are not restricted to neutral states.
  • A measured width consistent with these values would support the axial-vector diquark-antidiquark organization over alternative scalar-diquark or mixed currents, which the paper argues would give different parameters.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The width calculation leans on a long exponential extrapolation, so an independent lattice QCD evaluation of the same strong couplings at the physical mass shells would be the most direct check of these numbers.
  • Because $T_b$ sits so close to threshold, a mass shift of order the quoted uncertainty could turn it from a narrow resonance into a stable particle; precision spectroscopy just above the $\eta_b B_c^-$ threshold would test this boundary.
  • If future experiments resolve two nearby scalar states in the same channels, it would point to mixing between the $C\gamma_\mu\otimes\gamma^\mu C$ and $C\sigma_{\mu\nu}\otimes\sigma^{\mu\nu}C$ diquark configurations, a possibility the paper identifies but does not analyze.
  • The roughly 6000 MeV gap between $T_b$ and $T_c$ tracks the difference in heavy-quark masses; applying the same calculation to other flavor asymmetries might reveal a simple mass rule for all-heavy tetraquarks.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript applies QCD sum rules to scalar tetraquarks T_b = bb\bar b\bar c and T_c = cc\bar c\bar b modeled as axial-vector diquark-antidiquark states. Two-point sum rules give masses m = (15698 ± 95) MeV and \tilde m = (9680 ± 102) MeV with current couplings. Three-point sum rules are then used to compute strong form factors and couplings for T_b → η_b B_c^- and T_c → η_c B_c^+, J/ψ B_c^{*+}; these couplings are converted into partial widths Γ[T_b→η_b B_c^-] = 36.0 ± 10.4 MeV and Γ[T_c] = 54.7 ± 12.6 MeV, leading to the conclusion that both states are unstable and relatively narrow, with useful predictions for experiment.

Significance. If correct, this is the first quantitative sum-rule treatment of the widths of asymmetric fully-heavy tetraquarks, extending a series of papers by the same authors on fully-heavy exotics. The two-point analysis is standard and carefully controlled (PC ≥ 0.5, OPE convergence, clear Borel windows), and the mass predictions are compared with existing quark-model results. The three-point sum-rule calculations are also standard in structure, and the paper reports explicit Borel windows, PC values, and fit constants, which facilitate reproducibility. However, the width predictions are not yet on the same footing as the masses: the on-shell couplings are obtained by extrapolating fitted exponential form factors far outside the computed region, and for T_b the mass uncertainty straddles the decay threshold. These issues must be addressed before the width numbers can be regarded as reliable predictions.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III, Eq. (36); Sec. IV, Eqs. (46) and (58)] The decay widths are controlled by the strong couplings G, g1, and g2, which are extracted by the same procedure: a fit function of the form Eq. (36) is fitted to three-point sum-rule results at Q^2 = 2–30 GeV^2 (for T_b, x = Q^2/m^2 ∈ [0.008, 0.122]) and then evaluated at the on-shell point Q^2 = -m_{B_c}^2 ≈ -39.4 GeV^2 (x ≈ -0.159). The on-shell point lies well outside the fitted region, and the paper does not test the sensitivity of the extracted coupling to the choice of fit ansatz; a different functional form that represents the sum-rule data equally well in the fitted region can produce a substantially different value at such a distant extrapolation. Because the widths in Eqs. (41), (50), and (62) depend on the squares of these couplings, this uncontrolled analytic continuation is load-bearing for the central width predictions. The same issue applies to g1 and g2 in Sec. IV, where the on-shell points Q^2 = -m_{η_c}^2 ≈ -8.9 GeV^2 and Q^2 = -m_{J/ψ}^2 ≈ -9.6 GeV^2 are outside the fitted region Q^2 = 2–20 GeV^2.
  2. [Sec. III, Eq. (41); Sec. IV, Eqs. (50), (62), (63)] The paper notes that the central T_b mass is only 25 MeV above the η_b B_c^- threshold and that the 1σ lower value 15603 MeV is below threshold, yet the error quoted for Γ[T_b] in Eq. (41) includes only the uncertainty in G and in the final-state meson masses. The ±95 MeV uncertainty in m is not propagated through the phase-space factor λ_0 in Eqs. (39)–(40); including it would produce a strongly asymmetric error and, within 1σ, a zero width. For T_c, the ±102 MeV mass uncertainty is likewise omitted from the partial widths in Eqs. (50) and (62) and from the full width in Eq. (63). The claim that these widths are useful search parameters is therefore not supported by the paper's own error budget until the mass dependence of the phase space is incorporated.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. IV A and IV B] The text states that the form factors g1(Q^2) and g2(Q^2) are computed at 'Q^2 = 2 − 20 MeV^2'; the units should be GeV^2.
  2. [Eq. (52)] The sentence 'These current are introduces' should read 'These currents are introduced'.
  3. [Ref. [40]] The arXiv identifier is given as hep-ph/00101765; the correct number is hep-ph/0010175.
  4. [Figs. 4 and 5] The fitted curves extend into the negative-Q^2 region where no sum-rule data exist; shading or a dashed line for the extrapolation region would make the extent of the extrapolation transparent.
  5. [Secs. III and IV] Section II establishes OPE convergence for the two-point correlators, but the three-point sum rules are truncated at the same dimension-4 level without an analogous numerical estimate of the neglected higher-dimensional contributions.
  6. [Eq. (37) and Sec. IV] The fit parameters for G(Q^2) in Eq. (37) and for F_1, F_2 in Sec. IV are quoted without uncertainties; reporting fit errors would at least provide a partial measure of the extrapolation uncertainty.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the widths are computed from independent three-point sum rules, and the form-factor extrapolation is a systematic-modeling concern, not an input-output identification.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained in the circularity sense. Two-point sum rules (Sec. II) fix the masses and current couplings from QCD correlators, while the three-point sum rules (Secs. III–IV) compute the strong form factors from independent correlation functions and then convert them to widths via Eqs. (39), (49), and (61). The only fitted quantities are the auxiliary parameters G0, c1, c2 in Eq. (36) and their analogues in Sec. IV, fitted to the Euclidean sum-rule points; the on-shell couplings in Eqs. (38), (48), and (60) are values of those fitted curves at negative Q^2, not quantities used to define the fit. This is an unvalidated extrapolation and a potential systematic error, but it is not a reduction of the final width to an input or a fit to the width itself. The self-citations (Refs. [4–7], [10–12], [24–26], [41]) provide context and a standard dispersion-integral technique, and they are not load-bearing for the central numerical claims. The paper explicitly disclaims uniqueness of the diquark current in Sec. V, stating that the physical state could be the present current, the alternative current, or a mixture; this is an acknowledged model ambiguity, not circularity. The separate issue that the ±95 MeV mass uncertainty straddles the eta_b B_c threshold and is not propagated into Gamma[T_b] is an error-budget concern, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central predictions rest on standard but unproved sum rule assumptions (quark-hadron duality, OPE truncation, pole dominance), a specific choice of diquark current, and fitted exponential extrapolations for the on-shell couplings. The mass and width uncertainties therefore do not capture model uncertainty, and the T_b width is especially fragile near threshold.

free parameters (10)
  • Borel parameter M^2 for T_b two-point sum rule = 15 to 18.5 GeV^2
    Chosen as a working window where the pole contribution PC >= 0.5 and OPE convergence holds; the extracted mass depends mildly on this window.
  • Continuum threshold s0 for T_b = 273 to 278 GeV^2
    Chosen by hand to satisfy sum rule constraints; variation across this window contributes substantially to the quoted mass uncertainty.
  • Borel parameter M^2 for T_c two-point sum rule = 8 to 10 GeV^2
    Chosen so that PC >= 0.5 and the OPE converges for the T_c channel.
  • Continuum threshold s0 for T_c = 106 to 110 GeV^2
    Chosen continuum subtraction window for the T_c two-point sum rule.
  • Borel and continuum parameters for eta_b channel in T_b decay = M2_2 = 9 to 11 GeV^2, s0' = 95 to 99 GeV^2
    Auxiliary parameters in the three-point sum rule for T_b -> eta_b B_c^-.
  • Borel and continuum parameters for B_c^+ channel in T_c -> eta_c B_c^+ = M2_2 = 6.5 to 7.5 GeV^2, s0' = 45 to 47 GeV^2
    Auxiliary parameters in the three-point sum rule for T_c -> eta_c B_c^+.
  • Borel and continuum parameters for B_c^{*+} channel in T_c -> J/psi B_c^{*+} = M2_2 = 6.5 to 7.5 GeV^2, s0' = 50 to 51 GeV^2
    Auxiliary parameters in the three-point sum rule for T_c -> J/psi B_c^{*+}.
  • Form factor fit constants G0, c1, c2 for T_b = 0.26 GeV^-1, 2.75, -3.91
    Fitted to the Euclidean QCD sum rule points for G(Q^2) and used to extrapolate to Q^2 = -m_Bc^2.
  • Form factor fit constants F0_1, c1_1, c2_1 for g1 = 0.14 GeV^-1, 1.87, -3.58
    Fitted to the sum rule points for g1(Q^2) in the T_c -> eta_c B_c^+ channel.
  • Form factor fit constants F0_2, c1_2, c2_2 for g2 = 0.43 GeV^-1, 6.26, -4.33
    Fitted to the sum rule points for g2(Q^2) in the T_c -> J/psi B_c^{*+} channel.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Quark-hadron duality: the hadronic spectral density above the continuum threshold equals the OPE spectral density.
    Invoked in Sec. II after Eq. (11) and used in all two-point and three-point sum rules; standard but unproved.
  • domain assumption The ground-state pole contribution dominates the sum rule, enforced by the condition PC >= 0.5.
    Used in Sec. II, Eq. (17), to choose the Borel working windows.
  • domain assumption The operator product expansion truncated at dimension-4 gluon condensate is accurate enough.
    Only Dim4 terms proportional to <alpha_s G^2/pi> are kept; higher-dimensional condensates are neglected.
  • ad hoc to paper The physical tetraquark T_b is represented by the axial-vector diquark-antidiquark current in Eq. (1), and T_c by the analogous current in Eq. (2).
    This is a modeling choice justified by color-flavor arguments, but alternative scalar diquark or mixed structures could give different masses. The authors acknowledge this in Sec. V.
  • ad hoc to paper The form factor shape is an exponential in Q^2/m^2 (Eq. (36)) that remains valid at the on-shell point.
    The fit functions for G, g1, and g2 are assumed to extrapolate correctly from the Euclidean region to negative Q^2; no derivation from QCD is given.
  • domain assumption Naive factorization and single-particle saturation of the three-point correlator are valid.
    Used to derive the physical side of the three-point sum rules, e.g., Eq. (24).
invented entities (2)
  • T_b tetraquark with content bb anti-b anti-c
    purpose: Predicted scalar fully heavy tetraquark with mass 15698 MeV and width 36 MeV; serves as a search target for exotic hadrons.
    No experimental observation exists, and the mass and width are derived within the same sum rule framework, so they do not provide independent evidence for the state.
  • T_c tetraquark with content cc anti-c anti-b
    purpose: Predicted scalar fully heavy tetraquark with mass 9680 MeV and width 55 MeV; serves as a search target for exotic hadrons.
    No experimental observation exists; the predicted parameters are outputs of the model, not external evidence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fully heavy asymmetric scalar tetraquarks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LE5XWAIC

@misc{pith2026241216068,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fully heavy asymmetric scalar tetraquarks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LE5XWAIC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.16068}
}
abstract

The scalar tetraquarks $T_{b}$ and $T_{c}$ with asymmetric contents $bb \overline{b}\overline{c}$ and $cc \overline{c}\overline{b}$ are explored using the QCD sum rule method. These states are modeled as the diquark-antidiquarks composed of the axial-vector components. The masses and current couplings of $T_{b}$ and $T_{c}$ are calculated using the two-point sum rule approach. The predictions obtained for the masses of these four-quark mesons prove that they are unstable against the strong two-meson fall-apart decays to conventional mesons. In the case of the tetraquark $ T_{b}$ this is the decay $T_{\mathrm{b}}\to \eta _{b}B_{c}^{-}$. The processes $T_{\mathrm{c}}\rightarrow \eta _{c}B_{c}^{+}$ and $J/\psi B_{c}^{\ast +}$ are kinematically allowed decay modes of the tetraquark $ T_{c}$. The widths of corresponding processes are evaluated by employing the QCD three-point sum rule approach which are necessary to estimate strong couplings at the tetraquark-meson-meson vertices of interest. The mass $ m=(15698 \pm 95)~\mathrm{MeV}$ and width $\Gamma[T_b]=(36.0 \pm 10.4)~ \mathrm{MeV}$ of the tetraquark $T_{b}$ as well as the parameters $ \widetilde{m}=(9680 \pm 102)~\mathrm{MeV}$ and $\Gamma[T_c]=(54.7 \pm 12.6)~ \mathrm{MeV}$ in the case of $T_{c}$ provide useful information to search for and interpret new exotic states.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.16068 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Dependence of PC on the Borel parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Dependence of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The sum rule’s data and fit function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Results of the sum rules computations and extrapo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Then, for Π Phys 0 (p2,p ′2,q 2) we get Π Phys 0 (p2,p ′2,q 2) = ˆG(q2) (p2 −m2) (p′2 −m2 η b) + ∫ ∫ Σ dsds′ ρh(s,s ′,q 2) (s −p2)(s′ −p′2) + · · ·

    determine the bound- aries of the a domain Σ in the ( s,s ′) plane where these states locate. Then, for Π Phys 0 (p2,p ′2,q 2) we get Π Phys 0 (p2,p ′2,q 2) = ˆG(q2) (p2 −m2) (p′2 −m2 η b) + ∫ ∫ Σ dsds′ ρh(s,s ′,q 2) (s −p2)(s′ −p′2) + · · ·. (30) For the QCD side of the sum rule, we obtain Π OPE(p,p ′) = 2 ∫ d4xd4yeip′ye−ipx { Tr [ γ5Sja b (y −x) ×γµ~Sib...

    work page

  2. [2]

    where the pairs (M 2 1,s 0) and (M 2 2,s ′

  3. [3]

    For numerical calculations, we should specify M2 and s0

    correspond to Tb andηb channels, respectively. For numerical calculations, we should specify M2 and s0. Constraints imposed on the auxiliary parameters M2 and s0 are universal for all SR computations and have been explained in the previous section. Numerical analy- sis shows that the regions in Eq. (18) for the parameters (M 2 1,s 0) and M 2 2 ∈ [9, 11] G...

    work page

  4. [4]

    satisfy all these requirements. Because, the form factor G(q2) depends on the mass and current cou- pling of the tetraquark Tb, this choice for ( M 2 1,s 0) ex- cludes also additional uncertainties in m and Λ, as well as in G(q2) which may appear beyond the regions Eq. (18). The SR method leads to reliable predictions for the form factor G(q2) in the Eucl...

    work page

  5. [5]

    in the B+ c channel are chosen inside the regions M 2 2 ∈ [6. 5, 7. 5] GeV 2, s ′ 0 ∈ [45, 47] GeV 2. (47) The form factor g1(Q2) is computed at Q2 = 2 −20 MeV2 (see, Fig. 5). The fit function F1(Q2, ~m2) has the same functional form as the one in Eq. (36) but m2 replaced by ~m2. This function in the case of the form factor g1(Q2) has the parameters F 0 1 ...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Sci. Bull. 65, 1983 (2020)

    2020

  7. [7]

    Bouhova-Thacker (ATLAS Collaboration), PoS ICHEP2022, 806 (2022)

    E. Bouhova-Thacker (ATLAS Collaboration), PoS ICHEP2022, 806 (2022)

    2022

  8. [8]

    Hayrapetyan, et al

    A. Hayrapetyan, et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 111901 (2024)

    2024

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi, B. Barsbay, and H. Sundu, Phys. Lett. B 844, 138089 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi, B. Barsbay and H. Sundu, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 138, 935 (2023)

    2023

  3. [11]

    S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi, B. Barsbay and H. Sundu, Nucl. Phys. A 844, 122768 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi, B. Barsbay and H. Sundu, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 994 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    Becchi, A

    C. Becchi, A. Giachino, L. Maiani, and E. Santopinto, Phys. Lett. B 806, 135495 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    Becchi, A

    C. Becchi, A. Giachino, L. Maiani, and E. Santopinto, Phys. Lett. B 811, 135952 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi, B. Barsbay, and H. Sundu, J. Phys. G 51, 115001 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi, and H. Sundu, Phys. Lett. B 851, 138562 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi, and H. Sundu, Phys. Lett. B 856, 138886 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Carvalho, E

    F. Carvalho, E. R. Cazaroto, V. P. Gonsalves, and F. S. Navarra, Phys. Rev. D 93, 034004 (2016)

    2016

  11. [19]

    L. M. Abreu, F. Carvalho, J. V. C. Cerquera, and V. P. Goncalves, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 470 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    R. N. Faustov, V. O. Galkin, and E. M. Savchenko, Sym- metry 14, 2504 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    J. Wu, Y. R. Liu, K. Chen, X. Liu, and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 97, 094015 (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    M. S. Liu, Q. F. L¨ u, X. H. Zhang, and Q. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 100, 016006 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    Chen, Phys

    X. Chen, Phys. Rev. D 100, 094009 (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    M. A. Bedolla, J. Ferretti, C. D. Roberts, and E. San- topinto, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 1004 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    M. C. Gordillo, F. De Soto, and J. Segovia, Phys. Rev. D 102, 114007 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    X. Z. Weng, X. L. Chen, W. Z. Deng, and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 103, 034001 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    Z. H. Yang, Q. N. Wang, W. Chen, and H. X. Chen, Phys. Rev. D 104, 014003 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    Hoffer, G

    J. Hoffer, G. Eichmann, C. S. Fischer, Phys. Rev. D 109, 074025 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi, and H. Sundu, Phys. Lett. B 858, 139042 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi, and H. Sundu, Phys. Lett. B 864, 139404 (2025)

    2025

  23. [31]

    S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi, and H. Sundu, Phys. Rev. D 111, 074025 (2025)

    2025

  24. [32]

    C. Deng, H. Chen, and J. Ping, Phys. Rev. D 103, 014001 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    G. Yang, J. Ping, and J. Segovia, Phys. Rev. D 104, 014006 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    Mutuk, Phys

    H. Mutuk, Phys. Lett. B 834, 137404 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    Zhang, J

    J. Zhang, J. B. Wang, G. Ji, C. S. An, C. R. Deng, and J. J. Xie, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 1126 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    V. O. Galkin, and E. M. Savchenko, Eur. Phys. J. A 60, 96 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein and V. I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B 147, 385 (1979)

    1979

  30. [38]

    M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein and V. I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B 147, 448 (1979)

    1979

  31. [39]

    M. L. Du, W. Chen, X. L. Chen, and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 87, 014003 (2013)

    2013

  32. [40]

    R. L. Jaffe, Phys. Rept. 409, 1 (2005)

    2005

  33. [41]

    R. M. Albuquerque, J. M. Dias, K. P. Khemchandani, A. Martinez Torres, F. S. Navarra, M. Nielsen and C. M. Zanetti, J. Phys. G 46, 093002 (2019)

    2019

  34. [42]

    S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi and H. Sundu, Turk. J. Phys. 44, 95 (2020)

    2020

  35. [43]

    Navas et al

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

    2024

  36. [44]

    B. L. Ioffe, and A. V. Smilga, Nucl. Phys. B 216, 373 (1983)

    1983

  37. [45]

    Colangelo, and A

    P. Colangelo, and A. Khodjamirian, hep-ph/00101765

    arXiv

  38. [46]

    S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi and H. Sundu, Phys. Rev. D 106, 014025 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    Z. G. Wang, Chin. Phys. C 48, 103104 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    E. V. Veliev, K. Azizi, H. Sundu, and N. Aksit, J. Phys. G 39, 015002 (2012)

    2012

  41. [49]

    Godfrey, Phys

    S. Godfrey, Phys. Rev. D 70, 054017 (2004)

    2004

  42. [50]

    Lakhina, and E

    O. Lakhina, and E. S. Swanson, Phys. Rev. D 74, 014012 (2006)

    2006

  43. [51]

    E. J. Eichten, and C. Quigg, Phys. Rev. D 99, 054025 (2019)

    2019

  44. [52]

    S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi, B. Barsbay, and H. Sundu, Phys. Rev. D 109, 014006 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

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