Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Evidence of the open-flavor tetraquark $T_{c\bar{s}2}$ in the process $B^+\to D^{*-}D_s^+\pi^+$

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that a resonant-like structure near 2830 MeV in the D_s+ π+ mass distribution of B+ → D*- D_s+ π+, measured by LHCb, is the predicted open-flavor tetraquark T_cs2, the spin J=2 partner of T_cs0(2900).

desk verdict A useful and testable angular-moment proposal for the new LHCb channel, but the title-level claim of evidence is not supported by the analysis: no significance, no fit quality, and the resonance parameters are fixed to theory. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.02839 v1 pith:ONISGB6Q submitted 2025-01-06 hep-ph

Wen-Tao Lyu , Li-Juan Liu , En Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords open-flavortetraquarkT_cs0(2900)T_cs2spinpartnerangularmomentsBmesondecayexotichadron
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 excess of events around 2830 MeV in the D_s+ π+ invariant mass distribution of B+ → D*- D_s+ π+, measured by LHCb, corresponds to the predicted open-flavor tetraquark T_cs2, the spin J=2 partner of T_cs0(2900). The authors show that the angular-integrated mass spectrum can be fitted equally well by J=0, 1, or 2 resonances, so the mass distribution alone cannot fix the spin. They then compute angular moments (projections onto spherical harmonics) from l=0 to 4 and show that each spin assumption gives a drastically different pattern. For the favored J=2 case, the interference moment dΓ2/dM is predicted to have larger strength at the resonant energy than the angle-integrated signal, providing a clear experimental target. The paper concludes that the coincidence of a 2830 MeV peak in both B+ → D*- D+K+ and B+ → D*- D_s+ π+ strongly supports identifying the structure as T_cs2, and urges experimental determination of these moments.

What carries the argument

The central object is the amplitude T = ε_μ(D*−) P^μ_{B+} (a Y00 + b Y20 + c Y10), where a, b, c represent S-wave, D-wave, and P-wave resonance contributions and Y_l0 are spherical harmonics. This yields explicit expressions for the angular moments dΓ_l/dM in terms of |a|², |b|², |c|² and their interferences, so that measuring a few moments fixes which partial wave (and hence spin) is present. The resonance parameters are taken from the predicted T_cs2: M_R = 2834 MeV and Γ_R = 19 MeV.

What would settle it

A measurement of the moments in B+ → D*- D_s+ π+ that does not show the predicted J=2 pattern—for example, no dΓ4/dM signal or dΓ2 not exceeding dΓ0 near 2830 MeV—would rule out the T_cs2 interpretation, as would a higher-statistics analysis showing that the 2830 MeV excess disappears with improved background modeling.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the D_s+ π+ mass distribution from LHCb shows an event excess near 2830 MeV that the existing fit cannot describe. Adopting the prediction that the J^P = 2+ partner of T_cs0(2900) has mass 2834 MeV and width 19 MeV, the authors write the production amplitude for B+ → D*- D_s+ π+ as a tree-level term plus a resonance term in S-wave, P-wave, or D-wave, fit the free parameters to the LHCb data, and find all three fits succeed. They then decompose the squared amplitude into moments dΓ_l/dM (l = 0,...,4) using spherical harmonics. Each spin assumption yields a distinct pattern: J=0 contributes only dΓ0, J=1 contributes dΓ0, dΓ1, and dΓ2, and J=2 contributes dΓ0, dΓ2, and dΓ4. Since the angle-integrated spectrum cannot distinguish these cases, the moments are the discriminating observable; for the preferred J=2 case the dΓ2 moment is predicted to exceed the angle-integrated signal near the peak.

Load-bearing premise

The excess of events around 2830 MeV in the LHCb data is a genuine resonance rather than a statistical fluctuation, a kinematic reflection, or a background artifact; LHCb itself did not identify a resonance at this mass.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If LHCb measures the moments of the D_s+ π+ distribution, a nonzero dΓ4/dM with dΓ2 stronger than dΓ0 near 2830 MeV would establish the J=2 assignment and confirm T_cs2.
  • The same moment analysis can be applied to the similar 2830 MeV peak in B+ → D*- D+K+, providing a cross-check of the resonance's spin.
  • A confirmed J=2 partner would support the coupled-channel molecular interpretation of T_cs0(2900), in which the state emerges from D*K* and D*_s ρ interactions.
  • The method offers a template for identifying the spin of exotic-state candidates in other three-body B decays.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper assumes the 2830 MeV excess in B+ → D*- D_s+ π+ is the same object as the 2830 MeV peak in B+ → D*- D+K+; a combined simultaneous fit of both reactions could test whether the two peaks share one Breit-Wigner pole.
  • The predicted moments assume the resonance mass and width are fixed at 2834 MeV and 19 MeV; a scan over M_R and Γ_R would show whether the discriminating power of the moments survives off-prediction values.
  • Because the background parameters are refit for each spin case, part of the moment differences could be absorbed by different background shapes; dedicated amplitude analyses with full background uncertainty models would sharpen the spin discrimination.
  • The moment-decomposition technique could be extended to other predicted spin partners of open-flavor tetraquarks in different B-decay channels.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes the D_s^+π^+ invariant mass spectrum of the LHCb process B^+ → D^{*-}D_s^+π^+ and argues that a broad excess near 2830 MeV is the predicted J^P=2^+ tetraquark T_cs2, the spin partner of T_cs0(2900). The authors use a compact amplitude with an S-wave background plus a resonance term, fixing the resonance mass and width to the theoretical values M_R=2834 MeV and Γ_R=19 MeV from Ref. [30]. They fit two coefficients per spin hypothesis (J=0,1,2), compare the angular-integrated dΓ/dM_inv with LHCb data, and compute angular moments dΓ_l/dM_inv for l=0–4, finding that the moments differ markedly between the spin assignments. The paper concludes that the data give 'strong support' to the T_cs2 interpretation and calls for an experimental measurement of the moments.

Significance. The paper's positive contribution is to work out the angular-moment decomposition for the three spin hypotheses and to show, with a simple amplitude model, that these moments are sensitive to the spin of a possible resonance. It also takes the pole parameters from an independent coupled-channel prediction, which avoids fitting mass and width to the data. If the 2830 MeV excess is established as a genuine resonance, the predicted moments would provide a concrete test of the T_cs2 interpretation. The authors honestly note that the angular-integrated spectrum alone cannot distinguish the spins. The central limitation is that the manuscript does not quantify the statistical evidence for the excess, so the claim of 'evidence' is stronger than the analysis currently supports.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III, Eqs. (10)–(12) and Figs. 3–5] The fits fix the resonance mass and width to the theoretical values M_R=2834 MeV and Γ_R=19 MeV from Ref. [30], and no fit-quality metric is reported: there is no χ²/ndof, no Δχ² relative to a no-resonance or alternative-background fit, and no estimate of the statistical significance of the 2830 MeV excess. Because the title and Sec. IV conclude that the LHCb data give 'strong support' for T_cs2, the analysis must demonstrate quantitatively that the excess is not a statistical fluctuation or background artifact; currently the agreement is only stated as 'fair agreement' without quantitative support.
  2. [Sec. II, Eq. (7) and Sec. III, Eqs. (10)–(12)] The angular moments dΓ_l/dM_inv are evaluated after fitting the coefficients (a0, a'0), (a1, c'), or (a2, b') to the same angular-integrated LHCb distribution. Therefore the moments are algebraically determined by the fitted amplitudes rather than being independent predictions; they can discriminate spin only if the resonance and background model are already assumed correct. The paper should explicitly describe these moments as conditional evaluations under the assumed model, not as predictions that can by themselves confirm the existence of T_cs2.
  3. [Sec. I and Sec. IV] The empirical basis for the claimed 2.83 GeV structure is a visual event excess in Fig. 9(b) of Ref. [39]; LHCb did not identify a resonance at this mass, and the present paper quotes no significance or compatibility test. The statement in Sec. IV that the same energy appearing in both B^+ → D^{*-}D^+K^+ and B^+ → D^{*-}D_s^+π^+ gives 'strong support' presupposes that both peaks are genuine resonances, which is exactly what needs to be established. The paper should either derive a local significance from the binned distribution or visibly temper this conclusion.
  4. [Sec. III, Eq. (13)] The background model ai → ãi k/M_B is introduced ad hoc, with no justification and no uncertainty. With only two fitted parameters per case and this flexible background, the fit can absorb smooth enhancements, so the apparent agreement with the data does not by itself validate the resonance hypothesis. The authors should motivate the background shape and show that the fitted resonance parameters are stable under plausible variations of the background model.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. II] The terms 'momenta of the angular mass distribution' and 'momentum magnitude' should be 'moments' and 'moment magnitude'; angular moments are meant, not momenta of particles.
  2. [Sec. II, text after Eq. (1)] The sentence introducing 'the term of bY20' to account for a J^P=1^- state coupling in P-wave is inconsistent with the amplitude decomposition, since bY20 is a D-wave (l=2) term; the P-wave piece is cY10. Please clarify the intended wording.
  3. [Sec. III, fit range] The choice of the fit window 2650–3150 MeV is not justified; the authors should state why this range is selected and whether the conclusions depend on the window boundaries.
  4. [Sec. III, figures] The plotted dΓ_l/dM_inv moments are in arbitrary units; the paper should specify how future experimental moments should be normalized to allow a quantitative comparison.
  5. [Sec. IV] The conclusion that a structure at 2830 MeV appears in two different final states would be strengthened by quoting the relevant mass and width values from Ref. [36] and by discussing the compatibility of the two measurements, rather than only noting the same energy.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the T_cs2 mass and width are imposed from an external prediction, the angular moments are genuine model outputs not fitted inputs, and the cited prior work by the authors is a peer-reviewed formalism rather than a self-justifying premise.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The resonance mass and width are fixed from an external, non-self-cited prediction: 'we assume M_R = 2834 MeV and Γ_R = 19 MeV, taken from Ref. [30]' (Sec. III), with a comparable prediction in Ref. [26] that is also not the present work. The coefficients a0, a0', a1, c', a2, b' are fitted to the LHCb one-dimensional D_s^+ π^+ invariant mass distribution via dΓ/dM_inv = sqrt(4π) dΓ0/dM_inv, and the higher moments in Eq. (7) are then algebraic functions of those same fitted coefficients. This is a standard conditional model prediction for an unmeasured angular observable, not a case where a fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, because the moments are not used as input to the fit and the paper explicitly calls for future experimental determination of these magnitudes. The authors' prior Ref. [37] supplies the partial-wave amplitude and a previous interpretation of the B+ -> D*-D+K+ peak, but that self-citation is not the load-bearing justification for the existence of T_cs2: the identification rests on an external prediction of the mass and on two experimentally observed peaks at roughly the same energy (Refs. [36,39]). The main weaknesses of the paper—the 2830 MeV excess in LHCb data is not established as a resonance with a quoted significance, no comparison to a no-resonance hypothesis is given, and all three spin fits describe the same angle-integrated spectrum—are concerns about statistical evidence and discriminatory power, not about circularity. The conclusion is therefore over-strong relative to the evidence, but the reasoning is not self-referential.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a specific rescattering model, on externally predicted resonance mass and width, on an unquantified data excess, and on an ad hoc background shape. The six fitted coefficients are not derived from theory, and all moment predictions are functions of those fitted values, so the paper adds a measurement proposal more than an independent prediction.

free parameters (6)
  • tilde_a0 (case I S-wave background coefficient) = 8.93 MeV^-1
    Fitted to the LHCb dGamma/dM_inv distribution in case I, Eq. (13).
  • a'_0 (case I S-wave resonance coupling) = 4.84 x 10^-4 MeV^-1
    Fitted to the LHCb mass distribution in case I.
  • tilde_a1 (case II S-wave coefficient) = 8.73 MeV^-1
    Fitted to the LHCb mass distribution in case II.
  • c' (case II P-wave resonance coupling) = 2.01 x 10^-2 MeV^-1
    Fitted to the LHCb mass distribution in case II.
  • tilde_a2 (case III S-wave coefficient, preferred J=2 case) = 8.73 MeV^-1
    Fitted to the LHCb mass distribution in case III.
  • b' (case III D-wave resonance coupling) = 1.44 x 10^-1 MeV^-1
    Fitted to the LHCb mass distribution in case III.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption D_s^+ pi^+ final state is produced by S-wave D*K* and D*_s rho interactions, with production amplitude T = epsilon_mu(D*) P^mu_B (a Y00 + b Y20 + c Y10).
    This is the core phenomenological model of Sec. II; if the production mechanism differs, the moment decomposition changes and the spin discrimination argument may fail.
  • domain assumption The resonance parameters are M_R = 2834 MeV and Gamma_R = 19 MeV, taken from Ref [30].
    Sec. III states these values are assumed; all fits and moment predictions inherit them.
  • domain assumption The LHCb event excess around 2.83 GeV is a real resonance signal.
    Sec. I interprets Fig. 9(b) of Ref [39] as an event excess, but no significance is quoted and LHCb did not claim a resonance there.
  • ad hoc to paper The background can be represented by small terms with a_i replaced by tilde_a_i tilde_k / M_B.
    Sec. III introduces this background shape without derivation or validation against alternative background models.
  • standard math The spherical harmonic integration formula in Eq. (6), taken from Rose, Ref [50].
    Standard angular momentum algebra used to derive the moment relations in Eq. (7).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Evidence of the open-flavor tetraquark $T_{c\bar{s}2}$ in the process $B^+\to D^{*-}D_s^+\pi^+$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ONISGB6Q

@misc{pith2026250102839,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Evidence of the open-flavor tetraquark $T_c\bars2$ in the process $B^+\to D^*-D_s^+\pi^+$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ONISGB6Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.02839}
}
abstract

The newly observed open-flavor tetraquark $T_{c\bar{s}0}(2900)$ has attracted many attentions, and searching for its spin partners is crucial to exploring the internal structure of those states. In this work, we will show that, the $D_s^+\pi^+$ invariant mass distribution of the process $B^+\to D^{*-}D_s^+\pi^+$ measured by LHCb has a resonant-like structure around 2830~MeV, which could be associated with the predicted $T_{c\bar{s}2}$, the spin $J=2$ partner of $T_{c\bar{s}0}(2900)$. Furthermore, we have evaluated the momenta of the angular mass distribution, which are very different for each of the spin assumptions, and have larger strength at the resonant energy than the peaks seen in the angular integrated mass distribution. We make a call for the experimental determination of these magnitudes, which could be used to pin down the existence of the $T_{c\bar{s}2}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.02839 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. External emission mechanism of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Quark level diagrams for the processes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Fit to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Fit to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Fit to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Searching for the $2^+$ partner of the $T_{cs0}(2870)$ in the $B^- \to D^- D^0 K^0_S$ reaction

    hep-ph 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The small D0 K0S mass bump near 2.73 GeV in B- -> D- D0 K0S could be a 2+ D* K* molecular state, and its angular moments should show a clear signal.

  2. Discovering the Gell-Mann-Okubo Formula with Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks

    hep-ph 2026-01 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    A KAN network's fitted polynomials are hand-rearranged into the known Gell-Mann-Okubo mass relations, so the claimed autonomous rediscovery is not demonstrated.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [30]

    Molina and E

    R. Molina and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) no.5, 056015

    work page 2023

  2. [39]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], JHEP 08 (2024), 165

    work page 2024

  3. [1]

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

    work page 2003

  4. [2]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 (2020), 242001

    work page 2020

  5. [3]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020), 112003

    work page 2020

  6. [4]

    X. G. He, W. Wang and R. Zhu, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) no.11, 1026

    work page 2020

  7. [5]

    Karliner and J

    M. Karliner and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) no.9, 094016

    work page 2020

  8. [6]

    G. J. Wang, L. Meng, L. Y. Xiao, M. Oka and S. L. Zhu, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) no.2, 188

    work page 2021

Show all 50 references
  1. [7]

    G. Yang, J. Ping and J. Segovia, Phys. Rev. D103 (2021) no.7, 074011

    2021

  2. [8]

    Z. G. Wang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 35 (2020) no.30, 2050187

    2020

  3. [9]

    Wang and S

    B. Wang and S. L. Zhu, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, no.5, 419 (2022)

    2022

  4. [10]

    Y. K. Chen, J. J. Han, Q. F. L¨ u, J. P. Wang and F. S. Yu, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, no.1, 71 (2021)

    2021

  5. [11]

    Q. Y. Lin and X. Y. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, no.11, 1017 (2022)

    2022

  6. [12]

    L. R. Dai, R. Molina and E. Oset, Phys. Lett. B 832, 137219 (2022)

    2022

  7. [13]

    C. J. Xiao, D. Y. Chen, Y. B. Dong and G. W. Meng, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) no.3, 034004

    2021

  8. [14]

    H. X. Chen, W. Chen, R. R. Dong and N. Su, Chin. Phys. Lett. 37 (2020) no.10, 101201

    2020

  9. [15]

    Huang, J

    Y. Huang, J. X. Lu, J. J. Xie and L. S. Geng, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) no.10, 973

    2020

  10. [16]

    M. Z. Liu, J. J. Xie and L. S. Geng, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) no.9, 091502

    2020

  11. [17]

    M. W. Hu, X. Y. Lao, P. Ling and Q. Wang, Chin. Phys. C 45, no.2, 021003 (2021)

    2021

  12. [18]

    Molina and E

    R. Molina and E. Oset, Phys. Lett. B 811, 135870 (2020)

    2020

  13. [19]

    He and D

    J. He and D. Y. Chen, Chin. Phys. C 45, no.6, 063102 (2021)

    2021

  14. [20]

    X. H. Liu, M. J. Yan, H. W. Ke, G. Li and J. J. Xie, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, no.12, 1178 (2020)

    2020

  15. [21]

    Aaij et al.[LHCb], Phys

    R. Aaij et al.[LHCb], Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, no.4, 041902 (2023)

    2023

  16. [22]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. D 108, no.1, 012017 (2023)

    2023

  17. [23]

    D. K. Lian, W. Chen, H. X. Chen, L. Y. Dai and T. G. Steele, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) no.1, 1

    2024

  18. [24]

    L. Meng, Y. K. Chen, Y. Ma and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) no.11, 114016

    2023

  19. [25]

    X. S. Yang, Q. Xin and Z. G. Wang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 38 (2023) no.11, 2350056

    2023

  20. [26]

    M. Y. Duan, M. L. Du, Z. H. Guo, E. Wang and D. Y. Chen, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) no.7, 074006

    2023

  21. [27]

    S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi and H. Sundu, J. Phys. G 50, no.5, 055002 (2023)

    2023

  22. [28]

    F. K. Guo, C. Hanhart, U. G. Meißner, Q. Wang, Q. Zhao and B. S. Zou, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90 (2018) no.1, 015004 [erratum: Rev. Mod. Phys. 94 (2022) no.2, 029901]

    2018

  23. [29]

    Matuschek, V

    I. Matuschek, V. Baru, F. K. Guo and C. Hanhart, Eur. Phys. J. A 57 (2021) no.3, 101

    2021

  24. [31]

    W. T. Lyu, M. Y. Duan, X. Wang, D. Y. Chen and E. Wang, [arXiv:2408.11454 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  25. [32]

    W. T. Lyu, Y. H. Lyu, M. Y. Duan, G. Y. Wang, D. Y. Chen and E. Wang, [arXiv:2310.11139 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  26. [33]

    W. T. Lyu, Y. H. Lyu, M. Y. Duan, D. M. Li, D. Y. Chen and E. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) no.1, 014008

    2024

  27. [34]

    M. Y. Duan, E. Wang and D. Y. Chen, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) no.7, 681

    2024

  28. [35]

    Molina, T

    R. Molina, T. Branz and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010), 014010

    2010

  29. [36]

    Aaij et al.[LHCb], Phys

    R. Aaij et al.[LHCb], Phys. Rev. Lett. 133 (2024) no.13, 131902

    2024

  30. [37]

    W. T. Lyu, M. Y. Duan, C. W. Xiao, E. Wang and E. Oset, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) no.12, 1302

    2024

  31. [38]

    J. Song, Z. Y. Yang and E. Oset, [arXiv:2411.02358 [hep- ph]]

    arXiv

  32. [40]

    W. Y. Liu, W. Hao, G. Y. Wang, Y. Y. Wang, E. Wang and D. M. Li, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) no.3, 034019

    2021

  33. [41]

    Zhang, E

    Y. Zhang, E. Wang, D. M. Li and Y. X. Li, Chin. Phys. C 44 (2020) no.9, 093107

    2020

  34. [42]

    L. R. Dai, G. Y. Wang, X. Chen, E. Wang, E. Oset and D. M. Li, Eur. Phys. J. A 55 (2019) no.3, 36

    2019

  35. [43]

    E. Wang, J. J. Xie, L. S. Geng and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) no.1, 014017

    2018

  36. [44]

    X. Q. Li, L. J. Liu, E. Wang and L. L. Wei, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) no.9, 094014

    2024

  37. [45]

    M. Z. Liu, X. Z. Ling, L. S. Geng, En-Wang and J. J. Xie, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) no.11, 114011 6

    2022

  38. [46]

    L. L. Wei, H. S. Li, E. Wang, J. J. Xie, D. M. Li and Y. X. Li, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021), 114013

    2021

  39. [47]

    Bayar and E

    M. Bayar and E. Oset, Phys. Lett. B 833 (2022), 137364

    2022

  40. [48]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) no.7, 072001

    2016

  41. [49]

    J. Y. Wang, M. Y. Duan, G. Y. Wang, D. M. Li, L. J. Liu and E. Wang, Phys. Lett. B 821 (2021), 136617

    2021

  42. [50]

    M. E. Rose, Elementary theory of angular momentum, New York and London: J. Wiley and Sons, c1957

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.