Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Updated analysis of charmonium states in a relativized quark potential model

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Four recently observed charmonium states are conventional quark-antiquark states, with the missing $\chi_{c0}(2P)$ predicted near 3851 MeV.

desk verdict A careful recalibration of the relativized quark model that makes specific assignment claims for the new charmonium states, but the paper never tells you which states went into the parameter fit, and that is a genuinely load-bearing omission. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.14575 v1 pith:QZQLCDSD submitted 2025-04-20 hep-ph hep-ex

Xiu-Li Gao , Jun-Xi Cui , Yu-Hui Zhou , Zhi-Yong Zhou This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords charmoniumspectroscopyrelativizedquarkpotentialmodelradialexcitationsopen-charmstrongdecaysradiativetransitionsquark-paircreationcharmonium-likestatestwo-polestructure
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

Many recently discovered charmonium-like states sit above the mass where the naive quark-antiquark spectrum was expected to end, and are often treated as exotic hadrons. This paper argues that a recalibrated version of the relativized quark potential model can absorb several of them into the ordinary charmonium spectrum: the $\chi_{c1}(4010)$ and $\chi_{c1}(4274)$ become the $2P$ and $3P$ states of the $1^{++}$ channel, and the $\chi_{c0}(4500)$ and $\chi_{c0}(4700)$ become the $4P$ and $5P$ states of the $0^{++}$ channel. It also predicts that the missing $\chi_{c0}(2P)$ state sits near 3851 MeV, about 65 MeV lower than the original relativized model estimate, and suggests that $\chi_{c1}(3872)$ is a dynamically generated two-pole effect of the $2P$ state coupling to $D\bar D$ channels. If correct, the dense charmonium spectrum above 4 GeV does not require exotic explanations for these particular states, and the model provides a sharper baseline for identifying which states are genuinely non-quark-antiquark.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the relativized quark-antiquark potential model, in which the Hamiltonian is $H = \sqrt{p^2+m_1^2} + \sqrt{p^2+m_2^2} + V(p,r)$ with a smeared color-Coulomb, linear-confinement, hyperfine, and spin-orbit potential; the paper refits its parameters to charmonia, bottomonia, and charmed mesons. The model supplies both the mass eigenvalues and the wave functions, expanded in 30 simple harmonic oscillator basis states with oscillator parameter $\beta = 0.4$ GeV. Those wave functions then feed two decay calculations: open-charm strong widths from the quark-pair-creation ($^3P_0$) model, and E1/M1 radiative widths from multipole expansion of the quark-photon interaction. The refitted parameter set, especially the charm quark mass $m_c = 1.748$ GeV and the confinement slope $b = 0.163$ GeV$^2$, is what lowers the higher P-wave states relative to the original relativized model and brings the predicted masses close to the observed values.

What would settle it

Extract pole positions from a coupled-channel analysis of the $B^+ \to D^{*\pm} D^\mp K^+$ and $B^+ \to J/\psi \phi K^+$ data instead of using Breit-Wigner fits. If the $\chi_{c1}(4010)$ pole does not sit near the model's $2P$ mass, or if the $0^{++}$ structures do not appear near the predicted 4508 and 4781 MeV masses once phase-space distortion is removed, the proposed assignments would be falsified; conversely, finding the predicted broad $\chi_{c0}(2P)$ near 3851 MeV would confirm the scheme.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the observed charmonium spectrum can be described consistently as conventional $c\bar c$ states once the parameters of the relativized quark potential model are refit to current data. With the fitted parameters, the model produces masses for charmonia, bottomonia, and selected charmed mesons, and the accompanying quark-pair-creation calculation gives open-charm strong widths and E1/M1 radiative widths for states up to the fifth radial excitation. On this basis, the paper assigns $\chi_{c1}(4010)$ to $\chi_{c1}(2P)$, $\chi_{c1}(4274)$ to $\chi_{c1}(3P)$, $\chi_{c0}(4500)$ to $\chi_{c0}(4P)$, and $\chi_{c0}(4700)$ to $\chi_{c0}(5P)$. It further predicts $\chi_{c0}(2P)$ at about 3851 MeV with a width of about 73 MeV, which the authors take as evidence against identifying $\chi_{c0}(3915)$ as the $2P$ state. The paper also proposes that $\chi_{c1}(3872)$ is not a conventional state at all but a dynamically generated pole produced by the coupling of the $\chi_{c1}(2P)$ bare state to $D\bar D$ channels, with the companion pole corresponding to $\chi_{c1}(4010)$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Breit-Wigner masses listed for the observed states can be compared directly with the quenched quark-model masses from the fitted Hamiltonian, even though the paper itself notes these two quantities need not agree for broad or overlapping states.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The $\chi_{c1}(4010)$ and $\chi_{c1}(4274)$ would fill the missing $2P$ and $3P$ levels of the $J^{PC}=1^{++}$ channel, giving the channel a complete radial sequence up to $n=4$.
  • The $\chi_{c0}(4500)$ and $\chi_{c0}(4700)$ would be the $4P$ and $5P$ states of the $0^{++}$ channel, removing the need for exotic interpretations of these two states in particular.
  • A broad $0^{++}$ state, $\chi_{c0}(2P)$, should exist near 3851 MeV with a width of about 73 MeV, and it should not be identified with $\chi_{c0}(3915)$.
  • The $\chi_{c1}(3872)$ would be a dynamically generated threshold pole rather than a conventional quarkonium state, so its unusual narrowness is compatible with the quark model picture.
  • States such as $G(3900)$, $\psi(4230)$, $\psi(4360)$, and $\chi_{c1}(4140)$ do not fit into the conventional spectrum and remain candidates for exotic structure, so the recalibrated model sharpens the conventional-versus-exotic distinction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the two-pole picture for $\chi_{c1}(3872)/\chi_{c1}(4010)$ is right, a coupled-channel amplitude analysis of the $B^+ \to D^{*\pm} D^\mp K^+$ data should see a characteristic interference between a threshold cusp and the shifted $2P$ pole; the pole positions, not the Breit-Wigner masses, would be the cleanest test.
  • Beyond the paper: the same refit implies unobserved higher excitations, such as the $\chi_{c0}(3P)$ near 4204 MeV, and the model points to the kink near 4200 MeV in the $J/\psi\phi$ spectrum as the place to look, so the prediction is directly searchable in existing data.
  • Beyond the paper: the paper's two sets of radiative widths for $\chi_{c0}(2P)$, depending on whether it is the 3860 or 3915 candidate, mean that photon-transition measurements into $J/\psi$, $\psi(2S)$, and $h_c(1P)$ could discriminate between those assignments more sharply than mass alone.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript updates the Godfrey-Isgur relativized quark potential model by refitting its parameters to the current charmonium, bottomonium, and selected charmed-meson mass data, then uses the resulting wave functions to compute open-charm strong decay widths in the QPC model and E1/M1 radiative widths. The central claim is that several recently observed states—χc1(4010), χc1(4274), χc0(4500), and χc0(4700)—can be assigned as the χc1(2P), χc1(3P), χc0(4P), and χc0(5P) conventional charmonium states, with χc1(3872) generated dynamically through D-bar-D coupling, and that χc0(2P) lies at about 3851 MeV. The paper presents mass comparisons in Tables I-II and extensive width and radiative-transition tables.

Significance. If the assignments hold, the work provides a conventional quarkonium interpretation for several states currently considered exotic and produces a testable prediction for χc0(2P); it also extends well-tested decay-calculation machinery to a systematically updated spectrum. The paper's strengths are its breadth—mass spectra, QPC open-charm widths, and E1/M1 radiative transitions—and the explicit two-pole mechanism for χc1(3872)/χc1(4010). However, the significance is limited by the absence of a clear split between fitted and predicted states, the lack of theoretical uncertainties on model masses and widths, and the reliance on Breit-Wigner masses for the input side of the comparisons; these issues must be addressed before the central assignment claim can be evaluated.

major comments (4)
  1. [III (Eq. (36), Table I)] The manuscript never lists which charmonium states were included in the parameter fit that determines Eq. (36). The text states only that 'approximately 30 charmonium-like states' and 17 bottomonium states are used as constraints. If the four headline states of the abstract were among the fitted inputs, then the agreement in Table I is a postdiction rather than an independent test of the conventional-quarkonium interpretation. Please provide a complete list of the fitted states, explicitly indicate which of them later appear as 'candidates' in Table I, and report a fit-quality measure such as chi-squared per degree of freedom or rms deviation. This is essential for the central claim.
  2. [III (Table I)] No uncertainties are quoted for the computed masses or widths, so the claimed 'significantly improved agreement' is not quantitatively supported. The offsets are not negligible: 64.5 MeV for chi_c1(4010) (model 3948 vs BW 4012.5) and 87 MeV for chi_c0(4700) (model 4781 vs BW 4694). The authors should propagate the parameter-fit covariance or otherwise estimate theoretical mass and width errors, and show that the assignments in Table I are stable under those uncertainties.
  3. [III (uncertainties paragraph preceding III.A)] The authors correctly acknowledge that Breit-Wigner masses are neither pole masses nor bare quark-model masses. This systematic effect, however, is not propagated into the assignment logic; the comparisons in Table I still treat BW masses as direct benchmarks. Because the model is quenched and does not include the coupled-channel corrections that the paper itself invokes for chi_c1(3872), a robustness check is needed: for example, compare against pole masses from a coupled-channel analysis, or show how the Table I assignments change if the BW masses are shifted by a representative pole-versus-BW difference. Without this, the 60-90 MeV mass offsets are as large as the model's claimed improvement over the original GI predictions.
  4. [III (QPC model, Section II.B)] The QPC pair-creation strength gamma=6.3 is taken from ref. [33] without an uncertainty or sensitivity study, although the width comparisons are used to support assignments (for example, the discussion of chi_c0(2P) and chi_c0(3915)). The authors should state the provenance of gamma more transparently and include a sensitivity test (e.g., varying gamma by 10-20%) to show that the width-based conclusions are not dependent on this external calibration.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title and abstract] The title and abstract contain typographical spacing errors ('quar k' in the title and 'c onventional' in the abstract); please proofread the LaTeX source.
  2. [Table II, row 13P2] The PDG candidate for the 13P2 state is labeled 'chi_b1(1P)', but it should be 'chi_b2(1P)'.
  3. [References] References [32] and [1] cite different PDG editions (2022 and 2024); please use a single, latest edition consistently.
  4. [Reference [26]] Reference [26] is incomplete: 'M. Jacob and G. Wick, .' — please supply the journal, volume, page, and year.
  5. [III.B (chi_c0(3915) discussion)] The statement that the large QPC width disfavors assigning chi_c0(3915) as chi_c0(2P) is later qualified by the constrained calculation showing the width is not discriminative; please adjust the wording so the two statements are not in tension.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Mass assignments for chi_c1(4010), chi_c1(4274), chi_c0(4500), and chi_c0(4700) are compared with fitted inputs; the paper never separates fitted masses from predicted ones.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III (Numerical Results), Eq. (36) and Table I]
    "The present PDG table lists approximately 30 charmonium-like states [32]. We also incorporate 17 bottomonium mass spectra as additional constraints to refine model parameters. Moreover, the ground states of charmed and charmed-strange quarkonium are included in the fitting procedure ... By fitting the mass spectrum, the model parameters determined are listed as follows: ... With these set of parameters, the computed mass spectrum and candidate assignments are tabulated in Table I and II."

    The model parameters are obtained by fitting the mass spectrum that, on the paper's own account, includes roughly 30 charmonium-like states from the PDG. The paper does not state that any of the later 'assigned' states (chi_c1(4010), chi_c1(4274), chi_c0(4500), chi_c0(4700)) were excluded from the fit. The abstract's assignments are then read off Table I by comparing the fitted model masses with the PDG masses of those same states. If those states entered the fit, the agreement is a postdiction, not an independent prediction. Because no fitted-versus-predicted split, error bars, or residuals are given, the conventional-quarkonium interpretation of the four headline states is not independently tested by the mass comparison.

full rationale

The central circularity is the undisclosed overlap between the fitted spectrum and the states later presented as validated assignments. The paper's genuinely new prediction, chi_c0(2P) = 3851 MeV, is not fitted to that state and carries independent content, so the paper is not wholly circular. The self-citations are not separately load-bearing under rule 4: ref. [60] is a prior coupled-channel calculation with additional external support from ref. [61], and gamma = 6.3 from ref. [33] is openly labeled an empirical choice rather than a derived prediction. Nevertheless, because the four headline assignments reduce to a fit-quality comparison on the paper's own description, a score of 6 (partial circularity) is appropriate rather than a lower score for mere self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 15 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim inherits the entire Godfrey-Isgur operator structure, an empirical pair-creation strength gamma from the same group, and a coupled-channel pole mechanism from a same-author prior paper. No new particles are introduced; the analysis reinterprets existing experimental states. The parameter fit to the spectrum being interpreted accounts for the main circularity burden.

free parameters (15)
  • u/d quark mass (m_u/d) = 0.346 GeV
    Fitted to charmonium, bottomonium, and charmed meson masses (Eq. (36)).
  • strange quark mass (m_s) = 0.548 GeV
    Fitted as part of the mass spectrum (Eq. (36)).
  • charm quark mass (m_c) = 1.748 GeV
    Fitted as part of the mass spectrum (Eq. (36)).
  • bottom quark mass (m_b) = 5.077 GeV
    Fitted as part of the mass spectrum (Eq. (36)).
  • confinement slope (b) = 0.163 GeV^2
    Fitted parameter controlling the linear confining term (Eq. (36)).
  • constant (c) = -0.409 GeV
    Fitted constant in the confining potential (Eq. (36)).
  • sigma_0 = 2.02
    Fitted smearing parameter in the relativized potential (Eq. (36)).
  • s_0 = 2.017
    Fitted parameter in the smearing function (Eq. (36)).
  • epsilon_c = -0.217
    Fitted relativistic correction exponent for contact potential (Eq. (36)).
  • epsilon_t = -0.716
    Fitted relativistic correction exponent for tensor potential (Eq. (36)).
  • epsilon_sov = -0.212
    Fitted relativistic correction exponent for vector spin-orbit (Eq. (36)).
  • epsilon_sos = -0.031
    Fitted relativistic correction exponent for scalar spin-orbit (Eq. (36)).
  • QPC pair-creation strength (gamma) = 6.3 (and 6.3/sqrt(3) for s-sbar)
    Empirical parameter from ref [33] with overlapping authors; used for all open-charm decay widths.
  • D1 mixing angle (theta) = -54.7 degrees
    Fixed from ref [34] for D1(2420)/D1'(2430) mixtures; affects final-state wave functions in QPC widths.
  • SHO basis size and beta = 30 basis states, beta = 0.4 GeV
    Numerical convergence parameters; chosen in Sec. II A and affects wave function nodes and computed widths.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The relativized Godfrey-Isgur Hamiltonian form (Eqs. (1)-(9)) is a valid description of quarkonium.
    Adopted from ref [7]; the paper only refits parameters, not the operator structure.
  • domain assumption The 3P0 (quark pair creation) model describes OZI-allowed strong decays (Eqs. (16)-(23)).
    Standard model from refs [17,19-21]; relied on for all open-charm widths.
  • standard math Foldy-Wouthuysen nonrelativistic reduction is adequate for E1/M1 radiative transitions.
    Used in Section II C; standard treatment from refs [27-29].
  • domain assumption Breit-Wigner masses listed in the PDG can be compared with quenched quark-model masses.
    Section III states this as a known uncertainty but uses BW masses as fit targets and benchmarks.
  • domain assumption The Lee-Friedrichs coupled-channel model of ref [60] generates two poles from the chi_c1(2P)-D-Dbar coupling.
    Invoked in Section III C to explain chi_c1(3872) as a dynamically generated state; not re-derived here and is a same-group result.
  • standard math SHO expansion with 30 basis states and beta=0.4 GeV converges for the relevant wave functions.
    Stated in Section II A; no convergence study shown.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Updated analysis of charmonium states in a relativized quark potential model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QZQLCDSD

@misc{pith2026250414575,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Updated analysis of charmonium states in a relativized quark potential model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QZQLCDSD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.14575}
}
abstract

Motivated by recent experimental observations of charmonium(-like) states, we investigate their interpretation as conventional charmonium states within the framework of relativized quark potential model. We find a consistent description of the updated masses of charmonia, bottomonia and some selected charmed mesons, then systematically compute open-charm strong decay widths and electromagnetic transition widths for radially excited charmonium states up to $n=5$. The numerical results show significantly improved agreement with experimental masses and widths. Notably, the newly-observed $\chi_{c1}(4010)$ and $\chi_{c1}(4274)$ are tentatively associated with the $\chi_{c1}(2P)$ and $\chi_{c1}(3P)$ respectively, while the $\chi_{c0}(4500)$ and $\chi_{c0}(4700)$ are interpreted as the $\chi_{c0}(4P)$ and $\chi_{c0}(5P)$ states. For the controversial $\chi_{c1}(3872)$ state, we suggest its potential connection to $\chi_{c1}(4010)$, as a two-pole structure due to the $\chi_{c1}(2P)$ coupling to $D\bar{D}$ channels. Intriguingly, the predicted mass of $\chi_{c0}(2P)$ is about 3851 MeV, diverging from the original estimate of 3916 MeV in the Godfrey and Isgur's work but consistent with non-relativistic potential model predictions. This calculation might provide more insight to the future experimental investigation of charmonium(-like) states.

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. Three-gluon decays of radially excited quarkonia $\psi(2S)$ and $\Upsilon(2S)$ with both relativistic and QCD radiative corrections

    hep-ph 2026-03 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Phenomenologically improved Bethe-Salpeter calculations of ψ(2S)/Υ(2S) → ggg, including relativistic and QCD corrections, match experiment and extract lower β_V values reflecting nodal sensitivity.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [33]

    Z. Li, H. Ye, and M. Lu, Phys. Rev. C 56, 1099 (1997)

    work page 1997

  2. [1]

    This pattern is systematically observed for S-wave charmonia (Table III)

    S-wave states: The dominant E1 transitions of n1S0 and n3S1 occur between states with adjacent radial quantum number n. This pattern is systematically observed for S-wave charmonia (Table III)

    work page

  3. [2]

    D-wave states: The dominant E1 transitions of n3D1 charmonium states follow n3D1 →n3P0 +γ, where the final state retains the same radial quantum number and total spin S, but with the orbital angular momentum L and total angular momentum J reduced by one unit (Table IV)

    work page

  4. [3]

    However, exceptions arise for the processes χc0(4P ) →γψ(4S) andχc0(5P ) →γψ(5S), where the radiative partial widths are significantly suppressed

    P -wave states: The dominant E1 transitions of χcJ (nP ) (J = 0, 1, 2) usually proceed via γψ(nS), preserving the radial quantum number n (Table V and VI). However, exceptions arise for the processes χc0(4P ) →γψ(4S) andχc0(5P ) →γψ(5S), where the radiative partial widths are significantly suppressed. This suppression stems from the nodal structures of the...

    work page

  5. [4]

    These principles could be understood by viewing the eqs

    M1 transitions: The dominant channels predominantly feature transitions to groun d-state mesons, as listed in VIII-X. These principles could be understood by viewing the eqs. (34) and (3 5), which illustrates that the E1 transition mainly depends on the overlapping of the wave functions between th e initial and final states, while the spherical Bessel func...

    work page

  6. [5]

    Navas et al

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

    2024

  7. [6]

    F.-K. Guo, C. Hanhart, U.-G. Meißner, Q. Wang, Q. Zhao, an d B.-S. Zou, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 015004 (2018), [Erratum: Rev.Mod.Phys. 94, 029901 (2022)], arXiv:1705.00141 [hep- ph]

    arXiv 2018

  8. [7]

    H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rept. 639, 1 (2016), arXiv:1601.02092 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2016

Show all 70 references
  1. [8]

    B.-Q. Li, C. Meng, and K.-T. Chao, Phys. Rev. D 80, 014012 (2009), arXiv:0904.4068 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  2. [9]

    W.-J. Deng, H. Liu, L.-C. Gui, and X.-H. Zhong, Phys. Rev. D 95, 034026 (2017), arXiv:1608.00287 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  3. [10]

    S. K. Choi et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 262001 (2003), arXiv:hep-ex/0309032

    2003 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Godfrey and N

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

    1985

  5. [12]

    Barnes, S

    T. Barnes, S. Godfrey, and E. S. Swanson, Phys. Rev. D 72, 054026 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0505002

    2005 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Aaltonen et al

    T. Aaltonen et al. (CDF), Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 242002 (2009), arXiv:0903.2229 [hep-ex]

    2009 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 131902 (2024), arXiv:2406.03156 [hep-ex]

    2024

  8. [15]

    Chilikin et al

    K. Chilikin et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. D 95, 112003 (2017), arXiv:1704.01872 [hep-ex]. 18

    2017 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 182002 (2005), arXiv:hep-ex/0408126

    2005 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Aubert et al

    B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 082001 (2008), arXiv:0711.2047 [hep-ex]

    2008 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. D 95, 012002 (2017), arXiv:1606.07898 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 022003 (2017), arXiv:1606.07895 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 261601 (2013), arXiv:1303.0342 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  14. [21]

    H. G. Blundell and S. Godfrey, Phys. Rev. D 53, 3700 (1996)

    1996

  15. [22]

    H. G. Blundell, Meson properties in the quark model: A look at some outstandi ng problems , Other thesis (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9608473

    1996 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Micu, Nuclear Physics B 10, 521 (1969)

    L. Micu, Nuclear Physics B 10, 521 (1969)

    1969

  17. [24]

    Le Yaouanc, L

    A. Le Yaouanc, L. Oliver, O. P` ene, and J. C. Raynal, Phys . Rev. D 8, 2223 (1973)

    1973

  18. [25]

    Le Yaouanc, L

    A. Le Yaouanc, L. Oliver, O. P` ene, and J.-C. Raynal, Phy s. Rev. D 9, 1415 (1974)

    1974

  19. [26]

    Liu, Z.-G

    X. Liu, Z.-G. Luo, and Z.-F. Sun, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 122001 (2010)

    2010

  20. [27]

    Barnes and S

    T. Barnes and S. Godfrey, Phys. Rev. D 69, 054008 (2004)

    2004

  21. [28]

    Y.-c. Yang, Z. Xia, and J. Ping, Phys. Rev. D 81, 094003 (2010)

    2010

  22. [29]

    Segovia, D

    J. Segovia, D. Entem, and F. Fern´ andez, Physics Letter s B 715, 322 (2012)

    2012

  23. [30]

    Jacob and G

    M. Jacob and G. Wick,

  24. [31]

    Close and L

    F. Close and L. Copley, Nuclear Physics B 19, 477 (1970)

    1970

  25. [32]

    Li, Phys

    Z. Li, Phys. Rev. D 50, 5639 (1994)

    1994

  26. [34]

    S.-F. Chen, J. Liu, H.-Q. Zhou, and D.-Y. Chen, Eur. Phys . J. C 80, 290 (2020), arXiv:2003.07988 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Li and D.-Y

    J.-L. Li and D.-Y. Chen, Chinese Physics C 46, 073106 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    R. L. Workman et al. (Particle Data Group), PTEP 2022, 083C01 (2022)

    2022

  29. [37]

    Chen, C.-Q

    D.-Y. Chen, C.-Q. Pang, J. He, and Z.-Y. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D 100, 074016 (2019), arXiv:1804.00614 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Barnes, N

    T. Barnes, N. Black, and P. R. Page, Phys. Rev. D 68, 054014 (2003), arXiv:nucl-th/0208072

    2003 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Eichten, S

    E. Eichten, S. Godfrey, H. Mahlke, and J. L. Rosner, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 1161 (2008), arXiv:hep-ph/0701208

    2008 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Ebert, R

    D. Ebert, R. N. Faustov, and V. O. Galkin, Phys. Rev. D 67, 014027 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0210381

    2003 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 081901 (2024), arXiv:2402.03829 [hep-ex]

    2024

  34. [42]

    X. L. Wang et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 142002 (2007), arXiv:0707.3699 [hep-ex]

    2007 arXiv

  35. [43]

    J. P. Lees et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D 89, 111103 (2014), arXiv:1211.6271 [hep-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  36. [44]

    J. He, Y. Liu, J.-T. Zhu, and D.-Y. Chen, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 246 (2020), arXiv:1912.08420 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Wang and X

    F.-L. Wang and X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 102, 094006 (2020), arXiv:2008.13484 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Ke, X.-H

    H.-W. Ke, X.-H. Liu, and X.-Q. Li, Chin. Phys. C 44, 093104 (2020), arXiv:2004.03167 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  39. [47]

    F.-K. Guo, C. Hanhart, and U.-G. Meissner, Phys. Rev. Le tt. 102, 242004 (2009), arXiv:0904.3338 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Cotugno, R

    G. Cotugno, R. Faccini, A. D. Polosa, and C. Sabelli, Phy s. Rev. Lett. 104, 132005 (2010), arXiv:0911.2178 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Zhang, Phys

    J.-R. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 102, 054006 (2020), arXiv:2004.10985 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 211902 (2023), arXiv:2308.15362 [hep-ex]

    2023

  43. [51]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 121901 (2023), arXiv:2301.07321 [hep-ex]

    2023

  44. [52]

    X. L. Wang et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. D 91, 112007 (2015), arXiv:1410.7641 [hep-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Pakhlova et al

    G. Pakhlova et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 172001 (2008), arXiv:0807.4458 [hep-ex]

    2008 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Lin, J.-Z

    Z.-Y. Lin, J.-Z. Wang, J.-B. Cheng, L. Meng, and S.-L. Zh u, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 241903 (2024), arXiv:2403.01727 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    H¨ usken, R

    N. H¨ usken, R. F. Lebed, R. E. Mitchell, E. S. Swanson, Y. -Q. Wang, and C.-Z. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 109, 114010 (2024), arXiv:2404.03896 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Eichten, K

    E. Eichten, K. Gottfried, T. Kinoshita, K. D. Lane, and T .-M. Yan, Phys. Rev. D 21, 203 (1980)

    1980

  49. [57]

    Liu and G

    X.-H. Liu and G. Li, Phys. Rev. D 88, 014013 (2013), arXiv:1306.1384 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  50. [58]

    J. P. Lees et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D 86, 072002 (2012), arXiv:1207.2651 [hep-ex]

    2012 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Guo and U.-G

    F.-K. Guo and U.-G. Meissner, Phys. Rev. D 86, 091501 (2012), arXiv:1208.1134 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Z.-Y. Zhou, Z. Xiao, and H.-Q. Zhou, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 022001 (2015), arXiv:1501.00879 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. D 102, 112003 (2020), arXiv:2009.00026 [hep-ex]

    2020

  54. [62]

    Li and K.-T

    B.-Q. Li and K.-T. Chao, Phys. Rev. D 79, 094004 (2009), arXiv:0903.5506 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), JHEP 02, 024 (2021), [Erratum: JHEP 04, 170 (2021)], arXiv:2011.01 867 [hep-ex]

    2021

  56. [64]

    Zhou and Z

    Z.-Y. Zhou and Z. Xiao, Phys. Rev. D 96, 054031 (2017), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 96, 099905 (2017)], arXiv:1704.04438 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Deng, R.-H

    Q. Deng, R.-H. Ni, Q. Li, and X.-H. Zhong, Phys. Rev. D 110, 056034 (2024), arXiv:2312.10296 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  58. [66]

    V. M. Abazov et al. (D0), Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 232001 (2015), arXiv:1508.07846 [hep-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Aaltonen et al

    T. Aaltonen et al. (CDF), Mod. Phys. Lett. A 32, 1750139 (2017), arXiv:1101.6058 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 082001 (2021), arXiv:2103.01803 [hep-ex]

    2021

  61. [69]

    W.-J. Deng, H. Liu, L.-C. Gui, and X.-H. Zhong, Phys. Rev . D 95, 034026 (2017)

    2017

  62. [70]

    Barnes, S

    T. Barnes, S. Godfrey, and E. S. Swanson, Phys. Rev. D 72, 054026 (2005). 19

    2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.