Spin structure of spin-1 charmonium states near $T_c$

HyungJoo Kim

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Spin structure of spin-1 charmonium states near $T_c$

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 For both the vector (1−−) and axial-vector (1++) charmonium states, heating toward the critical temperature raises the quark-spin share by a few percent, lowers the quark orbital share by about the same amount, and leaves the gluon share…

desk verdict The total spin preservation claim is a normalization artifact, but the new twist-2 Wilson coefficients are a genuine calculation that deserves referee time. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.15769 v1 pith:LKQJE3ZS submitted 2025-04-22 hep-ph nucl-th

HyungJoo Kim This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phnucl-th

keywords charmoniumQCDsumrulesspindecompositionfinitetemperaturetwist-2gluoncondensatequarkorbitalangularmomentumheavyquarkonium

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 asks what happens to the spin budget of spin-1 charmonium states—the vector 1−− (J/ψ-like) and axial-vector 1++ partners—as the system is heated toward the quark-gluon plasma transition. Using QCD sum rules, the author computes the dimension-4 twist-2 gluon operator's contribution to the two-point function of heavy vector and axial currents in a rotating frame, the piece that carries the medium's anisotropy. The central finding is a compensation: between T/Tc = 1.00 and 1.04, the quark spin fraction rises by a few percent, the quark orbital angular momentum fraction falls by a comparable amount, and the gluon angular momentum fraction barely changes. Because these thermal shifts cancel, the total spin of each charmonium state is preserved at finite temperature. The result matters because it turns the spin structure of quarkonia into a concrete, parameter-light observable of the hot medium, with the entire thermal response entering through the temperature-dependent gluon condensates.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the spin-decomposed two-point function in a rotating frame, $\Pi^{\mu\nu}(q)=i\int d^4x\,d^4y\,e^{iqx}\langle 0|T\{j^\mu(x) M_z(y) j^\nu(0)\}|0\rangle$, with $M_z$ the z-component of the total angular momentum density of quarks and gluons. The gauge-invariant decomposition $M_z = \frac{1}{2}\bar\psi\gamma^\perp\gamma_5\psi + \psi^\dagger(\vec x \times (-i\vec D))\psi + \vec x \times (\vec E \times \vec B)$ separates quark spin, quark orbital angular momentum, and gluon total angular momentum, and the identity of Eq. (4) connects the rotating-frame correlator to the inertial-frame correlator through spin and orbital derivative operators, proving total angular momentum conservation at the OPE level. The new ingredient is the dimension-4 twist-2 gluon condensate $G_2$, defined by $\langle 0|\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi} G_{\mu\alpha}G_{\nu}^{\ \alpha}|0\rangle = g_{\mu\nu}G_0 + (u_\mu u_\nu - \frac{1}{4}g_{\mu\nu})G_2$, whose Wilson coefficients $C_{4,2}$ in the vector and axial channels are computed here for the first time. A Borel transform with continuum subtraction converts this OPE into sum rules for the individual fractions $s_q$, $\ell_q$, $j_g$, whose temperature dependence is carried by $G_0(T)$ and $G_2(T)$.

What would settle it

A lattice QCD computation of the gauge-invariant spin decomposition of the vector or axial-vector charmonium at T/Tc = 1.00 and 1.04 that finds no few-percent rise in the quark-spin fraction, or a gluon angular momentum change larger than about one percentage point, would falsify the prediction. A shorter check is to include the O(αs) corrections with their spin decomposition in the same sum rules: if the shifts reverse sign or stop cancelling, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's discovery is that the spin-decomposed operator product expansion for spin-1 charmonium can be carried to dimension 4 in a medium by adding the twist-2 gluon condensate $G_2$, with analytic Wilson coefficients for the quark-spin, quark-orbital, and gluon parts given in Eqs. (7)--(12). Using Borel-transformed QCD sum rules with these coefficients and lattice inputs for $G_0(T)$ and $G_2(T)$, the paper finds that in both the $1^{--}$ and $1^{++}$ channels, as $T/T_c$ rises from 1.00 to 1.04, the quark-spin share increases by a few percent, the quark orbital angular momentum share decreases by about the same amount, and the gluon share stays essentially constant. The three changes sum to zero, so the total spin is conserved at finite temperature. The author reads this as orbital angular momentum being transferred into quark spin as the heavy-quark binding weakens, and expects the qualitative trend to survive the missing $O(\alpha_s)$ corrections because those corrections are nearly temperature-independent below the OPE separation scale.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that temperature enters the calculation only through the strengths of the gluon background fields, $G_0(T)$ and $G_2(T)$, while the computed coefficients multiplying those fields are unchanged by temperature; if those coefficients shift measurably near the critical temperature, the predicted few-percent compensation between quark spin and orbital angular momentum would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Across T/Tc = 1.00–1.04, both the vector and axial-vector channels show the same pattern: quark spin grows by a few percent, quark orbital angular momentum shrinks by a comparable amount, and the gluon share is essentially flat.
The individual thermal shifts cancel, so the total spin sum $s_q+\ell_q+j_g$ stays at unity at every temperature considered, meaning total angular momentum conservation holds in the finite-temperature sum rule.
The new $C_{4,2}$ Wilson coefficients complete the leading-order spin-decomposed OPE for spin-1 quarkonia in a medium; future sum-rule studies of quarkonium at finite temperature can reuse them directly.
Because the Wilson coefficients are assumed temperature-independent, the magnitude of the predicted shifts is tied to the condensate changes $G_0(T)$ and $G_2(T)$; different lattice condensate inputs would rescale the effect without changing its compensating structure.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper, the same compensation mechanism predicts that bottomonium spin-1 states will show much smaller thermal spin reshuffling than charmonium, since condensate contributions are suppressed by powers of $1/m_b$; a parallel sum-rule calculation would quantify the effect.
Beyond the paper, the newly computed twist-2 Wilson coefficients allow the sum rules to be inverted: lattice-QCD measurements of charmonium spin fractions near $T_c$ could be used to extract the temperature dependence of the twist-2 gluon condensate $G_2$, which is otherwise hard to isolate.
Beyond the paper, the near-exact cancellation suggests that total quarkonium spin is a more robust observable near the transition than any single component, so measurements of quarkonium polarization in heavy-ion collisions could see little net change even while the microscopic spin budget shifts.
Beyond the paper, recomputing the same OPE at nonzero three-momentum or in a moving medium would test whether the compensation persists outside the rest frame; the conservation identity of Eq. (4) suggests it should, but the Wilson coefficients would need to be re-derived.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The headline result—that thermal changes in quark spin and orbital angular momentum cancel so total spin is preserved—is true by construction. Eqs. (16)–(18) define the three components as fractions of the same total M, so their sum is identically 1 at every temperature and every Borel mass. That part of the abstract and conclusion should be reframed; it is not a physical prediction.

What is genuinely new is the set of spin-decomposed Wilson coefficients for the dimension-4 twist-2 gluon operator in Eqs. (7)–(12). I believe these are not in the cited literature, and if they are correct they give the first QCD sum rule estimate of how the spin decomposition of vector and axial-vector charmonium shifts near Tc. The paper inherits the standard machinery from Ref. [20], the vacuum numbers look consistent with that earlier work, and the author is honest about the limitation that O(alpha_s) corrections are not spin-decomposed.

The soft spots are real and concentrated in the one place that matters. The numerical slopes in Figs. 2 and 3 are generated entirely by the new twist-2 coefficients multiplied by the temperature dependence of G2(T). Those coefficients are displayed without derivation, no diagram set is given, and no independent check against known limits or alternative computation is offered. An error in any Jn combination would reverse or change the predicted trends while leaving the advertised cancellation intact. The assumption that all temperature dependence sits in the gluon condensates is standard for T well below the OPE scale, but near 1.0–1.04 Tc it deserves more scrutiny than a citation. Finally, the error bars shown are only standard deviations over the Borel window; they ignore uncertainties in the condensates, threshold, and quark mass, so the apparent significance of the few-percent shifts is overstated.

None of this makes the paper worthless. The calculation is compact, the decomposition is clean, and a referee who can verify Eqs. (7)–(12) will either confirm a useful result or catch an error. I would send this to peer review with a request for a derivation or a detailed cross-check of the new coefficients, for a reframed conclusion that presents the individual component slopes as the claim, and for propagated uncertainties. As it stands, I would not cite it in my own work until the coefficients are independently confirmed.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper extends a previous QCD sum-rule analysis of the spin decomposition of spin-1 charmonium (Ref. [20]) to finite temperature near T_c. It introduces a new contribution from the dimension-4 twist-2 gluon condensate G_2 to the rotating-frame two-point function of vector and axial-vector currents, with the relevant Wilson coefficients displayed in Eqs. (7)-(12). From Borel-transformed sum rules, the authors define quark spin, quark orbital, and gluon angular-momentum fractions and compute their temperature dependence between 1.00 T_c and 1.04 T_c. The reported behavior is that the quark spin fraction rises by a few percent, the quark orbital fraction falls by a comparable amount, the gluon fraction is nearly unchanged, and the total is preserved.

Significance. If the new coefficients and the operator identity in Eq. (4) were independently established, the paper would provide a first finite-temperature QCD sum-rule estimate of the spin decomposition of charmonium near T_c, complementing recent lattice studies. The presentation is clear and the Borel-window treatment follows standard practice; the authors are also explicit about the neglect of O(alpha_s) spin decomposition. However, the central advertised conclusion that the total spin is preserved is a normalization identity following from the definitions, and the nontrivial numerical content is carried entirely by unverified Wilson coefficients. The paper is therefore not acceptable in its present form.

major comments (4)

[Sec. III, Eqs. (16)-(18); Abstract and Sec. IV] The claim that thermal changes cancel and the total spin is preserved is tautological: because s_q, l_q, and j_g are each defined as a spin-decomposed component of the OPE divided by the same total M(M^2,s_0), the sum s_q + l_q + j_g equals 1 identically for every Borel mass and temperature. The abstract's statement that 'these thermal changes cancel each other, ensuring that the total spin is preserved even at finite temperature' is therefore not a dynamical prediction. The paper should reframe the individual component shifts as the actual predictions and explicitly state that the sum is a normalization constraint.
[Sec. II, Eqs. (7)-(12)] The numerical temperature dependence of all three spin components is generated by the newly introduced Wilson coefficients C_{4,2}^{S_q}, C_{4,2}^{L_q}, and C_{4,2}^{J_g}. These coefficients are displayed in Eqs. (7)-(12) with the statement that they are 'newly computed', but no derivation, no list of contributing diagrams, and no consistency check is provided anywhere in the paper; Appendix A contains only the older G_0 coefficients. Since an error in any one of the J_n combinations would change or reverse the predicted slopes in Figs. 2 and 3 while leaving the advertised 'total spin preservation' unaffected, these coefficients are load-bearing. A derivation, or at least a check against known limits, must be added before the numerical conclusions can be assessed.
[Sec. II, Eq. (4)] The identity in Eq. (4), which relates the rotating-frame two-point function to the inertial-frame two-point function and is used to justify the spin-orbital decomposition, is asserted without proof ('we confirm'). This identity is needed for the physical meaning of M_{S_q}, M_{L_q}, and M_{J_g}; without a derivation or a reference containing one, the interpretation of the fractions in Eqs. (16)-(18) is not established.
[Sec. IV] The numerical analysis assumes that all temperature dependence is encoded in the gluon condensates G_0(T) and G_2(T), while the Wilson coefficients remain temperature-independent. This is a standard assumption when T is well below the OPE scale [25], but the calculation is performed very close to T_c, where that condition is less secure. Because the predicted shifts are only a few percent and are linear in G_2(T), the paper should quantify the sensitivity to this assumption, for example by comparing with the size of possible T-dependent Wilson-coefficient corrections or by varying the condensate input within the lattice uncertainties.

minor comments (5)

[Figs. 2 and 3] The vertical axes are labeled '(%)', but the j_g panels use inconsistent tick labels such as '0.' and '1.'; a uniform notation would improve readability.
[Throughout the text] The notation '1 ++' with a space is typographically inconsistent; please use '1^{++}' consistently.
[Table I and Sec. IV] Table I reports j_g = -1.5 +/- 0.7% for the axial vector channel, yet the text describes the gluon contribution as 'nearly unchanged' without discussing the negative sign; a negative gluon angular-momentum fraction deserves a physical comment.
[Sec. IV and Table I] The stated uncertainties reflect only the spread over the Borel window and not the uncertainties in m_c, alpha_s, s_0, or the condensate values; the paper mentions this in passing, but it should be stated directly with Table I.
[Sec. III and Appendix B] The Borel window and continuum threshold are taken from an inertial-frame OPE that includes O(alpha_s) corrections, while the spin decomposition omits those corrections; this inconsistency is acknowledged but should be flagged more prominently near Eq. (15) to avoid overstating the precision of the extracted spin fractions.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Total-spin preservation is a normalization identity; component trends are new but their coefficients are unshown.

self definitional [Sec. IV, Eqs. (16)-(18); Figs. 2-3; abstract]
"Although the total sum of these components is always unity, the individual components depend on the Borel mass M and the threshold parameter s0. ... Here, the total variations cancel each other exactly, so the total spin of charmonium state is preserved even at finite temperature."

Eqs. (16)-(18) define sq, lq, jg as MSq/M, MLq/M, MJg/M, respectively. Because the spin-decomposed sum rule is obtained by splitting the same total M, the identity MSq+MLq+MJg=M holds by construction, so sq+lq+jg=1 at every temperature regardless of G0, G2, or the Wilson coefficients. The advertised 'exact' cancellation of thermal variations is therefore a normalization identity, not a dynamical prediction. The paper's own sentence 'the total sum of these components is always unity' concedes this; the individual thermal shifts are separately calculable, but the 'total spin preserved' conclusion adds no information beyond the definitions.

full rationale

The headline result that thermal changes cancel and total spin is preserved reduces by construction to the normalization in Eqs. (16)-(18): the three spin fractions are defined as ratios of parts of the same total M, so their sum is identically 1 at all temperatures. That is a genuine circular step, and it is the paper's strongest advertised claim. The individual trends (sq increases, lq decreases, jg nearly unchanged) are not circular: they follow from the newly listed twist-2 Wilson coefficients multiplied by lattice-derived G2(T), and no fitting to the target spin fractions is involved. The absence of a derivation for the new coefficients is a serious verification gap, but it is not circularity. No load-bearing self-citation chain was found that forces the numerical component values. Overall score reflects partial circularity: one central prediction is a definitional identity, while the rest of the numerical content is independent but unverified.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central numerical conclusion rests on the sum-rule framework, the rotating-frame spin projection, externally supplied gluon condensates, and a set of tunable thresholds and Borel windows. No new entities are introduced. The main logical weakness is that the exact cancellation of thermal changes is enforced by the normalization of the components.

free parameters (4)

Continuum threshold sqrt(s0) = 3.29 to 3.57 GeV (vector), 3.45 to 4.02 GeV (axial)
Adjusted at each temperature to make the extracted charmonium mass stable in the Borel window (Appendix B). Not fit to spin fractions, but the spin decomposition inherits the chosen value.
Borel window (M_min, M_max) = e.g., (0.95, 1.90) GeV for vector at T/Tc = 1.04
Chosen by empirical convergence and ground-state dominance criteria (Sec. III); the final spin fractions are averaged over this window, so the result depends on this choice.
Charm quark mass and strong coupling = m_c = 1.262 GeV, alpha_s = 0.21
Inputs from Ref. [17], treated as fixed external parameters.
Gluon condensates G0 and G2 = G0 = (0.35 GeV)^4 in vacuum; G2(T) from lattice
External lattice inputs from Refs. [17,26]; the temperature dependence of the result is entirely controlled by these values.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption QCD sum rule methodology: OPE truncated at dimension 4 and leading order in alpha_s, Borel transform, quark-hadron duality.
Standard sum rule framework invoked in Sec. III; the convergence criteria are empirical.
domain assumption The angular momentum density decomposition (Eq. 2) and the rotating-frame projection of Eq. (4) correctly separate quark spin, quark OAM, and gluon AM.
Inherited from Refs. [20,21,23] without independent verification for charmonium at finite temperature.
domain assumption Temperature dependence of Wilson coefficients is negligible; all T dependence is in condensates.
Explicitly assumed in Sec. IV with citation [25].
domain assumption Pure SU(3) lattice results for G0(T) and G2(T) apply to a charmonium sum rule with charm quarks.
Inputs from quenched lattice simulations [17,26] are used without comment on quenching effects.
domain assumption Continuum above threshold s0 is approximated by the perturbative spectral function only.
Standard QCDSR approximation in Eq. (13).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spin structure of spin-1 charmonium states near $T_c$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LKQJE3ZS

@misc{pith2026250415769,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spin structure of spin-1 charmonium states near $T_c$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LKQJE3ZS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.15769}
}

abstract

We investigate the spin structure of the $1^{--}$ and $1^{++}$ charmonium states near the critical temperature using QCD sum rules. To this end, we compute the contribution of the dimension-4 twist-2 gluon operator to the two-point function of heavy vector and axial vector currents in a rotating frame. As temperature increases, the quark spin contribution slightly increases, while the quark orbital angular momentum decreases by a comparable amount. The gluon contribution remains nearly unchanged. These thermal changes cancel each other, ensuring that the total spin is preserved even at finite temperature.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.15769 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: Thermal modification of the charmonium spin structure in the vector channel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: Thermal modification of the charmonium spin structure in the axial vector channel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

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

A Unified Study of Hidden-Charm and Hidden-Bottom Mesons
hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

A common screened-potential and QCD sum-rule framework yields consistent spectra, E1/M1 widths, Regge slopes, decay constants and finite-spectrum thermal indicators for c¯c and b¯b mesons.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[20]

H. Kim, S. H. Lee, and S. Cho, Spin-1 quarkonia in a rotating frame and their spin contents, Phys. Lett. B843, 137986 (2023), arXiv:2212.14570 [hep-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2023
[25]

Hatsuda, Y

T. Hatsuda, Y. Koike, and S.-H. Lee, Finite temperature QCD sum rules reexamined: rho, omega and A1 mesons, Nucl. Phys. B 394, 221 (1993)

work page 1993
[1]

Matsui and H

T. Matsui and H. Satz,J/ψ Suppression by Quark-Gluon Plasma Formation, Phys. Lett. B 178, 416 (1986)

work page 1986
[2]

Umeda, K

T. Umeda, K. Nomura, and H. Matsufuru, Charmo- nium at finite temperature in quenched lattice QCD, Eur. Phys. J. C 39S1, 9 (2005), arXiv:hep-lat/0211003

arXiv 2005
[3]

Asakawa and T

M. Asakawa and T. Hatsuda, J / psi and eta(c) in the deconfined plasma from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 012001 (2004), arXiv:hep-lat/0308034

arXiv 2004
[4]

Digal, P

S. Digal, P. Petreczky, and H. Satz, Quarkonium feed down and sequential suppression, Phys. Rev. D 64, 094015 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0106017

arXiv 2001
[5]

Brambilla, J

N. Brambilla, J. Ghiglieri, A. Vairo, and P. Petreczky, Static quark-antiquark pairs at finite temperature, Phys. Rev. D 78, 014017 (2008), arXiv:0804.0993 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2008
[6]

Rothkopf, T

A. Rothkopf, T. Hatsuda, and S. Sasaki, Complex Heavy-Quark Potential at Finite Temperature from Lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 162001 (2012), arXiv:1108.1579 [hep-lat]

arXiv 2012

Show all 26 references

[7]

Brambilla et al

N. Brambilla et al. , Heavy Quarkonium: Progress, Puz- zles, and Opportunities, Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1534 (2011), arXiv:1010.5827 [hep-ph]

2011 arXiv
[8]

Brambilla et al

N. Brambilla et al. , QCD and Strongly Coupled Gauge Theories: Challenges and Perspectives, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2981 (2014), arXiv:1404.3723 [hep-ph]

2014 arXiv
[9]

Rothkopf, Heavy Quarkonium in Extreme Conditions, Phys

A. Rothkopf, Heavy Quarkonium in Extreme Conditions, Phys. Rept. 858, 1 (2020), arXiv:1912.02253 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[10]

M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, and V. I. Zakharov, QCD and Resonance Physics. Theoretical Foundations, Nucl. Phys. B 147, 385 (1979)

1979
[11]

M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, and V. I. Zakharov, QCD and Resonance Physics: Applications, Nucl. Phys. B 147, 448 (1979)

1979
[12]

M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, M. B. Voloshin, and V. I. Zakharov, eta(c) Puzzle in Quantum Chromodynamics, Phys. Lett. B 77, 80 (1978)

1978
[13]

L. J. Reinders, H. R. Rubinstein, and S. Yazaki, QCD Sum Rules for Heavy Quark Systems, Nucl. Phys. B186, 109 (1981)

1981
[14]

R. A. Bertlmann, Heavy Quark - Anti-quark Systems From Exponential Moments in QCD, Nucl. Phys. B 204, 387 (1982)

1982
[15]

L. J. Reinders, H. Rubinstein, and S. Yazaki, Hadron Properties from QCD Sum Rules, Phys. Rept. 127, 1 6 (1985)

1985
[16]

Morita and S

K. Morita and S. H. Lee, Critical behavior of charmonia across the phase transition: A QCD sum rule approach, Phys. Rev. C 77, 064904 (2008), arXiv:0711.3998 [hep- ph]

2008 arXiv
[17]

Morita and S

K. Morita and S. H. Lee, Heavy quarkonium correlators at finite temperature: QCD sum rule approach, Phys. Rev. D 82, 054008 (2010), arXiv:0908.2856 [hep-ph]

2010 arXiv
[18]

Gubler, K

P. Gubler, K. Morita, and M. Oka, Charmonium spec- tra at finite temperature from QCD sum rules with the maximum entropy method, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 092003 (2011), arXiv:1104.4436 [hep-ph]

2011 arXiv
[19]

Gubler and D

P. Gubler and D. Satow, Recent Progress in QCD Con- densate Evaluations and Sum Rules, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 106, 1 (2019), arXiv:1812.00385 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[21]

H. Kim, P. Gubler, and C. Sasaki, Proton Spin Decom- position via QCD Sum Rules (2025), arXiv:2503.20225 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[22]

F. He, J. Liang, and Y.-B. Yang, Origin of hadron spin based on Lattice QCD study on the charmed hadrons (2024), arXiv:2410.08046 [hep-lat]

2024 arXiv
[23]

Ji, Gauge-Invariant Decomposition of Nucleon Spin, Phys

X.-D. Ji, Gauge-Invariant Decomposition of Nucleon Spin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 610 (1997), arXiv:hep- ph/9603249

1997
[24]

H. Kim, S. Yeo, S. Cho, and S. H. Lee, Heavy quarkonium with finite three momentum near Tc, Phys. Rev. D 107, 114004 (2023), arXiv:2303.16731 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[26]

G. Boyd, J. Engels, F. Karsch, E. Laermann, C. Lege- land, M. Lutgemeier, and B. Petersson, Thermodynam- ics of SU(3) lattice gauge theory, Nucl. Phys. B 469, 419 (1996), arXiv:hep-lat/9602007

1996 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [20]

H. Kim, S. H. Lee, and S. Cho, Spin-1 quarkonia in a rotating frame and their spin contents, Phys. Lett. B843, 137986 (2023), arXiv:2212.14570 [hep-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2023

[2] [25]

Hatsuda, Y

T. Hatsuda, Y. Koike, and S.-H. Lee, Finite temperature QCD sum rules reexamined: rho, omega and A1 mesons, Nucl. Phys. B 394, 221 (1993)

work page 1993

[3] [1]

Matsui and H

T. Matsui and H. Satz,J/ψ Suppression by Quark-Gluon Plasma Formation, Phys. Lett. B 178, 416 (1986)

work page 1986

[4] [2]

Umeda, K

T. Umeda, K. Nomura, and H. Matsufuru, Charmo- nium at finite temperature in quenched lattice QCD, Eur. Phys. J. C 39S1, 9 (2005), arXiv:hep-lat/0211003

arXiv 2005

[5] [3]

Asakawa and T

M. Asakawa and T. Hatsuda, J / psi and eta(c) in the deconfined plasma from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 012001 (2004), arXiv:hep-lat/0308034

arXiv 2004

[6] [4]

Digal, P

S. Digal, P. Petreczky, and H. Satz, Quarkonium feed down and sequential suppression, Phys. Rev. D 64, 094015 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0106017

arXiv 2001

[7] [5]

Brambilla, J

N. Brambilla, J. Ghiglieri, A. Vairo, and P. Petreczky, Static quark-antiquark pairs at finite temperature, Phys. Rev. D 78, 014017 (2008), arXiv:0804.0993 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2008

[8] [6]

Rothkopf, T

A. Rothkopf, T. Hatsuda, and S. Sasaki, Complex Heavy-Quark Potential at Finite Temperature from Lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 162001 (2012), arXiv:1108.1579 [hep-lat]

arXiv 2012