Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Emergence of the exotic bottomoniumlike state $Y(10650)$ and support from Belle and Belle II data

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 A near-threshold $P$-wave $B^*\bar B^*$ pole, $Y(10650)$, explains Belle and Belle II open-bottom line shapes and would fill the $\Upsilon(4S)$-$\Upsilon(5S)$ gap.

desk verdict A real and testable P-wave bottomonium prediction buried under an over-claimed data comparison and an S-wave line-shape mistake. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.02742 v2 pith:GDTDUDWY submitted 2025-05-05 hep-ph hep-ex

Jun-Zhang Wang , Yu-Bo Li , Jian-Bo Cheng , Zi-Yang Lin , Lu Meng , Cheng-Ping Shen , Shi-Lin Zhu This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords Y(10650)P-wavedimesonexoticbottomoniumcomplexscalingmethodmesonexchangemodelB*Bbar*interactionBelleIIdatanear-thresholdresonance
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 argues that a state called $Y(10650)$, sitting essentially at the threshold where a $B^*$ meson and its antiparticle can be produced, is not a conventional quark-antiquark meson but a $P$-wave "dimeson" object generated by meson exchange between two heavy mesons. Using a coupled-channel meson-exchange model solved with the complex scaling method, the authors find a $J^{PC}=1^{--}$ pole very close to the $B^*\bar B^*$ threshold and show that its production line shape reproduces both the sharp enhancement just above that threshold in $e^+e^-\to B^*\bar B^*$ and the dip in $e^+e^-\to B\bar B^*$ seen by Belle and Belle II. If the claim is right, $Y(10650)$ becomes the first neutral isoscalar exotic bottomoniumlike state in the gap between $\Upsilon(4S)$ and $\Upsilon(5S)$, and it would establish that higher partial waves, normally suppressed by the centrifugal barrier, can still generate near-threshold exotic hadrons.

What carries the argument

The central object is a coupled-channel, partial-wave projected potential for $B^{(*)}\bar B^{(*)}$ scattering built from heavy meson effective Lagrangians, solved by the complex scaling method (CSM), which rotates coordinates into the complex plane so that both bound states and resonances appear as stable poles of the complex-scaled Schrodinger equation. The load-bearing identity is the pole expansion of the $T$-matrix near the pole: the cross section for $e^+e^-\to Y\to B^{(*)}\bar B^{(*)}$ is expressed in terms of the pole residues $g_i$ (effective couplings of the $Y$ to each open-bottom channel) and phase-space factors, with a single overall production-strength parameter $B(\Lambda)$. This machinery converts the dynamical pole into concrete line-shape predictions whose relative normalization across channels is fixed by the residues.

What would settle it

A high-statistics measurement of $e^+e^-\to B^*\bar B^*$ and $e^+e^-\to B\bar B^*$ across the full 10.60--10.70 GeV region: if the observed bump and dip cannot both be reproduced by a single $Y(10650)$ state with the relative strength fixed by the pole residues, the claim is ruled out.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the $P$-wave $B^*\bar B^*$ interaction generates a $J^{PC}=1^{--}$ (vector) pole, $Y(10650)$, within a few MeV of the $B^*\bar B^*$ threshold, and that this pole is responsible for the observed threshold enhancement in $e^+e^-\to B^*\bar B^*$ and the associated dip in $e^+e^-\to B\bar B^*$. The pole is dynamically generated by coupled-channel meson exchange ($\pi$, $\eta$, $\rho$, $\omega$, $\sigma$) rather than by a quark-antiquark pair, and the centrifugal barrier plays a constructive role: for weakly attractive potentials, the barrier turns a would-be bound state into a narrow near-threshold resonance. Once the production strength is fixed by the $B^*\bar B^*$ enhancement data point, the pole residues fix the relative strength in $B\bar B^*$, and the predicted dip location and magnitude match the Belle and Belle II measurements. A companion pole, $Y(10600)$, is also found near the $B\bar B^*$ threshold and is identified as the bottom analogue of the charmoniumlike $G(3900)$.

Load-bearing premise

The whole experimental comparison depends on the assumption that the measured cross sections are dominated by the single $Y(10650)$ state, with no important background from other processes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • $Y(10650)$ would be the first neutral isoscalar exotic bottomoniumlike state in the $\Upsilon(4S)$--$\Upsilon(5S)$ gap, where conventional quark models predict no vector states.
  • The state would confirm that $P$-wave dimeson dynamics can produce near-threshold exotics despite the centrifugal barrier, supporting the $P$-wave interpretation of $G(3900)$.
  • The predicted hidden-bottom transition $Y(10650)\to\Upsilon(2S)\eta$, with a width of order 10--100 keV, should be observable in Belle II cross-section data.
  • A companion pole $Y(10600)$ near the $B\bar B^*$ threshold predicts a corresponding threshold enhancement around 10.60 GeV, giving a second search target.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If confirmed, the same mechanism suggests searching for analogous $P$-wave near-threshold states in other heavy-flavor systems, such as $B_s^{(*)}\bar B_s^{(*)}$ or $B_c^{(*)}\bar B^{(*)}$, where the reduced kinetic energy should make the effect even more pronounced.
  • The dip-peak correlation between the two open-bottom channels is a generic single-pole signature; a combined fit to both channels with an explicit background model could be turned into a model-independent pole-extraction test.
  • Because the production strength is anchored to a single data point, the full energy dependence of the cross sections provides a stricter test than the one shown; the predicted line shapes can be checked point-by-point with more Belle II data.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies B(*)\bar B(*) scattering in a coupled-channel meson-exchange framework with complex scaling, reporting two isoscalar I(J^PC)=0(1^{--}) P-wave poles near the B\bar B* and B*\bar B* thresholds, named Y(10600) and Y(10650). The authors scan coupling constants and form factors to argue that both poles persist under theoretical uncertainties. They then construct a Flatté-like line-shape formula for e+e- -> B\bar B* and e+e- -> B*\bar B*, fix the production strength B(Λ) to a single data point of the B*\bar B* threshold enhancement, and claim that the resulting prediction for a dip in e+e- -> B\bar B* agrees with Belle and Belle II data. The abstract additionally promises a hidden-bottom calculation of Y(10650) -> \Upsilon(2S)\eta with a width estimate, but that calculation does not appear in the body of the manuscript.

Significance. If the two poles are confirmed, this would be the first evidence for P-wave dimeson states in the bottomonium sector, providing a strong test of the mechanism previously proposed for G(3900). A genuine strength is the systematic parameter scan: 1250 pole searches over four coupling-constant rescaling factors and a comparison of non-local and local form factors, which indicates that the near-threshold nature of Y(10650) is not fine-tuned. The paper also clearly separates the pole search from the data normalization, so the main cross-check is not circular. However, the quantitative experimental support is currently fragile: the line-shape comparison is built on a one-point fit without background, uncertainties, or goodness-of-fit, and, more seriously, the Flatté formula used for the P-wave pole has an S-wave threshold behavior. The advertised hidden-bottom analysis is absent, which further weakens the paper in its present form.

major comments (3)
  1. [THE INDICATION OF Y(10650) IN THE OPEN-BOTTOM CROSS SECTIONS] The line-shape formula for dσ_j/dE contains the self-energy term Σ_i (μ_i/8π^2) g_i sqrt(-2μ_i(E-m_i^th)). This is the nonrelativistic S-wave loop function, whose imaginary part is proportional to k_i. For the claimed P-wave B*\bar B* pole, unitarity requires the imaginary part of the self-energy to scale as k_i^3, i.e. (E-m_i^th)^{3/2}, and the production vertex should carry an additional factor k^2. The residue g_i defined in Eq. (21) is evaluated at the pole position and cannot absorb this energy dependence without changing the line shape away from the pole. Since the fit anchors the normalization at the single point 3.7 MeV above the B*\bar B* threshold and the predicted B\bar B* dip depends on the interference between channels, the use of the S-wave Flatté form is an internal-consistency problem for the data comparison in Fig. 4. The authors should either replace the self-energy with the proper P-wave loop function or justify why the S-wave form is an adequate approximation in this energy region.
  2. [THE INDICATION OF Y(10650) IN THE OPEN-BOTTOM CROSS SECTIONS and Fig. 4] The experimental support is built by fitting the production strength B(Λ) to exactly one data point, with no background model, no interference with non-resonant contributions, no propagated experimental uncertainties, and no goodness-of-fit measure. The text states: 'we fit the theoretical line shape of Y(10650) to match the enhancement data point at the threshold above 3.7 MeV in the B*\bar B* channel, we then predict the associated cross section in the e+e- -> B\bar B*.' The subsequent agreement is judged visually. In addition, Fig. 4 shows predictions only for Λ=0.45, 0.50, 0.55, while Fig. 3 and Tables I-II consider the wider range 0.40-0.60; the omission of Λ=0.4 and 0.6 is not explained. A quantitative fit including background and errors, or a clear statement that only a qualitative comparison is claimed, is needed before the abstract's 'support from Belle and Belle II data' can be accepted.
  3. [Abstract and full text] The abstract states: 'We further study the hidden-bottom transition Y(10650) -> \Upsilon(2S)\eta through a near-threshold B*\bar B* loop mechanism. The resulting O(10~100 keV) width ... is sufficient to account for the corresponding cross sections measured by Belle II.' No such analysis appears anywhere in the body or the appendix. This is a load-bearing advertised result in the abstract's case for Y(10650) appearing in both open- and hidden-bottom channels. The manuscript must either include the hidden-bottom calculation with enough detail to be checked, or the abstract must be revised to remove the claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Tables I and II] The caption of both tables defines δE = E_pole - m^0_th with m^0_th = m_B + m_B*, but for Y(10650) the relevant threshold is m_B* + m_B*. The quoted Y(10650) δE values (a few MeV) are inconsistent with m_B + m_B* ≈ 10604 MeV and only make sense relative to the B*\bar B* threshold. The caption should be corrected.
  2. [Tables I and II] The channel probabilities P_i defined by the c-product are complex and in some rows take unphysical negative values, e.g. Table II at Λ=0.4 gives P(\bar B*B + c.c.) = -1.2-1.4i %. Calling these quantities 'channel probabilities' or 'roughly reflecting the ratio of the channel' is misleading; the authors should either use |P_i| or another positive-definite measure, or explicitly explain how to interpret complex and negative values.
  3. [Figure 4] The y-axis labels in Fig. 4 appear garbled as 'σ d ressed' and the legend entry 'Hint from e+ e- -> b b Belle II fit' is unclear. The figure should be cleaned up for readability.
  4. [Title and abstract] The title in the body text, 'Emergence of new heavy quarkoniumlike states: Y (10600) and Y (10650)', differs from the abstract title 'Emergence of the exotic bottomoniumlike state Y(10650) and support from Belle and Belle II data'. The two should be aligned, especially since the body presents both Y(10600) and Y(10650) as the main predictions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Y(10650) pole and the predicted B Bbar* dip do not reduce to the fitted normalization.

full rationale

The central claim is that a JPC=1-- pole near the B*Bbar* threshold emerges from a coupled-channel meson-exchange calculation. The model parameters are fixed externally: couplings come from the D* width, vector-meson dominance, light-cone sum rules and lattice QCD form factors, and the cutoff range 0.4-0.6 GeV is carried over from the authors' prior G(3900) analysis (Ref. [15]), which itself is benchmarked against charm-sector data. The Y(10650) pole position and residues are obtained by solving the complex-scaled Schrodinger equation; no bottom-sector cross-section datum enters this pole search. In the line-shape comparison, B(Lambda) is fitted to one B*Bbar* enhancement point, but the B Bbar* line shape is then computed from the same fixed pole residues and denominator, so the predicted dip is an independent cross-channel prediction rather than a refit. No equation defines Y(10650) in terms of the fitted normalization, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. Self-citations to the prior G(3900) work are load-bearing only through externally falsifiable charm data and hence do not constitute circularity. A separate concern is that the Flatte-style self-energy sqrt(-2mu(E-m_th)) in the cross-section formula has S-wave energy dependence, which is inconsistent with a P-wave pole whose width should scale as k^3; that is a model-validity or correctness issue, not a circularity, and therefore does not affect the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central calculation rests on a meson-exchange model with couplings taken from charm-sector phenomenology, a cutoff fixed by the authors' G(3900) analysis, and a near-threshold line-shape formula. These inputs are not derived in the paper; the robustness scans show the poles persist under their variation, but the data comparison still requires fitting the overall production strength.

free parameters (6)
  • Cutoff Lambda = 0.4-0.6 GeV (0.7 in robustness scans)
    Regulator scale fixed by reproducing G(3900) in the charm-sector study [15]; pole positions and residues depend on it (Tables I and II).
  • Production strength B(Lambda) = Not specified; set per cutoff by matching one Belle/II data point
    Overall normalization of e+e- -> Y -> B(*)Bbar(*); absorbs unknown production vertex. Fitted to the B*Bbar* threshold point in Fig. 4.
  • Scalar meson coupling g_s = 0.76
    Taken from [30]; range 0.76-3.8 is phenomenologically allowed [43] and is scanned in Fig. 2.
  • Pion coupling g = 0.59
    Extracted from D* width [8]; literature ratios gB/gD = 0.78-0.90 [40,41] show the flavor extrapolation uncertainty.
  • Vector coupling beta = 0.9
    From vector meson dominance and form-factor comparison [28,29]; beta_B/beta_D = 0.48 +/- 0.08 [42].
  • Vector coupling lambda = 0.56 GeV^-1
    From [28,29]; scanned over 0.75-1.25 times its central value in the uncertainty analysis.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Heavy quark flavor symmetry lets charm-sector couplings (g, g_s, beta, lambda) be carried over to the bottom sector.
    Invoked in 'Theoretical framework' where the couplings are 'taken to be consistent with those in the charm sector in Refs. [15,26,27]'.
  • domain assumption One-boson exchange with pi, eta, sigma, rho, omega and SU(2) flavor symmetry gives the dominant B(*)Bbar(*) interaction.
    The entire potential model, Eqs. (1)-(16), uses only these exchanges; no quark core or other dynamics.
  • domain assumption The complex scaling method with a non-local monopole regulator correctly extracts the physical poles and residues.
    Eqs. (17)-(19); relies on analytic continuation and the choice of regulator Lambda.
  • domain assumption The near-threshold line-shape formula of Hanhart, Kalashnikova, and Nefediev [44] applies, with a single pole and constant production strength, and no non-resonant background.
    Used in the section 'THE INDICATION OF Y(10650)...'; B absorbs all production details and is fitted to data.
  • domain assumption Isospin breaking among bottomed mesons is negligible; isospin-averaged PDG masses are used.
    Stated after Eq. (16): 'the isospin averaged masses of the bottomed meson from the Particle Data Group are taken'.
invented entities (2)
  • Y(10600) independent evidence
    purpose: Predicted JPC=1-- P-wave bound/resonance pole of B Bbar*/B*Bbar*, the bottom analogue of G(3900).
    The paper predicts line shapes in e+e- -> B Bbar* (Fig. 3) that are measurable; no current data are claimed as confirmation.
  • Y(10650) independent evidence
    purpose: Predicted JPC=1-- P-wave pole of B*Bbar*, candidate to explain the Belle/II threshold enhancement and dip.
    Falsifiable via line shapes in e+e- -> B*Bbar* and B Bbar*, and via hidden-bottom width mentioned in the abstract (not in the full text).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Emergence of the exotic bottomoniumlike state $Y(10650)$ and support from Belle and Belle II data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GDTDUDWY

@misc{pith2026250502742,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Emergence of the exotic bottomoniumlike state $Y(10650)$ and support from Belle and Belle II data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GDTDUDWY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.02742}
}
abstract

Near-threshold exotic hadrons are usually associated with $S$-wave hadron-hadron dynamics, while higher partial waves are expected to be strongly suppressed by the centrifugal barrier. We show that this expectation can be overturned in the bottomonium sector. In a coupled-channel meson exchange framework combined with the complex scaling method, we find a $J^{PC}=1^{--}$ pole, denoted as $Y(10650)$, generated dominantly by the $P$-wave $B^*\bar B^*$ interaction and located close to the $B^*\bar B^*$ threshold. This pole naturally accounts for the anomalous enhancement observed just above the opening of the $B^*\bar B^*$ threshold in $e^+e^-\to B^*\bar B^*$. Once its production strength is fixed by this threshold enhancement, the corresponding cross sections of $\sigma[e^+e^-\to Y(10650)\to B\bar B^*]$ are predicted by the pole residues and phase-space factors, giving a characteristic dip-or-peak structure consistent with the available Belle (II) data. We further study the hidden-bottom transition $Y(10650)\to \Upsilon(2S)\eta$ through a near-threshold $B^*\bar B^*$ loop mechanism. The resulting $\mathcal{O}(10\sim100~\mathrm{keV})$ width for $Y(10650)\to \Upsilon(2S)\eta$ is sufficient to account for the corresponding cross sections measured by Belle II. The simultaneous appearance of this state in open- and hidden-bottom channels provides a direct experimental path to test a $P$-wave near-threshold mechanism and makes $Y(10650)$ a strong candidate for the first neutral isoscalar exotic bottomoniumlike state in the spectral gap between $\Upsilon(4S)$ and $\Upsilon(5S)$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.02742 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The pole trajectories of the isoscalar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Distribution of pole positions for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The line shape of normalized cross sections for the processes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Comparison between the predicted line shape of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.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. Possible hidden-bottom molecular pentaquarks from $P$-wave $\Lambda_bB^{(*)}/\Sigma_b^{(*)}B^{(*)}$ interactions

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    P-wave Lambda_b B(*)/Sigma_b(*) B(*) one-boson-exchange dynamics predicts a spectrum of positive-parity hidden-bottom molecular pentaquark candidates, including Sigma_b B* and Sigma_b* B* bound states and resonances.

  2. Double-bottom centrifugal-barrier molecules dancing with four quarks

    hep-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A model calculation predicts bound and resonant double-bottom and hidden-bottom molecular tetraquark states, including P-wave molecules near experimental thresholds.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

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

    arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    For the isoscalar B ¯B∗/ ¯BB∗ system with odd C-parity, the isospin factorCD σ = 1,CC π = − 3 2,CC η =− 1 6,CD ρ =− 3 2,CD ω =− 1 2,CC ρ = 3 2,CC ω = 1 2, and theC′ π = 2 3 2 √ 2,C′ η = 2 1 6 √ 2,C′ ρ = 2 3 2 √ 2,C′ ω = 2 1 2 √ 2. The above effective potentials in the momentum space can be projected as partial-wave effective potentials, which are in- trod...

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

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

    arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    Liu, H.-X

    Y .-R. Liu, H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, and S.-L. Zhu, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 107, 237 (2019), arXiv:1903.11976 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    R. F. Lebed, R. E. Mitchell, and E. S. Swanson, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 93, 143 (2017), arXiv:1610.04528 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    Esposito, A

    A. Esposito, A. Pilloni, and A. D. Polosa, Phys. Rept. 668, 1 (2017), arXiv:1611.07920 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2017

  7. [7]

    Brambilla, S

    N. Brambilla, S. Eidelman, C. Hanhart, A. Nefediev, C.-P. Shen, C. E. Thomas, A. Vairo, and C.-Z. Yuan, Phys. Rept. 873, 1 (2020), arXiv:1907.07583 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    L. Meng, B. Wang, G.-J. Wang, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rept. 1019, 1 (2023), arXiv:2204.08716 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

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

    2022

  2. [10]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 252001 (2013), arXiv:1303.5949 [hep-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Bondar et al

    A. Bondar et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 122001 (2012), arXiv:1110.2251 [hep-ex]

    2012 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Aubert et al

    B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D 76, 111105 (2007), arXiv:hep-ex/0607083

    2007 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Aubert et al

    B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), (2008), arXiv:0710.1371 [hep-ex]

    2008 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Pakhlova et al

    G. Pakhlova et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. D 77, 011103 (2008), arXiv:0708.0082 [hep-ex]

    2008 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Ablikim et al

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

    2024

  8. [16]

    Lin, J.-Z

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

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    S. X. Nakamura, X. H. Li, H. P. Peng, Z. T. Sun, and X. R. Zhou, (2023), arXiv:2312.17658 [hep-ph]

    2023

  10. [18]

    Q. Ye, Z. Zhang, M.-L. Du, U.-G. Meißner, P.-Y . Niu, and Q. Wang, (2025), arXiv:2504.17431 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Wang, Z.-Y

    J.-Z. Wang, Z.-Y . Lin, B. Wang, L. Meng, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 110, 114003 (2024), arXiv:2408.08965 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Mizuk et al

    R. Mizuk et al. (Belle), JHEP 06, 137 (2021), arXiv:2104.08371 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Adachi et al

    I. Adachi et al. (Belle-II), JHEP 10, 114 (2024), arXiv:2405.18928 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Dong, X.-H

    X.-K. Dong, X.-H. Mo, P. Wang, and C.-Z. Yuan, Chin. Phys. C 44, 083001 (2020), arXiv:2002.09838 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [23]

    M. B. Wise, Phys. Rev. D 45, R2188 (1992)

    1992

  16. [24]

    Yan, H.-Y

    T.-M. Yan, H.-Y . Cheng, C.-Y . Cheung, G.-L. Lin, Y . C. Lin, and H.-L. Yu, Phys. Rev. D 46, 1148 (1992), [Erratum: 9 Phys.Rev.D 55, 5851 (1997)]

    1992

  17. [25]

    Grinstein, E

    B. Grinstein, E. E. Jenkins, A. V . Manohar, M. J. Savage, and M. B. Wise, Nucl. Phys. B 380, 369 (1992), arXiv:hep- ph/9204207

    1992

  18. [26]

    Casalbuoni, A

    R. Casalbuoni, A. Deandrea, N. Di Bartolomeo, R. Gatto, F. Feruglio, and G. Nardulli, Phys. Rept. 281, 145 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9605342

    1997 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Li and S.-L

    N. Li and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 86, 074022 (2012), arXiv:1207.3954 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Li, Z.-F

    N. Li, Z.-F. Sun, X. Liu, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 88, 114008 (2013), arXiv:1211.5007 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Isola, M

    C. Isola, M. Ladisa, G. Nardulli, and P. Santorelli, Phys. Rev. D 68, 114001 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0307367

    2003 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Bando, T

    M. Bando, T. Kugo, and K. Yamawaki, Phys. Rept. 164, 217 (1988)

    1988

  23. [31]

    Liu, Y .-R

    X. Liu, Y .-R. Liu, W.-Z. Deng, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D77, 094015 (2008), arXiv:0803.1295 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Aguilar and J

    J. Aguilar and J. M. Combes, Commun. Math. Phys. 22, 269 (1971)

    1971

  25. [33]

    Balslev and J

    E. Balslev and J. M. Combes, Commun. Math. Phys. 22, 280 (1971)

    1971

  26. [34]

    Lin, J.-B

    Z.-Y . Lin, J.-B. Cheng, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 110, 054008 (2024), arXiv:2205.14628 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Lin, J.-B

    Z.-Y . Lin, J.-B. Cheng, B.-L. Huang, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 108, 114014 (2023), arXiv:2305.19073 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    N. A. Tornqvist, Z. Phys. C 61, 525 (1994), arXiv:hep- ph/9310247

    1994

  29. [37]

    E. S. Swanson, Phys. Rept. 429, 243 (2006), arXiv:hep- ph/0601110

    2006

  30. [38]

    L. Zhao, L. Ma, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 89, 094026 (2014), arXiv:1403.4043 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Karliner and J

    M. Karliner and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 122001 (2015), arXiv:1506.06386 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Zhao, Z.-Y

    M.-J. Zhao, Z.-Y . Wang, C. Wang, and X.-H. Guo, Phys. Rev. D 105, 096016 (2022), arXiv:2112.12633 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Xu and K

    Y .-Z. Xu and K. Raya, (2024), arXiv:2411.12327 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Khodjamirian, B

    A. Khodjamirian, B. Meli ´c, Y .-M. Wang, and Y .-B. Wei, JHEP 03, 016 (2021), arXiv:2011.11275 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  35. [43]

    T. M. Aliev and K. S ¸ims ¸ek, Phys. Rev. D104, 074034 (2021), arXiv:2107.02735 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  36. [44]

    H.-X. Zhu, L. Meng, Y . Ma, N. Li, W. Chen, and S.-L. Zhu, (2024), arXiv:2412.12816 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Hanhart, Y

    C. Hanhart, Y . S. Kalashnikova, and A. V . Nefediev, Phys. Rev. D 81, 094028 (2010), arXiv:1002.4097 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

Pith tools

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