Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 4 cited by

Topped baryons from QCD sum rules

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read QCD sum rules with HQET interpolating currents place ground-state singly topped baryons at masses near 174 GeV, about 1.1-1.5 GeV above the top quark's pole mass.

desk verdict First top-baryon QCD sum rule, competently done, but the zero-width pole assumption is load-bearing and the 174 GeV masses should be framed as zero-width would-be masses. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.05895 v2 pith:5WBG7HIJ submitted 2025-07-08 hep-ph

Shu-Wei Zhang , Wei-Han Tan , Xuan Luo , Hua-Xing Chen This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords singlytoppedbaryonstopquarkQCDsumrulesheavyeffectivetheorytoponiuminterpolatingcurrentsbaryonmasspredictionpole
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 asks what mass a baryon made of one top quark and two light quarks would have if QCD binding could compete with the top quark's decay. It classifies the allowed ground-state currents in heavy quark effective theory, feeds them into QCD sum rules, and applies $O(1/m_t)$ corrections through three-point correlators. The central result is that these singly topped baryons sit around 174 GeV, about 1.1-1.5 GeV above the top quark's pole mass; for the representative $\Xi'_t$ the prediction is $172.57 + 1.38 + 0.0028 = 173.95$ GeV. The numbers matter as a nonperturbative anchor in the extreme heavy-quark limit, complementing perturbative studies of toponium.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a QCD sum rule for the two-point correlator of HQET interpolating currents, with the top quark treated as a static color source and the two light quarks forming a diquark. The organizing quantity is the residual mass $\Lambda = \lim_{m_t\to\infty}(m_{\rm baryon} - m_t)$, extracted from the Borel-transformed correlator through $\Lambda(\omega_c,T) = \Pi^{-1}\,\partial\Pi/\partial(-1/T)$; the physical mass is assembled as $m_t^{\rm pole} + \Lambda + \delta m$. The $O(1/m_Q)$ shift $\delta m$ comes from three-point correlators of the kinetic and chromomagnetic operators, and the allowed currents are fixed by the Pauli principle: an antisymmetric scalar diquark in the flavor $\bar 3_F$ multiplet and a symmetric axial-vector diquark in the $6_F$ multiplet.

What would settle it

A lattice QCD calculation of the static-light-light baryon spectrum would settle the central claim: it should find a ground state with residual mass near 1.1-1.5 GeV in each flavor channel, with $\Omega_t$ heaviest and $\Lambda_t$ lightest. If no such state appears, the single-pole assumption underlying the sum rule is wrong, and a precise measurement of the top-antitop threshold line shape could also reveal whether any baryonic enhancement exists near 174 GeV beyond the toponium description.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that ground-state singly topped baryons form two HQET multiplets, a flavor antitriplet with $J^P = 1/2^+$ and a flavor sextet with $J^P = 1/2^+, 3/2^+$, and that their masses are all near 174 GeV. The leading-order sum rule for the representative $\Xi'_t$ yields a residual mass $\Lambda = 1.38^{+0.14}_{-0.14}$ GeV in the heavy-quark limit, and the $O(1/m_Q)$ kinetic and chromomagnetic corrections add only $\delta m = 2.8^{+0.6}_{-0.5}$ MeV. With the pole mass $m_t^{\rm pole} = 172.57^{+0.29}_{-0.29}$ GeV, the physical mass becomes $173.95^{+0.32}_{-0.32}$ GeV. The paper concludes that the heavy quark expansion remains under control at the top mass and that the top pole mass, rather than the $\overline{\rm MS}$ mass, is the appropriate input for this sum rule.

Load-bearing premise

The extraction assumes the correlation function has one isolated resonance pole, a baryon with a well-defined mass whose width is small compared with its distance from other states, even though the top quark's measured width of 1.41 GeV is as large as the extracted binding energy and the top quark decays before hadronizing.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Ground-state singly topped baryons are predicted to lie between about 173.6 and 174.1 GeV, with the strange-quark state $\Omega_t$ heaviest and the $\Lambda_t$ lightest.
  • The $O(1/m_t)$ correction is only a few MeV, so the binding information sits almost entirely in the residual mass $\Lambda$, which a measurement or lattice calculation could pin down directly.
  • Singly topped baryons should have roughly twice the lifetime of toponium because only one top quark decays and there are no annihilation channels; their width would be close to the top quark's measured 1.41 GeV.
  • Adopting the pole mass avoids a nearly 10 GeV mismatch with the $\overline{\rm MS}$ mass, and the paper suggests pole masses may be generally more suitable for QCD sum rules.
  • The constructed currents can be carried over to lattice QCD simulations with a static heavy quark, providing an independent nonperturbative check of the sum-rule masses.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The near-equality of the top quark width (1.41 GeV) and the extracted residual mass (1.38 GeV) makes the single-pole approximation marginal; modeling the correlator with a finite-width state could shift the central mass by an amount comparable to the current 0.32 GeV uncertainty.
  • A static-light-light lattice calculation could test not only the mass scale but also the predicted ordering $\Lambda_{\Omega_t} > \Lambda_{\Xi'_t} > \Lambda_{\Sigma_t} > \Lambda_{\Xi_t} > \Lambda_{\Lambda_t}$, and a different ordering would point to the condensate inputs rather than the HQET classification.
  • If topped baryons are produced in high-luminosity top-antitop samples, their distinctive signature would be a charm or bottom baryon accompanying a soft light quark and a single top decay, and the predicted mass gives a concrete invariant-mass target for such a search.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs heavy-quark-effective-theory (HQET) interpolating currents for ground-state singly topped baryons in the SU(3) flavor antitriplet and sextet representations, and feeds them into leading-order and O(1/m_t) QCD sum rules. For the representative Ξ'_t baryon, the extracted residual mass is Λ ≈ 1.38 GeV (Eq. 20), and with the top pole mass m_t = 172.57 GeV (Eq. 45) and a small O(1/m_t) correction, the quoted mass is m = 173.95 GeV (Eq. 46). The paper reports analogous results for Σ_t, Ω_t, Λ_t, and Ξ_t, claiming ground-state singly topped baryon masses around 174 GeV, approximately 1.1–1.5 GeV above the top pole mass. The authors note explicitly that these systems are not expected to form bound states in practice because the top quark decays before hadronizing.

Significance. If the extraction is taken at face value, this is the first QCD sum rule study of baryons containing a top quark, extending the HQET sum rule framework from charm and bottom to an extreme mass scale. The manuscript is clearly written, includes explicit sum rule expressions in Appendix A, states all input parameters, and follows standard sum rule criteria (Borel stability, pole dominance, convergence). These are genuine strengths that make the calculation reproducible. However, the physical interpretation is heavily constrained by the top quark width: Γ_t ≈ 1.41 GeV is comparable to the extracted residual mass scale, so the narrow-pole ansatz underlying Eq. (10) is not justified. The paper's value is therefore more as a well-defined HQET-limit calculation than as a prediction of observable hadron masses, and the central claim needs to be qualified accordingly.

major comments (3)
  1. [III, Eq. (10)] The central extraction assumes a single narrow hadronic pole in the correlation function: Π(ω) = f^2/(Λ − ω) plus higher resonances. For topped baryons, the top quark width Γ_t ≈ 1.41 GeV (Sec. I) is comparable to the extracted residual mass Λ ≈ 1.38 GeV for Ξ'_t (Eq. 20), and it is larger than the gap between the continuum threshold and the pole (ω_c − Λ ≈ 0.47 GeV at ω_c = 1.85 GeV). A state with this width does not satisfy the narrow-width condition, and the top quark decays before it can hadronize. Equations (13) and (14) therefore extract Λ and f^2 from a spectral ansatz whose zero-width shape does not describe the physical spectral function. The paper's statements in Secs. I and V that these baryons are not expected to form bound states do not resolve this issue, because the sum rule itself is evaluated with the narrow-pole ansatz. I ask the authors to add a quantitative finite-width analysis or, at a minimum, to state explicitly and prominently that the quoted 174 GeV masses are zero-width HQET-limit predictions rather than physical hadron masses.
  2. [Table I and Sec. III] For the antitriplet states Λ_t and Ξ_t, Table I reports pole contributions PC = 17% and 19%, respectively, both below the 20% threshold set in Eq. (17). The table states that no valid working regions are found and that only the convergence criterion is used. Despite this, masses and decay constants are listed for these states. This is inconsistent with the paper's own stated criteria and weakens the claim that all ground-state singly topped baryons lie around 174 GeV. Either remove these entries or provide a separate, explicit justification for why the extraction is meaningful when the pole-dominance criterion fails.
  3. [IV, Eq. (35)] The O(1/m_t) correction δm = −(K + d_M C_mag Σ)/(2m_t) is computed from three-point sum rules that assume the same narrow-pole hadronic representation as the leading-order analysis. If the pole ansatz is invalid for topped baryons, then the extracted values K = −1.11 GeV^2 and d_M Σ = 0.27 GeV^2 (Eqs. (38)–(39)) inherit the same systematic error. The quoted uncertainty on δm of a few MeV is therefore not a reliable estimate of the true 1/m_t correction; at minimum, a systematic uncertainty from the spectral ansatz should be included.
minor comments (4)
  1. [V, text near Eq. (46)] There is a typo, "pole mas" instead of "pole mass", and the sentence about electroweak corrections and the MS mass appearing close to the pole mass is repeated twice in the same paragraph.
  2. [Table I] The column header for the mass difference is labeled "Difference (MeV)", but the quoted values (e.g., 0.64, 0.69, 0.77) are in the same numerical range as the residual masses in GeV and appear to be GeV, not MeV. Please correct the label or the units.
  3. [Abstract and Sec. V] The abstract says the masses are 1.1–1.5 GeV above the pole mass, but Table I shows differences that are consistent with the residual masses Λ (1.26–1.50 GeV) only for the sextet states with valid working regions. The text should clarify that the 1.1–1.5 GeV range refers to these sextet states, while the antitriplet states have larger uncertainties due to the invalid working regions.
  4. [Appendix A] The sum rule expressions in Appendix A would benefit from a brief statement of the conventions and definitions of the condensates and of C_mag, since they are used in expressions that are otherwise compact and easy to misread.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the topped-baryon masses are outputs of an explicit QCD sum rule, and the self-citations are methodological rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The residual mass is introduced as a definition in Eq. (11), Λ ≡ lim_{mt→∞}(m_{Ξ'_t} − mt), but it is then computed from the Borel-transformed OPE correlator via Eq. (13), not fitted to the final mass. The hadronic representation (Eq. 10) and the OPE (Eq. 12) are stated explicitly, and the condensate inputs in Eq. (15) are external parameters. The final mass in Eq. (46) is mt_pole + Λ + δm, where Λ = 1.38 GeV and δm = 2.8 MeV are extracted from the sum rule, so the central claim is not equivalent to its input by construction. The continuum threshold and Borel window are selected by the standard CVG, PC, and stability criteria rather than tuned to reproduce 174 GeV, and the comparison with bottom/charm mass gaps is an external check, not a fitting procedure. Self-citations, including Ref. [37] for the standard bottom-baryon currents and Refs. [49–55] for previous sum-rule methodology, are normal background references and do not supply the numerical result. The physical concern about the narrow-pole ansatz for a top quark with Γ_t ≈ 1.41 GeV is a validity/correctness issue, not a circularity issue, and is therefore not scored here.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard QCD sum rule technology: the extracted residual mass is obtained from a Borel-transformed OPE with external condensates. The main non-standard element is applying this to a quark that decays before hadronizing; no width effects are included, and two of five states fail the pole dominance criterion. No new entities are introduced; the working parameters omega_c and T follow the standard stability criteria.

free parameters (2)
  • Continuum threshold omega_c = 1.65-2.05 GeV; central 1.85 GeV for Xi'_t
    Chosen to satisfy pole dominance and OPE convergence criteria; not derived from first principles. The final mass varies by a few hundred MeV over this range.
  • Borel mass T = 0.42-0.48 GeV; central 0.45 GeV
    Selected by Borel stability and the 20% pole contribution and convergence criteria; standard working parameter of the method.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The spectral function in the topped-baryon channel is a single narrow pole plus continuum above omega_c.
    Eqs. (10)-(12): the hadronic side is expanded as f^2/(Lambda-omega) plus higher resonances. This requires a well-defined narrow state; the top width Gamma_t=1.41 GeV is comparable to the extracted Lambda, so the assumption is strained.
  • domain assumption Quark-hadron duality holds with condensate inputs at mu=2 GeV from Eq. (15).
    Standard QCD sum rule ingredient; condensates are taken from prior literature and not fitted here.
  • domain assumption The top quark is a static color source and only O(1/m_t) corrections are needed.
    Eqs. (1), (22): standard HQET. However, the weak decay width of the top is not included in the effective Lagrangian, so the state is treated as if stable.
  • domain assumption The top quark pole mass is the correct scheme to combine with the residual mass.
    Sec. V: the MS-pole difference is about 10 GeV; the authors choose the pole mass to preserve the scale hierarchy. If the MS mass were used, the final masses would shift by about 10 GeV.
  • domain assumption Leading-order OPE, without O(alpha_s) radiative corrections, is reliable in the Borel window.
    Sec. III: sum rules are evaluated at leading order; no alpha_s corrections are included for the leading-twist terms. This is standard in the genre but leaves a systematic uncertainty not covered by the quoted errors.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Topped baryons from QCD sum rules." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5WBG7HIJ

@misc{pith2026250705895,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Topped baryons from QCD sum rules},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5WBG7HIJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.05895}
}
abstract

The recent CMS observation of a near-threshold enhancement in top quark pair production provides the first experimental indication of a short-lived pseudoscalar $t\bar{t}$ bound state, commonly referred to as toponium. While most existing studies focus on toponium using perturbative QCD near threshold, baryonic configurations containing a single top quark -- singly topped baryons -- offer a complementary nonperturbative perspective. Notably, singly topped baryons are expected to exhibit a longer lifetime and a narrower decay width than toponium, since only one top quark decays rather than two. The heavy quark effective theory provides a natural and powerful framework for analyzing such systems, allowing the separation of heavy and light quark dynamics. In this work we employ heavy quark effective theory to investigate the internal structure of ground-state singly topped baryons. We construct their interpolating currents and analyze them using QCD sum rules. The resulting masses of the ground-state singly topped baryons are found to lie around 174 GeV, approximately $1.1$-$1.5$ GeV above the pole mass of the top quark.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.05895 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Categorization of singly topped baryons. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Variations of (a) CVG and (b) PC, as defined in Eqs. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Dependence of (a) the residual mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Variations of (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Phenomenology of Hypothetical Single-Top Hadronic States

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    QCD sum-rule calculations yield single-top baryon and meson masses near the top-quark mass, with a few channels slightly below the naive quark-sum threshold.

  2. Triple top baryon $\Omega_{ttt}$

    hep-ph 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The triple-top baryon Ωttt is predicted to have mass 513.58 GeV, binding energy 4.13 GeV, and a dominant W+W+W+bbb decay, with production cross sections too small to observe at near-future colliders.

  3. The S-wave topped meson

    hep-ph 2026-02 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    The first four S-wave t-bar-b and t-bar-c quasi-bound states are predicted roughly 5.1/5.4/5.6/5.7 GeV and 1.9/2.2/2.5/2.6 GeV above the top-quark mass.

  4. Examining possible doubly topped baryon configurations

    hep-ph 2026-01 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    QCD sum rules give doubly topped baryon masses of 345-350 GeV, essentially the sums of the constituent quark masses, with no sign of genuine binding.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Hayrapetyan, et al., Observation of a pseudoscalar ex - cess at the top quark pair production threshold (3 2025)

    A. Hayrapetyan, et al., Observation of a pseudoscalar ex - cess at the top quark pair production threshold (3 2025). arXiv:2503.22382

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Substituting Eq

    is evaluated using the oper- ator product expansion (OPE). Substituting Eq. ( 7) and applying a Borel transformation, we obtain Π(ωc, T ) = f (ωc, T )2 · e−Λ(ωc,T )/T = ∫ ωc s< [ 3ω5 20π4 + (3mqms − 3m2 q − 3m2 s)ω3 4π4 − ⟨g2GG⟩ω 128π4 − 6mq⟨¯ss⟩ + 6ms⟨¯qq⟩ 4π2 ω + 3mq⟨¯qq⟩ + 3ms⟨¯ss⟩ 4π2 ω ] e−ω/T dω + ⟨¯qq⟩⟨¯ss⟩ 2 − 3mq⟨gs¯sσGs⟩ + 3ms⟨gs ¯qσGq⟩ 32π2 + 5...

    work page

  3. [3]

    V. S. Fadin, V. A. Khoze, Threshold Behavior of Heavy Top Production ine+e− Collisions, JETP Lett. 46 (1987) 525–529

    work page 1987

  4. [4]

    From this region, we extract the following numerical re- sults: K = −1.11+0.18 −0.21 GeV2 , (38) dM Σ = 0 .27+0.04 −0.03 GeV2

    Both K and Σ exhibit mild variation with T in the working region 0 .42 GeV < T < 0.48 GeV. From this region, we extract the following numerical re- sults: K = −1.11+0.18 −0.21 GeV2 , (38) dM Σ = 0 .27+0.04 −0.03 GeV2 . (39) V. DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSION Based on the results presented in Sec. III and Sec. IV, we can determine the mass of the ground-state t...

    work page

  5. [5]

    V. D. Barger, E. W. N. Glover, K. Hikasa, W.-Y. Keung, M. G. Olsson, C. J. Suchyta, III, X. R. Tata, Superheavy Quarkonium Production and Decays: A New Higgs Sig- nal, Phys. Rev. D 35 (1987) 3366, [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 38, 1632 (1988)]. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.35.3366

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.35.3366 1987

  6. [6]

    V. S. Fadin, V. A. Khoze, T. Sjostrand, On the Threshold Behavior of Heavy Top Production, Z. Phys. C 48 (1990) 613–622. doi:10.1007/BF01614696

    doi:10.1007/bf01614696 1990

  7. [7]

    ( 27) and performing a double Borel transformation in ω and ω′, we obtain sum rule equations that depend on two Borel parameters T1 and T2

    into Eq. ( 27) and performing a double Borel transformation in ω and ω′, we obtain sum rule equations that depend on two Borel parameters T1 and T2. Setting T1 = T2 = T , we arrive at f 2K e− Λ/T = − { ∫ ωc s< [ 396 ω7 7! π4 − 18 ω5 5! π4 (4m2 q + 4m2 s − 3mqms) − ⟨g2GG⟩ω3 384 π4 + ω3 4 π2 ( 5mq⟨¯qq⟩ + 5ms⟨¯ss⟩ −6ms⟨¯qq⟩ − 6mq⟨¯ss⟩ ) + 11 ω 256 π2 ( mq⟨gs...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Zhang, X

    S.-W. Zhang, X. Luo, H.-M. Yang, H.-X. Chen, QCD sum rule study of topped mesons within heavy quark effective theory (8 2025). arXiv:2508.03422

    arXiv 2025

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    On the QCD side, Eq

    can be expressed as Π(ω) = f 2 Λ − ω + higher resonances , (10) where Λ ≡ lim mt→∞ (mΞ′ t − mt) , (11) denotes the residual mass of the Ξ ′ t baryon in the heavy quark limit, with mΞ′ t representing its physical mass. On the QCD side, Eq. (

  2. [10]

    J. H. Kuhn, P. M. Zerwas, The Topo- nium Scenario, Phys. Rept. 167 (1988) 321. doi:10.1016/0370-1573(88)90075-0

    1988 doi

  3. [11]

    Y. Kiyo, J. H. Kuhn, S. Moch, M. Steinhauser, P. Uwer, Top-quark pair production near threshold at LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C 60 (2009) 375–386. arXiv:0812.0919, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-009-0892-7

    2009 arXiv

  4. [12]

    (14) There are two free parameters in these expressions: the threshold value ωc and the Borel mass T

    with respect to −1/T , yielding Λ(ωc, T ) = 1 Π(ωc, T ) · ∂Π(ωc, T ) ∂(−1/T ) , (13) f (ωc, T )2 = Π( ωc, T ) · eΛ(ωc,T )/T . (14) There are two free parameters in these expressions: the threshold value ωc and the Borel mass T . To determine their reliable working windows, we ...

  5. [13]

    M. J. Strassler, M. E. Peskin, The Heavy top quark threshold: QCD and the Higgs, Phys. Rev. D 43 (1991) 9 1500–1514. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.43.1500

    1991 doi

  6. [14]

    Sumino, Top quark pair production and decay near threshold in e+e− collisions, Acta Phys

    Y. Sumino, Top quark pair production and decay near threshold in e+e− collisions, Acta Phys. Polon. B 28 (1997) 2461–2478. arXiv:hep-ph/9711233

    1997 arXiv

  7. [15]

    A. H. Hoang, et al., Top-Antitop Pair Production close to Threshold: Synopsis of recent NNLO Results, Eur. Phys. J. direct 2 (1) (2000) 3. arXiv:hep-ph/0001286, doi:10.1007/s1010500c0003

    2000 arXiv

  8. [16]

    A. A. Penin, V. A. Smirnov, M. Steinhauser, Heavy quarkonium spectrum and produc- tion/annihilation rates to order β3 0α3 s, Nucl. Phys. B 716 (2005) 303–318. arXiv:hep-ph/0501042, doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2005.03.028

    2005 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Hagiwara, Y

    K. Hagiwara, Y. Sumino, H. Yokoya, Bound-state Ef- fects on Top Quark Production at Hadron Colliders, Phys. Lett. B 666 (2008) 71–76. arXiv:0804.1014, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2008.07.006

    2008 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Sumino, H

    Y. Sumino, H. Yokoya, Bound-state effects on kine- matical distributions of top quarks at hadron colliders, JHEP 09 (2010) 034, [Erratum: JHEP 06, 037 (2016)]. arXiv:1007.0075, doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2010)034

    2010 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Beneke, Y

    M. Beneke, Y. Kiyo, P. Marquard, A. Penin, J. Piclum, M. Steinhauser, Next-to-Next-to-Next- to-Leading Order QCD Prediction for the Top Antitop S-Wave Pair Production Cross Section Near Threshold in e+e− Annihilation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (19) (2015) 192001. arXiv:1506.06864, ...

    2015 arXiv

  12. [20]

    B. Fuks, K. Hagiwara, K. Ma, Y.-J. Zheng, Signa- tures of toponium formation in LHC run 2 data, Phys. Rev. D 104 (3) (2021) 034023. arXiv:2102.11281, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.034023

    2021 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Akbar, I

    N. Akbar, I. Asghar, Z. Ahmad, Properties of Toponium Mesons with Non-relativistic QCD Potential Model (11 2024). arXiv:2411.08548

    2024

  14. [22]

    Wang, T.-F

    G.-L. Wang, T.-F. Feng, Y.-Q. Wang, Mass spec- tra and wave functions of toponia, Phys. Rev. D 111 (9) (2025) 096016. arXiv:2411.17955, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.096016

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Jiang, B.-Q

    S.-J. Jiang, B.-Q. Li, G.-Z. Xu, K.-Y. Liu, Study on To- ponium: Spectrum and Associated Processes (12 2024). arXiv:2412.18527

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    B. Fuks, K. Hagiwara, K. Ma, Y.-J. Zheng, Simu- lating toponium formation signals at the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C 85 (2) (2025) 157. arXiv:2411.18962, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-13853-3

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Aad, et al., Observation of quantum entangle- ment with top quarks at the ATLAS detector, Na- ture 633 (8030) (2024) 542–547

    G. Aad, et al., Observation of quantum entangle- ment with top quarks at the ATLAS detector, Na- ture 633 (8030) (2024) 542–547. arXiv:2311.07288, doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07824-z

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Hayrapetyan, et al., Observation of quantum en- tanglement in top quark pair production in pro- ton–proton collisions at √ s = 13 TeV, Rept

    A. Hayrapetyan, et al., Observation of quantum en- tanglement in top quark pair production in pro- ton–proton collisions at √ s = 13 TeV, Rept. Prog. Phys. 87 (11) (2024) 117801. arXiv:2406.03976, doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ad7e4d

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Jafari, TOP2024: an overview of experimental result s, in: 17th International Workshop on Top Quark Physics, 2025

    A. Jafari, TOP2024: an overview of experimental result s, in: 17th International Workshop on Top Quark Physics, 2025. arXiv:2501.16231

    2025

  20. [28]

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, Toponium hunter’s guide, Phys . Rev. D 110 (5) (2024) 054032. arXiv:2407.20330, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.054032

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    F. J. Llanes-Estrada, Ensuring that to- ponium is glued, not nailed, Phys. Lett. B 866 (2025) 139510. arXiv:2411.19180, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139510

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Nason, E

    P. Nason, E. Re, L. Rottoli, Spin Correlations in t¯t Pro- duction and Decay at the LHC in QCD Perturbation Theory (4 2025). arXiv:2505.00096

    2025

  23. [31]

    Ellis, Personal Memories of 50 Years of Quarkonia, in: 50 Years Discovery of the J/ψ Particle (2024), 2025

    J. Ellis, Personal Memories of 50 Years of Quarkonia, in: 50 Years Discovery of the J/ψ Particle (2024), 2025. arXiv:2506.10643

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Fu, Y.-J

    J.-H. Fu, Y.-J. Li, H.-M. Yang, Y.-B. Li, Y.-J. Zhang, C.-P. Shen, Toponium: The smallest bound state and simplest hadron in quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. D 111 (11) (2025) 114020. arXiv:2412.11254, doi:10.1103/fqc9-k315

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Fu, Y.-J

    J.-H. Fu, Y.-J. Zhang, G.-Z. Xu, K.-Y. Liu, Toponium: Implementation of a toponium model in FeynRules (4 2025). arXiv:2504.12634

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Bai, T.-K

    Y. Bai, T.-K. Chen, Y. Yang, Toponia at the HL-LHC, CEPC, and FCC-ee (6 2025). arXiv:2506.14552

    2025 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Chen, Hadronic molecules in B decays, Phys

    H.-X. Chen, Hadronic molecules in B decays, Phys. Rev. D 105 (9) (2022) 094003. arXiv:2103.08586, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.094003

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Maltoni, C

    F. Maltoni, C. Severi, S. Tentori, E. Vryonidou, Quantu m tops at circular lepton colliders, JHEP 09 (2024) 001. arXiv:2404.08049, doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2024)001

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Navas, et al., Review of particle physics, Phys

    S. Navas, et al., Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D 110 (3) (2024) 030001. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    Neubert, Heavy quark symmetry, Phys

    M. Neubert, Heavy quark symmetry, Phys. Rept. 245 (1994) 259–396. arXiv:hep-ph/9306320, doi:10.1016/0370-1573(94)90091-4

    1994 arXiv

  31. [39]

    A. V. Manohar, M. B. Wise, Heavy quark physics, Vol. 10, 2000. doi:10.1017/9781009402125

    2000 doi

  32. [40]

    Dai, C.-S

    Y.-B. Dai, C.-S. Huang, H.-Y. Jin, Bethe-Salpeter wave functions and transition amplitudes for heavy mesons, Z. Phys. C 60 (1993) 527–534. doi:10.1007/BF01560051

    1993 doi

  33. [41]

    Dai, C.-S

    Y.-B. Dai, C.-S. Huang, M.-Q. Huang, C. Liu, QCD sum rules for masses of excited heavy mesons, Phys. Lett. B 390 (1997) 350–358. arXiv:hep-ph/9609436, doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(96)01412-8

    1997 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Liu, H.-X

    X. Liu, H.-X. Chen, Y.-R. Liu, A. Hosaka, S.-L. Zhu, Bottom baryons, Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 014031. arXiv:0710.0123, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.014031

    2008 arXiv

  35. [43]

    H.-M. Yang, X. Luo, H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, Investigating charmed hybrid baryons via QCD sum rules (5 2025). arXiv:2505.18717

    2025

  36. [44]

    Dai, C.-S

    Y.-B. Dai, C.-S. Huang, M.-Q. Huang, O(1/mQ) order corrections to masses of excited heavy mesons from QCD sum rules, Phys. Rev. D 55 (1997) 5719–5726. arXiv:hep-ph/9702384, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.55.5719

    1997 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Dai, C.-S

    Y.-B. Dai, C.-S. Huang, C. Liu, S.-L. Zhu, Understandin g the D+ sJ (2317) and D+ sJ (2460) with sum rules in HQET, Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 114011. arXiv:hep-ph/0306274, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.68.114011

    2003 arXiv

  38. [46]

    K.-C. Yang, W. Y. P. Hwang, E. M. Henley, L. S. Kisslinger, QCD sum rules and neutron-proton mass difference, Phys. Rev. D 47 (1993) 3001–3012. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.47.3001

    1993 doi

  39. [47]

    Narison, Gluon condensates and precise mc,b from QCD-moments and their ratios to order α3 s and ⟨G4⟩, Phys

    S. Narison, Gluon condensates and precise mc,b from QCD-moments and their ratios to order α3 s and ⟨G4⟩, Phys. Lett. B 706 (2012) 412–422. arXiv:1105.2922, 10 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2011.11.058

    2012 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Narison, QCD parameter correlations from heavy quarkonia, Int

    S. Narison, QCD parameter correlations from heavy quarkonia, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 33 (10) (2018) 1850045, [Addendum: Int.J.Mod.Phys.A 33, 1892004 (2018)]. arXiv:1801.00592, doi:10.1142/S0217751X18500458

    2018 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Gimenez, V

    V. Gimenez, V. Lubicz, F. Mescia, V. Porretti, J. Reyes, Operator product expansion and quark condensate from lattice QCD in coordinate space, Eur. Phys. J. C 41 (2005) 535–544. arXiv:hep-lat/0503001, doi:10.1140/epjc/s2005-02250-9

    2005 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Jamin, Flavor-symmetry breaking of the quark condensate and chiral corrections to the Gell-Mann-Oakes-Renner relation, Phys

    M. Jamin, Flavor-symmetry breaking of the quark condensate and chiral corrections to the Gell-Mann-Oakes-Renner relation, Phys. Lett. B 538 (2002) 71–76. arXiv:hep-ph/0201174, doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(02)01951-2

    2002 arXiv

  43. [51]

    B. L. Ioffe, K. N. Zyablyuk, Gluon condensate in char- monium sum rules with three-loop corrections, Eur. Phys. J. C 27 (2003) 229–241. arXiv:hep-ph/0207183, doi:10.1140/epjc/s2002-01099-8

    2003 arXiv

  44. [52]

    A. A. Ovchinnikov, A. A. Pivovarov, QCD sum rule cal- culation of the quark gluon condensate, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 48 (1988) 721–723

    1988

  45. [53]

    Colangelo, A

    P. Colangelo, A. Khodjamirian, QCD sum rules, a modern perspective (2000) 1495–1576 arXiv:hep-ph/0010175, doi:10.1142/9789812810458_0033

    2000 arXiv

  46. [54]

    H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, Q. Mao, A. Hosaka, X. Liu, S.- L. Zhu, P -wave charmed baryons from QCD sum rules, Phys. Rev. D 91 (5) (2015) 054034. arXiv:1502.01103, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.054034

    2015 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Mao, H.-X

    Q. Mao, H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, A. Hosaka, X. Liu, S.-L. Zhu, QCD sum rule calculation for P -wave bot- tom baryons, Phys. Rev. D 92 (11) (2015) 114007. arXiv:1510.05267, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.114007

    2015 arXiv

  48. [56]

    H.-X. Chen, Q. Mao, W. Chen, A. Hosaka, X. Liu, S.-L. Zhu, Decay properties of P -wave charmed baryons from light-cone QCD sum rules, Phys. Rev. D 95 (9) (2017) 094008. arXiv:1703.07703, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.094008

    2017 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Yang, H.-X

    H.-M. Yang, H.-X. Chen, P -wave bottom baryons of the SU (3) flavor 6F , Phys. Rev. D 101 (11) (2020) 114013, [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 102, 079901 (2020)]. arXiv:2003.07488, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.114013

    2020 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Yang, H.-X

    H.-M. Yang, H.-X. Chen, P -wave charmed baryons of the SU (3) flavor 6F , Phys. Rev. D 104 (3) (2021) 034037. arXiv:2106.15488, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.034037

    2021 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Y.-J. Wang, X. Luo, H.-X. Chen, E.-L. Cui, W.-H. Tan, Z.-Y. Zhou, Strong decay properties of P -wave sin- gle bottom baryons of the SU (3) flavor antitriplet ¯ 3F , Phys. Rev. D 111 (7) (2025) 076003. arXiv:2412.19846, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.076003

    2025 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Luo, Y.-J

    X. Luo, Y.-J. Wang, H.-X. Chen, P -wave single charmed baryons of the SU (3) flavor ¯ 3F , Phys. Rev. D 111 (9) (2025) 094039. arXiv:2504.11219, doi:10.1103/p48x-mbnm

    2025 arXiv

  53. [61]

    A. L. Kataev, V. S. Molokoedov, Notes on Interplay between the QCD and EW Perturbative Corrections to the Pole-Running-to-Top-Quark Mass Ratio, JETP Lett. 115 (12) (2022) 704–712. arXiv:2201.12073, doi:10.1134/S0021364022600902

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.