REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by
Heavy flavored hydrogen molecule systems
T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read The paper predicts that four-body $pp\mu^-\mu^-$ and $pp\tau^-\tau^-$ systems are bound $S$-wave molecules, with first-estimate binding energies of $-5.366$ keV and $-33.8$ keV.
desk verdict New four-body Coulomb bound states are plausible and worth reporting, but the quasi-bound spectrum is explicitly basis-dependent and the paper lacks the convergence evidence to back its 'first theoretical estimation' claim. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The machinery is the complex-scaled Schrödinger equation solved with the Gaussian expansion method (GEM). Wave functions are built as antisymmetrized products of a complete set of spin basis functions and spatial Gaussians on several Jacobi-coordinate arrangements; for the four-body systems the arrangements include di-lepton 'hydrogen-like' pair structures and two representative 'K-type' structures, $[[pl^-]p]l^-$ and $[[pl^-]l^-]p$, in which one lepton sits outside a three-body cluster. Complex scaling rotates the continuum branch cuts by $2\theta$ in the complex energy plane, so bound states sit on the negative real axis and resonant poles are identified as angle-stable complex energies; root-mean-square radii of resonances are evaluated with the c-product.
What would settle it
A reader could redo the four-body calculation with substantially more Gaussian functions, angular-momentum $l>0$ components, and a wider set of K-type Jacobi configurations; if the $J^P=0^+$ ground-state energy of $pp\mu^-\mu^-$ moves by more than a few eV, or an additional bound pole appears below the $[p\mu^-](1S)[p\mu^-](2S)$ threshold, the reported $-5.366$ keV value and resonance list would not hold.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The central discovery, on the authors' terms, is that Coulomb attraction between heavy leptons and protons is enough to bind two protons and two heavy leptons into a hydrogen-molecule-like four-body state, despite the repulsive $pp$ and $l^-l^-$ pairs. The ground states are $J^P=0^+$ with spin coupling $[s_{12},s_{34}]_0=[0,0]_0$: each identical-particle pair is spin-anti-aligned, forcing a fully symmetric spatial wave function. Binding energies are $-5.366$ keV for $pp\mu^-\mu^-$ and $-33.8$ keV for $pp\tau^-\tau^-$ relative to the four-body thresholds. In the $J^P=1^+$ sector only quasi-bound states appear, and in $J^P=2^+$ none. The paper also reports bound $pp\mu^-$, $pp\tau^-$, $\mu^-\mu^-p$, and $\tau^-\tau^-p$ ground states plus series of quasi-bound states, with $p\mu^-\tau^-$ the only system found to have no bound state.
Load-bearing premise
The quoted energies and resonance list depend on the numerical basis being large enough: the calculation uses a limited set of trial wave functions, S-wave shapes only, and just two representative clustered arrangements for the four-body systems, while the paper's own tables show that adding clustered arrangements shifts energies by tens of eV and creates new states.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- If these energies hold, $pp\mu^-\mu^-$ and $pp\tau^-\tau^-$ become concrete targets for future muon and tau facilities, with proposed formation reactions such as $2\mu^- + \mathrm{H_2} \to \mathrm{H_{2\mu}} + 2e^-$.
- The $J^P=0^+$ channel is the only one supporting a true four-body bound state, so experimental searches should focus there rather than in the $1^+$ or $2^+$ channels.
- K-type spatial configurations must be included in any accurate four-body Coulomb calculation; omitting them shifts binding energies by roughly 36 to 40 eV, lowers the lowest quasi-bound state by more than 60 eV, and hides additional resonant poles.
- Several quasi-bound states have widths below 1 eV, so they may appear as sharp resonances in scattering experiments even where no true bound state exists.
- The $p\mu^-\tau^-$ system, despite lacking bound states, should show quasi-bound states with a characteristic spatial arrangement: the proton sits very close to the tau, with the muon farther away.
Reading between the lines
- Editorial inference: because only two representative K-type configurations were kept, the quoted four-body energies are probably not the final values; a more complete K-type basis could shift the ground states deeper or reveal additional poles.
- Editorial inference: the same method should apply to mixed lepton and charge variants, such as replacing one proton with another positive particle or substituting an electron for one heavy lepton, which would provide a scaling check on the binding-energy pattern reported here.
- Editorial inference: the proposed production reactions suggest that 'heavy flavored hydrogen' could be studied as a laboratory analog of tetraquark-like few-body systems, with the advantage that the binding mechanism is the explicitly known Coulomb force.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper reports a systematic complex-scaling/Gaussian-expansion study of S-wave three- and four-body Coulomb systems containing protons and heavy leptons (ppμ−, ppτ−, μ−μ−p, τ−τ−p, pμ−τ−, ppμ−μ−, ppτ−τ−). The central new claims are first theoretical estimates of bound states in the four-body systems ppμ−μ− and ppτ−τ−, with binding energies of −5366 eV and −33.8 keV relative to the respective four-body thresholds, together with lists of quasi-bound states and spin/spatial structure analysis. The three-body results reproduce known values for ppμ− and μ−μ−p, which serves as a validation of the method.
Significance. If the four-body results are reliable, they would provide the first quantum-mechanical estimates of these exotic molecular systems and open a useful reference point for future experiments at muon facilities. The calculation is based on the standard nonrelativistic Coulomb Hamiltonian with fixed masses and α, with no parameter fitted to the target energies; this is a genuine predictive computation. The existing agreement with known ppμ− and μ−μ−p binding energies supports the method's basic soundness. However, the paper's own statements and tables show that the reported energies and, especially, the quasi-bound spectrum depend on incompletely controlled basis truncation, so the significance of the specific four-body numbers is presently conditional on a convergence demonstration.
major comments (4)
- [§III A, §IV A, §IV B, Tables V and VI] No convergence study is presented for any of the reported quantities. This is load-bearing because the paper's own data show strong basis sensitivity: including K-type configurations shifts the ppμ−μ− bound-state energy by approximately 36 eV, creates an extra quasi-bound pole, and shifts the lowest quasi-bound state by about 60 eV (Sec. IV A); the corresponding shifts for ppτ−τ− are about 40 eV and 50 eV, with two additional 1+ poles appearing (Sec. IV B). Section III A further states that 'as the precision of the calculation improves, the number of additional quasi-bound states increases correspondingly.' The quoted numbers, e.g., −5366 eV and −33.8 keV, therefore are not demonstrated to be converged to the implied accuracy, and the completeness of the resonance lists is explicitly basis-dependent. The authors should provide a convergence test with respect to N (the number of Gaussians per coordinate), the range parameters r0 and a, and the number of K-type configurations, or at least state the resulting uncertainty on each quoted energy and resonance width.
- [§II B and §IV A (Fig. 2 and Eq. (18))] The K-type spatial basis is explicitly truncated to two representative Jacobi configurations, [[pl−]p]l− and [[pl−]l−]p, and Sec. IV B acknowledges that 'The full K-type bases are truncated to maintain computational tractability.' Since the new physics claimed in the paper (the four-body bound states and quasi-bound spectrum) depends directly on these configurations, the truncation affects the central claim. The paper needs either a systematic enlargement of the K-type set or a quantitative demonstration that the omitted configurations contribute negligibly. Without this, the 'first theoretical estimation' of the four-body energies is not robust.
- [§II B, §IV A, §IV B] The basis is S-wave only (l = 0 in Eq. (4)), with orbital excitations only entering 'effectively' through different Jacobi coordinate sets. The conclusion that no bound state exists in the J^P = 1+ and 2+ channels of ppμ−μ− and ppτ−τ− is a negative statement, and negative statements require convergence testing in each channel. The positive existence of the 0+ bound states is protected by the variational upper-bound property, but the precise energies, the absence of 1+ bound states, and all resonance parameters are not protected by that argument. A convergence check for each J^P sector is therefore needed before the spectrum can be considered definitive.
- [§IV B and Table VI] The reported quasi-bound spectrum is unstable with respect to the basis in a way that is visible within the paper: Sec. IV B states that adding K-type structures creates two additional J^P = 1+ resonant poles in ppτ−τ−, but Table VI lists only two 1+ states without a second 0+ state beyond the one shown. It is unclear whether the table is complete and whether any of the listed states persist under further basis enlargement. The authors should specify a stability criterion (e.g., independence of the complex-scaling angle θ and of basis size) and apply it uniformly to every state in Tables II–VI, and they should state the numerical uncertainty of the resonance widths, which are currently presented as precise even where decay channels are known to be omitted.
minor comments (5)
- [§IV A] In the text, 'the binding energy of the bound state is 5366 keV relative to the four-body threshold' should read 5366 eV (or equivalently 5.366 keV), consistent with Table V and the abstract.
- [Table IV] The third quasi-bound state of pμ−τ− is listed as '2614−10.17iR'; the 2614 should be −2614 to be consistent with the other entries and with the statement that all pμ−τ− states are quasi-bound below threshold.
- [§III A] There is a typo in the first sentence of the subsection: 'quasi-bound sates' should be 'quasi-bound states'.
- [Table I] The J^P entries for H(1S), H(2S), H(3S), pμ−(1S), etc. are labeled '0+/1+', which is not a meaningful spin-parity for a two-body atom with one spin-1/2 lepton and one spin-1/2 proton; the table would be clearer with the total angular momentum F = 0 or 1 or with the electron/muon/tau spin explicitly indicated.
- [Abstract] The scattering processes listed in the abstract are introduced with symbols such as H_{2μ}, H_{μe}, and H_{2μ}^+, but their relation to the computed systems (ppμ−μ−, pμ−e−, ppμ−) is never defined; a brief definition or a reference to the corresponding section would help the reader.
Circularity Check
No significant circularity: the four-body bound-state energies are obtained by solving the Coulomb Schrödinger equation with fixed masses and fine-structure constant, with no parameter fitted to the target energies.
full rationale
The paper's central claims are the bound-state and quasi-bound-state energies of three- and four-body Coulomb systems. The derivation chain is: (i) adopt the nonrelativistic QED Hamiltonian with Coulomb potentials, Eqs. (1)-(2); (ii) construct spin and spatial wave functions from Gaussian bases, Eqs. (3)-(18); (iii) solve the complex-scaled Schrödinger equation, Eq. (19), with the complex scaling method; and (iv) read off stable poles as bound and quasi-bound states. The input masses and fine-structure constant are physical constants, not fitted to the reported -5.366 keV and -33.8 keV binding energies. Comparisons with earlier calculations (e.g., ppμ− at -2780 eV vs. -2782 eV in Refs. [25,60,63]) are validations, not inputs. Self-citations to Refs. [58,67-74] and [66] are methodological citations to prior applications of CSM/GEM, and the target energies are not used as inputs there. The paper's acknowledged truncation of K-type spatial configurations and its statement that more basis functions add quasi-bound states indicate numerical convergence limitations, but that is an accuracy concern, not circular reasoning: the calculation does not define its prediction in terms of the quantity being predicted, nor does it fit a parameter from a subset of data and then 'predict' a closely related quantity. The existence of the J^P=0+ bound states is further supported by the variational principle, since trial energies below threshold already certify binding. Therefore no load-bearing step reduces to its own inputs, and the central derivation is self-contained against the stated Hamiltonian.
Assumptions & free parameters
free parameters (1)
- Gaussian basis range parameters (r0, a, N=20 per coordinate) =
not quoted
assumptions (5)
- domain assumption Coulomb potential plus rest masses in a nonrelativistic Hamiltonian is sufficient; spin-spin, radiative, finite-size, and weak-decay effects are neglected.
- standard math ABC theorem: θ-independent complex eigenvalues of H(θ) are genuine bound or resonance states.
- ad hoc to paper Two K-type Jacobi configurations [[p l] p] l and [[p l] l] p suffice for four-body systems.
- domain assumption S-wave spatial basis with l=0 in each Jacobi coordinate can represent relevant orbital excitations through Jacobi transformations.
- standard math Pauli antisymmetrization for identical protons and identical leptons.
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Heavy flavored hydrogen molecule systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZUMNBX2U
@misc{pith2026250721498,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Heavy flavored hydrogen molecule systems},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZUMNBX2U}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.21498}
}
abstract
This study provides a comprehensive analysis of $S$-wave exotic hydrogen-like three-body systems ($pp\mu^-$, $pp\tau^-$, $\mu^-\mu^-p$, $\tau^-\tau^-p$, $p\mu^-\tau^-$) with spin-parity $J^P = 1/2^+$ and $3/2^+$, and four-body systems ($pp\mu^-\mu^-$, $pp\tau^-\tau^-$) with $J^P = 0^+$, $1^+$, and $2^+$. We use complex scaling and Gaussian expansion methods to solve the complex-scaled Schr\"{o}dinger equation and obtain possible bound and quasi-bound states. The resulting binding energies range from $-33.8$~keV to $-340$~eV. Notably, we present the first theoretical estimation of the bound-state energy levels of $pp\mu^-\mu^-$ and $pp\tau^-\tau^-$, which is of significant importance for understanding exotic few-body Coulomb systems. We further analyze spin configurations and root-mean-square radii to elucidate the spatial structure of these bound and quasi-bound states. Our results reveal that $K$-type spatial configurations play a crucial role in accurately describing bound and quasi-bound states in the hydrogen-molecule-like systems $pp\mu^-\mu^-$ and $pp\tau^-\tau^-$. Incorporating $K$-type configurations significantly alters the mass spectra of these states. Future muon colliders and muon facilities may offer promising platforms for the possible copious production of such heavy flavored hydrogen molecules and molecular ions. For instance, scattering processes such as $2\mu^- + \mathrm{H_2} \to \mathrm{H_{2\mu}} + 2e^-$, $\mu^- + \mathrm{H_2} \to \mathrm{H_{\mu e}} + e^-$, and $\mu^- + \mathrm{H_2^+} \to \mathrm{H_{2\mu}^+} + e^-$ could be utilized, facilitating detailed studies of intriguing states such as $\mathrm{H_{2\mu}}$, $\mathrm{H_{\mu e}}$, and $\mathrm{H_{2\mu}^+}$.
Figures
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Triple top baryon $\Omega_{ttt}$
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.
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
G. S. Ramos, L. S. Moriggi, and M. V. T. Machado (2025), 2507.09349
work page Pith review arXiv 2025
-
[2]
Z. Li, Y. Wang, Q. Li, and B.-f. Lv, Phys. Rev. C112, 014312 (2025)
2025
-
[3]
Multifractal Dimension Spectrum Analysis for Nuclear Density Distribution
W. Ma, Y.-G. Ma, W. He, and B. Zhou, Chaos34, 093121 (2024), 2404.07496
work page Pith review arXiv 2024
-
[4]
A. L. Anderson, G. L. O’Donnell, and J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. C106, L031302 (2022), 2206.14889
work page Pith review arXiv 2022
- [5]
-
[6]
R. Y. Cheng, K. Godbey, Y. B. Niu, Y. G. Ma, W. B. He, and S. M. Wang (2024), 2411.15492
work page Pith review arXiv 2024
-
[7]
J. Carlson, S. Gandolfi, F. Pederiva, S. C. Pieper, R. Schi- avilla, K. E. Schmidt, and R. B. Wiringa, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 1067 (2015), 1412.3081
arXiv 2015
-
[8]
P. Navr´ atil, S. Quaglioni, G. Hupin, C. Romero- Redondo, and A. Calci, Phys. Scripta91, 053002 (2016), 1601.03765
arXiv 2016
Show all 75 references
-
[9]
Dobaczewski and W
J. Dobaczewski and W. Nazarewicz, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A356, 2007 (1998), nucl-th/9707049
1998 arXiv
-
[10]
Dobaczewski, N
J. Dobaczewski, N. Michel, W. Nazarewicz, M. Plosza- jczak, and J. Rotureau, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.59, 432 (2007), nucl-th/0701047
2007 arXiv
-
[11]
Forssen, G
C. Forssen, G. Hagen, M. Hjorth-Jensen, W. Nazarewicz, and J. Rotureau, Phys. Scripta T152, 014022 (2013), 1212.6364
2013 arXiv
-
[12]
A. B. Balantekin et al., Mod. Phys. Lett. A29, 1430010 (2014), 1401.6435
2014 arXiv
-
[13]
S. M. Wang, N. Michel, W. Nazarewicz, and F. R. Xu, Phys. Rev. C96, 044307 (2017), 1707.08954
2017 arXiv
- [14]
-
[15]
R. D. Woods and D. S. Saxon, Phys. Rev.95, 577 (1954)
1954
-
[16]
D. R. Thompson, M. Lemere, and Y. C. Tang, Nucl. Phys. A286, 53 (1977)
1977
-
[17]
Dudek, Z
J. Dudek, Z. Szymanski, T. R. Werner, A. Faessler, and C. Lima, Phys. Rev. C26, 1712 (1982)
1982
-
[18]
Moiseyev and C
N. Moiseyev and C. Corcoran, Physical Review A20, 814 (1979)
1979
- [19]
-
[20]
P. J. J. O’Malley et al., Phys. Rev. X6, 031007 (2016)
2016
-
[21]
J. T. Seeley, M. J. Richard, and P. J. Love, J. Chem. Phys.137, 224109 (2012), 1208.5986
2012 arXiv
-
[22]
Ganzhorn, D
M. Ganzhorn, D. Egger, P. Barkoutsos, P. Ollitrault, G. Salis, N. Moll, M. Roth, A. Fuhrer, P. Mueller, S. Wo- erner, et al., Phys. Rev. Appl.11, 044092 (2019)
2019
-
[23]
H. C. Urey, F. G. Brickwedde, and G. M. Murphy, Phys. Rev.39, 164 (1932)
1932
-
[24]
U. D. Jentschura, A. Matveev, C. G. Parthey, J. Alnis, R. Pohl, T. Udem, N. Kolachevsky, and T. W. H¨ ansch, Phys. Rev. A83, 042505 (2011)
2011
-
[25]
E. Z. Liverts and N. Barnea, Computer Physics Commu- nications184, 2596 (2013)
2013
-
[26]
R. A. Rojas, N. Aquino, A. Flores-Riveros, and J. F. Rivas-Silva, Eur. Phys. J. D75, 116 (2021)
2021
-
[27]
R. Pohl, R. Gilman, G. A. Miller, and K. Pachucki, An- nual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science63, 175 (2013)
2013
-
[28]
Vesman, JETP Lett5, 91 (1967)
E. Vesman, JETP Lett5, 91 (1967)
1967
-
[29]
R. Pohl, A. Antognini, F. Nez, F. D. Amaro, F. Biraben, J. M. Cardoso, D. S. Covita, A. Dax, S. Dhawan, L. M. Fernandes, et al., nature466, 213 (2010)
2010
-
[30]
R. Pohl, F. Nez, L. M. Fernandes, F. D. Amaro, F. Biraben, J. M. Cardoso, D. S. Covita, A. Dax, 13 S. Dhawan, M. Diepold, et al., Science353, 669 (2016)
2016
-
[31]
Pachucki, Physical Review A53, 2092 (1996)
K. Pachucki, Physical Review A53, 2092 (1996)
1996
-
[32]
U. D. Jentschura and P. J. Mohr, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics72, 012110 (2005)
2005
-
[33]
Born and W
M. Born and W. Heisenberg, inOriginal Scientific Papers Wissenschaftliche Originalarbeiten(Springer, 1985), pp. 216–246
1985
-
[34]
G. A. Hagedorn, Commun. Math. Phys.77, 1 (1980)
1980
- [35]
-
[36]
N. P. Mehta, Phys. Rev. A89, 052706 (2014), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.A 92, 029901 (2015)], 1401.3314
2014 arXiv
-
[37]
Zettili and F
N. Zettili and F. M. H. Villars, Nucl. Phys. A469, 93 (1987)
1987
-
[38]
Stegeby, K
H. Stegeby, K. Piszczatowski, H. O. Karlsson, R. Lindh, and P. Froelich, Central Eur. J. Phys.10, 1038 (2012), 1203.6550
2012 arXiv
-
[39]
Fl¨ ugge,Practical quantum mechanics(Springer Sci- ence & Business Media, 2012)
S. Fl¨ ugge,Practical quantum mechanics(Springer Sci- ence & Business Media, 2012)
2012
-
[40]
Tanner, K
G. Tanner, K. Richter, and J.-M. Rost, Rev. Mod. Phys. 72, 497 (2000)
2000
-
[41]
M. I. Haftel and V. B. Mandelzweig, Phys. Rev. A42, 6324 (1990)
1990
-
[42]
Simon, Physics Letters A36, 23 (1971)
B. Simon, Physics Letters A36, 23 (1971)
1971
-
[43]
Simon, Annals of Mathematics97, 247 (1973)
B. Simon, Annals of Mathematics97, 247 (1973)
1973
-
[44]
Aguilar and J
J. Aguilar and J. M. Combes, Commun. Math. Phys.22, 269 (1971)
1971
-
[45]
Balslev and J
E. Balslev and J. M. Combes, Commun. Math. Phys.22, 280 (1971)
1971
-
[46]
Aoyama, T
S. Aoyama, T. Myo, K. Kat¯ o, and K. Ikeda, Prog. Theor. Phys.116, 1 (2006)
2006
-
[47]
Doolen, Journal of Physics B: Atomic and Molecular Physics8, 525 (1975)
G. Doolen, Journal of Physics B: Atomic and Molecular Physics8, 525 (1975)
1975
-
[48]
Ho, Journal of Physics B: Atomic and Molecular Physics10, L373 (1977)
Y. Ho, Journal of Physics B: Atomic and Molecular Physics10, L373 (1977)
1977
-
[49]
B¨ urgers and E
A. B¨ urgers and E. Lindroth, The European Physi- cal Journal D-Atomic, Molecular, Optical and Plasma Physics10, 327 (2000)
2000
-
[50]
Ho, Physical Review A19, 2347 (1979)
Y. Ho, Physical Review A19, 2347 (1979)
1979
-
[51]
Y. K. Ho, Physics Reports99, 1 (1983)
1983
-
[52]
Nagashima, Physics Reports545, 95 (2014)
Y. Nagashima, Physics Reports545, 95 (2014)
2014
-
[53]
W. P. Reinhardt, Annual Review of Physical Chemistry 33, 223 (1982)
1982
-
[54]
A. P. Mills Jr, Physical Review Letters46, 717 (1981)
1981
-
[55]
Junker, inAdvances in atomic and molecular physics (Elsevier, 1982), vol
B. Junker, inAdvances in atomic and molecular physics (Elsevier, 1982), vol. 18, pp. 207–263
1982
-
[56]
Ho, Physical Review A23, 2137 (1981)
Y. Ho, Physical Review A23, 2137 (1981)
1981
-
[57]
Bhatia and R
A. Bhatia and R. J. Drachman, Physical Review A28, 2523 (1983)
1983
-
[58]
Y. Ma, L. Meng, L.-Z. Wen, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D111, 073001 (2025), 2501.00871
2025 arXiv
-
[59]
Shimamura, Physical Review A40, 4863 (1989)
I. Shimamura, Physical Review A40, 4863 (1989)
1989
-
[60]
A. M. Frolov, Phys. Rev. A59, 4270 (1999)
1999
-
[61]
Frolov, V
A. Frolov, V. Smith Jr, and J. Komasa, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General26, 6507 (1993)
1993
-
[62]
Ho, Journal of Physics B: Atomic and Molecular Physics12, 387 (1979)
Y. Ho, Journal of Physics B: Atomic and Molecular Physics12, 387 (1979)
1979
-
[63]
Kilic, J.-P
S. Kilic, J.-P. Karr, and L. Hilico, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics70, 042506 (2004)
2004
-
[64]
Aaij et al
R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Nature Phys.18, 751 (2022), 2109.01038
2022
-
[65]
Aaij et al
R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Nature Commun.13, 3351 (2022), 2109.01056
2022
-
[66]
Hiyama, Y
E. Hiyama, Y. Kino, and M. Kamimura, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.51, 223 (2003)
2003
-
[67]
G.-J. Wang, Q. Meng, and M. Oka, Phys. Rev. D106, 096005 (2022), 2208.07292
2022 arXiv
-
[68]
Chen, W.-L
Y.-K. Chen, W.-L. Wu, L. Meng, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D109, 014010 (2024), 2310.14597
2024 arXiv
-
[69]
Ma, W.-L
Y. Ma, W.-L. Wu, L. Meng, Y.-K. Chen, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D110, 074026 (2024), 2408.00503
2024 arXiv
-
[70]
Wu, Y.-K
W.-L. Wu, Y.-K. Chen, L. Meng, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D109, 054034 (2024), 2401.14899
2024 arXiv
-
[71]
W.-L. Wu, Y. Ma, Y.-K. Chen, L. Meng, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D110, 034030 (2024), 2406.17824
2024 arXiv
-
[72]
W.-L. Wu, Y. Ma, Y.-K. Chen, L. Meng, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D110, 094041 (2024), 2409.03373
2024 arXiv
-
[73]
H.-M. Yang, Y. Ma, W.-L. Wu, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D111, 074040 (2025), 2502.10798
2025 arXiv
- [74]
-
[75]
Homma, T
M. Homma, T. Myo, and K. Kat¯ o, Progress of theoretical physics97, 561 (1997)
1997
Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.