Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 7 cited by

The fully charm tetraquark's two-photon decay receives large next-to-leading-order QCD corrections: up to +66% for the scalar 0++ state and −31% for the tensor 2++, and the corrected photon-fusion cross sections should be testable in collid

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 13:55 UTC pith:FX2PGZKR

load-bearing objection The analytic NLO QCD corrections to T4c→γγ in Eqs. (22)-(25) are the real new content and look plausible; the experimental event-rate claims are undermined by the LDME caveat the authors themselves state, and Eq. (17) has a sign issue that needs fixing. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.22070 v2 pith:FX2PGZKR submitted 2025-12-26 hep-ph hep-exhep-lat

Next-to-leading order QCD corrections to electromagnetic production and decay of fully charm tetraquarks

Xinran Liu , Yefan Wang , Ruilin Zhu This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-exhep-lat
keywords fully charm tetraquarkX(6900)NRQCD factorizationNLO QCD correctionstwo-photon decayphoton-photon fusionultra-peripheral collisionsshort-distance coefficients
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper aims to show that next-to-leading-order QCD corrections—gluon radiation inside the charm-quark system—substantially change the two-photon decay and photon-fusion production of the fully charm tetraquark, the state identified with the X(6900) peak. Working in nonrelativistic QCD factorization, the authors compute the first analytic NLO short-distance coefficients for T4c→γγ and find the scalar (0++) width grows by 26–66% while the tensor (2++) width drops by about 31%. Using crossing symmetry, they turn these coefficients into predictions for T4c production in ultra-peripheral proton/nucleus collisions and electron-positron collisions, with cross sections that may be observable at current and planned facilities. If the predictions hold, the clean two-photon channel offers a new handle on the non-perturbative matrix elements of the fully charm tetraquark.

Core claim

The central discovery is that internal gluon radiation is not a small correction for the electromagnetic decays of fully charm tetraquarks. The NLO factors X₁,₁–X₃,₁ (Eqs. 22–25) are obtained analytically, and with the two adopted LDME models they give a 26–66% increase in Γ(T4c^{0++}→γγ) and a ~31% decrease in Γ(T4c^{2++}→γγ) at the typical renormalization scale μ=4m_c. By crossing symmetry the same coefficients apply to γγ→T4c, yielding photon-fusion cross sections from ~0.1 pb in proton-proton ultra-peripheral collisions to micro-barn scales in heavy-ion collisions, and from femtobarn to picobarn scales in electron-positron collisions. The paper claims these rates are within reach of curr

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is NRQCD factorization for the fully charm tetraquark: the amplitude is written as a product of perturbatively computable short-distance coefficients c_i and non-perturbative long-distance matrix elements (LDMEs) for the diquark-antidiquark operators. To get the NLO coefficients, the paper generates 40 tree and 920 one-loop diagrams, projects the amplitude onto Lorentz structures, reduces the integrals to master integrals, and renormalizes charm mass/field in the on-shell scheme and α_s in the MS scheme. Crossing symmetry T4c→γγ ↔ γγ→T4c then carries the decay coefficients into production, and the equivalent-photon approximation converts them into ultra-peripheral-

Load-bearing premise

The numerical widths and cross sections inherit the two LDME models adopted via vacuum saturation; the paper itself notes that current collider data on X(6900) production imply the production matrix element is one to two orders of magnitude smaller, which would shrink all predicted rates by that factor.

What would settle it

Measure the diphoton partial width of the 6900 MeV peak: if it is below ~10⁻⁵ MeV, the adopted LDME models are excluded; or independently recalculate the one-loop coefficient at μ=4m_c and check that it matches the paper's analytic X-coefficients, otherwise the perturbative result fails.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The 0++ tetraquark's two-photon width rises by 26–66% at NLO, improving the visibility of the clean γγ decay channel.
  • The 2++ width falls ~31%, making the ratio Γ(0++)/Γ(2++) a sensitive test of the NLO coefficients that is less dependent on the overall LDME scale.
  • Photon-fusion production in heavy-ion ultra-peripheral collisions reaches micro-barn-level cross sections, implying thousands of events in modest data samples.
  • In electron-positron collisions the predicted cross sections span femtobarns to picobarns, giving a route to extract tetraquark LDMEs from a well-understood initial state.
  • Because decay and production are linked by crossing symmetry, a future measurement of γγ→T4c would directly verify the same short-distance coefficients as T4c→γγ.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the collider-derived production matrix element is indeed one to two orders of magnitude below the adopted models, all absolute rates shrink accordingly; the NLO coefficients would survive, but the discovery potential shifts from current data to future high-luminosity runs.
  • The same machinery could be applied to other fully heavy tetraquarks (e.g., fully bottom) or to J/ψ plus photon final states, where the photon couples to a single heavy-quark pair and may expose different color/spin structures.
  • The scalar-to-tensor width ratio, being nearly free of the overall LDME normalization, could be a sharper discriminant among competing tetraquark wavefunction models than any single rate.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents NRQCD factorization formulas for the electromagnetic decay T4c → γγ and the photon-fusion production γγ → T4c, and computes the NLO QCD corrections to the short-distance coefficients for the J^PC=0++ and 2++ fully charm tetraquark states. The authors give analytic expressions for the NLO coefficients X_{i,1} in Eqs. (22)–(25), including MS-bar renormalization of α_s and on-shell renormalization of the charm mass and field. They then use these coefficients to compute decay widths and production cross sections in ultra-peripheral proton/nucleus collisions and e+e− collisions, quoting significant NLO corrections for the 0++ decay and a moderate correction for the 2++ decay at a reference scale. The paper claims the results can be tested in current and future experiments.

Significance. If correct, this is the first complete NLO QCD calculation of the two-photon coupling of fully charm tetraquarks within NRQCD, providing compact analytic short-distance coefficients that can be reused by other groups. The factorization structure is standard, the paper does not refit LDMEs, and it is transparent about the model dependence of the nonperturbative inputs, explicitly noting that LHCb production data imply matrix elements one to two orders of magnitude below the adopted models. The utility of the result is, however, strongly conditioned on the validity of the Model I/II LDMEs and the correctness of the renormalization procedure, both of which require attention in revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (17), Sec. III] The MS-bar renormalization constant for α_s in the convention α_s^bare C_ε = μ^{2ε} α_s Z_{α_s} should be Z_{α_s} = 1 + (α_s/(4π)) β0/ε with β0 = (33−2n_l)/3 for C_A=3. The printed coefficient (2n_l−31)/(3ε) gives −25/3 for n_l=3, whereas β0=9; it has the wrong sign and wrong magnitude. If used literally, the β-function would have positive sign and the μ-dependence of Eqs. (22)–(25) would be inconsistent. The authors must correct this expression or explicitly justify a nontrivial convention; as it stands, it undermines the renormalization claim.
  2. [Sec. V and Conclusion] The text acknowledges that LHCb production data imply the production matrix element is one to two orders of magnitude smaller than Model I or II, but the event-rate estimates in the Conclusion (≈5000 Pb-Pb events at 5 nb⁻¹, ≈1000 STCF events at 1 ab⁻¹) and the statement that the processes 'shall be tested' use the unmodified Models I/II. A 10–100 fold reduction in the LDMEs would lower these yields by one to two orders of magnitude, possibly below observability. The phenomenological claims should be rescaled or explicitly made conditional on the optimistic model choice.
  3. [Sec. III, Eqs. (22)–(25)] The analytic NLO coefficients are presented without an independent numerical cross-check or a demonstration of cancellation of the 1/ε poles. Given the apparent Z_{α_s} problem in Eq. (17), the finite parts cannot be verified as printed. The authors should provide an independent validation (e.g., a second computation with a different projector/reduction setup, or a numerical evaluation) and, ideally, make the analytic expressions or a code available in a supplementary file.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] Typographical errors: 'fussion' should be 'fusion' in Secs. IV, V and the Conclusion; 'electromagntic' in Sec. I; 'photon fussion' in Table II heading.
  2. [Table II] The Kr-Kr row appears twice with identical entries; one should be removed.
  3. [References [54] and [60]] The DOIs '10.1103/skdp-g4ql' and '10.1103/375n-fw5h' appear malformed or are placeholders; they should be corrected to valid DOIs.
  4. [Sec. V] The statement that NLO decreases Γ(T2++→γγ) by 31% is only true at μ=4m_c; at μ=2m_c the decrease is about 86% and at μ=8m_c there is a slight increase. The scale dependence of the quoted percentage should be made explicit.
  5. [Eq. (30)] The square bracket in the expression for n_{γ/A}(χ) is unbalanced; please check the bracket structure and the relative placement of K_0(χ)K_1(χ).
  6. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption says 'error bars denote the scale uncertainties', but the plotted points do not show visible error bars; please clarify or correct the figure/caption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity found: the NLO coefficients are a direct one-loop calculation, the LDMEs are imported from the independent external paper Ref. [66], and the paper's own LHCb caveat is a normalization limitation rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained at the perturbative level. The LO SDCs are taken from the independent external paper [66], and the NLO coefficients X_{i,1} in Eqs. (22)-(25) are obtained by explicit one-loop computation with FeynArts/FeynCalc/Kira/Package-X, followed by on-shell mass and field renormalization and MS renormalization of alpha_s; no parameter is fitted to the quantities being predicted. The numerical widths and cross-sections use the Model I/II LDMEs from Ref. [66] and the CMS tetraquark mass as inputs; the production LDMEs are related to the decay LDMEs by the explicitly stated vacuum-saturation approximation, which is an assumption and not an identity encoding the target results. The self-citations (e.g., Refs. [23,58,76-80]) are technical or contextual and are not used to justify the NLO result; no uniqueness theorem is invoked to force a choice. The paper itself flags the key limitation in Sec. V: "It should also be noted that the LHCb Collaboration has observed the production cross-section of X(6900), it is found that the production matrix element is smaller by approximately one to two orders of magnitude compared with Model I or Model II from a theoretical analysis." This would shrink the predicted widths, cross-sections, and event-rate estimates, but it is an acknowledged external normalization uncertainty affecting the phenomenological claims, not a circular reduction. Conclusion: no significant circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central numerical results rest on two imported nonperturbative LDME models plus the NRQCD leading-velocity factorization and vacuum-saturation approximation. No new entities are introduced. The perturbative NLO coefficients are derived rather than fitted.

free parameters (3)
  • LDMEs, Model I = ⟨O(0)6⊗6⟩=0.0128, ⟨O(0)3⊗3⟩=0.0347, ⟨O(0)mix⟩=0.0211, ⟨O(2)3⊗3⟩=0.0144 GeV^9
    Nonperturbative inputs taken from Ref. [66]; all numerical widths and cross sections scale with them.
  • LDMEs, Model II = ⟨O(0)6⊗6⟩=0.0139, ⟨O(0)3⊗3⟩=0.0187, ⟨O(0)mix⟩=−0.0161, ⟨O(2)3⊗3⟩=0.0126 GeV^9
    Alternate nonperturbative input set from Ref. [66]; the sign of the mixing LDME differs from Model I and drives large differences in the 0++ width.
  • UPC impact-parameter cutoff b_min = 1.2 A^(1/3) fm
    Hand-set nuclear-radius cutoff in the equivalent-photon approximation; standard but model-dependent, and it affects absolute UPC cross sections.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption NRQCD factorization holds at leading order in velocity with p_i = P/4 for the four charm quarks.
    Used to define SDCs and LDMEs in Sec. II; the v=0 approximation for a state with binding energy ~0.85 GeV is not independently validated.
  • domain assumption The T4c states are represented by diquark-antidiquark NRQCD operators O(0)6⊗6, O(0)3⊗3, O(2)3⊗3 with the given color/spin projectors.
    The factorization formula Eq. (1) and all LDME definitions rely on this operator basis from Ref. [66].
  • domain assumption Production LDMEs equal decay LDMEs through vacuum saturation, ⟨0|O^J_{i,i}|0⟩ ≈ (2J+1)⟨O^J_i⟩.
    Invoked in Sec. IV to convert decay matrix elements into production matrix elements; an uncontrolled approximation.
  • standard math The γγ→T4c amplitude is obtained from T4c→γγ by crossing symmetry.
    Standard QFT property; used in Sec. IV without derivation.
  • domain assumption Ultraperipheral photon flux ignores hadronic non-overlap except for a b_min = 1.2 A^(1/3) fm cutoff.
    Eqs. (29)-(30) with b_min cutoff; standard but model-dependent.
  • standard math On-shell renormalization of charm mass/field and MS renormalization of α_s with the constants in Eq. (17).
    Used to cancel UV divergences; however the displayed Z_αs sign appears inconsistent with asymptotic freedom and with the log coefficients in Eqs. (22)-(25).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 15837 in / 20210 out tokens · 201826 ms · 2026-08-03T13:55:40.971172+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate the electromagnetic properties of the fully charm tetraquark states, particularly incorporating contributions from internal gluon radiation. The paper first presents analytical expressions for the next-to-leading-order (NLO) QCD corrections to the decay amplitudes of fully charm tetraquarks into two photons. It is found that the QCD corrections are significant for the $J^{PC}=0^{++}$ and $J^{PC}=2^{++}$ fully charm tetraquark decay process. Subsequently, by considering photon-photon fusion in ultra-peripheral high-energy collisions of protons and nuclei and in electron-positron collision, we provide theoretical predictions for the production cross sections of fully charm tetraquark states. The results presented in this work regarding the electromagnetic production and decay of fully charm tetraquarks shall be tested in current and future experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.22070 by Ruilin Zhu, Xinran Liu, Yefan Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Typical one-loop Feynman diagrams for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: The decay widths of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 7 Pith papers

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

  1. All-charm tetraquarks at hadron colliders: A high-precision fragmentation perspective

    hep-ph 2026-04 accept novelty 5.5

    TQ4Q2.0 supplies the first complete, uncertainty-quantified set of NRQCD-based fragmentation functions for all-heavy tetraquarks, including nonconstituent channels and public grids for jet-associated production.

  2. Symmetry Analysis of Compact Tetraquark States and Implications for the Level Ordering of the Fully Charmed Candidates $X(6600)$, $X(6900)$, and $X(7100)$

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    Counting symmetry-allowed states up to orbital angular momentum L=3 predicts low-lying compact tetraquarks prefer J^P=2^+, matching the observed 2^{++} fully charmed X states.

  3. Symmetry Analysis of Compact Tetraquark States and Implications for the Level Ordering of the Fully Charmed Candidates $X(6600)$, $X(6900)$, and $X(7100)$

    hep-ph 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Symmetry analysis of compact tetraquarks shows low-energy states favor J^P=2+ and places X(6600), X(6900), X(7100) among the lower levels of the fully charmed spectrum.

  4. Two photon decay width of the fully charmed tetraquarks: revisiting prospects for ultraperipheral collisions

    hep-ph 2026-05 conditional novelty 5.0

    Using recent four-body quark model wave functions and NRQCD, the authors compute two-photon couplings and UPC cross sections for fully charmed tetraquarks, showing resonant terms exceed continuum in J/ψJ/ψ but not in ...

  5. All-charm tetraquarks at hadron colliders: A high-precision fragmentation perspective

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    The authors construct and publicly release the TQ4Q2.0 fragmentation functions for all-heavy S-wave tetraquarks via NRQCD factorization, extending prior work with nonconstituent contributions and replica-based uncertainties.

  6. Radiative decay of fully-heavy tetraquark into quarkonium

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    NRQCD calculation finds ~1 MeV widths for T4c to gamma J/psi, tens of eV for T4b, and preferential c cbar annihilation in mixed bc states.

  7. Two photon decay width of the fully charmed tetraquarks: revisiting prospects for ultraperipheral collisions

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Computes two-photon couplings of scalar and tensor fully-charmed tetraquarks via NRQCD from recent four-body wave functions and finds resonant terms dominate J/ψJ/ψ but not diphoton production in UPCs, disagreeing wit...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    S. K. Choiet al.[Belle], Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 262001 (2003) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.262001 [arXiv:hep- ex/0309032 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2003

  2. [2]

    Acostaet al.[CDF], Phys

    D. Acostaet al.[CDF], Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 072001 (2004) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.072001 [arXiv:hep- ex/0312021 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2004

  3. [3]

    Aaijet al.[LHCb], Sci

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], Sci. Bull.65, no.23, 1983-1993 (2020) doi:10.1016/j.scib.2020.08.032 [arXiv:2006.16957 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 1983

  4. [4]

    Aadet al.[ATLAS], Phys

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], Phys. Rev. Lett.131, no.15, 151902 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.151902 [arXiv:2304.08962 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Hayrapetyanet al.[CMS], Phys

    A. Hayrapetyanet al.[CMS], Phys. Rev. Lett.132, no.11, 111901 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.111901 [arXiv:2306.07164 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    J. H. Yinet al.[Belle], JHEP08, 121 (2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2023)121 [arXiv:2305.17947 [hep- ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Hayrapetyanet al.[CMS], Nature648, no.8092, 58-63 (2025) doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09711-7 [arXiv:2506.07944 [hep-ex]]

    A. Hayrapetyanet al.[CMS], Nature648, no.8092, 58-63 (2025) doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09711-7 [arXiv:2506.07944 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Aadet al.[ATLAS], [arXiv:2509.13101 [hep-ex]]

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], [arXiv:2509.13101 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  9. [9]

    Iwasaki, Prog

    Y. Iwasaki, Prog. Theor. Phys.54, 492 (1975) doi:10.1143/PTP.54.492

    work page doi:10.1143/ptp.54.492 1975

  10. [10]

    K. T. Chao, Z. Phys. C7, 317 (1981) doi:10.1007/BF01431564

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01431564 1981

  11. [11]

    M. N. Anwar, J. Ferretti, F. K. Guo, E. San- topinto and B. S. Zou, Eur. Phys. J. C78, no.8, 647 (2018) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6073-9 [arXiv:1710.02540 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  12. [12]

    Karliner, S

    M. Karliner, S. Nussinov and J. L. Ros- ner, Phys. Rev. D95, no.3, 034011 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.034011 [arXiv:1611.00348 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  13. [13]

    V. R. Debastiani and F. S. Navarra, Chin. Phys. C43, no.1, 013105 (2019) doi:10.1088/1674-1137/43/1/013105 [arXiv:1706.07553 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  14. [14]

    J. Wu, Y. R. Liu, K. Chen, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D97, no.9, 094015 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.094015 [arXiv:1605.01134 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  15. [15]

    M. S. Liu, Q. F. L¨ u, X. H. Zhong and Q. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D100, no.1, 016006 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.016006 [arXiv:1901.02564 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  16. [16]

    X. Jin, Y. Xue, H. Huang and J. Ping, Eur. Phys. J. C80, no.11, 1083 (2020) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08650-z [arXiv:2006.13745 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  17. [17]

    F. X. Liu, M. S. Liu, X. H. Zhong and Q. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D104, no.11, 116029 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.116029 [arXiv:2110.09052 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  18. [18]

    R. N. Faustov, V. O. Galkin and E. M. Savchenko, Phys. Rev. D102, no.11, 114030 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.114030 [arXiv:2009.13237 8 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  19. [19]

    Q. F. L¨ u, D. Y. Chen and Y. B. Dong, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, no.9, 871 (2020) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08454- 1 [arXiv:2006.14445 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  20. [20]

    M. S. liu, F. X. Liu, X. H. Zhong and Q. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D109, no.7, 076017 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.076017 [arXiv:2006.11952 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    G. J. Wang, L. Meng and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D100, no.9, 096013 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.096013 [arXiv:1907.05177 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  22. [22]

    M. A. Bedolla, J. Ferretti, C. D. Roberts and E. San- topinto, Eur. Phys. J. C80, no.11, 1004 (2020) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08579-3 [arXiv:1911.00960 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  23. [23]

    Zhu, Nucl

    R. Zhu, Nucl. Phys. B966, 115393 (2021) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2021.115393 [arXiv:2010.09082 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2021

  24. [24]

    J. F. Giron and R. F. Lebed, Phys. Rev. D102, no.7, 074003 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.074003 [arXiv:2008.01631 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  25. [25]

    C. M. Tang, C. G. Duan and L. Tang, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, no.7, 743 (2024) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13102- z [arXiv:2405.05042 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    C. M. Tang, C. G. Duan, L. Tang and C. F. Qiao, Eur. Phys. J. C85, no.4, 396 (2025) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052- 025-14106-z [arXiv:2411.11433 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    C. M. Tang, C. G. Duan, L. Tang and C. F. Qiao, [arXiv:2511.18807 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  28. [28]

    W. Chen, H. X. Chen, X. Liu, T. G. Steele and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Lett. B773, 247-251 (2017) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.08.034 [arXiv:1605.01647 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  29. [29]

    J. R. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D103, no.1, 014018 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.014018 [arXiv:2010.07719 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  30. [30]

    Z. G. Wang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A36, no.02, 2150014 (2021) doi:10.1142/S0217751X21500147 [arXiv:2009.05371 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  31. [31]

    Z. G. Wang, Chin. Phys. C44, no.11, 113106 (2020) doi:10.1088/1674-1137/abb080 [arXiv:2006.13028 [hep- ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  32. [32]

    R. M. Albuquerque, S. Narison, A. Rabemanan- jara, D. Rabetiarivony and G. Randriamana- trika, Phys. Rev. D102, no.9, 094001 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.094001 [arXiv:2008.01569 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  33. [33]

    Q. N. Wang, Z. Y. Yang and W. Chen, Phys. Rev. D104, no.11, 114037 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.114037 [arXiv:2109.08091 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  34. [34]

    B. D. Wan and C. F. Qiao, Phys. Lett. B 817, 136339 (2021) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136339 [arXiv:2012.00454 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2021

  35. [35]

    B. C. Yang, L. Tang and C. F. Qiao, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, no.4, 324 (2021) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09096- 7 [arXiv:2012.04463 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  36. [36]

    Z. G. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C77, no.7, 432 (2017) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-4997-0 [arXiv:1701.04285 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  37. [37]

    Z. G. Wang and Z. Y. Di, Acta Phys. Polon. B50, 1335 (2019) doi:10.5506/APhysPolB.50.1335 [arXiv:1807.08520 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  38. [38]

    S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi, B. Barsbay and H. Sundu, Phys. Lett. B844, 138089 (2023) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023.138089 [arXiv:2304.03244 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2023

  39. [39]

    S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi, B. Barsbay and H. Sundu, Nucl. Phys. A1041, 122768 (2024) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2023.122768 [arXiv:2304.09943 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    G. Li, C. Shi, Y. Chen and W. Sun, [arXiv:2505.23220 [hep-lat]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  41. [41]

    G. Li, C. Shi, Y. Chen and W. Sun, [arXiv:2505.24213 [hep-lat]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  42. [42]

    Y. Meng, C. Liu, X. Y. Tuo, H. Yan and Z. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C85, no.4, 458 (2025) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052- 025-14192-z [arXiv:2411.11533 [hep-lat]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Santowsky and C

    N. Santowsky and C. S. Fischer, Eur. Phys. J. C82, no.4, 313 (2022) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10272-6 [arXiv:2111.15310 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  44. [44]

    Q. Li, C. H. Chang, G. L. Wang and T. Wang, Phys. Rev. D104, no.1, 014018 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.014018 [arXiv:2104.12372 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  45. [45]

    H. W. Ke, X. Han, X. H. Liu and Y. L. Shi, Eur. Phys. J. C81, no.5, 427 (2021) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021- 09229-y [arXiv:2103.13140 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  46. [46]

    Heupel, G

    W. Heupel, G. Eichmann and C. S. Fischer, Phys. Lett. B 718, 545-549 (2012) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.11.009 [arXiv:1206.5129 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  47. [47]

    J. Z. Wang, D. Y. Chen, X. Liu and T. Mat- suki, Phys. Rev. D103, no.7, 071503 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.L071503 [arXiv:2008.07430 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  48. [48]

    C. Gong, M. C. Du, Q. Zhao, X. H. Zhong and B. Zhou, Phys. Lett. B824, 136794 (2022) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136794 [arXiv:2011.11374 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2022

  49. [49]

    X. K. Dong, V. Baru, F. K. Guo, C. Hanhart and A. Nefediev, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, no.13, 132001 (2021) [erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett.127, no.11, 119901 (2021)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.119901 [arXiv:2009.07795 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  50. [50]

    Z. H. Guo and J. A. Oller, Phys. Rev. D103, no.3, 034024 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.034024 [arXiv:2011.00978 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  51. [51]

    Huang, R

    Q. Huang, R. Chen, J. He and X. Liu, [arXiv:2407.16316 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  52. [52]

    Esposito and A

    A. Esposito and A. D. Polosa, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, no.9, 782 (2018) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6269-z [arXiv:1807.06040 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  53. [53]

    S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi and H. Sundu, [arXiv:2512.06513 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  54. [54]

    Z. Y. Wang, J. J. Qi, Z. H. Zhang and X. H. Guo, Phys. Rev. D112, no.7, 074038 (2025) doi:10.1103/skdp-g4ql [arXiv:2508.12366 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    Xia and T

    X. Xia and T. Guo, [arXiv:2508.19838 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  56. [56]

    F. Feng, Y. Huang, Y. Jia, W. L. Sang, D. S. Yang and J. Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D108, no.5, L051501 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.L051501 [arXiv:2304.11142 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  57. [57]

    Belov, A

    I. Belov, A. Giachino and E. Santopinto, JHEP01, 093 (2025) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2025)093 [arXiv:2409.12070 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    Wang and R

    Y. Wang and R. Zhu, [arXiv:2510.02085 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  59. [59]

    F. G. Celiberto, A. V. Giannini, V. P. Gon¸ calves and Y. N. Lima, [arXiv:2511.18984 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  60. [60]

    F. G. Celiberto, Phys. Rev. D112, no.7, 074041 (2025) 9 doi:10.1103/375n-fw5h [arXiv:2507.09744 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2025

  61. [61]

    H. F. Zhang, Y. Q. Ma and W. L. Sang, Sci. Bull.70, 1915-1917 (2025) doi:10.1016/j.scib.2025.04.035 [arXiv:2009.08376 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1915

  62. [62]

    F. Feng, Y. Huang, Y. Jia, W. L. Sang, X. Xiong and J. Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D106, no.11, 114029 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.114029 [arXiv:2009.08450 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  63. [63]

    X. W. Bai, Y. Huang and W. L. Sang, Phys. Rev. D111, no.5, 054006 (2025) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.054006 [arXiv:2411.19296 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  64. [64]

    X. W. Bai, F. Feng, C. M. Gan, Y. Huang, W. L. Sang and H. F. Zhang, JHEP09, 002 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2024)002 [arXiv:2404.13889 [hep- ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  65. [65]

    F. G. Celiberto, G. Gatto and A. Papa, Eur. Phys. J. C84, no.10, 1071 (2024) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024- 13345-w [arXiv:2405.14773 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  66. [66]

    W. L. Sang, T. Wang, Y. D. Zhang and F. Feng, Phys. Rev. D109, no.5, 056016 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.056016 [arXiv:2307.16150 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  67. [67]

    K. Chen, F. X. Liu, Q. Zhao, X. H. Zhong, R. Zhu and B. S. Zou, [arXiv:2412.13455 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  68. [68]

    Becchi, J

    C. Becchi, J. Ferretti, A. Giachino, L. Maiani and E. Santopinto, Phys. Lett. B811, 135952 (2020) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135952 [arXiv:2006.14388 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2020

  69. [69]

    H. F. Zhang, X. M. Mo and Y. P. Yan, Phys. Rev. D110, no.9, 096021 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.096021 [arXiv:2312.10850 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  70. [70]

    Z. G. Wang and X. S. Yang, AAPPS Bull.34, 5 (2024) doi:10.1007/s43673-023-00112-4 [arXiv:2310.16583 [hep- ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  71. [71]

    Biloshytskyi, V

    V. Biloshytskyi, V. Pascalutsa, L. Harland-Lang, B. Malaescu, K. Schmieden and M. Schott, Phys. Rev. D106, no.11, L111902 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.L111902 [arXiv:2207.13623 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  72. [72]

    H. X. Chen, Y. X. Yan and W. Chen, Phys. Rev. D106, no.9, 094019 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.094019 [arXiv:2207.08593 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  73. [73]

    D. D. Lu and S. Z. Jiang, [arXiv:2512.18569 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  74. [74]

    F. Zhu, G. Bauer and K. Yi, Chin. Phys. Lett.41, no.11, 111201 (2024) doi:10.1088/0256-307X/41/11/111201 [arXiv:2410.11210 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  75. [75]

    G. T. Bodwin, E. Braaten and G. P. Lepage, Phys. Rev. D51, 1125-1171 (1995) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D55, 5853 (1997)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.55.5853 [arXiv:hep- ph/9407339 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 1995

  76. [76]

    Zhu and C

    R. Zhu and C. F. Qiao, Phys. Lett. B756, 259-264 (2016) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.03.022 [arXiv:1510.08693 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  77. [77]

    Wang and R

    W. Wang and R. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D96, no.1, 014024 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.014024 [arXiv:1704.00179 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  78. [78]

    Zhu, Phys

    R. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D94, no.5, 054009 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.054009 [arXiv:1607.02799 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  79. [79]

    C. F. Qiao, P. Sun, D. Yang and R. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D89, no.3, 034008 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.034008 [arXiv:1209.5859 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  80. [80]

    C. F. Qiao and R. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D87, no.1, 014009 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.014009 [arXiv:1208.5916 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

Showing first 80 references.