Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 67 references

This paper predicts a spectrum of seven strange hidden-charm pentaquark states between 4.5 and 4.7 GeV and points to a specific decay chain for finding them.

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

2026-08-01 17:48 UTC pith:R4YSBIEV

load-bearing objection Solid extension of the author's own sum-rule program, with a real calibration concern that should be fixed before the masses are taken at face value. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.17492 v1 pith:R4YSBIEV submitted 2026-07-20 hep-ph

Analysis of the hidden-charm pentaquark candidates in the J/psi Sigma^* mass spectrum via the QCD sum rules

Zhi-Gang Wang , Yang Liu This is my paper
classification hep-ph PACS 12.39.Mk14.20.Lq12.38.Lg
keywords pentaquark statesQCD sum ruleshidden-charm exoticsdiquark-diquark-antiquark currentslight-flavor decupletJ/psi Sigma* mass spectrummass predictionsweak decay search channels
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.

The paper aims to predict the masses and quantum numbers of hidden-charm pentaquarks with quark content uusc\bar{c} — two up quarks, one strange quark, and a charm-anticharm pair — in the light-flavor decuplet representation. Using QCD sum rules with the operator product expansion carried to dimension 13, it obtains seven negative-parity states with spins 1/2, 3/2, and 5/2 and masses between 4.53 and 4.74 GeV. It proposes the weak decay chain \Sigma_b^+ \to P_{cs}^+ \phi \to J/\psi \Sigma^{*+} \phi as the production and detection channel. If the predictions hold, they complete the systematic spectroscopy of hidden-charm pentaquarks in both octet and decuplet light-flavor multiplets and give experiment a concrete target.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the uusc\bar{c} pentaquark states in the light-flavor 10 representation are negative-parity and form a compact spectrum around 4.6 GeV. Constructing all lowest diquark-diquark-antiquark interpolating currents with isospin I=1 and spin-parities 1/2^-, 3/2^-, 5/2^-, and matching their two-point correlation functions in the QCD sum rule framework with vacuum condensates up to dimension 13, the authors obtain seven mass predictions: 4.53±0.12, 4.63±0.10, 4.64±0.11, 4.74±0.10, 4.65±0.11, 4.63±0.10, and 4.63±0.10 GeV. They further argue that the CKM-favored weak decay \Sigma_b^+ \to P_{cs}^+ \phi \to J/\psi \Sigma^{*+} \phi is the natural search channel.

What carries the argument

The key objects are interpolating currents of diquark-diquark-antiquark form, such as [uu][sc]\bar{c} + 2[us][uc]\bar{c}, with definite spin-parity couplings (S_L, S_H, J_LH, J) that project onto J^P = 1/2^-, 3/2^-, 5/2^- states. The analysis uses the QCD sum rule: correlation functions of these currents are computed in the operator product expansion up to dimension 13 and matched to a hadronic dispersion relation; a Borel transform suppresses excited states, and the modified energy-scale formula \mu = \sqrt{M_P^2 - (2M_c)^2} - M_s determines the renormalization scale.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the modified energy-scale formula \mu = \sqrt{M_P^2 - (2M_c)^2} - M_s with fitted effective quark masses M_c = 1.82 GeV and M_s = 0.15 GeV; since the formula contains the target mass M_P, the predicted masses are not independent of this calibration, and if the formula or its constants are wrong, the entire spectrum loses support.

What would settle it

A measurement of the J/\psi \Sigma^* invariant mass in \Sigma_b^+ \to J/\psi \Sigma^{*+} \phi decays searching for a narrow peak between 4.5 and 4.7 GeV would settle the claim; a lattice QCD computation of the uusc\bar{c} ground-state masses with the same quantum numbers is a non-accelerator alternative.

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

If this is right

  • The uusc\bar{c} decuplet pentaquarks should appear as narrow negative-parity states with masses 4.5–4.7 GeV, close to the J/\psi \Sigma^* thresholds.
  • They can be searched for in the decay chain \Sigma_b^+ \to P_{cs}^+ \phi \to J/\psi \Sigma^{*+} \phi, which is CKM-favored and has a distinctive final state.
  • The predicted pole residues provide input for three-point QCD sum-rule estimates of partial decay widths to meson-baryon channels such as \bar{D}\Xi_c', \bar{D}_s\Sigma_c, and J/\psi \Sigma^*.
  • This work completes the systematic QCD sum-rule spectroscopy of hidden-charm pentaquarks in the light-flavor 8 and 10 representations, covering all lowest five-quark configurations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Because the energy-scale formula uses the predicted mass itself and the effective quark masses M_c and M_s are fitted empirically, the central mass values carry a calibration dependence; the spectrum could shift if those constants are not universal.
  • The proximity of the predicted masses to the J/\psi \Sigma^* threshold leaves open the possibility that some of these states are partly molecular, a scenario the compact diquark calculation does not test.
  • The same decuplet states could also be produced in other bottom-baryon weak decays, such as \Xi_b \to P_{cs} K, so the search strategy generalizes beyond the single proposed chain.
  • A precision measurement of the J/\psi \Sigma^* invariant mass in bottom-baryon decays would discriminate between a narrow compact pentaquark (as predicted) and a broader threshold enhancement.

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 / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript constructs diquark-diquark-antiquark interpolating currents for hidden-charm pentaquark states with quark content uusc\bar c, in the light-flavor 10 representation, and studies the quantum numbers IJ^P=1 1/2^-, 1 3/2^-, and 1 5/2^-. Using QCD sum rules with the OPE computed through dimension-13 condensates, the authors extract masses and pole residues for seven configurations defined by the spin couplings of the light and heavy diquarks. The central results are masses M_P=4.53±0.12 GeV to 4.74±0.10 GeV (Table 3), with claimed flat Borel platforms and 40–60% pole contributions. The paper also suggests searching for these states in the decay chain Σ_b^+ → P_cs^+ φ → J/ψ Σ^{*+} φ.

Significance. If the mass predictions are robust, this paper would provide a systematic and fairly complete spectroscopy of decuplet uusc\bar c pentaquark states, extending the authors' earlier calculations by including dimension-13 condensates consistently. The strengths are the exhaustive enumeration of lowest five-quark configurations, the consistent treatment of the OPE, the reported flat Borel windows, the relatively large pole contributions, and the concrete experimental search-chain proposal. However, the predictive power is weakened by the calibrated and partially self-referential scale-setting procedure used to define the Borel windows and by the absence of explicit spectral densities. The mass spectrum in Table 3 should therefore be viewed as conditional on a phenomenological calibration whose uncertainty is not included in the quoted errors.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3, Eq. (23)] The energy-scale formula μ=√(M_P^2−(2M_c)^2)−M_s contains the target mass M_P itself. Since μ controls all input parameters via Eq. (22), the extracted mass is used to set the very inputs that determine it. The text states that without this formula only bad convergent behavior and small pole contributions are obtained, so the reported OPE convergence and Borel windows are not independent evidence. In addition, M_c=1.82 GeV and M_s=0.15 GeV are quoted without uncertainties, so the ±0.10–0.12 GeV errors in Table 3 exclude the calibration uncertainty. A sensitivity analysis varying M_c and M_s, or an external calibration of Eq. (23) on a known state, is needed before the mass predictions can be regarded as robust.
  2. [§3, continuum threshold choice] The threshold is chosen as √s0=M_P+(0.5–0.8) GeV, again using the extracted mass to define the integration region in the same sum rule. Because the output M_P depends on s0, this choice biases the extracted mass toward a predetermined range and can artificially create flat Borel platforms. The paper reports threshold variations but does not quantify the sensitivity to the 0.5–0.8 GeV offset. I recommend testing the stability of the results by using external thresholds (e.g., physical meson-baryon thresholds such as J/ψΣ* or D-bar meson-baryon channels) or by solving the self-consistency relation between s0 and M_P explicitly and assessing uniqueness.
  3. [§2, Eqs. (19)–(21)] The QCD spectral densities ρ_QCD^1(s) and ρ_QCD^0(s) are not presented, so the claimed OPE convergence, the pole contributions in Table 2, and the 'confidently obtained' spectral densities cannot be independently checked. The D(n) plots in Fig. 1 show relative condensate contributions at the central parameter point, but the full spectral densities are the basis of the mass sum rule. Given that the central claim rests on these functions, explicit expressions or a supplementary file with the spectral densities is needed for reproducibility.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§4, Conclusion] The conclusion writes μ=√(M_P−(2M_c)^2)−M_s, missing the square on M_P; Eq. (23) has √(M_P^2−(2M_c)^2). This should be corrected.
  2. [Abstract and §1] The title and abstract refer to 'candidates in the J/ψΣ* mass spectrum', but the paper predicts masses rather than identifying observed candidates. Please clarify whether any experimental states are being assigned or whether the paper is purely predictive.
  3. [Reference [59]] Reference [59] is cited as the Particle Data Group, but the author list and journal details do not match the standard PDG citation. Please verify and correct.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Central masses are extracted with a scale-setting formula that contains the target mass M_P and self-cited fitted constants; the 'obey Eq. (23)' check is a restatement of the construction, but the OPE content is otherwise independent.

specific steps
  1. other [Section 3, Eq. (23), paragraph after Eq. (23), threshold choice before Table 2, and Section 4.]
    "µ = √(M_P^2 − (2M_c)^2) − M_s. The parameters M_c and M_s are the effective quark masses fitted by the QCD sum rules empirically... The best (and commonly used) values are M_c = 1.82 GeV and M_s = 0.15 GeV respectively ... we choose the continuum threshold parameters as √s0 = M_P + (0.5 − 0.8) GeV ... From Tables 2-3, we observe the predicted pentaquark masses and the energy scales µ obey the modified energy scale formula ... certainly."

    The quantity being predicted, M_P, enters the renormalization scale μ through Eq. (23) and the continuum threshold through √s0 = M_P + (0.5–0.8) GeV. These in turn fix the running condensates/quark masses and the Borel windows/pole fractions that define the extracted mass. The assertion that the outputs 'obey' Eq. (23) is therefore a tautological check: μ was originally chosen from M_P via that formula. Moreover, the constants M_c and M_s are self-cited empirical fits without quoted uncertainties, so the quoted ±0.10–0.12 GeV does not include calibration error. This is a self-consistency/calibration circularity rather than an exact identity.

full rationale

The paper does contain a genuine OPE computation to dimension 13 and solves the sum-rule equation (21); the masses are not equal to inputs by construction. The numerical spectrum (4.53–4.74 GeV) is not purely a fit to the J/ψΣ* data. However, the scale μ and threshold s0 — the two controls that determine which Borel window is accepted — are set using M_P itself, via Eq. (23) and √s0 = M_P + (0.5–0.8) GeV, and the 'good convergence / large pole contribution' validation is conditional on that calibration. The fitted constants M_c = 1.82 GeV, M_s = 0.15 GeV are imported from self-cited prior works without uncertainties. Thus the central mass predictions carry an unquoted calibration dependence, and the paper's own confirmation 'masses obey the modified energy scale formula certainly' is true by construction. This warrants a moderate circularity score, but not a higher one: the OPE sum rule remains an independent computational core and the central claim is not equivalent to the input parameters. Self-citation itself is not scored as circular here; the issue is the target mass feeding back into its own extraction controls.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 1 invented entities

The extraction rests on standard sum-rule technology plus the authors' calibrated scale formula; nothing is machine-checked or independently reproduced, and the output mass feeds back into the input scale and threshold.

free parameters (4)
  • M_c (effective charm quark mass) = 1.82 GeV
    Used in Eq. (23) to set the renormalization scale μ; described as fitted empirically by QCD sum rules in the authors' earlier works.
  • M_s (effective strange quark mass) = 0.15 GeV
    Used in Eq. (23) to account for SU(3) breaking in the scale choice; fitted empirically.
  • Continuum threshold √s0 = M_P + (0.5–0.8) GeV per state
    Chosen relative to the output mass to enforce a reasonable pole contribution; enters the sum rules in Eqs. (19)-(21).
  • Borel window T^2 = 3.2–4.1 GeV^2 depending on the current
    Selected by trial and error to give pole contributions of 40–60%; mass extraction assumes stability in this window.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption QCD sum rules with quark-hadron duality can extract ground-state masses for pentaquark currents.
    The method assumes the correlation functions in Eq. (2) are dominated by the lowest pentaquark pole in the Borel window; the paper validates this via pole contributions of 40–60% (Table 2).
  • domain assumption The uusc\bar c light-quark part in the decuplet is represented by the symmetric combination (uus+2usu)/√3 and couples to physical states.
    Section 2, Eq. (7); the diquark-diquark-antiquark content with the specified color structure is assumed to describe compact pentaquarks.
  • domain assumption The OPE is reliably computed up to dimension 13 and O(α_s^k) with k≤1, and the hierarchy D(6) >> ... >> D(13) ensures convergence.
    Section 3, Eq. (26); the spectral densities themselves are not displayed, so the convergence claim rests entirely on the authors' calculation.
  • ad hoc to paper The energy-scale formula Eq. (23) with M_c=1.82 GeV and M_s=0.15 GeV gives the correct scale for the sum rules.
    This is a calibration specific to the authors' program; the target mass M_P enters the formula, making the extraction self-referential.
invented entities (1)
  • uusc\bar c compact pentaquark states in the light-flavor 10 representation independent evidence
    purpose: Predicted objects whose masses are extracted; assignment to observed hidden-charm pentaquark candidates is proposed.
    The predicted masses and decay chain Σ_b^+ → P_cs^+ φ → J/ψ Σ^{*+} φ provide a falsifiable handle for experiments, although no independent evidence exists yet outside the sum-rule method.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 14227 in / 14295 out tokens · 117828 ms · 2026-08-01T17:48:10.971495+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In this work, we study the diquark-diquark-antiquark type $uusc\bar{c}$ pentaquark states in the light-flavor $\mathbf{10}$ representation via the QCD sum rules in details. We exhaust the lowest five-quark configurations and obtain the spectroscopy of the $uusc\bar{c}$ pentaquark states with the quantum numbers $IJ^{P}=1{\frac{1}{2}}^-$, $1{\frac{3}{2}}^-$, $1{\frac{5}{2}}^-$, and suggest to investigate them in the decay chain $\Sigma_b^+\to P_{cs}^+\,\phi \to J/\psi \Sigma^{*+}\, \phi$ experimentally.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.17492 by Yang Liu, Zhi-Gang Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The |D(n)| with variations of the n for centroid of the input parameters, where the (I), (II), (III), (IV), (V), (VI) and (VII) denote the [uu][sc]¯c+2[us][uc]¯c (1, 1, 0, 1 2 ), [uu][sc]¯c+2[us][uc]¯c (1, 0, 1, 1 2 ), [uu][sc]¯c+ 2[us][uc]¯c (1, 0, 1, 3 2 ), [uu][sc]¯c+ 2[us][uc]¯c (1, 1, 2, 3 2 )2, [uu][sc]¯c+ 2[us][uc]¯c (1, 1, 2, 3 2 )3, [uu][sc]¯c + 2[us][uc]¯c (1, 0, 1, 5 2 ) and [uu][sc]¯c + 2[us][u… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The masses with variations of the Borel parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The mass with variation of the Borel parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Aaij et al, Phys

    R. Aaij et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015) 072001

    2015

  2. [2]

    Aaij et al, Phys

    R. Aaij et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (2019) 222001

    2019

  3. [3]

    Aaij et al, Sci

    R. Aaij et al, Sci. Bull. 66 (2021) 1278

    2021

  4. [4]

    Adachi et al, Phys

    I. Adachi et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135 (2025) 041901

    2025

  5. [5]

    Aaij et al, Phys

    R. Aaij et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (2022) 062001

    2022

  6. [6]

    Aaij et al, Phys

    R. Aaij et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023) 031901

    2023

  7. [7]

    X. K. Dong, F. K. Guo and B. S. Zou, Commun. Theor. Phys. 73 (2021) 125201

    2021

  8. [8]

    F. L. Wang and X. Liu, Phys. Lett. B835 (2022) 137583. 10

    2022

  9. [9]

    X. W. Wang, Z. G. Wang, G. L. Yu and Q. Xin, Sci. China-Phys. Mech . Astron. 65 (2022) 291011

    2022

  10. [10]

    X. W. Wang and Z. G. Wang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A37 (2022) 2250189

    2022

  11. [11]

    Feijoo et al, Phys

    A. Feijoo et al, Phys. Lett. B839 (2023) 137760

    2023

  12. [12]

    R. Chen, X. Liu, X. Q. Li and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015) 132002

    2015

  13. [13]

    T. J. Burns, Eur. Phys. J. A51 (2015) 152

    2015

  14. [14]

    He, Phys

    J. He, Phys. Lett. B753 (2016) 547

    2016

  15. [15]

    Azizi, Y

    K. Azizi, Y. Sarac and H. Sundu, Phys. Lett. B782 (2018) 694

    2018

  16. [16]

    H. X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, T. G. Steele and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Re v. Lett. 115 (2015) 172001

    2015

  17. [17]

    C. W. Xiao, J. Nieves and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D100 (2019) 014021

    2019

  18. [18]

    M. Z. Liu et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (2019) 242001

    2019

  19. [19]

    Z. H. Guo and J. A. Oller, Phys. Lett. B793 (2019) 144

    2019

  20. [20]

    Z. G. Wang and Q. Xin, Chin. Phys. C45 (2021) 123105

    2021

  21. [21]

    C. W. Xiao, J. J. Wu and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. D103 (2021) 054016

    2021

  22. [22]

    L. Meng, B. Wang and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D107 (2023) 014005

    2023

  23. [23]

    X. W. Wang and Z. G. Wang, Chin. Phys. C47 (2023) 013109

    2023

  24. [24]

    Maiani, A

    L. Maiani, A. D. Polosa and V. Riquer, Phys. Lett. B749 (2015) 289

    2015

  25. [25]

    G. N. Li, M. He and X. G. He, JHEP 1512 (2015) 128

    2015

  26. [26]

    Ali and A

    A. Ali and A. Y. Parkhomenko, Phys. Lett. B793 (2019) 365

    2019

  27. [27]

    R. Zhu, X. Liu, H. Huang and C. F. Qiao, Phys. Lett. B797 (2019) 134869

    2019

  28. [28]

    Z. G. Wang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A35 (2020) 2050003

    2020

  29. [29]

    Z. G. Wang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A36 (2021) 2150071

    2021

  30. [30]

    Z. G. Wang and Q. Xin, Eur. Phys. J. C86 (2026) 472

    2026

  31. [31]

    Z. G. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C86 (2026) 209

    2026

  32. [32]

    Z. G. Wang and Y. Liu, Nucl. Phys. B1027 (2026) 117456

    2026

  33. [33]

    Z. G. Wang and Y. Liu, arXiv: 2603.10774 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  34. [34]

    Z. G. Wang, arXiv: 2606.28095 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  35. [35]

    Z. G. Wang, arXiv: 2607.09430 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  36. [36]

    R. F. Lebed, Phys. Lett. B749 (2015) 454

    2015

  37. [37]

    Zhu and C

    R. Zhu and C. F. Qiao, Phys. Lett. B756 (2016) 259

    2016

  38. [38]

    X. H. Liu, Q. Wang and Q. Zhao, Phys. Lett. B757 (2016) 231

    2016

  39. [39]

    Bayar, F

    M. Bayar, F. Aceti, F. K. Guo and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D94 (2016) 074039. 11

    2016

  40. [40]

    F. K. Guo, X. H. Liu and S. Sakai, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 112 (2020) 103757

    2020

  41. [41]

    M. I. Eides, V. Yu. Petrov and M. V. Polyakov, Phys. Rev. D93 (2016) 054039

    2016

  42. [42]

    P. P. Shi, F. Huang and W. L. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. A57 (2021) 237

    2021

  43. [43]

    A. Ali, I. Ahmed, M. J. Aslam, A. Y. Parkhomenko and A. Rehman, JHEP 10 (2019) 256

    2019

  44. [44]

    A. N. Semenova, V.V. Anisovich and A. V. Sarantsev, Eur. Phys . J. A56 (2020) 142

    2020

  45. [45]

    C. R. Deng, Phys. Rev. D105 (2022) 116021

    2022

  46. [46]

    Y. Yan, H. Huang, X. Zhu and J. Ping, Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) 034036

    2024

  47. [47]

    S. Y. Li, Y. R. Liu, Z. L. Man, Z. G. Si and J. Wu, Phys. Rev. D108 (2023) 056015

    2023

  48. [48]

    M. C. Gordillo, J. M. Alcaraz-Pelegrina and J. Segovia, arXiv: 260 2.18075 [hep-ph]

  49. [49]

    Z. G. Wang, Front. Phys. 21 (2026) 016300

    2026

  50. [50]

    Z. G. Wang, Phys. Rev. D101 (2020) 074011

    2020

  51. [51]

    Z. G. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C76 (2016) 70

    2016

  52. [52]

    Z. G. Wang and T. Huang, Eur. Phys. J. C76 (2016) 43

    2016

  53. [53]

    Z. G. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C76 (2016) 142

    2016

  54. [54]

    Z. G. Wang, Nucl. Phys. B913 (2016) 163

    2016

  55. [55]

    M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein and V. I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B147 (1979) 385

    1979

  56. [56]

    M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein and V. I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B147 (1979) 448

    1979

  57. [57]

    L. J. Reinders, H. Rubinstein and S. Yazaki, Phys. Rept. 127 (1985) 1

    1985

  58. [58]

    Colangelo and A

    P. Colangelo and A. Khodjamirian, hep-ph/0010175

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  59. [59]

    Takahashi et al, Int

    F. Takahashi et al, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A41 (2026) 2630011

    2026

  60. [60]

    Narison and R

    S. Narison and R. Tarrach, Phys. Lett. 125 B (1983) 217

    1983

  61. [61]

    Z. G. Wang, Nucl. Phys. B1007 (2024) 116661

    2024

  62. [62]

    Z. G. Wang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A36 (2021) 2150107

    2021

  63. [63]

    Z. G. Wang and T. Huang, Phys. Rev. D89 (2014) 054019

    2014

  64. [64]

    Z. G. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C74 (2014) 2874

    2014

  65. [65]

    Z. G. Wang and T. Huang, Eur. Phys. J. C74 (2014) 2891

    2014

  66. [66]

    Z. G. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C74 (2014) 2963

    2014

  67. [67]

    Z. G. Wang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A34 (2019) 1950097. 12

    2019