Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 54 references

Beyond Borel Windows: A Systematic Optimization Framework for QCD Sum Rules

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

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

Pith's one-line read The paper advances a systematic optimization framework for choosing QCD sum-rule windows, and applies it to predict the 2++ fully charmed tetraquark mass as (6.32 ± 0.11) GeV.

desk verdict A genuinely new optimization framework for Borel windows, but the central Working Region still rests on an unspecified merging rule and hand-set entropy thresholds that are not propagated into the uncertainty. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05322 v1 pith:T74EL6AM submitted 2026-08-05 hep-ph hep-th

Raphael M. Albuquerque This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-th
keywords QCDsumrulesLaplacerulewindowOPEentropyfullycharmedtetraquarktensorcurrentmixingangledi-J/psispectrumBoreloptimization
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

QCD Laplace sum rules extract hadron masses, but the window in the Laplace parameter $\tau$ in which the result is trusted is usually chosen by fixed convergence percentages and visual plateau inspection. This paper proposes to replace that selection with a reproducible optimization: first delimit a Working Region using a normalized OPE entropy built from the relative sizes of the perturbative and nonperturbative contributions, then require the mass estimator $m_0^2(\tau,t_c,\theta)$ to be locally stationary in $\tau$ and weakly sensitive to the continuum threshold $t_c$ and to the mixing angle $\theta$ of the interpolating current. Applied to a fully charmed tetraquark with $J^{PC}=2^{++}$, the method selects $\theta=17.2^\circ\pm0.4^\circ$, $\sqrt{t_c}=7.08\pm0.08~\mathrm{GeV}$, and $\tau=0.410\pm0.010~\mathrm{GeV}^{-2}$, and yields $M_{c\bar c c\bar c}^{2^{++}}=(6.32\pm0.11)~\mathrm{GeV}$. The value sits in the still-unresolved near-threshold region of the di-$J/\psi$ spectrum, compatible within uncertainties with the lowest resonant component reported by ATLAS and with the $BW_0$ enhancement in the recent CMS analysis, so the framework also offers a way to turn the residual auxiliary-parameter dependence into part of the quoted uncertainty.

What carries the argument

The central object is the normalized OPE entropy $S_{\mathrm{OPE}}(\tau)$, a normalized entropy of information-theoretic type built from the relative magnitudes of the perturbative and condensate contributions to the OPE; it carries the first stage of the argument by delimiting a Working Region between the entropy thresholds $0.10$ and $0.60$. The argument also rests on the identity $\partial m_0^2/\partial\tau=-\sigma_s^2(\tau,t_c)$, which ties local $\tau$-stationarity of the mass estimator $m_0^2=L_1/L_0$ to the spectral variance under the Laplace kernel, and on the normalized residual $R(\theta,t_c)$, which quantifies how much the mass estimator varies across the retained $\tau$ interval. The mixed current $J_{\mu\nu}=\cos\theta\,J^D_{\mu\nu}+\kappa\sin\theta\,J^M_{\mu\nu}$, with normalization $\kappa(t_c)$ spanning the diquark\textendash antidiquark and meson\textendash meson operators, provides the parameter space in which the correlated optimization over $(\theta,t_c,\tau)$ is performed.

What would settle it

Re-run the optimization with bracketing entropy thresholds (e.g., $S_{\mathrm{OPE}}$ at $0.05/0.70$ instead of $0.10/0.60$) and with an explicitly documented alternative rule for merging the two pure-current entropy curves; if the resulting working window shifts and the mass estimator inside it leaves the $6.32\pm0.11$ GeV range, then the quoted uncertainty understates the prescription sensitivity. On the experimental side, a full amplitude analysis of the di-$J/\psi$ near-threshold region that assigns definite quantum numbers to the $BW_0$ enhancement would settle whether a $2^{++}$ component lives there.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the choice of sum-rule window can be posed as a constrained optimization problem over the auxiliary parameters, so that the final hadronic prediction no longer depends on a visually selected plateau. The paper introduces a normalized OPE entropy $S_{\mathrm{OPE}}(\tau)$ built from the relative magnitudes of the perturbative and nonperturbative OPE contributions, and uses the thresholds $S_{\mathrm{OPE}}=0.10$ and $0.60$ to fix a preliminary Working Region in $\tau$. Inside that region, it scans the mixing angle $\theta$ and continuum threshold $t_c$, imposing the stationarity condition $\partial m_0^2/\partial\tau\simeq0$ and minimizing the normalized residual $R(\theta,t_c)$, which measures the relative dispersion of $m_0^2$ across $\tau$. The correlated result for the $2^{++}$ fully charmed tetraquark built from a mixed diquark\textendash antidiquark / meson\textendash meson current is $\theta=17.2^\circ\pm0.4^\circ$, $\sqrt{t_c}=7.08\pm0.08~\mathrm{GeV}$, $\tau=0.410\pm0.010~\mathrm{GeV}^{-2}$, and $M_{c\bar c c\bar c}^{2^{++}}=(6.32\pm0.11)~\mathrm{GeV}$ (Eq. 48). The paper presents this as a mass prediction compatible within uncertainties with the lowest resonant component of the ATLAS di-$J/\psi$ fit and with the near-threshold $BW_0$ enhancement in the CMS analysis, while stopping short of identifying the experimental component with a definite resonance.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the hand-set OPE entropy thresholds $S_{\mathrm{OPE}}=0.10$ and $0.60$, and the intermediate criterion turning the two pure-current entropy curves into the Working Region, faithfully mark where the truncated OPE is trustworthy, so that changing them would not move the final mass outside its quoted $0.11$ GeV band.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The framework supplies a step-by-step, reproducible recipe for choosing sum-rule windows in any hadronic channel, replacing fixed OPE-convergence percentages and visual plateau inspection with explicit entropy and stationarity conditions.
  • If the mass estimate is correct, the unresolved low-mass region of the di-$J/\psi$ spectrum—currently parametrized as $BW_0$ by CMS and as the lowest resonant component by ATLAS—becomes a concrete target for an experimental amplitude analysis that can test for a $2^{++}$ component.
  • Because the optimization exposes correlations among $\tau$, $t_c$, and $\theta$, sum-rule uncertainties quoted with this method should better reflect the true dependence on auxiliary parameters than single-curve plateau estimates.
  • The same optimization logic extends naturally to conventional mesons, baryons, hybrids, glueballs, and other multiquark systems, where multiple interpolating operators and auxiliary parameters compete.
  • The method separates the window-selection step from the physics input, so different OPE truncations or condensate values can be re-run through the same pipeline without redoing the visual analysis.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The entropy thresholds $S_{\mathrm{OPE}}=0.10$ and $0.60$, and the unpublished intermediate criterion that converts the two pure-current entropy curves into the Working Region $0.25\le\tau\le0.51~\mathrm{GeV}^{-2}$, are the least constrained part of the method; a stability test that re-runs the optimization under bracketing threshold choices would tell how much of the quoted $\pm0.11~\mathrm{GeV}$
  • The variance identity $\partial m_0^2/\partial\tau=-\sigma_s^2$ suggests that the same entropy-plus-residual logic could be reformulated as a direct measure of spectral concentration, potentially linking the method to Bayesian spectral reconstruction approaches that infer the hadronic spectral function rather than assuming a single pole.
  • For the tetraquark application, the small optimized angle $\theta=17.2^\circ$ means the extracted state is dominated by the compact diquark\textendash antidiquark operator; a future measurement of its decay width into $J/\psi J/\psi$ could test that composition, since the two operator structures imply different couplings to the meson\textendash meson final state.
  • The method's residual $R(\theta,t_c)$ is effectively a coefficient of variation of the mass estimator over the window; it could be used directly as a quality factor when comparing different currents or different OPE truncations in future sum-rule studies.
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 proposes a systematic optimization framework for determining the sum rule window in QCD Laplace sum rules, replacing fixed convergence percentages and visual plateau selection with an OPE entropy criterion, local mass stationarity, and correlated scans over the Laplace parameter τ, the continuum threshold t_c, and the current mixing angle θ. As an application, the framework is used to extract the mass of the lowest fully charmed tetraquark state with J^{PC}=2^{++} from a mixed diquark–antidiquark and meson–meson interpolating current. The optimization yields θ=17.2°±0.4°, √t_c=7.08±0.08 GeV, and τ=0.410±0.010 GeV⁻², leading to M_{c\bar c c\bar c}^{2++} = (6.32±0.11) GeV, which is compared with the ATLAS and CMS di-J/ψ structures. The authors argue that the procedure reduces arbitrariness and explicitly exposes parameter correlations, and they emphasize that the result is a prediction compatible with the near-threshold region rather than a definitive spectroscopic assignment.

Significance. If the framework is fully specified and the quoted uncertainty is comprehensive, the paper would offer a genuinely useful contribution: it replaces subjective plateau selection with quantitative criteria, and the derivation of the stationarity condition in terms of the spectral variance (Eq. 16) is a clear pedagogical point. The authors are appropriately careful about the limitations of stability criteria, citing toy-model paradoxes and effective-threshold studies, and they do not overclaim the experimental identification. The main advertised strength is reproducibility and full propagation of auxiliary-parameter dependence; that strength is not currently achieved because the OPE-entropy thresholds and the merging criterion for the Working Region are hand-set and not varied in the uncertainty budget. The paper is also honest about this limitation in Sec. VI, but the central claim of a systematic, reproducible framework is weakened until the prescription dependence is quantified. The result is still likely to be of interest to the QCD sum-rule community if the sensitivity analysis is added.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II and Sec. V.B] The Working Region boundaries are fixed by the OPE entropy thresholds S_OPE(τ_inf)=0.10 and S_OPE(τ_sup)=0.60, which are described in Sec. II as an operational prescription that is 'not universal' and 'may be adjusted.' The uncertainty analysis in Sec. V.B combines QCD inputs, renormalization scale, external sum-rule variables, and truncation uncertainties, but it never varies these entropy thresholds. Since the optimized parameters (θ, √t_c, τ) and the mass prediction in Eq. (48) are read from inside the resulting region 0.25≤τ≤0.51 GeV⁻², the quoted uncertainty does not cover this dominant prescription dependence. Please add a sensitivity analysis that varies the thresholds over a defensible range (for example, S_inf in 0.05–0.20 and S_sup in 0.50–0.70) and propagate the resulting shift in the mass into the final error budget, or provide a first-principles criterion for their determination.
  2. [Sec. V.B] The rule for constructing the representative Working Region from the two pure-current entropy curves is never specified. The text states that 'neither pure-current entropy curve is used independently' and that 'an intermediate criterion is adopted,' but the actual combination rule is absent. This is a load-bearing reproducibility gap: a second analyst following the procedure as written could not reconstruct the 0.25≤τ≤0.51 GeV⁻² interval, and hence could not reproduce the optimum parameters in Eqs. (45)–(47). Please state the combination rule explicitly (for example, intersection of the two threshold intervals, an average of the two curves, or a weighted criterion) and show how the chosen rule affects the final window and the mass prediction.
  3. [Sec. IV] The selection of the refined parameter domain depends on several qualitative thresholds that are not quantified: the residual R(θ,t_c) is minimized subject to a 'sufficiently small residual' and the search targets the 'lowest physically admissible value of t_c' for which the angle yields such a residual. These phrases leave room for analyst judgment, which conflicts with the paper's stated goal of a reproducible procedure. Please define a concrete cutoff or algorithmic rule for the residual and for the admissible t_c interval, and test the sensitivity of the final (θ, √t_c, τ) selection to that definition.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. V.B] The sentence 'The Fig. 4 displays the resulting mass inside the optimized sum rule window' contains an extra article; it should read 'Fig. 4 displays ...'.
  2. [Eq. (49)] The experimental mass M_ATLAS_0 is written as '(6.41+0.08−0.03) GeV'; please format the asymmetric errors consistently with the CMS values in Eqs. (50)–(52).
  3. [Sec. III.A] The definition of κ in Eq. (35) depends on τ and t_c, and the text says it is averaged over the τ points of the working region, but the averaging scheme (uniform in τ? weighted by anything?) is not specified. Please clarify, as this prescription enters the determination of κ̄₀.
  4. [Sec. VI] The concluding paragraph acknowledges that 'the OPE entropy thresholds and the detailed numerical implementation may require adaptation' to other channels. This is an important limitation and should also be stated in Sec. II when the thresholds are introduced, rather than only at the end.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the predicted mass is obtained from stationarity and optimization criteria, not fitted to experimental targets or to the hand-set OPE-entropy thresholds.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The OPE entropy thresholds S_OPE = 0.10 and 0.60 are explicitly introduced as operational prescriptions in Sec. II, and the Working Region they define is only an initial domain; the final values of theta, sqrt(t_c), and tau are selected by the stationarity condition d(m0^2)/dtau ≈ 0 and by the residual R(theta,t_c), not by requiring the resulting mass to match ATLAS or CMS values. The comparison with the di-J/psi spectrum occurs only after the mass is computed, and the paper explicitly refrains from identifying its prediction with a specific experimental component. The self-cited Ref. [38] supplies NLO spectral-density machinery and QCD input parameters; it is independent support because it provides computational ingredients rather than the target 2++ mass, and the paper computes M = (6.32 ± 0.11) GeV from its own moments and optimization. The under-specified 'intermediate criterion' for combining the two pure-current entropy curves is a reproducibility and robustness limitation, not a circular reduction: nothing indicates that it was chosen to force the final mass. No equation or fitted parameter is equivalent by construction to the reported prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central mass prediction rests on many chosen inputs: the entropy thresholds, the initial threshold scan, the kappa equal-normalization, the optimized theta/tc/tau values, and the renormalization scale. The paper propagates uncertainties from QCD inputs and the selected parameter intervals, but not from the entropy threshold prescription or the kappa normalization choice.

free parameters (7)
  • OPE entropy thresholds S_inf, S_sup = 0.10, 0.60
    Hand-selected in Sec. II; the paper admits they are not universal and may be adjusted. These bounds define the Working Region and hence the final mass window.
  • Initial tc scan range = sqrt(tc) from 6.5 to 7.5 GeV
    Chosen in Sec. IV as physically motivated but not derived; different scan bounds could shift the selected optimum.
  • Relative normalization kappa = 1.81 ± 0.13
    Imposed by equalizing L0 of the two currents (Eq. 35). This is a modeling choice, not a measured quantity.
  • Mixing angle theta = 17.2° ± 0.4°
    Free current-composition parameter; optimized to satisfy stationarity rather than independently predicted.
  • Continuum threshold sqrt(tc) = 7.08 ± 0.08 GeV
    Effective threshold chosen by residual minimization; it is not a directly measured hadron property.
  • Laplace parameter tau = 0.410 ± 0.010 GeV^-2
    Selected inside the Working Region by stationarity; the mass prediction is read at this point.
  • Renormalization scale mu = 4.5 GeV
    Taken from the prior mu-stability analysis in Ref. [38] and varied only within 4.3 to 4.7 GeV.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Quark-hadron duality and the pole plus continuum spectral parametrization (Eq. 9)
    Standard assumption that the hadronic spectral function is a ground-state pole plus the OPE continuum above tc; this is the basis for the mass extraction formula.
  • domain assumption Truncation of the OPE at dimension six
    Higher gluonic condensates are neglected; an estimated systematic uncertainty is added, but the truncation itself is not derived.
  • domain assumption Positivity of the spectral density in the integration domain
    Used to interpret the tau-derivative of the squared mass as a variance and to define normalized entropy weights.
  • domain assumption NLO factorization approximation for the four-quark spectral density from Refs. [38,47]
    The paper relies on a prior factorization approach instead of a full NLO tensor-current calculation.
  • domain assumption The tensor interpolating current has non-vanishing overlap with the lowest 2++ state
    Required for the sum rule to probe the intended resonance rather than only the continuum.
invented entities (1)
  • Normalized OPE entropy S_OPE
    purpose: Delimits the Working Region in the Laplace parameter tau
    New heuristic quantity defined in Eqs. (23) and (24); it has no externally falsifiable handle and its thresholds are chosen by hand.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Beyond Borel Windows: A Systematic Optimization Framework for QCD Sum Rules." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T74EL6AM

@misc{pith2026260805322,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Beyond Borel Windows: A Systematic Optimization Framework for QCD Sum Rules},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T74EL6AM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05322}
}
abstract

We propose a systematic optimization framework for determining the sum rule window in QCD Laplace sum rules. Instead of relying primarily on fixed convergence percentages and visual plateau selection, the procedure combines an OPE entropy criterion, local mass stationarity, and a correlated analysis of the Laplace parameter $\tau$, the continuum threshold $t_c$, and the interpolating-current mixing angle $\theta$. The normalized OPE entropy is introduced to quantify the redistribution of the QCD contributions between the perturbative and nonperturbative sectors and to delimit an initial Working Region. This domain is subsequently refined by minimizing the residual variation of the mass estimator and requiring weak sensitivity to the continuum threshold and to the current composition. As an application, we study the lowest fully charmed tetraquark state with quantum numbers $J^{PC}=2^{++}$ using a mixed diquark--antidiquark and meson--meson interpolating current. The optimization selects $\theta=17.2^\circ\pm0.4^\circ$, $\sqrt{t_c}=7.08\pm0.08~\mathrm{GeV}$, and $\tau=0.410\pm0.010~\mathrm{GeV}^{-2}$, leading to the mass prediction $M_{c\bar c c\bar c}^{2^{++}}=(6.32\pm0.11)~\mathrm{GeV}$. The predicted state lies in the near-threshold region of the di-$J/\psi$ spectrum and is compatible, within uncertainties, with the lowest resonant component reported by ATLAS and with the enhancement parametrized as $BW_0$ in the recent CMS publication. The proposed framework provides a reproducible way of identifying finite domains of reduced auxiliary-parameter sensitivity and of incorporating the remaining dependence into the final uncertainty.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05322 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic behavior of the normalized OPE entropy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Dependence of the current normalization parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Normalized OPE entropy used to determine the initial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: displays the resulting mass inside the optimized sum rule window. The uncertainty is obtained by varying the QCD input parameters and the external sum rule variables within their allowed intervals. The perturbative and OPE trun￾cation uncertainties are also taken into …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. CMS fit to the di- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    +θ(s−t c)ρ OPE(s),(9) wherem 0 is the mass of the lowest state,λ 0 denotes its coupling to the interpolating current, andt c is the effective continuum threshold, the continuum contribu- tion can be transferred to the QCD side. The resulting continuum-subtracted Laplace sum rule is λ2 0 e−m2 0τ = Z tc tq ds e−sτ ρOPE(s).(10) More generally, the Laplace mo...

    work page

  2. [2]

    M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, and V. I. Zakharov, QCD and resonance physics: Theoretical foundations, Nucl. Phys. B147, 385 (1979)

    work page 1979

  3. [3]

    M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, and V. I. Zakharov, QCD and resonance physics: Applications, Nucl. Phys. B147, 448 (1979)

    work page 1979

  4. [4]

    M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, and V. I. Zakharov, QCD and resonance physics: Theρ–ωmixing, Nucl. Phys. B147, 519 (1979)

    work page 1979

  5. [5]

    L. J. Reinders, H. Rubinstein, and S. Yazaki, Hadron properties from QCD sum rules, Phys. Rep.127, 1 (1985)

    work page 1985

  6. [6]

    Colangelo and A

    P. Colangelo and A. Khodjamirian, QCD Sum Rules, a Modern Perspective, inAt the Frontier of Particle Physics: Handbook of QCD, Vol. 3, edited by M. Shif- man (World Scientific, Singapore, 2001) pp. 1495–1576, arXiv:hep-ph/0010175

    arXiv 2001

  7. [7]

    Narison,QCD as a Theory of Hadrons: From Par- tons to Confinement, Cambridge Monographs on Particle Physics, Nuclear Physics and Cosmology, Vol

    S. Narison,QCD as a Theory of Hadrons: From Par- tons to Confinement, Cambridge Monographs on Particle Physics, Nuclear Physics and Cosmology, Vol. 17 (Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2004)

    work page 2004

  8. [8]

    Mini-review on QCD spectral sum rules

    S. Narison, Mini-review on QCD spectral sum rules, Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc.258–259, 189 (2015), arXiv:1409.8148 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2015

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Khodjamirian, QCD Sum Rules for Heavy Flavour Physics, inContinuous Advances in QCD 2002, edited by K

    A. Khodjamirian, QCD Sum Rules for Heavy Flavour Physics, inContinuous Advances in QCD 2002, edited by K. A. Olive, M. A. Shifman, and M. B. Voloshin (World Scientific, Singapore, 2002) pp. 58–79, arXiv:hep- ph/0108205

    2002

  2. [10]

    Narison, A Fresh Look into the Heavy Quark-Mass Values, Phys

    S. Narison, A Fresh Look into the Heavy Quark-Mass Values, Phys. Lett. B341, 73 (1994)

    1994

  3. [11]

    Jamin and B

    M. Jamin and B. O. Lange,f B andf Bs from QCD Sum Rules, Phys. Rev. D65, 056005 (2002), arXiv:hep- ph/0108135

    2002

  4. [12]

    B. L. Ioffe, Calculation of Baryon Masses in Quantum Chromodynamics, Nucl. Phys. B188, 317 (1981), [Erra- tum: Nucl. Phys. B 191, 591 (1981)]

    1981

  5. [13]

    Chung, H

    Y. Chung, H. G. Dosch, M. Kremer, and D. Schall, Baryon Sum Rules and Chiral Symmetry Breaking, Nucl. Phys. B197, 55 (1982)

    1982

  6. [14]

    D. B. Leinweber, QCD Sum Rules for Skeptics, Annals Phys.254, 328 (1997), arXiv:nucl-th/9510051

    1997 arXiv

  7. [15]

    V. A. Novikov, M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, and V. I. Zakharov, In a Search for Scalar Gluonium, Nucl. Phys. B165, 67 (1980)

    1980

  8. [16]

    Narison and G

    S. Narison and G. Veneziano, QCD Tests ofG(1.6) = Glueball, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A4, 2751 (1989)

    1989

  9. [17]

    Bagan and T

    E. Bagan and T. G. Steele, Mass of the Scalar Glueball: Higher-Loop Effects in the QCD Sum Rules, Phys. Lett. B234, 135 (1990)

    1990

  10. [18]

    Harnett, R

    D. Harnett, R. T. Kleiv, K. Moats, and T. G. Steele, Near-Maximal Mixing of Scalar Gluonium and Quark Mesons: A Gaussian Sum-Rule Analysis, Nucl. Phys. A 850, 110 (2011), arXiv:0804.2195 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Govaerts, F

    J. Govaerts, F. de Viron, D. Gusbin, and J. Weyers, QCD Sum Rules and Hybrid Mesons, Nucl. Phys. B248, 1 (1984)

    1984

  12. [20]

    Govaerts, L

    J. Govaerts, L. J. Reinders, and J. Weyers, Radial Ex- citations and Exotic Mesons via QCD Sum Rules, Nucl. Phys. B262, 575 (1985)

    1985

  13. [21]

    Govaerts, L

    J. Govaerts, L. J. Reinders, P. Francken, X. Gonze, and J. Weyers, Coupled QCD Sum Rules for Hybrid Mesons, Nucl. Phys. B284, 674 (1987)

    1987

  14. [22]

    Nielsen, F

    M. Nielsen, F. S. Navarra, and S. H. Lee, New Char- monium States in QCD Sum Rules: A Concise Review, Phys. Rept.497, 41 (2010), arXiv:0911.1958 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  15. [23]

    R. M. Albuquerque, J. M. Dias, K. P. Khemchandani, A. Martinez Torres, F. S. Navarra, M. Nielsen, and C. M. Zanetti, QCD Sum Rules Approach to theX,YandZ States, Phys. Rept.815, 1 (2019), arXiv:1812.08207 [hep- ph]

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    R. M. Albuquerque, M. E. Bracco, and M. Nielsen, A QCD Sum Rule Calculation for theY(4140) Narrow Structure, Phys. Lett. B678, 186 (2009), arXiv:0903.5540 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  17. [25]

    R. M. Albuquerque and M. Nielsen, Exotic States in QCD Sum Rules, Phys. Rev. D84, 116004 (2011), arXiv:1107.1603 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  18. [26]

    R. M. Albuquerque, X. Liu, and M. Nielsen, ExoticB c- Like Molecules in QCD Sum Rules, Phys. Lett. B718, 492 (2012), arXiv:1203.6569 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  19. [27]

    R. D. Matheus, S. Narison, M. Nielsen, and J.-M. Richard, Can theX(3872) Be a 1 ++ Four-Quark State?, Phys. Rev. D75, 014005 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0608297

    2007 arXiv

  20. [28]

    S. H. Lee, A. Mihara, F. S. Navarra, and M. Nielsen, QCD Sum Rules Study of the MesonZ +(4430), Phys. Lett. B661, 28 (2008), arXiv:0710.1029 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  21. [29]

    R. D. Matheus, F. S. Navarra, M. Nielsen, and R. Ro- drigues da Silva, A Comparative Study of Pentaquark Interpolating Currents, Phys. Lett. B602, 185 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0406246

    2004 arXiv

  22. [30]

    F. S. Navarra, M. Nielsen, and R. Rodrigues da Silva, Pentaquark Decay in QCD Sum Rules, Phys. Rev. D74, 014002 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0510202

    2006 arXiv

  23. [31]

    R. M. Albuquerque, S. H. Lee, and M. Nielsen, QCD Sum Rule Study for a Possible Charmed Pen- taquark Θ c(3250), Phys. Rev. D88, 076001 (2013), arXiv:1306.4182 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  24. [32]

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

    2016 arXiv

  25. [33]

    T. G. Steele, S. Alavian, and J. Kwan, Sum-rule inequal- ities and a toy model paradox, Phys. Lett. B392, 189 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9701267

    1997 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Lucha, D

    W. Lucha, D. Melikhov, and S. Simula, Systematic un- certainties of hadron parameters obtained with QCD sum rules, Phys. Rev. D76, 036002 (2007), arXiv:0705.0470 [hep-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Lucha, D

    W. Lucha, D. Melikhov, and S. Simula, The effective con- tinuum threshold in dispersive sum rules, Phys. Rev. D 79, 096011 (2009), arXiv:0902.4202 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Lucha, D

    W. Lucha, D. Melikhov, and S. Simula, Effective con- tinuum thresholds for quark–hadron duality in disper- sive sum rules, inQCD at Work 2010: International Workshop on Quantum Chromodynamics, AIP Confer- ence Proceedings, Vol. 1317 (AIP, Melville, New York,

    2010

  29. [37]

    Gubler and M

    P. Gubler and M. Oka, A bayesian approach to QCD sum rules, Prog. Theor. Phys.124, 995 (2010), arXiv:1005.2459 [hep-ph]. 13

    2010 arXiv

  30. [38]

    C. E. Shannon, A mathematical theory of communica- tion, Bell Syst. Tech. J.27, 379 (1948)

    1948

  31. [39]

    Narison, Qcd parameters and condensates from heavy- quarkonium sum rules, Int

    S. Narison, Qcd parameters and condensates from heavy- quarkonium sum rules, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A33, 1850045 (2018), erratum: Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 33, 1850045(E) (2018)

    2018

  32. [40]

    R. M. Albuquerque, S. Narison, A. Rabemananjara, D. Rabetiarivony, and G. Randriamanatrika, Doubly- hidden scalar heavy molecules and tetraquarks states from qcd at nlo, Phys. Rev. D102, 094001 (2020), arXiv:2008.01569 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Narison, Precise determination of heavy-quark masses from qcd spectral sum rules, Phys

    S. Narison, Precise determination of heavy-quark masses from qcd spectral sum rules, Phys. Lett. B802, 135221 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    Narison, Revisitingf b andm b(mb) from qcd spectral sum rules, Phys

    S. Narison, Revisitingf b andm b(mb) from qcd spectral sum rules, Phys. Lett. B784, 261 (2018)

    2018

  35. [43]

    Narison, Light quark mass ratios from meson and baryon mass splittings, Phys

    S. Narison, Light quark mass ratios from meson and baryon mass splittings, Phys. Lett. B706, 412 (2012), arXiv:1105.2922 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Narison, Gluon condensates andc, bquark masses from quarkonia ratios of moments, Phys

    S. Narison, Gluon condensates andc, bquark masses from quarkonia ratios of moments, Phys. Lett. B693, 559 (2010), erratum: Phys. Lett. B 705, 544 (2011), arXiv:1004.5333 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Narison, Qcd spectral sum rules for heavy-quark sys- tems at higher orders, Int

    S. Narison, Qcd spectral sum rules for heavy-quark sys- tems at higher orders, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A30, 1550116 (2015)

    2015

  38. [46]

    Narison, Gluon condensates and precise mc,b from qcd moments and their ratios, Phys

    S. Narison, Gluon condensates and precise mc,b from qcd moments and their ratios, Phys. Lett. B707, 259 (2012), arXiv:1105.5070 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  39. [47]

    R. M. Albuquerque, S. Narison, D. Rabetiarivony, and G. Randriamanatrika,xyz–su(3) breakings from laplace sum rules at higher orders, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A33, 1850082 (2018), arXiv:1709.09023 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Narison, Masses and decay constants ofb c-like states from qcd spectral sum rules, Phys

    S. Narison, Masses and decay constants ofb c-like states from qcd spectral sum rules, Phys. Lett. B807, 135522 (2020)

    2020

  41. [49]

    Narison and A

    S. Narison and A. A. Pivovarov, Qcd spectral functions of four-quark currents, Phys. Lett. B327, 341 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9403225

    1994 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Pich and E

    A. Pich and E. de Rafael, Four-quark operators and qcd spectral functions, Phys. Lett. B158, 477 (1985)

    1985

  43. [51]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb Collaboration), Observation of structure in thej/ψ-pair mass spectrum, Sci

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb Collaboration), Observation of structure in thej/ψ-pair mass spectrum, Sci. Bull.65, 1983 (2020), arXiv:2006.16957 [hep-ex]

    2020

  44. [52]

    Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS Collaboration), Observation of a family of all-charm tetraquarks, arXiv (2026), sub- mitted for publication, arXiv:2602.02252 [hep-ex]

    A. Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS Collaboration), Observation of a family of all-charm tetraquarks, arXiv (2026), sub- mitted for publication, arXiv:2602.02252 [hep-ex]

    2026

  45. [54]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS Collaboration), Observation of an excess of di-charmonium events in the four-muon fi- nal state with the atlas detector, Phys

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS Collaboration), Observation of an excess of di-charmonium events in the four-muon fi- nal state with the atlas detector, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 151902 (2023), arXiv:2304.08962 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  46. [2010]

    316–321, arXiv:1008.0167 [hep-ph]

    pp. 316–321, arXiv:1008.0167 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.