REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 35 references
Heavy quark symmetry behind $b \to c$ semileptonic sum rule
T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read In the heavy quark limit, the b→c semileptonic sum rule among R_D, R_D*, and R_Λc is an exact consequence of heavy quark symmetry, with coefficients that are independent of new physics and of Isgur-Wise functions.
desk verdict This paper finally derives the b→c semileptonic sum rule from heavy quark symmetry; the derivation is clean and the paper deserves review, but the 'any NP model' claim is scoped more narrowly than the text suggests. 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 load-bearing object is heavy quark symmetry as implemented in heavy quark effective theory, expressed through the leading-order Isgur-Wise functions $\xi(w)$ for B→D(∗) and $\zeta(w)$ for Λb→Λc, together with the degenerate-mass relations $m_B=m_{\Lambda_b}$ and $m_D=m_{D^*}=m_{\Lambda_c}$. Substituting these universal form factors into the helicity amplitudes of Eqs. (2.8)–(2.10) makes the Isgur-Wise functions cancel in the ratios, leaving coefficients that are functions only of $w$ and $r$. That cancellation is what converts an empirical coincidence into an exact statement of the symmetry.
What would settle it
Measure the differential spectra for B→Dτν, B→D*τν, and Λb→Λcτν in the same w bins, determine ξ(w) and ζ(w) from lattice QCD, and test Eq. (3.7) directly; a violation exceeding the calculated mass and form-factor corrections at low w would show that the heavy-quark-limit derivation is not the correct explanation.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
Working in heavy quark effective theory, the paper shows that when the b and c quarks are infinitely heavy, all B→D(∗) form factors reduce to a single Isgur-Wise function $\xi(w)$, all Λb→Λc form factors reduce to $\zeta(w)$, and the hadron masses satisfy $m_B=m_{\Lambda_b}$ and $m_D=m_{D^*}=m_{\Lambda_c}$. With these substitutions, the differential rates $\kappa_D$, $\kappa_{D^*}$, and $\kappa_{\Lambda_c}$ obey $$\frac{\kappa_{\Lambda_c}}{\zeta(w)^2}=\frac{2}{1+w}\frac{\kappa_D+\kappa_{D^*}}{\xi(w)^2}.$$ Dividing by the corresponding standard-model rates gives the sum rule $$\frac{\kappa_{\Lambda_c}}{\$kappa^{{\rm SM}}$_{\Lambda_c}}=a_{\rm HQL}\frac{\kappa_D}{\$kappa^{{\rm SM}}$_D}+b_{\rm HQL}\frac{\kappa_{D^*}}{\$kappa^{{\rm SM}}$_{D^*}},$$ where $a_{\rm HQL}$ and $b_{\rm HQL}$ depend only on $w$ and the mass ratio $r$, satisfy $a_{\rm HQL}+b_{\rm HQL}=1$, and do not depend on the Isgur-Wise functions or on any Wilson coefficient. Thus, in the heavy quark limit, the empirical sum rule holds with no model-dependent correction term $\delta_{\Lambda_c}$. The paper also evaluates how the equality is violated by realistic hadron masses, subleading form factors, and phase-space integration, finding that the bottomed and charmed mass-spectrum effects partly cancel while form-factor corrections are comparable or larger, with large differences between HQET and BGL parameterizations.
Load-bearing premise
New physics is assumed to enter b→c tau decays only through four left-handed operators, so right-handed neutrinos and the O_VR operator are absent; if they contribute, the exact heavy-quark-limit relation is not guaranteed.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- In the heavy quark limit, the proposed sum rule is exact and independent of new physics within the left-handed operator basis: the correction $\delta_{\Lambda_c}$ vanishes for every combination of $C_{\rm VL}$, $C_{\rm SL}$, $C_{\rm SR}$, and $C_{\rm T}$.
- The coefficients $a_{\rm HQL}$ and $b_{\rm HQL}$ are fixed functions of $w$ and the mass ratio $r$, so the sum rule can be tested bin-by-bin in $w$ without knowing the Isgur-Wise functions.
- Away from the heavy quark limit, the corrections from bottomed and charmed hadron mass splittings tend to cancel against each other, while subleading form-factor corrections produce deviations comparable to or larger than the mass effects.
- Phase-space integration introduces a nonzero deviation even in the heavy quark limit because the Isgur-Wise functions no longer cancel over an interval; in the HQET treatment the deviation is smallest near zero recoil, but this is not guaranteed with BGL form factors.
- Tensor-operator terms give the largest corrections to the sum rule, but with the currently allowed size of $C_{\rm T}$ those corrections remain minor compared with the experimental uncertainty of $R_{\Lambda_c}$.
Reading between the lines
- Beyond the paper: if Eq. (3.7) is combined with standard-model rates, precise differential measurements would directly probe the ratio $\zeta(w)/\xi(w)$, offering a clean heavy-quark-symmetry test with lattice-QCD input.
- Beyond the paper: because the derivation relies on the left-handed operator basis, a future experimental signal that requires right-handed neutrinos or the $O_{\rm VR}$ operator would show up as a systematic violation of the sum rule, making it a diagnostic of the chiral structure of new physics.
- Beyond the paper: the same heavy-quark-limit argument should produce analogous sum rules for other ground-state doublets, such as B_s→D_s(∗) together with Ξ_b→Ξ_c, providing independent cross-checks.
- Beyond the paper: the large spread between HQET and BGL predictions for the correction $\delta$ suggests that the dominant systematic is the choice of form-factor parameterization; a global fit with full error propagation would settle whether the sum rule remains precise enough for upcoming $R_{\Lambda_c}$ measurements.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. This paper revisits the empirical b → c semileptonic sum rule relating R_D, R_D*, and R_Λc and places it on a theoretical footing. Using the heavy quark effective theory (HQET) and the operator basis of Eq. (2.1), the authors derive an exact differential relation in the heavy quark limit, Eq. (3.7), which states that κ_Λc/ζ(w)^2 = 2(κ_D + κ_D*)/((1+w)ξ(w)^2) for arbitrary Wilson coefficients C_VL, C_SL, C_SR, C_T. They then rewrite this as a sum rule for the ratios κ_Hc/κ^SM_Hc with coefficients a_HQL and b_HQL that are independent of the Isgur-Wise functions and satisfy a_HQL + b_HQL = 1. The second half of the paper studies corrections to this relation, decomposing them into effects from the hadron mass spectrum (scenarios S0–S3), subleading form factors (S4), and phase-space integration, with a comparison to a BGL-based analysis (S5). The central analytic derivation is internally consistent, but the claimed model independence is scoped by the operator basis, and the numerical correction analysis is presented without uncertainties.
Significance. If the central result holds, the paper provides the first systematic heavy-quark-symmetry derivation of the b → c semileptonic sum rule, upgrading it from an empirical observation to a theorem within the assumed operator basis. The explicit cancellation of the Isgur-Wise functions in the heavy quark limit is a genuine and useful insight, and the scenario decomposition of corrections clarifies which effects dominate the residual δ_Λc. The paper is also honest about its limitations: it repeatedly states that uncertainties on the corrections are not evaluated and that the HQET and BGL parameterizations give substantially different results. However, the advertised model independence is conditional on the left-handed-neutrino basis of Eq. (2.1), and the numerical section, while suggestive, does not yet provide a quantitative error budget.
major comments (2)
- [Sec. 4.1 and 4.2] The claim after Eq. (3.9) that "the sum rule holds in any NP model" is broader than what is proven. The operator basis in Eq. (2.1) excludes O_VR and all right-handed neutrino operators, and the derivation of Eq. (3.7) relies on the specific V−A structure of the charged currents and on the left-handed neutrino assumption. For models with O_VR or right-handed neutrinos, the hadronic helicity amplitudes combine V−A and V+A currents differently; in particular, for B → D*, the axial form factors no longer drop out in the same way. The paper does not extend the proof to those operators, so the model-independence claim should either be explicitly restricted to the basis (2.1) or supplemented with an argument (or at least a concrete test) that the relation (3.7) is insensitive to right-handed operators. This is not an internal inconsistency, but it is load-bearing for the advertised phenomenological use.
- [Sec. 4] The numerical analysis of the corrections δ_Λc^{kl}(ij) is presented without any uncertainties. The text states in Sec. 4.1 that "we have not evaluated uncertainties of δ_Λc^{kl}(ij)" and in Sec. 4.2 that "we do not evaluate uncertainties" for the BGL case. Given that the HQET (S4) and BGL (S5) results differ substantially for several Wilson-coefficient channels, the absence of an uncertainty estimate prevents the reader from judging whether the differences are significant or whether the claimed smallness of δ_Λc is robust. The authors acknowledge this and defer to future work, which is acceptable, but for the correction analysis to be used as evidence that the sum rule is practical, at least a rough estimate (e.g., varying the input parameters in Eqs. (4.11)–(4.12)) should be provided or the conclusions should be stated as preliminary.
minor comments (4)
- [Sec. 3] The sentence on O_VR says it is neglected because "generally subject to additional suppression in LFU violating interactions." This is a physical assumption, not a theorem; it would be helpful to sharpen the wording and to refer the reader to the right-handed-neutrino literature cited in footnote 3 to make the scope of the basis explicit.
- [Sec. 4.2] In the definition of the intervals I_i in Eq. (4.10), the upper limit w_Hc,max differs for D, D*, and Λc, so the statement that "the region is commonly set between the numerator and denominator" deserves a brief clarification of how the common w range is chosen for each ratio.
- [Sec. 5] The phrase "bottomed and charmed mass spectra" is used repeatedly; consider "bottom" and "charm" hadron mass spectra or "b- and c-hadron" for readability.
- [References] Reference [1] contains a typo: "HFLA V" should be "HFLAV".
Circularity Check
No significant circularity: the HQL sum rule is an algebraic consequence of standard HQET form-factor identities and mass relations, not an input renamed as a prediction.
full rationale
The central relation Eq. (3.7) is obtained by substituting the leading-order HQET form-factor equalities (2.4) and (2.7) and the equal-mass relations (3.2) into the differential rates (2.8)-(2.10); the Isgur-Wise functions then cancel algebraically, and the coefficients in Eq. (3.8) depend only on w and r, not on fitted parameters or on the Wilson coefficients. This is a genuine derivation from stated standard assumptions, not a fit or a definition. The later construction of akl_I and bkl_I in Eq. (4.9) is explicitly a bookkeeping choice that forces delta(kl)=0 for one selected operator term; the paper announces this prescription rather than presenting it as a prediction, and it does not feed back into the HQL identity. Self-citations such as Refs. [2], [6], and [18] supply numerical fits and form-factor parametrizations used in the correction analysis, but the HQL sum rule does not reduce to those fits, and the cited HQET form-factor relations are external and standard. The operator-basis restriction in Sec. 2.1, which excludes OVR and right-handed neutrinos, is a scope assumption that limits the model-independence claim but is not circularity.
Assumptions & free parameters
free parameters (4)
- IW meson function parameters (a2, V21, V20, rho*^2) =
1.14, 57, 7.5, 1.24
- IW baryon function derivatives (zeta', zeta'') =
-2.06, 3.28
- HQET subleading form factor parameters (scenario S4)
- BGL form factor coefficients (scenario S5)
assumptions (4)
- domain assumption HQET parametrization of form factors in terms of Isgur-Wise functions xi(w), zeta(w)
- domain assumption Heavy quark limit hadron mass relations mB=mLambdab, mD=mD*=mLambdac
- domain assumption NP operator basis limited to OVL, OSL, OSR, OT with left-handed neutrinos; OVR and right-handed neutrinos neglected
- standard math Isgur-Wise functions normalized as xi(1)=zeta(1)=1
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Heavy quark symmetry behind $b \to c$ semileptonic sum rule." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CPUFIYAI
@misc{pith2026250109382,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Heavy quark symmetry behind $b \to c$ semileptonic sum rule},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CPUFIYAI}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09382}
}
abstract
Lepton flavor universality violations in semileptonic $b \to c$ transitions have garnered attention over a decade. For $R_{H_c}={\rm{BR}}(H_b\to H_c \tau\bar\nu_\tau)/{\rm{BR}}(H_b\to H_c \ell\bar\nu_\ell)$ with $\ell$ being $e,\, \mu$, a sum rule among $R_{D}$, $R_{D^*}$ and $R_{\Lambda_c}$ was proposed to check consistency in the experimental results independently of new physics models. We revisit this relation from the perspective of the heavy quark symmetry. We derive a sum rule holding exactly in the heavy quark limit and clarify how model-dependent corrections are introduced in a realistic situation.
Figures
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
Averages of b-hadron, c-hadron, and τ -lepton properties as of 2023
Heavy Flavor Averaging Group (HFLA V)Collaboration, “Averages of b-hadron, c-hadron, and τ -lepton properties as of 2023.” arXiv:2411.18639
arXiv 2023
-
[2]
Global fit to b →cτ νanomalies as of Spring 2024,
S. Iguro, T. Kitahara, and R. Watanabe, “Global fit to b →cτ νanomalies as of Spring 2024,” Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 075005 [arXiv:2405.06062]. 16 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.25 1.30 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.25 1.30 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.25 1.30 -0.20 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 1.00 1.05 1.10 1....
arXiv 2024
-
[3]
Impact of polarization observables and Bc → τ νon new physics explanations of the b → cτ νanomaly,
M. Blanke, et al., “Impact of polarization observables and Bc → τ νon new physics explanations of the b → cτ νanomaly,” Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 075006 [arXiv:1811.09603]
arXiv 2019
-
[4]
M. Blanke, et al., “Addendum to “Impact of polarization observables and Bc → τ νon new physics explanations of the b → cτ νanomaly”.” arXiv:1905.08253. [Addendum: Phys.Rev.D 100, 035035 (2019)]
arXiv 2019
-
[5]
Impact of Λ b→Λcτ νmeasurement on new physics in b→clν transitions,
M. Fedele, et al., “Impact of Λ b→Λcτ νmeasurement on new physics in b→clν transitions,” Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 055005 [arXiv:2211.14172]
arXiv 2023
-
[6]
Sum rules for semi-leptonic b → c and b → u decays: accuracy checks and implications
W.-F. Duan, S. Iguro, X.-Q. Li, R. Watanabe, and Y.-D. Yang, “Sum rules for semi-leptonic b → c and b → u decays: accuracy checks and implications.” arXiv:2410.21384. 17 full I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 δΛc VL SL (VLSR) -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 full I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 δΛc VL SL (SS) -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 full I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 δΛc VL SL (SRSL) -0.10 -0.05 ...
-
[7]
Weak Decays of Heavy Mesons in the Static Quark Approximation,
N. Isgur and M. B. Wise, “Weak Decays of Heavy Mesons in the Static Quark Approximation,” Phys. Lett. B 232 (1989) 113–117
work page 1989
-
[8]
M. Neubert, “Heavy quark symmetry,” Phys. Rept. 245 (1994) 259–396 [hep-ph/9306320]
arXiv 1994
Show all 35 references
-
[9]
Interpreting LHCb’s Λb → Λcτ ¯ν measurement and puzzles in semileptonic Λ b decays,
F. U. Bernlochner, Z. Ligeti, M. Papucci, and D. J. Robinson, “Interpreting LHCb’s Λb → Λcτ ¯ν measurement and puzzles in semileptonic Λ b decays,” Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) L011502 [arXiv:2206.11282]
2023 arXiv
-
[10]
Heavy baryon weak form-factors,
N. Isgur and M. B. Wise, “Heavy baryon weak form-factors,” Nucl. Phys. B 348 (1991) 276–292. 18
1991
-
[11]
Status of the semileptonic B decays and muon g-2 in general 2HDMs with right-handed neutrinos,
S. Iguro and Y. Omura, “Status of the semileptonic B decays and muon g-2 in general 2HDMs with right-handed neutrinos,” JHEP 05 (2018) 173 [arXiv:1802.01732]
2018 arXiv
-
[12]
Right-handed neutrinos and R(D(∗)),
D. J. Robinson, B. Shakya, and J. Zupan, “Right-handed neutrinos and R(D(∗)),” JHEP 02 (2019) 119 [arXiv:1807.04753]
2019 arXiv
-
[13]
A theory of R(D ∗, D) anomaly with right-handed currents,
K. S. Babu, B. Dutta, and R. N. Mohapatra, “A theory of R(D ∗, D) anomaly with right-handed currents,” JHEP 01 (2019) 168 [arXiv:1811.04496]
2019 arXiv
-
[14]
The role of right-handed neutrinos in b → cτ ¯ν anomalies,
R. Mandal, C. Murgui, A. Pe˜ nuelas, and A. Pich, “The role of right-handed neutrinos in b → cτ ¯ν anomalies,” JHEP 08 (2020) 022 [arXiv:2004.06726]
2020 arXiv
-
[15]
The role of right-handed neutrinos in b → cτ (πν τ , ρντ , µνµντ )ντ from visible final-state kinematics,
N. Penalva, E. Hern´ andez, and J. Nieves, “The role of right-handed neutrinos in b → cτ (πν τ , ρντ , µνµντ )ντ from visible final-state kinematics,” JHEP 10 (2021) 122 [arXiv:2107.13406]
2021 arXiv
-
[16]
B ¯→D(*)ℓX¯ decays in effective field theory with massive right-handed neutrinos,
A. Datta, H. Liu, and D. Marfatia, “B ¯→D(*)ℓX¯ decays in effective field theory with massive right-handed neutrinos,” Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) L011702 [arXiv:2204.01818]
2022 arXiv
-
[17]
Combined analysis of semileptonic B decays to D and D∗: R(D(∗)), |Vcb|, and new physics,
F. U. Bernlochner, Z. Ligeti, M. Papucci, and D. J. Robinson, “Combined analysis of semileptonic B decays to D and D∗: R(D(∗)), |Vcb|, and new physics,” Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 115008 [arXiv:1703.05330]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 97, 059902 (2018)]
2017 arXiv
-
[18]
Bayesian fit analysis to full distribution data of ¯B → D(∗)ℓ¯ν: |Vcb| determination and New Physics constraints,
S. Iguro and R. Watanabe, “Bayesian fit analysis to full distribution data of ¯B → D(∗)ℓ¯ν: |Vcb| determination and New Physics constraints,” JHEP 08 (2020) 006 [arXiv:2004.10208]
2020 arXiv
-
[19]
Precise predictions for Λ b → Λc semileptonic decays,
F. U. Bernlochner, Z. Ligeti, D. J. Robinson, and W. L. Sutcliffe, “Precise predictions for Λ b → Λc semileptonic decays,” Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 055008 [arXiv:1812.07593]
2019 arXiv
-
[20]
New predictions for Λ b → Λc semileptonic decays and tests of heavy quark symmetry,
F. U. Bernlochner, Z. Ligeti, D. J. Robinson, and W. L. Sutcliffe, “New predictions for Λ b → Λc semileptonic decays and tests of heavy quark symmetry,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) 202001 [arXiv:1808.09464]
2018 arXiv
-
[21]
Testing leptoquark models in ¯B → D(∗)τ ¯ν,
Y. Sakaki, M. Tanaka, A. Tayduganov, and R. Watanabe, “Testing leptoquark models in ¯B → D(∗)τ ¯ν,” Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 094012 [arXiv:1309.0301]
2013 arXiv
-
[22]
Phenomenology of Λ b → Λcτ ντ using lattice QCD calculations,
A. Datta, S. Kamali, S. Meinel, and A. Rashed, “Phenomenology of Λ b → Λcτ ντ using lattice QCD calculations,” JHEP 08 (2017) 131 [arXiv:1702.02243]. 19
2017 arXiv
-
[23]
Second order power corrections in the heavy quark effective theory. 1. Formalism and meson form-factors,
A. F. Falk and M. Neubert, “Second order power corrections in the heavy quark effective theory. 1. Formalism and meson form-factors,” Phys. Rev. D 47 (1993) 2965–2981 [hep-ph/9209268]
1993 arXiv
-
[24]
Second order power corrections in the heavy quark effective theory. 2. Baryon form-factors,
A. F. Falk and M. Neubert, “Second order power corrections in the heavy quark effective theory. 2. Baryon form-factors,” Phys. Rev. D 47 (1993) 2982–2990 [hep-ph/9209269]
1993 arXiv
-
[25]
Model independent extraction of |V(cb)| using dispersion relations,
C. G. Boyd, B. Grinstein, and R. F. Lebed, “Model independent extraction of |V(cb)| using dispersion relations,” Phys. Lett. B 353 (1995) 306–312 [hep-ph/9504235]
1995 arXiv
-
[26]
Work in progress
M. Endo, S. Iguro, M. S, Lang, S. Mishima, and R. Watanabe, “Work in progress.”
-
[27]
Measurement of the shape of the Λ 0 b → Λ+ c µ−νµ differential decay rate,
LHCb Collaboration, “Measurement of the shape of the Λ 0 b → Λ+ c µ−νµ differential decay rate,” Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 112005 [arXiv:1709.01920]
2017 arXiv
-
[28]
Λ b → pℓ−¯νℓ and Λb → Λcℓ−¯νℓ form factors from lattice QCD with relativistic heavy quarks,
W. Detmold, C. Lehner, and S. Meinel, “Λ b → pℓ−¯νℓ and Λb → Λcℓ−¯νℓ form factors from lattice QCD with relativistic heavy quarks,” Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 034503 [arXiv:1503.01421]
2015 arXiv
-
[29]
Revival of H- interpretation of RD(*) anomaly and closing low mass window,
S. Iguro, “Revival of H- interpretation of RD(*) anomaly and closing low mass window,” Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 095011 [arXiv:2201.06565]
2022 arXiv
-
[30]
Towards ruling out the charged Higgs interpretation of the RD(∗) anomaly,
M. Blanke, S. Iguro, and H. Zhang, “Towards ruling out the charged Higgs interpretation of the RD(∗) anomaly,” JHEP 06 (2022) 043 [arXiv:2202.10468]
2022 arXiv
-
[31]
Conclusive probe of the charged Higgs solution of P5’ and RD(*) discrepancies,
S. Iguro, “Conclusive probe of the charged Higgs solution of P5’ and RD(*) discrepancies,” Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 095004 [arXiv:2302.08935]
2023 arXiv
-
[32]
Accumulating hints for flavor-violating Higgs bosons at the electroweak scale,
A. Crivellin and S. Iguro, “Accumulating hints for flavor-violating Higgs bosons at the electroweak scale,” Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 015014 [arXiv:2311.03430]
2024 arXiv
-
[33]
Global fit to the 2HDM with generic sources of flavour violation using GAMBIT,
P. Athron, A. Crivellin, T. E. Gonzalo, S. Iguro, and C. Sierra, “Global fit to the 2HDM with generic sources of flavour violation using GAMBIT,” JHEP 11 (2024) 133 [arXiv:2410.10493]
2024 arXiv
-
[34]
Test of the R(D(∗)) anomaly at the LHC,
S. Iguro, Y. Omura, and M. Takeuchi, “Test of the R(D(∗)) anomaly at the LHC,” Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 075013 [arXiv:1810.05843]
2019 arXiv
-
[35]
Observation of the decay Λ 0 b → Λ+ c τ −ντ ,
LHCb Collaboration, “Observation of the decay Λ 0 b → Λ+ c τ −ντ ,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (2022) 191803 [arXiv:2201.03497]. 20
2022
Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.