Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 103 references

Two-point QCD sum rules predict ground-state masses of 345.20 to 350.00 GeV for five baryons containing two top quarks, placing them just above the sum of their constituent quark masses.

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 09:54 UTC pith:PRVSKQ4A

load-bearing objection Routine sum-rule exercise whose predicted masses are predetermined by the chosen continuum threshold; the spectral densities are omitted and the narrow-pole ansatz is unjustified for top-containing states. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2601.11985 v2 pith:PRVSKQ4A submitted 2026-01-17 hep-ph hep-exhep-lat

Examining possible doubly topped baryon configurations

M. Shekari Tousi , K. Azizi This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-exhep-lat
keywords doubly topped baryonsQCD sum rulestop quarkbaryon mass spectrumtoponiumheavy baryonsoperator product expansioncontinuum threshold
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 tries to establish the ground-state masses of five baryons containing two top quarks — Ξttu, Ξttd, Ωtts, Ωttc, Ωttb — using two-point QCD sum rules. The predicted masses are 345.20, 345.20, 345.22, 346.88, and 350.00 GeV, each only slightly above the sum of the constituent quark masses. A sympathetic reader would care because these are quantitative estimates for states that would be the most massive baryons known, motivated by recent experimental hints of a pseudoscalar excess near top-pair threshold. The paper argues that sitting above the quark-mass sum is consistent with the method's uncertainties and not evidence against binding; it offers these numbers as benchmarks for collider searches.

Core claim

The central claim is that QCD sum rules, applied to interpolating currents for doubly topped baryons, yield ground-state masses of Ξttu = Ξttd = 345.20 GeV, Ωtts = 345.22 GeV, Ωttc = 346.88 GeV, and Ωttb = 350.00 GeV, with uncertainties around ±1.1–1.2 GeV. These values are just 0.08–0.18 GeV above the sums of the constituent quark masses. The authors interpret the small excess as a manifestation of the method's systematic errors, not as evidence for a repulsive interaction, and maintain that the color-singlet states must be stabilized by multi-quark correlations — a point they concede requires more refined analysis.

What carries the argument

The two-point correlation function built from a doubly-heavy baryon interpolating current is evaluated twice: phenomenologically as a single narrow pole plus continuum, and in QCD through the operator product expansion with condensates up to dimension eight. After a Borel transform, the ground-state mass is extracted from the ratio of the invariant amplitudes for the identity and slashed-momentum Lorentz structures, m = Π̃_I / Π̃_q̸. The extraction relies on choosing the continuum threshold s0 so that the pole contribution exceeds 50% and the dimension-eight OPE term stays below 5%.

Load-bearing premise

The single-particle pole ansatz in Eq. (4) presumes a narrow, well-defined ground state with a non-zero residue; if the top quark's 1.3 GeV width precludes a genuine bound state, the predicted mass is just the quark-mass sum and the method cannot distinguish a real state from a threshold artifact.

What would settle it

Search for a narrow resonance in the ttq invariant-mass distribution near 345–350 GeV (q = u, d, s, c, b) at a hadron collider; observing no peak would contradict the pole interpretation. Equivalently, recalculate the sum rule with a spectral density that includes the finite top width — if no Borel window with a stable mass remains, the pole ansatz is the cause.

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

If this is right

  • If the paper is right, the five doubly topped baryons have well-defined masses in a narrow 345–350 GeV window, roughly 2.5 times the top quark mass.
  • Collider searches can target resonances in final states containing two top quarks plus a third quark, using these masses as the central values for invariant-mass windows.
  • The result would establish that top quarks can hadronize into baryons when paired with a second top, despite the top's short lifetime.
  • The masses provide baselines for decay calculations and for sensitivity studies at next-generation collider facilities.
  • The near-coincidence with the quark-mass sums implies any binding energy is at most a few hundred MeV, which can be compared with potential-model predictions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The extracted masses essentially reproduce the sum of the input quark masses, suggesting the sum rule is reflecting the threshold rather than a genuine resonance — a known failure mode when the continuum threshold is tuned to enforce pole dominance.
  • Given the top quark's width of about 1.3 GeV, a state whose mass sits only ~0.1 GeV above threshold cannot be a narrow bound state; the single-particle pole in the correlation function is likely a numerical artifact of the chosen s0 window.
  • A physically motivated spectral density that includes the finite top width would likely dissolve the pole and eliminate the Borel stability that produces these mass numbers.
  • If such baryons are never observed, the most plausible explanation would be that the bound-state assumption for two tops is invalid, not that QCD sum rules fail in their usual domain.

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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper applies two-point QCD sum rules to predict the ground-state masses of five doubly topped baryons: Ξ_ttu, Ξ_ttd, Ω_tts, Ω_ttc, and Ω_ttb. The correlation functions of the interpolating currents (Eqs. (2)–(3)) are evaluated in the OPE with condensates up to dimension eight; after Borel transformation and continuum subtraction, the mass is extracted from the ratio of the identity and slashed-momentum structures (Eq. (18)). The results (Table II) are m = 345.20, 345.20, 345.22, 346.88, and 350.00 GeV, each within ±1.1 GeV of the corresponding sum of the input quark masses (345.12–349.82 GeV). The paper is motivated by recent CMS and ATLAS pseudoscalar excesses near the top-antitop threshold and presents the numbers as benchmark predictions for LHC and FCC searches, while acknowledging that the uncertainties preclude any claim of binding.

Significance. The topic is timely and the manuscript is clearly organized: the input parameters are transparently listed (Table I), the currents and propagators are written out (Eqs. (2)–(3), (9)–(10)), and the authors are candid that their central values lie only 0.08–0.18 GeV above the free-quark thresholds and do not demonstrate binding. If the result were a genuine first-principles extraction, it would provide a useful reference for future experimental searches. As submitted, however, the predictive content is not established. The essential spectral densities and nonperturbative functions are omitted (Sec. II.B), and the reported masses coincide with the quark threshold plus a small offset controlled by the chosen s0 window, so the calculation does not extract baryonic information beyond the input masses. The applicability of the narrow-pole ansatz to a system whose top constituents decay with Γ_t ≈ 1.3 GeV is also not justified.

major comments (4)
  1. [II.B, Eqs. (13)–(14)] The central OPE result is not presented. The spectral densities ρ(s) and nonperturbative functions Γ(M²) are dismissed as 'very lengthy and we prefer not to present them here.' Without them the reader cannot check the perturbative terms, the OPE convergence required by Eq. (21), the perturbative-versus-condensate balance, or the pole-dominance condition (Eq. (20)). Since the mass extraction (Eq. (18)) rests entirely on these functions, the central claim is unverifiable as submitted. The explicit expressions should be provided in an appendix or supplementary file, with a breakdown of individual contributions.
  2. [Eq. (18) and Table II] The reported masses are predetermined by the input quark masses and the s0 window, not by a baryon pole. For Ξ_ttu, s0 = 119140–119220 GeV² gives √s0 = 345.17–345.28 GeV versus 2m_t + m_u = 345.12 GeV, and the quoted 345.20 GeV is the window midpoint. With M² ≈ 345–375 GeV² the Borel weight varies by only ~25% across the 30–110 GeV² interval, so Eq. (18) returns the mean √s in the window; a standard threshold ansatz ρ(s) ∝ (s − s_th)^α with α ≈ 1–2 gives 345.19–345.20 GeV from window geometry alone. The same pattern holds for every channel (e.g., Ω_ttb: m ≈ √s0 ≈ 350 GeV). Thus the pole-dominance criterion merely fixes the window, and the 'prediction' reproduces the input quark masses.
  3. [Eqs. (4), (20) and Table II] The phenomenological side assumes a single narrow ground-state pole. The extracted masses lie only 0.08–0.18 GeV above the two-top-plus-light thresholds, while Γ_t ≈ 1.3 GeV is an order of magnitude larger; a state with such a width is not a narrow pole, and no finite-width treatment is offered. Relatedly, for a smooth spectral density the quoted windows (Δs ≈ 70 GeV², M² ≈ 360 GeV²) give PC ≈ Δ/(Δ+M²) ≈ 0.16 in Eq. (20), below the imposed 1/2; the criterion can be met only if ρ is sharply peaked just above threshold, i.e., the narrow-pole premise is being assumed rather than established. The introduction itself notes the top quark decays before hadronizing, so the pole ansatz requires explicit justification.
  4. [Table II (Ω_ttb row)] The quoted window s0 = 122300–122400 GeV² lies below the physical threshold (2m_t + m_b)² ≈ 122430 GeV² (with m_t = 172.56 GeV, m_b = 4.78 GeV from Table I). Eq. (14) integrates from (2m_Q + m_Q')² to s0, so the perturbative integral over this window is empty. The reported m = 350.00 GeV corresponds to √s0 ≈ 350 GeV (s0 ≈ 122500 GeV²), outside the quoted range. The central table is therefore internally inconsistent: either the window is misreported or the extraction is disconnected from the stated integrals.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (13)] The lower integration limit is 4m_Q², whereas the physical three-particle threshold is (2m_Q + m_q)². For light q this differs by O(m_q m_t) ≈ 1 GeV²—numerically small, but the start of the cut is conceptually misidentified. Eq. (14) uses the correct (2m_Q + m_Q')² form; please make the notation uniform.
  2. [Eq. (11)] Several terms appear duplicated (e.g., the first two displayed terms are identical), and the reduction of the generic current (Eq. (2)) to the identical-top case Q = Q', including the 1/√2 normalization, is never spelled out. Please clarify the combinatorics so the result is reproducible.
  3. [Refs. [30], [95]] Refs. [30] and [95] appear to treat the same or closely related systems (topped baryons; triply top baryon) with the same method, the latter being a companion paper by this group. The authors cite both without quantitative comparison; the claim of 'first quantitative estimates' should be positioned against this existing literature.
  4. [Sec. III, after Table II] The acknowledgment that the error bands extend below the constituent-quark sums is appropriate, but the text should state explicitly that the central values are not statistically distinguishable from the free-quark thresholds: the 0.08–0.18 GeV offset is an order of magnitude smaller than the ±1.1 GeV uncertainties. The abstract and conclusion should reflect this.
  5. [Fig. 1] The vertical axes span 340–354 GeV and the curves show several-GeV variation across the quoted windows, which is hard to reconcile with the claim of weak sensitivity to M² and s0. Please report the actual mass variation and the values of PC obtained from Eq. (20).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the mass extraction is a standard sum-rule ratio; the near-threshold result reflects the heavy-quark scale, not an identity m = sqrt(s0).

full rationale

The derivation is a conventional two-point QCD sum rule: correlators are expanded in OPE (Eqs. 9–14), Borel-transformed, and matched to a single-pole hadronic ansatz (Eqs. 4–8). The mass is not an input; it is obtained as the ratio m = Π_I / Π_̸q (Eq. 18) after the auxiliary parameters β, M^2, s0 are selected by stability and pole-dominance criteria (Eqs. 19–21). The paper does not define m through s0, and no data are fitted and then renamed as a prediction. The closeness of the reported masses to 2m_t + m_q is a numerical consequence of the large top-quark mass and the narrow s0 windows placed just above the perturbative threshold; a sum rule can legitimately return a value near its dimensional input without being circular, provided the pole ansatz is valid. The serious issue is physical applicability, not circularity: the narrow-pole ansatz of Eq. (4) is questionable when Γ_t ≈ 1.3 GeV and the extracted mass is only ~0.1 GeV above threshold; if no narrow state exists, Eq. (18) loses its hadronic meaning. That is a correctness/assumption risk, not a circular reduction. Also flagged: the explicit spectral densities and nonperturbative terms are omitted in Section II.B ('The explicit expressions for the components of ρ(′) and Γ(′) are very lengthy and we prefer not to present them here'), which limits auditability but is not evidence of circularity. Self-citations such as refs. [67] and [95] are motivational or methodological, not load-bearing for the mass formula. Verdict: no significant circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on standard QCD sum rule technology (auxiliary parameters M², s0, β), the validity of quark-hadron duality, and — critically — the assumption that a discrete pole exists for an unbound system. The masses are within ~0.1 GeV of the input quark mass threshold, and the threshold s0 is chosen just above that threshold, so the calculation effectively returns its own input. No new fundamental entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Borel mass parameter M² = 345-380 GeV² (channel-dependent)
    Working window fixed by pole dominance (PC ≥ 1/2, Eq. 20) and OPE convergence (Dim-8 ratio ≤ 0.05, Eq. 21); the extracted mass depends weakly on M², but the window itself is chosen by hand.
  • Continuum threshold s0 = 119140-122400 GeV² (channel-dependent)
    Chosen within ~0.1% of (2m_t + m_q)²; the reported mass tracks s0^(1/2), so the output is effectively set by this auxiliary parameter (Table II).
  • Mixing parameter β = cos θ ∈ [-1,-0.5] ∪ [0.5,1]
    Stability regions selected via parametric scan; no unique value is determined; the Ioffe point (cos θ = -0.71) is used for the illustrative Figure 1.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Quark-hadron duality: the Borel-transformed OPE expression equates to the hadronic pole plus a continuum subtracted by the threshold s0.
    Invoked in Section II.B (after Eq. 13) for all channels; standard but not exact, and the continuum model affects the final mass.
  • domain assumption QCD factorization of dimension-7 and dimension-8 condensates into products of lower-dimensional condensates.
    Stated in Section III and near Eqs. (20)-(21); needed to include nonperturbative terms beyond dimension 6 without additional free parameters.
  • ad hoc to paper A single narrow ground-state pole (Eq. 4) exists for the doubly topped baryon with a non-zero residue λ.
    Load-bearing for the sum-rule extraction; questionable because Γ_t (~1.3 GeV) exceeds the predicted mass excess over the t+t+q threshold (~0.1 GeV), so no bound state is expected.
  • domain assumption The CMS/ATLAS pseudoscalar excess near t¯t threshold is compatible with toponium-like bound dynamics.
    Motivates the study (Introduction, refs. [19,20]); not used directly in the mass calculation but frames the physical relevance.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 14736 in / 16533 out tokens · 171222 ms · 2026-08-03T09:54:49.868675+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present a comprehensive theoretical assessment of the masses of possible baryonic configurations characterized by the presence of two heavy top quarks, including $\Xi_{ttu}$, $\Xi_{ttd}$, $\Omega_{tts}$, $\Omega_{ttc}$, and $\Omega_{ttb}$ systems. This analysis is rigorously executed within the specialized framework of two-point $\mathrm{QCD}$ sum rules, focusing on their predicted ground state masses. Our interest in these systems arises from recent CMS and ATLAS reports indicating a pseudoscalar excess close to $t\bar{t}$ threshold. Our evaluation incorporates both perturbative terms and nonperturbative effects, including condensate contributions up to dimension eight. Based on our results, the extracted central masses for all channels are slightly above the sum of the constituent quark masses, which is consistent with the inherent uncertainties of the method. These quantitative predictions provide a useful first-principle theoretical reference, which may help future experimental searches for such heavy configurations at the LHC and inform sensitivity studies at next-generation facilities such as the FCC.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.11985 by K. Azizi, M. Shekari Tousi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Left: Behavior of the extracted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.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

103 extracted references · 75 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Observation of top quark production in ¯pp collisions,

    F. Abe et al. [CDF], “Observation of top quark production in ¯pp collisions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 2626-2631 (1995), [arXiv:hep-ex/9503002 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  2. [2]

    Observation of the top quark,

    S. Abachi et al. [D0], “Observation of the top quark,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 2632-2637 (1995), [arXiv:hep-ex/9503003 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  3. [3]

    Production and Decay Properties of Ultraheavy Quarks,

    I. I. Y . Bigi, Y . L. Dokshitzer, V . A. Khoze, J. H. Kuhn and P . M. Zerwas, “Production and Decay Properties of Ultraheavy Quarks,” Phys. Lett. B 181, 157-163 (1986)

    1986

  4. [4]

    Top quark physics at the LHC,

    W. Bernreuther, “Top quark physics at the LHC,” J. Phys. G 35, 083001 (2008) , [arXiv:0805.1333 [hep-ph]]. 8

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  5. [5]

    Top quark and Higgs boson mass es: Interplay between infrared and ultraviolet physics,

    B. Schrempp and M. Wimmer, “Top quark and Higgs boson mass es: Interplay between infrared and ultraviolet physics,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 37, 1-90 (1996) , [arXiv:hep-ph/9606386 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  6. [6]

    Top quark physics at the Tevatron,

    P . C. Bhat, H. Prosper and S. S. Snyder, “Top quark physics at the Tevatron,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 13, 5113-5218 (1998), [arXiv:hep-ex/9809011 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  7. [7]

    Top quark condensation,

    G. Cvetic, “Top quark condensation,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, 513-574 (1999) , [arXiv:hep-ph/9702381 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  8. [8]

    CP violat ion in top physics,

    D. Atwood, S. Bar-Shalom, G. Eilam and A. Soni, “CP violat ion in top physics,” Phys. Rept. 347, 1-222 (2001) , [arXiv:hep-ph/0006032 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  9. [9]

    Top Tagging,

    T. Plehn and M. Spannowsky, “Top Tagging,” J. Phys. G 39, 083001 (2012) , [arXiv:1112.4441 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  10. [10]

    Rev iew of top quark physics,

    D. Chakraborty, J. Konigsberg and D. L. Rainwater, “Rev iew of top quark physics,” Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 53, 301-351 (2003) , [arXiv:hep-ph/0303092 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  11. [11]

    Searches for physics beyond the stand ard model in t¯t events,

    P . Merkel [CDF], “Searches for physics beyond the stand ard model in t¯t events,” Eur. Phys. J. C 33, S782-S784 (2004)

    2004

  12. [12]

    Top quark physics in hadron collisions,

    W. Wagner, “Top quark physics in hadron collisions,” Rept. Prog. Phys. 68, 2409-2494 (2005), [arXiv:hep-ph/0507207 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  13. [13]

    Top Quark Physics at Hadron Colliders,

    A. Quadt, “Top Quark Physics at Hadron Colliders,” Eur. Phys. J. C 48, 835-1000 (2006)

    2006

  14. [14]

    Kats and M

    Y . Kats and M. D. Schwartz, JHEP 04, 016 (2010) , [arXiv:0912.0526 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  15. [15]

    Precisi on measurements of the top quark mass from the Tevatron in the pre-LHC era,

    A. B. Galtieri, F. Margaroli and I. V olobouev, “Precisi on measurements of the top quark mass from the Tevatron in the pre-LHC era,” Rept. Prog. Phys. 75, 056201 (2012) , [arXiv:1109.2163 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  16. [16]

    On the quantum loop suppressed electroweak p rocesses,

    D. Palle, “On the quantum loop suppressed electroweak p rocesses,” [arXiv:1210.4404 [physics.gen-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  17. [17]

    Top Quark Physics at the LHC: A Review o f the First Two Years,

    F. P . Schilling, “Top Quark Physics at the LHC: A Review o f the First Two Years,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 27, 1230016 (2012) , [arXiv:1206.4484 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  18. [18]

    Probing CP violation i n e+e− production of the Higgs boson and toponia,

    K. Hagiwara, K. Ma and H. Y okoya, “Probing CP violation i n e+e− production of the Higgs boson and toponia,” JHEP 06, 048 (2016) , [arXiv:1602.00684 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  19. [19]

    Observation of a pseudoscalar excess at the top quar k pair production threshold,

    A. Hayrapetyan et al. [CMS], “Observation of a pseudoscalar excess at the top quar k pair production threshold,” Rept. Prog. Phys. 88, no.8, 087801 (2025) , [arXiv:2503.22382 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Observation of a cross-section enhancement near the t¯t production threshold in √s =13 TeV pp collisions with the A TLAS detector,

    [A TLAS], “Observation of a cross-section enhancement near the t¯t production threshold in √s =13 TeV pp collisions with the A TLAS detector,” A TLAS-CONF-2025-008

    2025

  21. [21]

    Statistical Indic ations of Toponium Formation in Top Quark Pair Production,

    B. Fuks, A. Hossain and J. Keaveney, “Statistical Indic ations of Toponium Formation in Top Quark Pair Production,” [arXiv:2511.02040 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  22. [22]

    Possible mixing between elementary and b ound state fields in the t¯t production excess at the LHC,

    Y . Matsuoka, “Possible mixing between elementary and b ound state fields in the t¯t production excess at the LHC,” [arXiv:2510.16828 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  23. [23]

    On the threshold behaviour of heavy top production,

    T. Sj¨ ostrand, “On the threshold behaviour of heavy top production,” [arXiv:2510.04590 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  24. [24]

    Prospects for toponium formation at the LHC in the sing le-lepton mode,

    B. Fuks, K. Hagiwara, K. Ma, L. Munoz-Aillaud and Y . J. Zh eng, “Prospects for toponium formation at the LHC in the sing le-lepton mode,” [arXiv:2509.03596 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  25. [25]

    Exclusiv e vector-toponium photoproduction in hadronic collisions ,

    V . P . Goncalves, L. Santana and B. D. Moreira, “Exclusiv e vector-toponium photoproduction in hadronic collisions ,” [arXiv:2508.19879 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  26. [26]

    Triple top baryon Ωttt,

    Z. Q. Zhu, C. Xiong and Y . J. Zhang, “Triple top baryon Ωttt,” [arXiv:2508.19137 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  27. [27]

    QCD sum rule study of topped mesons within heavy quark effective theory,

    S. W. Zhang, X. Luo, H. M. Yang and H. X. Chen, “QCD sum rule study of topped mesons within heavy quark effective theory, ” Universe 11, 10 (2025) , [arXiv:2508.03422 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Quantum Bootstrap Approac h to a Non-Relativistic Potential for Quarkonium systems,

    J. A. Lopez and C. Sandoval, “Quantum Bootstrap Approac h to a Non-Relativistic Potential for Quarkonium systems,” [arXiv:2508.02916 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  29. [29]

    Top Quark Bound States in Finite and Hol omorphic Quantum Field Theories,

    E. J. Thompson, “Top Quark Bound States in Finite and Hol omorphic Quantum Field Theories,” [arXiv:2507.16831 [physics.gen-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  30. [30]

    Topped baryo ns from QCD sum rules,

    S. W. Zhang, W. H. Tan, X. Luo and H. X. Chen, “Topped baryo ns from QCD sum rules,” [arXiv:2507.05895 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  31. [31]

    Analytic NNLO transverse-momen tum-dependent soft function for heavy quark pair hadroprod uction at threshold,

    H. S. Shao and G. Wang, “Analytic NNLO transverse-momen tum-dependent soft function for heavy quark pair hadroprod uction at threshold,” JHEP 10, 164 (2025) , [arXiv:2506.23791 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Toponia at the HL-LHC, CEPC, and FCC-ee,

    Y . Bai, T. K. Chen and Y . Yang, “Toponia at the HL-LHC, CEPC, and FCC-ee,” [arXiv:2506.14552 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  33. [33]

    Personal memories of 50 years of quarkonia,

    J. Ellis, “Personal memories of 50 years of quarkonia,” Nucl. Phys. B 1018, 117062 (2025) , [arXiv:2506.10643 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    New resonances at LHC,

    A. Le Yaouanc and F. Richard, “New resonances at LHC,” [arXiv:2506.09490 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  35. [35]

    Probing Y octosecond Quantum D ynamics in Toponium Formation at Colliders,

    C. Xiong and Y . J. Zhang, “Probing Y octosecond Quantum D ynamics in Toponium Formation at Colliders,” [arXiv:2507.05703 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  36. [36]

    Toponium: The smallest bound state and simplest hadro n in quantum mechanics,

    J. H. Fu, Y . J. Li, H. M. Yang, Y . B. Li, Y . J. Zhang and C. P . S hen, “Toponium: The smallest bound state and simplest hadro n in quantum mechanics,” Phys. Rev. D 111, no.11, 114020 (2025) , [arXiv:2412.11254 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Toponium: Imp lementation of a toponium model in FeynRules,

    J. H. Fu, Y . J. Zhang, G. Z. Xu and K. Y . Liu, “Toponium: Imp lementation of a toponium model in FeynRules,” [arXiv:2504.12634 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  38. [38]

    Toponium physics at the Large Hadron Collider ,

    B. Fuks, “Toponium physics at the Large Hadron Collider ,” [arXiv:2505.03869 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  39. [39]

    Quantum information meets high-energy physics: input to t he update of the European strategy for particle physics,

    Y . Afik, F. Fabbri, M. Low, L. Marzola, J. A. Aguilar-Saav edra, M. M. Altakach, N. A. Asbah, Y . Bai, H. Banks and A. J. Bar r, et al. “Quantum information meets high-energy physics: input to t he update of the European strategy for particle physics,” Eur. Phys. J. Plus 140, no.9, 855 (2025) , [arXiv:2504.00086 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    The quest for topped hadro ns,

    S. Q. Luo, Q. Huang and X. Liu, “The quest for topped hadro ns,” [arXiv:2508.17646 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  41. [41]

    Threshold Behavior of Heavy Top Production in e+ e- Collisions,

    V . S. Fadin and V . A. Khoze, “Threshold Behavior of Heavy Top Production in e+ e- Collisions,” JETP Lett. 46, 525-529 (1987) LENINGRAD-87-1333

    1987

  42. [42]

    The Toponium Scenario,

    J. H. Kuhn and P . M. Zerwas, “The Toponium Scenario,” Phys. Rept. 167, 321 (1988)

    1988

  43. [43]

    Superheavy Quarko nium Production and Decays: A New Higgs Signal,

    V . D. Barger, E. W. N. Glover, K. Hikasa, W. Y . Keung, M. G. Olsson, C. J. Suchyta, III and X. R. Tata, “Superheavy Quarko nium Production and Decays: A New Higgs Signal,” Phys. Rev. D 35, 3366 (1987) , [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 38, 1632 (1988)]

    1987

  44. [44]

    The Heavy top quark thr eshold: QCD and the Higgs,

    M. J. Strassler and M. E. Peskin, “The Heavy top quark thr eshold: QCD and the Higgs,” Phys. Rev. D 43, 1500-1514 (1991)

    1991

  45. [45]

    On the Threshold Behavior of Heavy Top Production,

    V . S. Fadin, V . A. Khoze and T. Sjostrand, “On the Threshold Behavior of Heavy Top Production,” Z. Phys. C 48, 613-622 (1990) . 9

    1990

  46. [46]

    Top quark polar ization as a probe of t anti-t threshold dynamics,

    V . S. Fadin, V . A. Khoze and M. I. Kotsky, “Top quark polar ization as a probe of t anti-t threshold dynamics,” Z. Phys. C 64, 45-56 (1994) , [arXiv:hep-ph/9403246 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  47. [47]

    Top - anti-top pair production close to threshold: Synopsi s of recent NNLO results,

    A. H. Hoang, M. Beneke, K. Melnikov, T. Nagano, A. Ota, A. A. Penin, A. A. Pivovarov, A. Signer, V . A. Smirnov and Y . Sum- ino, et al. “Top - anti-top pair production close to threshold: Synopsi s of recent NNLO results,” Eur. Phys. J. direct 2, no.1, 3 (2000) , [arXiv:hep-ph/0001286 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  48. [48]

    Bound-state Effe cts on Top Quark Production at Hadron Colliders,

    K. Hagiwara, Y . Sumino and H. Y okoya, “Bound-state Effe cts on Top Quark Production at Hadron Colliders,” Phys. Lett. B 666, 71-76 (2008) , [arXiv:0804.1014 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  49. [49]

    Heavy qua rkonium spectrum and production/annihilation rates to ord er β3 0 α3 s,

    A. A. Penin, V . A. Smirnov and M. Steinhauser, “Heavy qua rkonium spectrum and production/annihilation rates to ord er β3 0 α3 s,” Nucl. Phys. B 716, 303-318 (2005) , [arXiv:hep-ph/0501042 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  50. [50]

    Bound-state effects on kinema tical distributions of top quarks at hadron colliders,

    Y . Sumino and H. Y okoya, “Bound-state effects on kinema tical distributions of top quarks at hadron colliders,” JHEP 09, 034 (2010) , [erratum: JHEP 06, 037 (2016)], [arXiv:1007.0075 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  51. [51]

    Top-quark pair production near threshold at LHC,

    Y . Kiyo, J. H. Kuhn, S. Moch, M. Steinhauser and P . Uwer, “ Top-quark pair production near threshold at LHC,” Eur. Phys. J. C 60, 375-386 (2009) , [arXiv:0812.0919 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  52. [52]

    Next-to-Next-to-Next-to-Leading Or- der QCD Prediction for the Top Antitop S-Wave Pair Production Cross Section Near Threshold in e+e− Annihilation,

    M. Beneke, Y . Kiyo, P . Marquard, A. Penin, J. Piclum and M . Steinhauser, “Next-to-Next-to-Next-to-Leading Or- der QCD Prediction for the Top Antitop S-Wave Pair Production Cross Section Near Threshold in e+e− Annihilation,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, no.19, 192001 (2015) , [arXiv:1506.06864 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  53. [53]

    Top-quark mass from the diph oton mass spectrum,

    S. Kawabata and H. Y okoya, “Top-quark mass from the diph oton mass spectrum,” Eur. Phys. J. C 77, no.5, 323 (2017) , [arXiv:1607.00990 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  54. [54]

    Exclusive Top Threshold Matchin g at Lepton Colliders,

    J. Reuter, B. C. Nejad, A. Hoang, W. Kilian, M. Stahlhofe n, T. Teubner and C. Weiss, “Exclusive Top Threshold Matchin g at Lepton Colliders,” PoS ICHEP2018, 654 (2019) , [arXiv:1811.03950 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  55. [55]

    Signatures o f toponium formation in LHC run 2 data,

    B. Fuks, K. Hagiwara, K. Ma and Y . J. Zheng, “Signatures o f toponium formation in LHC run 2 data,” Phys. Rev. D 104, no.3, 034023 (2021) , [arXiv:2102.11281 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  56. [56]

    Toponium hunter’s guide,

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, “Toponium hunter’s guide,” Phys. Rev. D 110, no.5, 054032 (2024) , [arXiv:2407.20330 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  57. [57]

    Study on Topon ium: Spectrum and Associated Processes,

    S. J. Jiang, B. Q. Li, G. Z. Xu and K. Y . Liu, “Study on Topon ium: Spectrum and Associated Processes,” [arXiv:2412.18527 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  58. [58]

    TOP2024: an overview of experimental resul ts,

    A. Jafari, “TOP2024: an overview of experimental resul ts,” [arXiv:2501.16231 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv

  59. [59]

    Invest igating the exclusive toponium production at the LHC and FCC ,

    R. Francener, V . P . Goncalves and D. E. Martins, “Invest igating the exclusive toponium production at the LHC and FCC ,” [arXiv:2502.03295 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  60. [60]

    Exclusive photon-fusion pr oduction of even-spin resonances and exotic QED atoms in hig h-energy hadron collisions,

    D. d’Enterria and K. Kang, “Exclusive photon-fusion pr oduction of even-spin resonances and exotic QED atoms in hig h-energy hadron collisions,” [arXiv:2503.10952 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  61. [61]

    Updated predictions for toponium productio n at the LHC,

    M. V . Garzelli, G. Limatola, S. O. Moch, M. Steinhauser a nd O. Zenaiev, “Updated predictions for toponium productio n at the LHC,” Phys. Lett. B 866, 139532 (2025) , [arXiv:2412.16685 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  62. [62]

    Mass spectra and wav e functions of toponia,

    G. L. Wang, T. F. Feng and Y . Q. Wang, “Mass spectra and wav e functions of toponia,” Phys. Rev. D 111, no.9, 096016 (2025) , [arXiv:2411.17955 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    Simulating toponium formation signals at the LHC,

    B. Fuks, K. Hagiwara, K. Ma and Y . J. Zheng, “Simulating toponium formation signals at the LHC,”Eur. Phys. J. C 85, no.2, 157 (2025) , [arXiv:2411.18962 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  64. [64]

    A Schematic Model of Baryons and Mesons,

    M. Gell-Mann, “A Schematic Model of Baryons and Mesons, ” Phys. Lett. 8, 214-215 (1964)

    1964

  65. [65]

    Observation of the doubly charmed baryon Ξ++ cc ,

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], “Observation of the doubly charmed baryon Ξ++ cc ,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, no.11, 112001 (2017) , [arXiv:1707.01621 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  66. [66]

    First Observation of the Doubly Charmed Baryon Dec ay Ξ++ cc → Ξ+ c π+,

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], “First Observation of the Doubly Charmed Baryon Dec ay Ξ++ cc → Ξ+ c π+,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, no.16, 162002 (2018) , [arXiv:1807.01919 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  67. [67]

    Properties of doubly hea vy spin-1/2 baryons: The ground and excited states,

    M. Shekari Tousi and K. Azizi, “Properties of doubly hea vy spin-1/2 baryons: The ground and excited states,” Phys. Rev. D 109, no.5, 054005 (2024) , [arXiv:2401.07151 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  68. [68]

    Semileptonic decays of d oubly charmed (bottom) baryons to single heavy baryons,

    M. Shekari Tousi and K. Azizi, “Semileptonic decays of d oubly charmed (bottom) baryons to single heavy baryons,” [arXiv:2504.17030 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  69. [69]

    Investigation of the semileptonic decay Ξ++ cc → Ξ+ c ¯ℓνℓ within QCD sum rules,

    M. S. Tousi, K. Azizi and H. R. Moshfegh, “Investigation of the semileptonic decay Ξ++ cc → Ξ+ c ¯ℓνℓ within QCD sum rules,” Phys. Rev. D 110, no.11, 114001 (2024) , [arXiv:2409.00241 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  70. [70]

    Doubly heavy spin- 3 2 baryons spectrum in the ground and excited states,

    M. Shekari Tousi and K. Azizi, “Doubly heavy spin- 3 2 baryons spectrum in the ground and excited states,” [arXiv:2508.10328 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  71. [71]

    Mass spectra of doubly heavy baryons in the relativistic q uark model,

    D. Ebert, R. N. Faustov, V . O. Galkin and A. P . Martynenko , “Mass spectra of doubly heavy baryons in the relativistic q uark model,” Phys. Rev. D 66, 014008 (2002) , [arXiv:hep-ph/0201217 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  72. [72]

    Doubly Heavy Spin–1/ 2 Baryon Spectrum in QCD,

    T. M. Aliev, K. Azizi and M. Savci, “Doubly Heavy Spin–1/ 2 Baryon Spectrum in QCD,” Nucl. Phys. A 895, 59-70 (2012) , [arXiv:1205.2873 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  73. [73]

    The mass and residues of radia lly and orbitally excited doubly heavy baryons in QCD,

    T. M. Aliev and S. Bilmis, “The mass and residues of radia lly and orbitally excited doubly heavy baryons in QCD,” Nucl. Phys. A 984, 99-111 (2019) , [arXiv:1904.11279 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  74. [74]

    Properties of doubly heavy b aryons in QCD,

    T. M. Aliev and S. Bilmis ¸, “Properties of doubly heavy b aryons in QCD,” Turk. J. Phys. 46, no.1, 1-26 (2022) , [arXiv:2203.02965 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  75. [75]

    The masses and residu es of doubly heavy spin-3/2 baryons,

    T. M. Aliev, K. Azizi and M. Savci, “The masses and residu es of doubly heavy spin-3/2 baryons,” J. Phys. G 40, 065003 (2013) , [arXiv:1208.1976 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  76. [76]

    Charm ed bottom baryon spectroscopy from lattice QCD,

    Z. S. Brown, W. Detmold, S. Meinel and K. Orginos, “Charm ed bottom baryon spectroscopy from lattice QCD,” Phys. Rev. D 90, no.9, 094507 (2014) , [arXiv:1409.0497 [hep-lat]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  77. [77]

    Mass spec tra and radiative transitions of doubly heavy baryons in a re lativized quark model,

    Q. F. L¨ u, K. L. Wang, L. Y . Xiao and X. H. Zhong, “Mass spec tra and radiative transitions of doubly heavy baryons in a re lativized quark model,” Phys. Rev. D 96, no.11, 114006 (2017) , [arXiv:1708.04468 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  78. [78]

    Analysis of the doubly heavy baryon states a nd pentaquark states with QCD sum rules,

    Z. G. Wang, “Analysis of the doubly heavy baryon states a nd pentaquark states with QCD sum rules,” Eur. Phys. J. C 78, no.10, 826 (2018) , [arXiv:1808.09820 [hep-ph]]. 10

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  79. [79]

    Doubly heavy baryons in QCD s um rules,

    J. R. Zhang and M. Q. Huang, “Doubly heavy baryons in QCD s um rules,” Phys. Rev. D 78, 094007 (2008) , [arXiv:0810.5396 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  80. [80]

    Analysis of the 1 2 + doubly heavy baryon states with QCD sum rules,

    Z. G. Wang, “Analysis of the 1 2 + doubly heavy baryon states with QCD sum rules,” Eur. Phys. J. A 45, 267-274 (2010) , [arXiv:1001.4693 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

Showing first 80 references.