Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 32 references

Spin Structure of heavy-quark hybrids

T0 review · 2 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that heavy-quark hybrids have leading spin-dependent potentials at order $1/m_Q$, so their hyperfine splittings are enlarged, and that the nonperturbative coefficients can be fixed with charmonium lattice data and carried…

desk verdict A clear proceedings review of the author's hybrid EFT program, no new results, but a coherent and testable bottomonium prediction that deserves referee time for what it is. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05179 v1 pith:RATSDZHY submitted 2019-08-14 hep-ph hep-lat

Jaume Tarrús Castellà This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-lat
keywords heavy-quarkhybridsexoticquarkoniaBorn-OppenheimerEFTpNRQCDspin-dependentpotentialscharmoniumhybridspectrumbottomoniumhadronictransitions
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

This paper aims to establish that the spin-dependent forces inside heavy-quark hybrids set in at order $1/m_Q$ rather than $1/m_Q^2$, so hybrid hyperfine splittings should be noticeably larger than those of ordinary quarkonia. The argument is built on the Born-Oppenheimer picture, in which a heavy quark-antiquark pair moves on static energy surfaces generated by gluonic excitations; the paper constructs an effective field theory for the two lowest hybrid excitations, fits the unknown nonperturbative coefficients to lattice determinations of the charmonium hybrid spectrum, and transfers the result to the bottomonium hybrid sector. The paper also formulates quarkonium hadronic transitions in an EFT where the intermediate color-octet states are precisely the hybrids, avoiding the twist expansion; applied to the two-pion transitions $\psi(2S)\to J/\psi\,\pi\pi$ and $\Upsilon(2S)\to\Upsilon(1S)\,\pi\pi$, the normalized spectra fix one parameter and the predicted ratio of bottomonium to charmonium widths agrees with experiment within about twenty percent. The payoff is a QCD-connected route from lattice input to quantitative predictions for exotic hadrons and their decays.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Born-Oppenheimer (adiabatic) effective field theory for hybrids, in which the heavy-quark pair is described by fields $\Psi_\lambda$ moving in static potentials classified by the representations of $D_{\infty h}$; for the lowest hybrid excitations these are $\Sigma_u^-$ and $\Pi_u$. The machinery is the expansion of the potential matrix $V_{\lambda\lambda'}(r)=V^{(0)}_\lambda\delta_{\lambda\lambda'}+V^{(1)}_{\lambda\lambda'}/m_Q+V^{(2)}_{\lambda\lambda'}/m_Q^2+\cdots$, where the off-diagonal kinetic terms are the nonadiabatic couplings that mix the two static surfaces. The spin-dependent part contains operators at order $1/m_Q$ built from the spin-1 angular-momentum operator $K^{ij}$ (for example $V_{SK}$) and operators at order $1/m_Q^2$; these are matched at short distances to weakly-coupled pNRQCD, so the nonperturbative coefficients are expressed as gluon correlators (for example Eq. (10)) and are fitted to the lattice hybrid spectrum. For transitions, the same EFT is extended with pion fields and with hybrids as the intermediate octet states; the hadronization of the gluonic operator uses the trace anomaly, leaving a single parameter $\kappa$ that is fitted to the normalized dipion spectrum.

What would settle it

Compute the two excited hybrid static energies, $\Sigma_u^-$ and $\Pi_u$, in unquenched lattice QCD with light quarks and compare them with the quenched energy surfaces used to build the potentials; a significant shift at the interquark distances probed by charmonium or bottomonium hybrids would invalidate the fitted coefficients and the predicted bottomonium splittings.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

This paper establishes that the spin structure of heavy-quark hybrids differs from that of ordinary quarkonia at leading order in the heavy-quark expansion. In the Born-Oppenheimer EFT built on the lowest gluonic static energies (the $\Sigma_u^-$ and $\Pi_u$ representations of $D_{\infty h}$), spin-dependent potentials appear already at order $1/m_Q$ through the operators $V_{SK}$ and $V_{SKb}$ involving the spin of the heavy-quark pair and the angular momentum of the gluonic field. In standard quarkonium the leading spin-dependent operators are of order $1/m_Q^2$, so hybrid hyperfine splittings are enhanced by one power of the heavy-quark mass. The paper determines the nonperturbative parts of the matching coefficients by fitting the spin splittings to the lattice charmonium hybrid spectrum and then predicts the bottomonium hybrid multiplet, where lattice determinations are difficult. It also formulates hadronic transitions through intermediate hybrid states in a hadronic pNRQCD, with the dipion transition amplitudes controlled by one parameter $\kappa$ fitted to normalized experimental spectra; the resulting charmonium and bottomonium widths are within a factor of two of experiment, while their ratio agrees within about twenty percent.

Load-bearing premise

The excited gluonic static energy levels that seed the EFT potentials are taken from lattice simulations without dynamical light quarks, and the paper assumes they are essentially unchanged when light quarks are included; if those levels shift or mix with heavy-light meson-pair thresholds in unquenched QCD, the fitted spin-dependent coefficients and the bottomonium extrapolation lose their foundation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Hybrid hyperfine splittings in charmonium and bottomonium should be larger than ordinary quarkonium splittings because the leading spin-dependent potentials appear at order $1/m_Q$ rather than $1/m_Q^2$.
  • The nonperturbative coefficients fitted to the charmonium hybrid spectrum determine the bottomonium hybrid masses: for example the $H_1$ multiplet spin average sits near $10.790$ GeV, with splittings predicted from the spin-dependent operators.
  • The hadronic transition EFT expresses two-pion transition amplitudes as a sum over intermediate hybrid states, and after fitting the one free parameter $\kappa$ to normalized spectra, the ratio $\Gamma_{\Upsilon(2S)\to\Upsilon(1S)\pi\pi}/\Gamma_{\psi(2S)\to J/\psi\pi\pi}$ is predicted as $6.65^{+0.30}_{-0.38}\times10^{-2}$, close to the measured $5.59(0.50)\times10^{-2}$.
  • Because hybrid spin-dependent potentials include operators with no analog in standard quarkonium (for example $V_{SK}$ at $1/m_Q$ and $V_{SLb},V_{S12b}$ at $1/m_Q^2$), the hyperfine pattern of hybrid multiplets is a distinctive signature for identifying exotic candidates.
  • The framework applies to hadronic transitions between states with different principal quantum numbers, where the traditional twist expansion is not valid.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the $1/m_Q$ spin-dependent potentials hold for higher gluonic excitations, the predicted hyperfine pattern could serve as a diagnostic to distinguish hybrid candidates from tetraquark or meson-molecule interpretations of observed exotic states; this classification test is an editorial extension, not an explicit claim of the paper.
  • The charmonium-to-bottomonium transfer assumes the nonperturbative gluon correlators are independent of the heavy-quark mass; a direct lattice computation of bottomonium hybrid spin splittings, currently difficult, would test this scale-independence.
  • The hadronic transition EFT could be extended to single-pion transitions and to $\Upsilon(2S)\to\Upsilon(1P)\pi^0$, where the twist expansion is not reliable, yielding sharper tests of the hybrid-intermediate-state mechanism.
  • Because the normalization factors $Z_E$ cancel in the transition amplitude, ratios of transition widths are expected to be more robust than individual widths; future measurements of additional channels could exploit this.
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

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper is a review of recent developments in nonrelativistic effective field theories for heavy-quark hybrids. It introduces the Born-Oppenheimer (adiabatic) expansion built on static gluonic energies, constructs the hybrid EFT Lagrangian, and discusses the spin-dependent potentials. The central physics claim is that hybrid spin-dependent operators first appear at order 1/m_Q rather than 1/m_Q^2, so hybrid hyperfine splittings are enhanced. The paper reports that nonperturbative matching coefficients are fitted to the lattice charmonium hybrid spectrum and then extrapolated to bottomonium, showing the lowest-lying H1 multiplet in both sectors. It also presents a new approach to quarkonium hadronic transitions in which the intermediate octet states are described by the hybrid spectrum, and a single parameter kappa is fitted to normalized dipion spectra. Predictions for the dipion transition widths and the ratio of bottomonium to charmonium widths are compared with experiment.

Significance. If valid, the framework provides a systematic QCD-based method for predicting hybrid spectra and transitions, and the predicted enhancement of hybrid hyperfine splittings is a distinctive observable signature. The hadronic transition approach avoids the twist expansion and replaces the octet propagator with the hybrid spectrum, yielding a ratio prediction R_bc,pi pi = 6.65 x 10^-2 that agrees with the experimental value 5.59(0.50) x 10^-2 to within stated uncertainties. The manuscript is transparent about limitations, such as missing O(alpha_s) corrections to hadronization and the unvalidated behavior of excited static energies in unquenched QCD. The paper is best read as a proceedings-style review; the detailed derivations and fit results are delegated to the cited literature, notably Refs. [18,22,29].

major comments (2)
  1. [Static Energies (paragraph after Fig. 2(a))] The manuscript states that only the two lowest static energies have been compared between quenched and unquenched lattice QCD, and that for the further excited states 'we expect a similar behavior to hold.' This expectation is load-bearing for the central claims: the nonperturbative spin-dependent matching coefficients are fitted to the charmonium hybrid spectrum (Spin-Dependent Terms section), and the sum over hybrid intermediate states in Eq. (23) extends to radial excitations. If the excited hybrid static energies shift in unquenched QCD, e.g., due to avoided crossings with heavy-light meson-pair thresholds, the fitted coefficients change and the bottomonium prediction in Fig. 4 (right) is not anchored. The paper should either supply evidence for the stability of the excited static energies or explicitly frame the bottomonium extrapolation as conditional on this assumption with an estimated uncertainty.
  2. [Abstract and Spin-Dependent Terms (around Eq. (9) and Fig. 4)] The abstract claims that 'We determine the nonperturbative contributions to the matching coefficients of the EFT by fitting our results to lattice-QCD determinations of the charmonium hybrid spectrum and extrapolate the results to the bottomonium hybrid sector,' but the manuscript does not report the fitted values of the nonperturbative coefficients (e.g., V_SK^{np(0)} and V_SK^{np(1)}) or the uncertainties of the fit. Without these numbers, the reader cannot assess the quality of the fit or the basis for the extrapolation shown in Fig. 4. The paper should include the fitted coefficient values and their uncertainties, or explicitly state that the determination is presented in Ref. [22] and that Fig. 4 summarizes those results.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Introduction] The statement that 'the only two approaches connected to the underlying theory of the strong interactions, QCD, are effective field theories (EFT) and lattice QCD' is too strong; other QCD-based methods such as QCD sum rules exist. Suggest softening to 'the two approaches used in this work' or similar.
  2. [Static Energies] The notation Lambda_sigma_eta for the irreducible representations of D_infinity h should be typeset as Lambda^sigma_eta, and the text should define the meaning of the superscript eta (the CP quantum number) explicitly.
  3. [Effective Field Theory for Hybrids] In Eq. (3) and the surrounding text, the projector notation \hat{r}_i^\dagger \lambda and \hat{r}_i \lambda' is confusing; please clarify the index ordering and the normalization of the projectors \hat{r}_i^\pm, for instance by writing \hat{r}_i^{\lambda\dagger}.
  4. [Spin-Dependent Terms] The operator S12 in Eq. (8) is defined as 12(S1·\hat{r})(S2·\hat{r})−4S1·S2, which differs from the conventional normalization S12 = 4[(S1·\hat{r})(S2·\hat{r})−S1·S2/3]. Please state the normalization explicitly or use a symbol that avoids confusion with the standard tensor operator.
  5. [Spin-Dependent Terms] The caption of Fig. 4 refers to 'the most right (purple) boxes' and 'the most left (green) boxes'; since the figure may be rendered in black and white, adding textual labels or markers (e.g., (a), (b), (c)) would improve readability.
  6. [Hadronic Transitions] In Eq. (24), the extracted values kappa_c = 0.277±0.015 and kappa_b = 0.229±0.016 differ by about 2σ. The paper moves directly to the joint fit; a sentence discussing the consistency of the two extractions would be informative.
  7. [Hadronic Transitions] In Eq. (11), the symbol lambda is used both for the Gell-Mann matrices in the pion field u = exp(iπ·lambda/(2F)) and for the projection index in Psi_lambda, which is confusing; consider using a different letter (e.g., T^a) for the Gell-Mann matrices.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the bottomonium prediction is a transparent fit-then-extrapolate procedure anchored by external lattice data; the fits are labeled as fits.

full rationale

The paper's central step is explicitly fit-then-extrapolate: the nonperturbative spin-dependent matching coefficients are fixed from lattice charmonium hybrid data (Ref. [23]) and then used to compute the bottomonium hybrid spin splittings. Because the bottomonium sector is not among the fitted inputs, this is an externally anchored extrapolation rather than a reduction by construction. The charmonium panel in Fig. 4 displays the fitted model together with the lattice points, but the text does not present that panel as an independent prediction. Likewise, the parameter kappa is obtained by fitting the normalized dipion spectrum, and the corresponding curves in Fig. 5 are explicitly called fits; the subsequent total widths and the ratio Rbc are not statistically forced by that shape fit, since the overall normalization is a separate observable. The paper does rely substantially on the author's own prior papers (Refs. [4, 11, 18, 22, 29]) for the EFT framework, the hybrid spectrum, and the hadronic-transition proposal, but those works are connected to external lattice-QCD results and to experimental decay data, so the self-citations are not load-bearing in a circular manner. The main validity caveat concerns the unquenched static energies: the paper states that only the two lowest static energies have been compared between quenched and unquenched simulations and that for excited states 'we expect a similar behavior to hold.' That is a correctness risk for the bottomonium extrapolation, not a circularity. Overall, no load-bearing step reduces to its own inputs by definition or by fitted-data reuse.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central predictions rest on the EFT scale hierarchy, the use of quenched static energies for unquenched hybrids, flavor independence of the fitted gluon correlators, and the truncation of higher-order corrections. Two quantities are fitted to data: the nonperturbative spin-dependent matching coefficients and kappa. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Nonperturbative spin-dependent matching coefficients = Not quoted in this paper; fitted to charmonium hybrid lattice spectrum from Ref. [23]
    These coefficients encode the nonperturbative gluon correlators in Eqs. (9)-(10) and are determined by fitting to lattice charmonium hybrid spin splittings, then reused for bottomonium.
  • kappa = 0.247(20) joint fit; individual fits 0.277(15) and 0.229(16)
    Free parameter in the hadronization of the gluonic matrix element via the trace anomaly; fitted to the normalized dipion invariant mass spectra of psi(2S) to J/psi pi pi and Upsilon(2S) to Upsilon(1S) pi pi, Eq. (24).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The hybrid system can be described by NRQCD in a Born-Oppenheimer expansion with well-separated scales m_Q >> m_Q v >> m_Q v^2 and Lambda_QCD >> E_b.
    This scale hierarchy is the basis for the EFT in Eq. (3) and is stated in the section on the effective field theory for hybrids.
  • ad hoc to paper Quenched lattice static energies for the excited hybrid states remain valid in unquenched QCD.
    The paper notes that only the two lowest static energies have been compared between quenched and unquenched lattices, and says "we expect a similar behavior to hold" for the excited states used to build the hybrid spectrum.
  • domain assumption The nonperturbative gluon correlators are independent of the heavy-quark flavor, so coefficients fitted in charmonium apply to bottomonium.
    Stated around Eq. (10): all heavy-quark dependence factorizes into NRQCD matching coefficients such as c_F, while the nonperturbative gluon correlators are flavor independent.
  • domain assumption Missing O(alpha_s) corrections to the hadronization and higher-order 1/m_Q corrections are small enough to neglect.
    The paper explicitly states after Eq. (26) that an error from O(alpha_s) corrections to the beta function "has not been incorporated in this analysis."
  • domain assumption Large-N_c counting justifies neglecting B/D meson and tetraquark intermediate states in hadronic transitions.
    Stated in the hadronic transitions section: "the large Nc expansion, which allows us to argue that B/D mesons and possible tetraquarks contributions are, a priori, subleading."

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spin Structure of heavy-quark hybrids." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RATSDZHY

@misc{pith2026190805179,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spin Structure of heavy-quark hybrids},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RATSDZHY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05179}
}
abstract

Exotic quarkonia are candidates to new types of hadrons including four quarks or gluonic degrees of freedom as constituents, the latter being a unique feature of QCD. We review recent developments in nonrelativistic EFTs to describe exotic quarkonia and in particular recent results on the spectrum of heavy hybrids including spin-dependent contributions up to $1/m_Q^2$-terms in the heavy-quark-mass expansion. We determine the nonperturbative contributions to the matching coefficients of the EFT by fitting our results to lattice-QCD determinations of the charmonium hybrid spectrum and extrapolate the results to the bottomonium hybrid sector where lattice-QCD determinations are still challenging. We also report on a recent new approach to quarkonium hadronic transitions that does not use the twist expansion and uses the hybrid spectrum as the intermediate octet states.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05179 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIGURE 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIGURE 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIGURE 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIGURE 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIGURE 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [18]

    Berwein, N

    M. Berwein, N. Brambilla, J. Tarrús Castellà, and A. Vairo, Phys. Rev. D92, 114019 (2015), arXiv:1510.04299 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2015

  2. [22]

    Brambilla, W

    N. Brambilla, W. K. Lai, J. Segovia, J. Tarrús Castellà, and A. Vairo, Phys. Rev. D99, 014017 (2019), arXiv:1805.07713 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2019

  3. [29]

    Novel implementation of the multipole expansion to quarkonium hadronic transitions

    A. Pineda and J. Tarrús Castellà, (2019), arXiv:1905.03794 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  4. [1]

    L. A. Griffiths, C. Michael, and P. E. L. Rakow, Phys. Lett. 129B, 351 (1983)

    work page 1983

  5. [2]

    K. J. Juge, J. Kuti, and C. J. Morningstar, Contents of LAT97 proceedings , Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 63, 326 (1998), [,326(1997)], arXiv:hep- lat/9709131 [hep-lat]

    work page arXiv 1998

  6. [3]

    Braaten, C

    E. Braaten, C. Langmack, and D. H. Smith, Phys. Rev. D90, 014044 (2014), arXiv:1402.0438 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2014

  7. [4]

    Brambilla, G

    N. Brambilla, G. Krein, J. Tarrús Castellà, and A. Vairo, Phys. Rev. D97, 016016 (2018), arXiv:1707.09647 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2018

  8. [5]

    K. J. Juge, J. Kuti, and C. Morningstar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 161601 (2003), arXiv:hep-lat/0207004 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2003

Show all 32 references
  1. [6]

    G. S. Bali, B. Bolder, N. Eicker, T. Lippert, B. Orth, P. Ueberholz, K. Schilling, and T. Struckmann (TXL, T(X)L), Phys. Rev. D62, 054503 (2000), arXiv:hep-lat/0003012 [hep-lat]

    2000 arXiv

  2. [7]

    Capitani, O

    S. Capitani, O. Philipsen, C. Reisinger, C. Riehl, and M. Wagner, Phys. Rev. D99, 034502 (2019), arXiv:1811.11046 [hep-lat]

    2019 arXiv

  3. [8]

    Nambu, Phys

    Y . Nambu, Phys. Lett. 80B, 372 (1979)

    1979

  4. [9]

    Polchinski and A

    J. Polchinski and A. Strominger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 1681 (1991)

    1991

  5. [10]

    Perez-Nadal and J

    G. Perez-Nadal and J. Soto, Phys. Rev. D79, 114002 (2009), arXiv:0811.2762 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  6. [11]

    Oncala and J

    R. Oncala and J. Soto, Phys. Rev. D96, 014004 (2017), arXiv:1702.03900 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  7. [12]

    G. S. Bali, H. Neff, T. Duessel, T. Lippert, and K. Schilling (SESAM), Phys. Rev. D71, 114513 (2005), arXiv:hep-lat/0505012 [hep-lat]

    2005 arXiv

  8. [13]

    Bulava, B

    J. Bulava, B. Hörz, F. Knechtli, V . Koch, G. Moir, C. Morningstar, and M. Peardon, Phys. Lett.B793, 493 (2019), arXiv:1902.04006 [hep-lat]

    2019 arXiv

  9. [14]

    Foster and C

    M. Foster and C. Michael (UKQCD), Phys. Rev. D59, 094509 (1999), arXiv:hep-lat/9811010 [hep-lat]

    1999 arXiv

  10. [15]

    G. S. Bali and A. Pineda, Phys. Rev. D69, 094001 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0310130 [hep-ph]

    2004 arXiv

  11. [16]

    Alberti, G

    M. Alberti, G. S. Bali, S. Collins, F. Knechtli, G. Moir, and W. Söldner, Phys. Rev. D95, 074501 (2017), arXiv:1608.06537 [hep-lat]

    2017 arXiv

  12. [17]

    Brambilla, A

    N. Brambilla, A. Vairo, A. Polosa, and J. Soto, Proceedings, 2nd Workshop on Theory, Phenomenology and Experiments in Heavy Flavour Physics: Anacapri, Capri, Italy, 16-18 June 2008 , Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 185, 107 (2008)

    2008

  13. [19]

    Pineda and J

    A. Pineda and J. Soto, Quantum chromodynamics. Proceedings, Conference, QCD’97, Montpellier , France, July 3-9, 1997, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 64, 428 (1998), [,428(1997)], arXiv:hep-ph/9707481 [hep-ph]

    1998 arXiv

  14. [20]

    Brambilla, A

    N. Brambilla, A. Pineda, J. Soto, and A. Vairo, Nucl. Phys. B566, 275 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9907240 [hep-ph]

    2000 arXiv

  15. [21]

    Abdesselam et al

    A. Abdesselam et al. (Belle), in 13th International Workshop on Heavy Quarkonium (QWG 2019) Torino, Italy, May 13-17, 2019 (2019) arXiv:1905.05521 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  16. [23]

    G. K. C. Cheung, C. O’Hara, G. Moir, M. Peardon, S. M. Ryan, C. E. Thomas, and D. Tims (Hadron Spectrum), JHEP 12, 089, arXiv:1610.01073 [hep-lat]

    arXiv

  17. [24]

    M. B. V oloshin and V . I. Zakharov, Phys. Rev. Lett.45, 688 (1980)

    1980

  18. [25]

    V . A. Novikov and M. A. Shifman, Z. Phys. C8, 43 (1981)

    1981

  19. [26]

    D. J. Gross, S. B. Treiman, and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. D19, 2188 (1979)

    1979

  20. [27]

    V . A. Novikov, M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, and V . I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys.B165, 55 (1980)

    1980

  21. [28]

    M. A. Luty and R. Sundrum, Phys. Lett. B312, 205 (1993), arXiv:hep-ph/9304258 [hep-ph]

    1993 arXiv

  22. [30]

    M. B. V oloshin, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 61, 455 (2008), arXiv:0711.4556 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS), JHEP 01, 117, arXiv:1610.09303 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    J. P. Alexander et al. (CLEO), Phys. Rev. D58, 052004 (1998), arXiv:hep-ex/9802024 [hep-ex]

    1998 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.