Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 major objections 10 minor 78 references

Quark Model Study of Doubly Heavy $\Xi$ and $\Omega$ Baryons via Deep Neural Network and Hybrid Optimization

T0 review · 6 major / 10 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a hybrid deep-neural-network and particle-swarm-optimization solution of the hypercentral quark model predicts the masses of single and doubly heavy $\Xi$ and $\Omega$ baryons, and that semileptonic $b\to c$ decays…

desk verdict Solid phenomenological numbers, but missing potential parameters and a calibration-validation mix-up mean the predictions can't be independently checked as they stand. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13091 v3 pith:27QBBZ5R submitted 2024-11-20 hep-ph

Zahra Ghalenovi , Masoumeh Moazzen Sorkhi , Amir Hossein Sovizi This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords doublyheavybaryonshypercentralquarkmodelKillingbeckpotentialdeepneuralnetworkparticleswarmoptimizationsemileptonicdecaywidthsIsgur-Wisefunctionmassspectrum
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

The paper tries to show that a machine-learning solver can turn the hypercentral quark model into a practical predictor for heavy baryons that have not yet been seen. It combines a deep neural network with particle swarm optimization to find energy eigenvalues of the six-dimensional Schrödinger equation, then uses those eigenvalues to predict ground and excited masses of single and doubly heavy $\Xi$ and $\Omega$ baryons. On the decay side, it reduces the $b\to c$ semileptonic form factors to one exponential Isgur–Wise function and computes widths and branching ratios for doubly heavy states. If the predictions are right, experiments would find $\Omega_{cc}$ near 3.75 GeV, $\Xi_{bc}$ near 7.05 GeV, and the double-bottom states near 10.2–10.4 GeV, with semileptonic widths in the $10^{-14}$ GeV range. These masses and widths are currently unmeasured, so the paper offers concrete targets for future searches.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the reduction of the three-quark problem to a single hyperradial equation. Jacobi coordinates $\rho,\lambda$ combine into the hyperradius $x=\sqrt{\rho^2+\lambda^2}$, and the wavefunction obeys a one-dimensional equation with centrifugal term $\gamma(\gamma+4)/x^2$ under the Killingbeck potential $V(x)=\alpha x^2+\beta x-\tau/x$. A feed-forward neural network trained on a shooting-method dataset gives initial energy eigenvalues, and particle swarm optimization refines them; this is the step that produces the mass tables. For the decays, the load-bearing object is the universal Isgur–Wise function $\eta(\omega)=\exp(-3(\omega-1)m_{bb}^2/\Lambda_B^2)$, with $\Lambda_B\in[2.5,3.5]$ GeV, which reduces all form factors near zero recoil to a single exponential and converts the widths into integrals of $\eta^2(\omega)$.

What would settle it

Measure the ground-state mass of $\Omega_{cc}$: the paper predicts 3.750 GeV, and a measurement far from this value would falsify the mass spectrum. A second, independent check is to measure $\Gamma(\Xi_{bc}\to\Xi_{cc}\ell\bar\nu_\ell)$: the predicted width is $4.47^{+1.0}_{-1.2}\times10^{-14}$ GeV, so a measured width outside the $\Lambda_B$-induced band of about $3.3$ to $5.5\times10^{-14}$ GeV would falsify the decay treatment.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that solving the hypercentral Schrödinger equation with a deep neural network plus particle swarm optimization yields the mass spectra of single and doubly heavy $\Xi$ and $\Omega$ baryons in their ground, $P$-wave, and $D$-wave states, and that the same model, combined with a single exponential Isgur–Wise function near zero recoil, determines the semileptonic $b\to c$ decay widths of the doubly heavy states. The paper reports ground-state predictions $\Xi_{cc}=3.620$ GeV (matching the measured value), $\Omega_{cc}=3.750$ GeV, $\Xi_{bc}=7.050$ GeV, $\Omega_{bc}=6.900$ GeV, $\Xi_{bb}=10.200$ GeV, and $\Omega_{bb}=10.400$ GeV, plus excited-state masses up to 11.118 GeV for the $D$-wave $\Omega_{bb}$. It also reports widths such as $\Gamma(\Xi_{bc}\to\Xi_{cc}\ell\bar\nu_\ell)=4.47^{+1.0}_{-1.2}\times10^{-14}$ GeV and branching fractions near $10^{-2}$. These are the targets the paper offers to future experiments.

Load-bearing premise

The whole prediction rests on the three constants of the chosen potential, which are fixed by matching measured single-heavy baryon masses but are never shown in the paper; if those constants do not carry over to the doubly heavy systems, every predicted mass and decay rate shifts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The unmeasured ground states $\Omega_{cc}$, $\Xi_{bc}$, $\Omega_{bc}$, $\Xi_{bb}$, and $\Omega_{bb}$ become concrete mass targets at 3.750, 7.050, 6.900, 10.200, and 10.400 GeV, respectively, with the paper's $\Xi_{cc}$ already reproducing the measured 3621 MeV state.
  • The $D$-wave $\Omega_{bb}$ prediction near 11.118 GeV is a sharp discriminator: the paper puts it roughly 400 MeV above other model predictions, so a single future measurement would separate these schemes.
  • Semileptonic widths near $10^{-14}$ GeV and branching ratios near $10^{-2}$ suggest the $b\to c$ modes are measurable enough to pin down $V_{cb}$ once doubly heavy baryons are produced.
  • Sub-percent agreement with the known single-heavy masses, together with the reported MSE values around $6\times10^{-5}$, supports the model's internal consistency and makes its unmeasured predictions the ones to compare against.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same DNN+PSO pipeline would transfer to other three-body spectra if the Killingbeck constants $\alpha,\beta,\tau$ were reported; as it stands, the unmeasured predictions cannot be independently reproduced from the paper alone.
  • Because the calculation neglects spin-dependent interactions, each quoted mass should be read as a spin-averaged multiplet center; comparing a specific observed resonance with the tables will require adding hyperfine splitting.
  • Ratios of the four semileptonic widths are more robust than the absolute widths, since the unknown potential and the $\Lambda_B$ uncertainty partly cancel; those ratios are a sharper test of the universal Isgur–Wise ansatz than any single channel.
  • If one semileptonic width is measured, it fixes the effective $\Lambda_B$ and turns the whole width table into definite predictions, which would also constrain the CKM element $V_{cb}$.
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

6 major / 10 minor

Summary. The manuscript applies a hypercentral quark model with a Killingbeck potential, V(x)=αx^2+βx-τ/x (Eq. 6), to S-, P-, and D-wave states of singly and doubly heavy Ξ and Ω baryons. The hyperradial Schrödinger equation (Eq. 5) is solved by generating training labels with a shooting method and fitting a two-hidden-layer deep neural network, then refining the energy estimates with particle swarm optimization. From the resulting eigenvalues the authors tabulate masses (Tables 1–4) and, using a single Isgur–Wise function from Ref. [69], compute semileptonic b→c decay widths and branching ratios (Tables 5–6). The central new numerical results are the unmeasured doubly heavy masses in Tables 3–4, e.g. Ω_cc=3.750 GeV, Ξ_bc=7.050 GeV, Ω_bb=10.400 GeV, and the decay widths in Table 5.

Significance. If the results were reliable, the unmeasured doubly heavy baryon masses and semileptonic widths would be directly useful for ongoing LHCb, ATLAS, and CMS searches, and the DNN+PSO workflow would offer a practical way to speed up eigenvalue calculations in the hypercentral quark model. The paper also has the merit of stating explicit predictions for many states not yet measured, and it compares those predictions with several other models. However, at present the central claims are not sufficiently supported: the potential parameters are not reported, the validation against known masses is partly circular, no predictive uncertainty is attached to the predicted masses, and the decay-width calculation does not use the model wave functions. These issues are correctable in principle, but they affect the main results.

major comments (6)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (6); Section 5] The Killingbeck potential in Eq. (6) is defined in terms of constants α, β, and τ, but no numerical values are reported anywhere in Sections 2–5. The grand angular quantum number γ entering Eq. (5) is also never specified for the S-, P-, and D-wave states. Without these inputs, Eq. (7) cannot be solved and the numbers in Tables 1–4 cannot be reproduced. Since the Introduction states that existing experimental single-heavy-baryon masses were used to optimize the mass evaluations, the missing calibration protocol is a central gap rather than a presentation issue.
  2. [Introduction, p. 2; Section 7; Tables 1 and 2] The validation in Tables 1 and 2 is partly circular. The text states that existing experimental single-heavy-baryon masses help optimize the mass evaluations, so the quoted errors of 0.03–0.48% against those same states are calibration residuals, not independent tests. The closing paragraph of Section 7 similarly states that the validity of the scheme will be determined by consistency with existing experimental data, which is not an independent test. This does not by itself invalidate the predicted doubly heavy masses, but it means Tables 1 and 2 cannot serve as evidence for the reliability of Tables 3 and 4. An independent cross-check, such as withholding one benchmark state from the fit and predicting it, should be provided.
  3. [Section 3; Section 4; Section 7; Tables 3 and 4] The DNN is trained on energy labels produced by the shooting method, so it is a surrogate for that numerical procedure rather than an independent solution of Eq. (7). The MSE values reported in Section 7 are training and validation losses, not predictive uncertainties on baryon masses, and no error bars are attached to the predicted masses in Tables 3 and 4. The PSO refinement described in Section 4 is driven by the same target energies, so it cannot independently improve the eigenvalues. A comparison of the DNN+PSO output with direct shooting-method eigenvalues on a test set is needed to support the claimed gain in accuracy.
  4. [Section 6, Eqs. (17)–(18); Tables 5 and 6] The semileptonic decay calculation does not use the hypercentral wave functions or the DNN solution. The form factors are set to the single Isgur–Wise function η(ω) of Eq. (18), adopted from Ref. [69], with Λ_B in the range 2.5–3.5 GeV. Consequently, Tables 5 and 6 do not test the model presented in Sections 2–5. The Section 7 claim that the paper introduces a new form of the Isgur–Wise function is not supported by the text, since Eq. (18) is taken from Ref. [69]. The uncertainties in Table 5 also reflect only the Λ_B range and ignore the mass-model uncertainties.
  5. [Sections 3.1, 3.2, and 4] The numerical method is described too incompletely to reproduce. Section 3.1 specifies only that the network has two hidden layers, without giving the number of neurons, activation function, learning rate, number of epochs, or regularization. The input features of the dataset are not defined. Section 4 describes PSO verbally, without the position and velocity update equations, swarm size, or termination criterion. Because the DNN+PSO combination is the methodological novelty of the paper, these details are essential.
  6. [Section 2; Tables 1 and 2] The model neglects spin-dependent interactions, yet Tables 1 and 2 compare P-wave and D-wave predictions with specific experimental masses, for example the Σ_c P-wave state at 2.792 GeV. Without spin-orbit and tensor terms, the model cannot describe the multiplet structure of orbital excitations, and the choice of experimental partner for each computed state is not explained. This weakens the excited-state comparison and leaves the meaning of the P- and D-wave predictions in Tables 3 and 4 ambiguous.
minor comments (10)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (1)] The word 'Jacoobi' should be 'Jacobi'.
  2. [Section 6 title and text] The title contains 'widhts' and the text after Eq. (10) contains 'as fallows'; both should be corrected to 'widths' and 'as follows'.
  3. [Table 4] The entries '7.4457' and '11.1177' appear to have an extra digit; please correct them to the intended precision or explain the additional significant figure.
  4. [References] Reference [28] is empty and should be filled in, since the Introduction cites it for the Ξ_cc lifetime.
  5. [References] Reference [48] has a garbled author list ('... Challenger, Mishraa'), which makes the citation difficult to locate.
  6. [Abstract and Section 6] The text says the calculation is performed close to the zero recoil point, but Eq. (16) integrates over the full range 1 ≤ ω ≤ ω_max; the justification for using Eq. (17) away from ω=1 should be stated.
  7. [Table 6] The Ω_bb → Ω_bcℓν̄ row appears to lack the LFQM [40] entry; either provide it or mark it as not available.
  8. [Section 7] The reported validation MSE (6.196×10^-5) is smaller than the training MSE (6.690×10^-5) without comment; this unusual behavior should be discussed.
  9. [Section 5, Table 3] The sentence claiming that the experimental Ξ_cc mass can be obtained in Table 3 is confusing because Table 3 has no experimental column; the match between 3.620 GeV and the LHCb value of 3.621 GeV should be stated explicitly.
  10. [Data availability] No code or data repository is provided; for a computational paper, this makes independent verification difficult.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Mass-table validation is circular: single-heavy experimental masses are used to optimize the calculation, so Tables 1-2 errors are calibration residuals; the model and decay widths are also imported from the authors' prior work and Ref. [69].

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 1 (Introduction), Section 5, Eq. (6), and Tables 1-2.]
    "The exist experimental data of the single heavy baryon masses help us to optimize our mass evaluations of the Ξ and Ω doubly heavy baryons. ... We consider the Killingbeck potential given by [58], V (x) = αx2 +βx − τ/x."

    The paper's evidence for the model is the small errors in Tables 1-2 against single-heavy experimental masses, but the Introduction states that those same experimental masses were used to optimize the calculation. With α, β, τ never reported and no independent fitting procedure, the 'errors' are residuals of the optimization, not a test of the predicted doubly-heavy masses. The claimed prediction of the single-heavy spectrum therefore reduces by construction to its calibration input.

  2. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Section 2, Eq. (6); Section 5; Summary, last paragraph.]
    "We consider the Killingbeck potential given by [58]. The quark masses are taken from our previous work [55]. The obtained heavy baryon masses and decay widths of the present work are very close to the predictions obtained in our previous works [59] and [55]."

    The potential V(x)=αx^2+βx−τ/x, the quark masses, and the trial wave function are all imported from the same authors' earlier papers ([58], [55], [56]), and the final masses are stated to be 'very close' to those previous works. The paper's central physics content is therefore a re-solution of the authors' own prior ansatz; the DNN/PSO machinery changes the numerical method but does not supply an independent derivation of the model or its parameters.

1 more flagged steps
  1. renaming known result [Section 6, Eqs. (17)-(18), Table 5; Summary, last paragraph.]
    "The universal function η(ω) is defined as [69], η(ω) = exp(−3(ω − 1)m2bb/Λ2B). We introduce a new form of the IW function, and evaluate the semileptonic decay widths and branching ratios of the bb → bc and bc → cc transitions."

    The decay widths and branching ratios in Tables 5-6 are computed by inserting Eq. (18), which is exactly Ref. [69]'s exponential Isgur-Wise function with ΛB=2.5−3.5 GeV taken from Ref. [69]. The Summary calls this 'a new form of the IW function,' but no new form is derived; the semileptonic results reduce to an externally published ansatz and do not test the hypercentral/DNN wave functions of Section 5.

full rationale

The derivation chain for the doubly-heavy mass predictions is not self-contained. Section 2 defines the Killingbeck potential with constants α, β, τ that are never reported, and the Introduction states that experimental single-heavy baryon masses were used to optimize the calculation. The agreement in Tables 1-2 is therefore a calibration check on the inputs, not an independent prediction; the actual targets in Tables 3-4 depend on the unstated fitted parameters and on quark masses and trial wave functions taken from the authors' own Refs. [55,56,58]. The DNN and PSO steps train on and refine shooting-method eigenvalues of the same equation, so the quoted MSE is a numerical surrogate error, not a physical validation. The semileptonic section similarly adopts the universal Isgur-Wise function of Ref. [69] verbatim, so Tables 5-6 inherit that published ansatz rather than testing the model. These are specific reductions, not mere style concerns: the validation of the mass model is circular by the paper's own statement, and the decay-width 'prediction' is a re-application of a known input. There is no machine-checked or externally falsifiable independent support cited for the central potential choice. Score 6 reflects partial circularity: the doubly-heavy extrapolations are not forced by definition, but the supporting comparisons and decay results reduce to fitted or imported inputs.

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

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The calculation rests on a standard non-relativistic quark model, an ad hoc Killingbeck potential, a supervised DNN trained on shooting-method eigenvalues, and an assumed exponential Isgur-Wise function. The absence of reported α, β, τ values means three essential free parameters are invisible to the reader.

free parameters (5)
  • alpha
    Coefficient of x^2 in the Killingbeck potential V(x)=αx^2+βx-τ/x; value not reported, despite the potential being the central input to Eq. (7).
  • beta
    Coefficient of x in the linear term of the potential; value not reported.
  • tau
    Coefficient of the -1/x term in the potential; value not reported.
  • constituent quark masses = m_q=320 MeV, m_s=440 MeV, m_c=1600 MeV, m_b=4670 MeV
    Taken from the authors' previous work [55]; they enter every mass prediction directly.
  • Lambda_B = 2.5 to 3.5 GeV
    Scale in the Isgur-Wise function, Eq. (18); borrowed from Ref. [69] and varied only to set decay-width uncertainties.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The baryon can be described by the hypercentral non-relativistic Hamiltonian H=p_rho^2/2m_rho+p_lambda^2/2m_lambda+V(x).
    Invoked in Eq. (4); standard for heavy quarks, but the paper neglects spin-dependent interactions and restricts to zero-node states ν=0.
  • ad hoc to paper The hypercentral potential has the Killingbeck form V(x)=αx^2+βx-τ/x.
    Adopted from Ref. [58] without derivation and without reporting α, β, τ; used in Eq. (6).
  • domain assumption Energy eigenvalues can be generated by the shooting method and then learned by a feedforward DNN refined by PSO.
    Section 3 assumes the shooting-method labels are the true solutions and treats the DNN as a fast surrogate for those labels.
  • domain assumption In the heavy-quark limit near zero recoil, all weak form factors reduce to a single Isgur-Wise function: F1=G1=η and F2=F3=G2=G3=0.
    Eq. (17) follows from heavy quark effective theory as cited in Ref. [69]; used without independent derivation.
  • domain assumption The Isgur-Wise function has the exponential form η(ω)=exp(-3(ω-1)m_bb^2/Λ_B^2) with Λ_B between 2.5 and 3.5 GeV.
    Eq. (18) is quoted from Ref. [69]; no derivation or new justification is provided in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quark Model Study of Doubly Heavy $\Xi$ and $\Omega$ Baryons via Deep Neural Network and Hybrid Optimization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/27QBBZ5R

@misc{pith2026241113091,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quark Model Study of Doubly Heavy $\Xi$ and $\Omega$ Baryons via Deep Neural Network and Hybrid Optimization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/27QBBZ5R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13091}
}
abstract

In the present work we investigate the mass spectrum and semileptonic decays of double charm and bottom baryon states using the hypercentral quark model. We solve the six-dimensional Schr\"odinger equation via deep learning and particle swarm optimization techniques to improve the speed and accuracy. Then, we predict the masses of the ground and excited states of single and doubly heavy baryons. Working close to the zero recoil point, we also study the semileptonic decay widths and branching ratios of doubly heavy $\Xi$ and $\Omega$ baryons for the $b\rightarrow c$ transitions. A comparison between our results and the evaluations of other theoretical models is also presented. Our predictions of mass spectrum and decay widths provide valuable information for the experiment searching for undiscovered heavy baryon states.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13091 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. η function versus ΛB for Ωbb → Ωbcℓν¯ℓ and Ξbb → Ξbcℓν¯ℓ transitions (ℓ = e or µ). The ω dependence of the semileptonic decay rates of Ξbb → Ξbcℓν¯ℓ, and Ξbc → Ξccℓν¯ℓ transitions is shown in Figs. 2 and 3 respectively. Regarding the equation 17 one can get the following relations dΓT dω = G2 F |Vcb| 2M3 B′ 6π 3 q 2ω p ω2 − 1η 2 (ω), (19) The branching ratios can be obtained as following B = Γ × τ, (20) where τ is t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. dΓT dω , dΓL dω and dΓ dω semileptonic decay widths for Ξbc → Ξccℓν¯ℓ transition (ℓ = e or µ) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. dΓT dω , dΓL dω and dΓ dω semileptonic decay widths for Ξbb → Ξbcℓν¯ℓ transition (ℓ = e or µ) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages

  1. [69]

    Faessler, T

    A. Faessler, T. Gutsche, M. A. Ivanov, J. G. K¨ orner, and V. E. Lyubovitskij, Phys. Rev. D 80, 034025 (2009)

    work page 2009

  2. [1]

    X. Z. Weng, X. L. Chen, and W. Z. Deng, Phys. Rev. D 97, 054008 (2018)

    work page 2018

  3. [2]

    Shah and A

    Z. Shah and A. K. Rai, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 129 (2017)

    work page 2017

  4. [3]

    Garcilazo, A

    H. Garcilazo, A. Valcarce, and J. Vijande, Phys. Rev. D 94, 074003 (2016)

    work page 2016

  5. [4]

    Ansari, Ch

    A. Ansari, Ch. Menapara and A. Kumar Rai, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 38 2350108 (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [5]

    R. M. Woloshyn, and M. Wurtz, arXiv:1601.01925v1 [hep-ph](2016 )

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  7. [6]

    Ghalenovi, A

    Z. Ghalenovi, A. A. Rajabi and M. Hamzavi, Acta Phys. Polon. B 42 (2011) 1849

    work page 2011

  8. [7]

    Ghalenovi et al., Chin

    Z. Ghalenovi et al., Chin. J. Phys. 51, 6 (2013)

    work page 2013

Show all 78 references
  1. [8]

    Capstick and N

    S. Capstick and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. D 34, 2809 (1986)

    1986

  2. [9]

    Ebert, R

    D. Ebert, R. N. Faustov and V. O. Galkin, Phys. Rev. D 84, 014025 (2011)

    2011

  3. [10]

    Mathur, R

    N. Mathur, R. Lewis, and R. M. Woloshyn, Phys. Rev. D 66, 014502 (2002)

    2002

  4. [11]

    T. M. Aliev, K. Azizi, M. Savci, arXiv:2401.07151[hep-ph]

    arXiv

  5. [12]

    Q. Mao, H. X. Chen, W. Chen, A. Hosaka, et al., Phys. Rev. D 92, 114007 (2015)

    2015

  6. [13]

    Liu et al., Phys

    X. Liu et al., Phys. Rev. D 77, 014031 (2008)

    2008

  7. [14]

    Azizi and H

    K. Azizi and H. Sundu, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 132, 22 (2017)

    2017

  8. [15]

    T. M. Aliev, K. Azizi, A. Ozpineci, Nucl. Phys. B 808, 137(2009)

    2009

  9. [16]

    T. M. Aliev, K. Azizi, and A. Ozpineci, Phys. Rev. D 79, 056005 (2009)

    2009

  10. [17]

    Ebert, R

    D. Ebert, R. N. Faustov, and V. O. Galkin, Phys. Rev. D 72, 034026 (2005)

    2005

  11. [18]

    Thakkar, A

    K. Thakkar, A. Majethiya and P. C. Vinodlumar, Eur. Phys. J. P lus 131, 339 (2016)

    2016

  12. [19]

    Majethiya, K

    A. Majethiya, K. Thakkar and P. C. Vinodlumar, Chin. J. Phys. 54, 495 (2016)

    2016

  13. [20]

    S. M. Gerasyuta, and D. V. Ivanov, Nuovo Cimento A 112, 261 (1999)

    1999

  14. [21]

    Mattson et al

    M. Mattson et al. (SELEX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 112001 (2002)

    2002

  15. [22]

    Ocherashvili et al

    A. Ocherashvili et al. (SELEX Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 628, 18 (2005)

    2005

  16. [23]

    S. P. Ratti, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 115, 33 (2003)

    2003

  17. [24]

    Aubert et al

    B. Aubert et al. (BaBar Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 74, 011103 (2006)

    2006

  18. [25]

    Kato et al

    Y. Kato et al. (Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 89, 052003 (2014)

    2014

  19. [26]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 112001 (2017)

    2017

  20. [27]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 162002 (2018). [28]

    2018

  21. [29]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 63, 221062 (2020). 10

    2020

  22. [30]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), JHEP 12, 107 (2021). R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 052002 (2018)

    2021

  23. [31]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), JHEP 11, 095 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Chin. Phys. C 45, 093002 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    Zhen-Yu Li, Guo-Liang Yu, Zhi-Gang Wang, Jian-Zhong Gu, and H ong-Tao Shen, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 38, 2350051 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Y. J. Shi, W. Wang and Z. X. Zhao, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 398 (2020)

    2020

  27. [35]

    Gutsche, A

    T. Gutsche, A. Mikhail, M.A. Ivanov, J. G. K¨ orner, V. E. Lyubo vitskij and Z. Tyulemissov, Phys. Rev. D 100, 114037 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    Q.X. Yu, X.H. Guo, Nucl. Phys. B 947, 114727 (2019)

    2019

  29. [37]

    Hernandez, J

    E. Hernandez, J. Nieves and J. M. Verde-Velasco, Phys. Lett . B 663, 234 (2008)

    2008

  30. [38]

    V. E. Lyubovitskij, A. Faessler, T. Gutsche, M. A. Ivanov, an d J. G. K¨ orner, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 50, 329 (2003)

    2003

  31. [39]

    Albertus, E

    C. Albertus, E. Hernandez and J. Nieves, Phys. Rev. D 71, 014012 (2005)

    2005

  32. [40]

    W. Wang, F. S. Yu, Z.X. Zhao, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 781 (2017)

    2017

  33. [41]

    Q. Qin, Y. J. Shi, W. Wang, Y. Guo-He, F. S. Yu and R. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 103, 3 (2022)

    2022

  34. [42]

    R.H. Li, C.D. Lu, W. Wang, F.S. Yu, Z.T. Zou, Phys. Lett. B 767, 232 (2017)

    2017

  35. [43]

    F.S. Yu, H.Y. Jiang, R.H. Li, C.D. L¨ u, W. Wang, Z.X. Zhao, Chin. Phy s. C 42, 051001 (2018)

    2018

  36. [44]

    A. S. Gerasimov and A. V. Lunchinsky, Phys. Rev. D 100, 073015 (2019)

    2019

  37. [45]

    Albertus, E

    C. Albertus, E. Hern´ andez, J. Nieves, J.M. Verde-Velasco, E ur. Phys. J. A 32, 183 (2007). Erratum-ibid. A 36, 119 (2008)

    2007

  38. [46]

    Q. Li, C.H. Chang, S.X. Qin, G.L. Wang, Chin. Phys. C 44, 013102 (2020)

    2020

  39. [47]

    Mutuk, Eur

    H. Mutuk, Eur. Phys. J. A 56, 146 (2020)

    2020

  40. [48]

    Yarin Gal, Vishnu Jejjala, Damian Kaloni Mayorga Penac, Challeng er, Mishraa, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 37, 2250031 (2022)

    2022

  41. [49]

    Malekhosseini, S

    M. Malekhosseini, S. Rostami, A. R. Olamaei , R. Ostovar and K. A zizi, Phys. Rev. D 110, 054011 (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    Mutuk, Chin

    H. Mutuk, Chin. Phys. C 43, 093103 (2019)

    2019

  43. [51]

    Yadav, A

    N. Yadav, A. Yadav, M. Kumar, An Introduction to Neural Net work Methods for Differential Equations, Springer in Applied Sciences and Technology, (2015)

    2015

  44. [52]

    D. R. Parisi, M. C. Mariani, M. A. Laborde, Chem. Eng. Process. 42, 715 (2003)

    2003

  45. [53]

    Santopinto, F

    E. Santopinto, F. Iachello and M. M. Gainnini, Eur. Phys. J. A 1, 307 (1998)

    1998

  46. [54]

    M. M. Giannini, E. Santopinto and A. Vassallo, Prog. Part. Nucl. P hys. 50, 263 (2003); Eur Phys. J. A 12, 447 (2001)

    2003

  47. [55]

    Ghalenovi, C

    Z. Ghalenovi, C. P. Shen and M. Moazzen Sorkhi, Phys. Lett. B 834, 137405 (2022). 11

    2022

  48. [56]

    Ghalenovi and M

    Z. Ghalenovi and M. Moazzen Sorkhi, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 133, 301 (2018)

    2018

  49. [57]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  50. [58]

    Ghalenovi, A

    Z. Ghalenovi, A. A. Rajabi, S. X. Qin and D. H. Rischke, Mod. Phys . Lett. A 29, 1450106 (2014)

    2014

  51. [59]

    Ghalenovi and M

    Z. Ghalenovi and M. M. Sorkhi, Chin. Phys. C 47, 3 (2023)

    2023

  52. [60]

    Z. Shah, K. Thakkar, A. Kumar Rai and P. C. Vinodkumar, Eur. Phys. J. A 52, 313 (2016)

    2016

  53. [61]

    Thakkar, Z

    K. Thakkar, Z. Shah, A. Kumar Rai, P.C. Vinodkumar, Nucl. Phys . A 965, 57 (2017)

    2017

  54. [62]

    Ke-Wei Wei, B. Chen, N. Liu, Q-Qian Wang, Xin-Heng Guo, Phys. R ev. D 95, 116005 (2017)

    2017

  55. [63]

    Albertus, E

    C. Albertus, E. Hern´ andez, and J. Nieves, Phys. Lett. B 683, 21 (2010)

    2010

  56. [64]

    Roberts and M

    W. Roberts and M. Pervin, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 23, 2817 (2008)

    2008

  57. [65]

    Yoshida, E

    T. Yoshida, E. Hiyama, A. Hosaka, M. Oka, and K. Sadato, Phys . Rev. D 92, 114029 (2015)

    2015

  58. [66]

    Z. Shah, K. Thakkar and A. K. Rai, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 530 (2016)

    2016

  59. [67]

    Soto and J

    J. Soto and J. T. Castell` a, Phys. Rev. D 104, 074027 (2021)

    2021

  60. [68]

    Ortiz-Pacheco and R

    E. Ortiz-Pacheco and R. Bijker, Phys. Rev. D 108, 054014 (2023)

    2023

  61. [70]

    Rahmani, H

    S. Rahmani, H. Hassanabadi, and H. Sobhani, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 312 (2020)

    2020

  62. [71]

    Georgi and M

    H. Georgi and M. B. Wise, Phys. Lett. B 243, 279 (1990)

    1990

  63. [72]

    C. D. Carone, Phys. lett. B 253, 408 (1991)

    1991

  64. [73]

    J. M. Flynn and J. Neives, Phys. Rev. D 76, 017502 (2007) [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 77, 099901 (2008)

    2007

  65. [74]

    Isgur and M

    N. Isgur and M. B. Wise, Nucl. Phys. B 348, 276 (1991)

    1991

  66. [75]

    Ebert, R

    D. Ebert, R. N. Faustov and V. O. Galkin, Phys. Rev. D 73, 094002 (2006)

    2006

  67. [76]

    Karliner and J

    M. Karliner and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. D 90, 094007 (2014)

    2014

  68. [77]

    V. V. Kiselev and A. K. Likhoded, Phys. Usp. 172, 497 (2002)

    2002

  69. [78]

    V. V. Kiselev and A. K. Likhoded, Phys. Usp. 45, 455 (2002)

    2002

  70. [79]

    Ebert, R

    D. Ebert, R. N. Faustov, V. O. Galkin, and A. P. Martynenko, P hys. Rev. D 70, 014018 (2004) [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 77, 079903 (2008)]. 12

    2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.