Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

The production and decay of $X_0(2900)$ state with different interpretation

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The X0(2900) state's production and decay both match a D* K* molecule interpretation, computed from QCD sum rules and final-state rescattering.

desk verdict A useful QCD sum rule + FSI calculation of X0(2900) production that moderately favors the D*K* molecule, but the central consistency claim leans heavily on long, unvalidated vertex extrapolations. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02997 v3 pith:6WLX4JVU submitted 2024-12-04 hep-ph

Zi-Yan Yang , Qian Wang , Wei Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph PACS 12.39.Mk12.38.Lg14.40.Ev14.40.Rt
keywords X0(2900)open-flavortetraquarkhadronicmoleculeD*K*molecularinterpretationfinal-stateinteractionQCDsumrulesBmesonproductionexotichadron
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 asks what the X0(2900), a resonance seen in $B^+\to D^+D^-K^+$ decays, is made of. It computes the branching fraction of $B^+\to D^+ X_0$ and the width of $X_0\to DK$ under three interpretations: a $\bar D^*K^*$ hadronic molecule, a scalar diquark-scalar antidiquark compact tetraquark, and an axial-vector diquark-axial-vector antidiquark tetraquark. The calculation uses QCD sum rules for the strong vertices and a final-state rescattering mechanism for the production. For the $\bar D^* K^*$ molecule picture, the branching fraction $(2.47^{+2.07}_{-1.55})\times 10^{-5}$ and width $(64.07\pm 18.23)\,\mathrm{MeV}$ agree with the measured values, while the compact tetraquark pictures are not ruled out. The point of the work is that the molecular interpretation is a viable, quantitative description of the observed state.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the set of strong coupling constants $g_{ABC}(Q^2)$ at hadronic vertices, computed from three-point QCD sum rules and then extrapolated from the Euclidean momentum region where the sum rule is valid ($Q^2\sim 3.5$ to $6$ GeV$^2$) to the physical meson pole ($Q^2=-m_K^2$ or $-m_{K^*}^2$) with fitted monopole or exponential forms. These $Q^2$-dependent couplings replace the common monopole form factor, because the sum-rule results do not always follow a monopole curve; the $\bar D^* K^* X_0$ coupling in particular is better described by an exponential. The production amplitude is assembled from eight final-state-interaction rescattering diagrams, with the weak $b\to c(c\bar s)$ transition factorized into known $B\to D^{(*)}$ form factors and meson decay constants. The two largest contributions come from the $D_s^*\bar D\to DX_0$ ($K$ exchange) and $D_{s1}\bar D^*\to DX_0$ ($K^*$ exchange) rescattering processes.

What would settle it

A lattice-QCD computation of the off-shell $\bar D K X_0$ and $\bar D^* K^* X_0$ couplings at the kaon and $K^*$ poles would settle the extrapolation; alternatively, measuring the ratio of $B^0\to D^0 X_0\to D^0\bar D^0 K^0$ to $B^+\to D^+ X_0\to D^+D^-K^+$ would distinguish the molecular-rescattering prediction of equal rates from the triangle-singularity prediction of strong suppression.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central result is that the $\bar D^* K^*$ molecular interpretation of $X_0(2900)$ survives a quantitative comparison with experiment. The authors build the production amplitude $B^+\to D^+X_0$ from eight rescattering diagrams in which the weakly produced $c\bar s$ pair hadronizes into $D_s$ or $D_{s1}$ and rescatters off $D$ or $D^*$ mesons by exchanging $K$, $K^*$, $K_1$, or $K_0^*$ mesons. The strong couplings at these vertices are obtained from three-point QCD sum rules, including $g_{\bar D K X_0}$ and $g_{\bar D^* K^* X_0}$. Summing the amplitudes gives $\mathrm{Br}(B^+\to D^+ X_0)=(2.47^{+2.07}_{-1.55})\times 10^{-5}$ and $\Gamma(X_0\to DK)=(64.07\pm 18.23)\,\mathrm{MeV}$ for the molecule, consistent with the measured values of roughly $(2.4\pm 1.0)\times 10^{-5}$ and $(57\pm 12\pm 4)\,\mathrm{MeV}$. The authors also state that the compact tetraquark interpretation cannot be excluded within the uncertainties.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on extrapolating the QCD sum-rule vertex couplings, which are computed only at positive momentum transfers around $3.5$ to $6$ GeV$^2$, down to the negative momentum transfer where the exchanged kaon or $K^*$ is on shell; if that extrapolation is not the true behaviour of the vertices, the two largest rescattering amplitudes change and the agreement with experiment is no longer guaranteed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the molecular interpretation is correct, the observed $X_0(2900)$ is a hadronic molecule rather than a compact four-quark state, and its dominant strong decay into $DK$ follows naturally from the $\bar D^* K^*$ constituents.
  • The production rate in $B$ decays is set largely by long-distance rescattering, so measuring $B\to DX_0$ channels probes how the weak-produced $c\bar s$ pair hadronizes before final-state interactions.
  • The four cascade channels $B^+\to D^+X_0\to D^+(D^-K^+)$, $B^+\to D^+X_0\to D^+(\bar D^0 K^0)$, $B^0\to D^0 X_0\to D^0(\bar D^0K^0)$, and $B^0\to D^0X_0\to D^0(D^-K^+)$ are predicted to have equal branching fractions, a consequence of factorization combined with $X_0\to DK$ dominance.
  • Tighter future measurements of the width and production rate would separate the three interpretations, since the molecular values sit closest to the current central data.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The extrapolation of the sum-rule vertices from positive $Q^2$ to the meson pole is the step the numerical agreement hinges on; a lattice-QCD determination of $g_{\bar D K X_0}$ at the kaon pole would provide a direct check.
  • The equal-branching prediction for the $B^+$ and $B^0$ cascade modes is a sharper discriminant between a genuine resonance and a triangle-singularity interpretation than the width alone, because the triangle model is argued in the literature to suppress some of these channels.
  • The same QCD-sum-rule-plus-rescattering machinery can be applied to other open-flavor candidates near a $\bar D^{(*)}K^{(*)}$ threshold, making the approach a general test of molecular interpretations.
  • A similar analysis of the companion $X_1(2900)$ state, whose larger width remains unexplained here, would show whether the molecular picture extends to the full observed doublet.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the production and decay of the open-flavor tetraquark candidate X0(2900) using a final-state-interaction rescattering model. Strong vertices such as g_{\bar D K X_0}, g_{\bar D^* K^* X_0}, and the D_s^(**) D K^(**) vertices are computed with three-point QCD sum rules, and the resulting couplings are used in hadronic loop amplitudes for B^+ -> D^+ X_0. For the \bar D^* K^* molecular interpretation, the authors obtain Br(B^+ -> D^+ X_0) = (2.47 +2.07 -1.55) x 10^-5 and \Gamma(X_0 -> \bar D K) = 64.07 ± 18.23 MeV, both consistent with the LHCb values of about (2.4 ± 1.0) x 10^-5 and 57 ± 12 ± 4 MeV. The paper concludes that the molecular interpretation is favored but that the compact tetraquark interpretations cannot be excluded within uncertainties.

Significance. If the extrapolation procedure is robust, the paper provides a valuable comparison of three X0(2900) interpretations within one framework, replacing the ad hoc monopole cutoff of earlier FSI studies with sum-rule-derived vertex functions. It also presents a large set of three-point sum rules and on-shell couplings that can be checked against other approaches. The main significance is the claim of quantitative consistency with LHCb for the molecular scenario, together with an explicit statement that the compact tetraquark is not excluded. This claim, however, currently rests on long and untested off-shell extrapolations of the sum-rule couplings, so the significance is conditional on those extrapolations being validated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III A and Sec. IV, Eqs. (42)-(49), (11), (13), and Table V] The couplings g_{\bar D K X_0} and g_{\bar D^* K^* X_0} are extracted only for Q^2 ≳ 3.5-4 GeV^2 and then extrapolated to the physical pole and to the low-Q^2 region using monopole or exponential fits. The FSI loop integrals in Eqs. (11) and (13) sample exchanged momenta with Q^2 = -t ∈ [0.04, 7.98] GeV^2 for diagram (a), and the integrand is largest near Q^2 ≈ 0 where the propagator is smallest. In that region Eq. (42) contains the factor (Q^2 + m_K^2)/Q^2, so the OPE cannot be trusted. Since Table V shows that A_a, A_b, and A_d dominate the branching fraction, an unconstrained change in the low-Q^2 behavior of the vertex functions can shift Br by a large factor. The paper provides no independent check of the monopole/exponential extrapolations, no alternative functional form, and no estimate of this shape uncertainty. This is a load-bearing uncertainty for the central consistency claim.
  2. [Sec. III A, Eqs. (42) and (47), and s0 input] The continuum threshold s0 = 10 GeV^2 for the X0 vertices is taken from Ref. [38], which shares an author with this paper. The sum-rule results for g_{\bar D K X_0} and g_{\bar D^* K^* X_0} are quoted only for this single s0 value, and no sensitivity study of s0 in the three-point sum rules is reported. Because the spectral integrals in Eqs. (42) and (47) depend explicitly on s0, the quoted uncertainties likely underestimate the model dependence. I request a variation of s0 (for example ±0.5-1 GeV^2) or a stability test showing that the extracted couplings and the final Br and width are insensitive to this choice.
  3. [Tables II and III, Eqs. (45), (49), and (67)] Several fit parameters are quoted with zero uncertainty, e.g., b = 57.43 ± 0.00 GeV^2 in Eq. (45), b = 0.22 ± 0.00 GeV^-2 in Eq. (49), and b = 0.22 ± 0.00 in Table III. This is not credible for fits to data points that themselves carry errors, and it hides the dominant systematic of the off-shell extrapolation. The authors should either propagate the fit-parameter covariance or assign a realistic uncertainty to the shape parameters; the present error budget for Br and \Gamma omits this uncertainty.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III B, Eq. (67)] Eq. (67) reads e^{-(-0.22 ± 0.01) Q^2}, which has a double negative in the exponent and would grow with Q^2. The decreasing curve in Fig. 8 indicates that e^{-0.22 Q^2} is intended; this typo should be corrected because a reader using Eq. (67) at face value would obtain the wrong sign of the slope.
  2. [Sec. IV, Eq. (68)] The text says the decay width is derived from Eq. (52), but Eq. (52) is the transition matrix element for \bar D_1 K_1 X_0. The correct reference for the \bar D K X_0 matrix element is Eq. (39).
  3. [Throughout] The manuscript contains several typographical artifacts, such as 'resoncance', 'e fforts', 'of fective', and 'compansate', which should be cleaned up in a final version.
  4. [Sec. I, Eq. (3)] The comparison with experimental Br(B^+ -> D^+ X_0) uses the isospin-inferred value (2.4 ± 1.0) x 10^-5. It would be helpful to state explicitly that this value inherits the LHCb uncertainty and that the quoted consistency does not include the experimental errors in the theory error budget.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circularity in the central prediction; only a minor self-cited continuum threshold enters as an auxiliary input.

full rationale

The derivation of Br(B+ -> D+ X0) and Gamma(X0 -> DK) is not circular with respect to the LHCb observables it claims to reproduce. The amplitudes in Eqs. (11)-(20) depend on strong couplings computed from QCD sum rules (Sec. III), weak form factors from Cheng-Chua-Hwang [57], and hadronic parameters from the PDG and the sum-rule literature; no parameter is fitted to Br(B+ -> D+ X0) ~ (2.4 +/- 1.0) x 10^-5 or Gamma = 57 +/- 12 +/- 4 MeV. The computed values (2.47 +2.07 -1.55) x 10^-5 and 64.07 +/- 18.23 MeV are genuine outputs, and Table III provides external cross-checks of the on-shell couplings (e.g., g_Ds*DK = 2.98 +1.90 -1.61 versus 2.84 +/- 0.31 from Ref. [77]). The only self-referential input is the continuum threshold s0 = 10 GeV^2 taken from Ref. [38], a prior two-point mass sum rule by H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, R.-R. Dong, and N. Su, where W. Chen is a co-author of the present paper. This is a standard auxiliary parameter in the sum rule for g_DKX0 and g_D*K*X0 and is not fitted to the target branching fraction or decay width, so it does not force the prediction by construction. The off-shell extrapolation from the QCD sum-rule window to the physical poles (monopole Eq. (44) and exponential Eq. (48)) introduces model-dependent shape uncertainty, especially for loop regions near Q^2 ~ 0, but this is a robustness and correctness concern rather than a circularity. Overall score 2 reflects the minor self-citation only.

Assumptions & free parameters 13 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The calculation imports rather than derives the weak form factors, condensates, hadron masses and decay constants, and the continuum thresholds. The paper's own contribution is the three-point sum rule evaluation of eight strong vertices plus the FSI loop integrals; the main uncontrolled inputs are the extrapolation shapes and the Borel window choices, which are only partially propagated into the final uncertainties.

free parameters (13)
  • a coefficient of g_DKX0(Q2) monopole fit = 25.56 +/- 1.63 GeV2
    Fitted to the sum rule points in Fig. 4 and used to reach the K pole at Q2 = -m_K^2.
  • b coefficient of g_DKX0(Q2) monopole fit = 57.43 +/- 0.00 GeV2
    Fitted denominator; the quoted zero uncertainty means shape uncertainty is not propagated.
  • a coefficient of g_D*bar K* X0(Q2) exponential fit = 0.12 +0.008/-0.008 GeV2
    Fitted to the sum rule points in Fig. 5.
  • b coefficient of g_D*bar K* X0(Q2) exponential fit = 0.22 +/- 0.00 GeV-2
    Fitted exponent; zero uncertainty in the paper.
  • Borel mass M_B^2 choices = 3.30, 2.56, 5.0 GeV2 etc.
    Chosen at stationary points of coupling curves to minimize Borel sensitivity; not part of propagated errors.
  • a,b coefficients for g_D*_s0 DK fit = a=0.58+0.26/-0.13 GeV2, b=0.43+/-0.01 GeV-2
    Used in diagram Fig. 2(d); fitted in Table III.
  • a,b coefficients for g_Ds1 DK* fit = a=25.81+6.60/-3.45 GeV2, b=0.51+/-0.01 GeV-2
    Used in the second largest FSI amplitude; fitted in Table III.
  • a,b coefficients for g_Ds DK* fit = a=2.25+1.67/-1.41 GeV2, b=0.52+0.03/-0.02 GeV-2
    Used in diagram Fig. 2(c).
  • a,b coefficients for g_D*_s DK1 fit = a=15.41+4.96/-4.06 GeV2, b=0.41+/-0.00 GeV-2
    Used in diagram Fig. 2(e).
  • a,b coefficients for g_Ds DK*0 fit = a=0.58+0.32/-0.24 GeV2, b=0.42+/-0.01 GeV-2
    Used in diagram Fig. 2(g).
  • a,b coefficients for g_Ds1 DK*0 fit = a=17.01+4.45/-2.50 GeV2, b=0.33+/-0.00 GeV-2
    Used in diagram Fig. 2(h).
  • a,b coefficients for g_D*_s0 DK1 fit = a=1.85+0.62/-0.39 GeV2, b=0.46+/-0.01 GeV-2
    Used in diagram Fig. 2(f).
  • a,b coefficients for g_Dbar*0 K*0 X0 fit (molecule) = a=13.59+5.07/-6.21 GeV2, b=46.23+/-0.00 GeV2
    Used in the Dbar*0 K*0 X0 vertex for the molecule picture.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption QCD sum rules give reliable couplings for these hadronic vertices.
    Invoked throughout Sec. III; relies on quark-hadron duality, OPE truncation, and Borel stability shown in Figs. 4-7.
  • domain assumption The interpolating currents in Eqs. (28)-(30) couple dominantly to the X0(2900) states under study.
    Standard for sum rules but not proven for exotic states; continuum threshold s0 controls contamination.
  • domain assumption The B+ weak decay amplitudes factorize with coefficient a1.
    Eqs. (4), (9)-(10); factorization ignores final-state interactions at the weak vertex, typically a 10-20% correction.
  • domain assumption The FSI is saturated by the eight triangle diagrams in Fig. 2 with K, K*, K1, K*0 exchange.
    No estimate is made for box diagrams or other two-meson intermediate states.
  • ad hoc to paper The off-shell vertex functions can be extrapolated from the Euclidean Q2 region to the on-shell pole by monopole or exponential fits.
    Eqs. (44) and (48); the extrapolation distance is large, from Q2 around 3.5-6 GeV2 to Q2 = -m_K^2 or -m_K*^2.
  • domain assumption Light quark masses can be set to zero for the X0 decay, giving isospin symmetry.
    Used after Eq. (68) to double the Dbar0K0 width into the total DK width.
  • domain assumption The continuum thresholds s0 from Refs. [38] and [62] are valid for the three-point sum rules.
    s0 = 10 GeV2 is taken from Ref. [38] by one of the present authors; no sensitivity scan is reported.
  • domain assumption The pole contribution is at least 40% in the chosen Borel windows.
    Explicitly checked only for g_Ds*DK in Fig. 7; for other vertices it is stated to be similar.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The production and decay of $X_0(2900)$ state with different interpretation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6WLX4JVU

@misc{pith2026241202997,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The production and decay of $X_0(2900)$ state with different interpretation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6WLX4JVU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02997}
}
abstract

The observation of $X_0(2900)$ in $B^+\rightarrow D^+D^-K^+$ decay process indicates the existence of open flavor tetraquark states. We study the production and decay of $X_0(2900)$ state with final state interaction mechanism, where we calculate the strong vertices such as $g_{\bar{D}KX_0}$, $g_{\bar{D}^\ast K^\ast X_0}$, $g_{D_s^{\ast}\bar{D}K}$ and $g_{D_{s1}\bar{D} K^\ast}$ in the framework of QCD sum rules method. We find that for the interpretation of the $\bar{D}^\ast K^\ast$ molecule of $X_0(2900)$, the branching fraction of the production process and the decay width are consistent with the experimental results, indicating that the observed $X_0(2900)$ could be interpreted as the $\bar{D}^\ast K^\ast$ molecule. However, we cannot exclude the possibility of a compact tetraquark interpretation within the uncertainty. Further experimental and theoretical efforts should be made to fully understand the nature of the $X_0(2900)$ state.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.02997 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Diagram contributing to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Diagram contributing to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The Feynman diagrams for OPE series of the correlation function in ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The dependence of the coupling constant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The dependence of the coupling constant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: The Feynman diagrams for OPE series of the correlation function ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: The dependence of the pole contribution (left panel) and coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: The dependence of the coupling constant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Searching for the $2^+$ partner of the $T_{cs0}(2870)$ in the $B^- \to D^- D^0 K^0_S$ reaction

    hep-ph 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The small D0 K0S mass bump near 2.73 GeV in B- -> D- D0 K0S could be a 2+ D* K* molecular state, and its angular moments should show a clear signal.

  2. Strong decays of the possible $D^{*}K$ and $\bar{D}^{*}K$ molecules

    hep-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    An effective-Lagrangian calculation predicts the I=1 D*K molecule T^a_cs1(2470) has a D_s*pi0 width of 13 to 196 MeV, about 10^3 times the predicted D_s1(2460) molecular width.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [38]

    Liu, J.-J

    M.-Z. Liu, J.-J. Xie, L.-S. Geng, Phys. Rev. D 102, no.9, 091502 (2020)

    work page 2020

  2. [1]

    off shell and D∗ sDK, Ds1DK∗, D∗ s0DK, DsDK∗, D∗ sDK1, Ds0DK∗ 1, D∗ sDK∗ 0, Ds1DK∗ 0 strong decay vertices with K(K∗, K1, K∗

  3. [2]

    αs(µ) αs(2GeV) # 12 33−2n f , mc(µ) = mc(mc)

    off shell. Some of these strong decay vertices are studied by some previous QCD sum rule analysis. We use the following interpolating currents forX0(2900) by considering it as a ¯D∗K∗ molecule, scalar diquark-scalar antidiquark compact tetraquark and axial-vector diquark-axial-vector antidiquark compact tetraquark: JX0(mol) = ¯caγµda ¯sbγµub, (28) JX0(S−S...

  4. [3]

    Gell-Mann, Phys

    M. Gell-Mann, Phys. Lett. 8, 214 (1964)

    1964

  5. [4]

    Zweig, in: D.Lichtenberg, S.P.Rosen(Eds.), Developments in the Quark Theory of Hadrons, VOL

    G. Zweig, in: D.Lichtenberg, S.P.Rosen(Eds.), Developments in the Quark Theory of Hadrons, VOL. 1. 1964 - 1978:pp. 22–101, 1964

    1964

  6. [5]

    R. L. Workman et al. [Particle Data Group], PTEP 2022, 083C01 (2022)

    2022

  7. [6]

    Nielsen,F.S

    M. Nielsen,F.S. Navarra,S.H. and Lee, Phys. Rept. 497, 41 (2010)

    work page 2010

  8. [7]

    H. X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rept. 639, 1-121 (2016)

    2016

Show all 84 references
  1. [8]

    Richard, Few Body Syst

    J.-M. Richard, Few Body Syst. 57, 1185 (2016)

    2016

  2. [9]

    Esposito, A

    A. Esposito, A. Pilloni and A. D. Polosa, Phys. Rept. 668, 1-97 (2017)

    2017

  3. [10]

    Ali, J.S

    A. Ali, J.S. Lange, and S. Stone, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 97, 123 (2017)

    2017

  4. [11]

    F. K. Guo, C. Hanhart, U. G. Meißner, Q. Wang, Q. Zhao and B. S. Zou, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, no.1, 015004 (2018)

    2018

  5. [12]

    Albuquerque, J.M

    R.M. Albuquerque, J.M. Dias, K.P. Khemchandani, A.M. Torres, F.S. Navarra, M. Nielsen, and C.M. Zanetti, J. Phys. G 46, 093002 (2019)

    2019

  6. [13]

    Y . R. Liu, H. X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.107, 237-320 (2019) 19

    2019

  7. [14]

    Brambilla, S

    N. Brambilla, S. Eidelman, C. Hanhart, A. Nefediev, C. P. Shen, C. E. Thomas, A. Vairo and C. Z. Yuan, Phys. Rept.873, 1-154 (2020)

    2020

  8. [15]

    Richard, A

    J.-M. Richard, A. Valcarce, and J. Vijande, Annals Phys. 412, 168009 (2020)

    2020

  9. [16]

    Faustov, V .O

    R.N. Faustov, V .O. Galkin, and E.M. Savchenko, Universe 7, 94 (2021)

    2021

  10. [17]

    H. X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, Y . R. Liu and S. L. Zhu, Rept. Prog. Phys.86, 026201 (2023)

    2023

  11. [18]

    L. Meng, B. Wang, G. J. Wang and S. L. Zhu, Phys.Rept. 1019 ,1-149 (2023)

    2023

  12. [19]

    V . M. Abazovet al.[D0], Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, no.2, 022003 (2016)

    2016

  13. [20]

    Aaij et al.[LHCb], Phys

    R. Aaij et al.[LHCb], Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 no.15, 152003 (2016)[Addendum: Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, no.10, 109904 (2017)]

    2016

  14. [21]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al.[CMS], Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, no.20, 202005 (2018)

    2018

  15. [22]

    Aaltonen et al.[CDF], Phys

    T. Aaltonen et al.[CDF], Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, no.20, 202006 (2018)

    2018

  16. [23]

    M.Aaboud et al.[ATLAS], Phys. Rev. Lett.120, no.20, 202007 (2018)

    2018

  17. [24]

    Aaij et al.[LHCb], Phys

    R. Aaij et al.[LHCb], Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 242001 (2020)

    2020

  18. [25]

    Aaij et al.[LHCb], Phys

    R. Aaij et al.[LHCb], Phys. Rev. D 102, 112003 (2020)

    2020

  19. [26]

    Z. Yu, Q. Wu, and D.-Y . Chen, arXiv: 2310.12398 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  20. [27]

    Cheng, S.-Y

    J.-B. Cheng, S.-Y . Li, Y .-R. Liu, Y .-N. Liu, Z.-G. Si, and T. Yao, Phys. Rev. D101, no.11, 114017 (2020)

    2020

  21. [28]

    T. Guo, J. Li, J. Zhao, and L. He, Phys. Rev. D 105, 054018 (2022)

    2022

  22. [29]

    X.-G. He, W. Wang, and R. Zhu, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, no.11, 1026 (2020)

    2020

  23. [30]

    G.-J. Wang, L. Meng, L.-Y . Xiao, M. Oka, and S.-L. Zhu, Eur. Phys. J. C81, no.2, 188 (2021)

    2021

  24. [31]

    Zhang, Phys

    J.-R. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 103, no.5, 054019 (2021)

    2021

  25. [32]

    Wang, Int

    Z.-G. Wang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 35, no.30, 2050187 (2020)

    2020

  26. [33]

    L ¨u, D.-Y

    Q.-F. L ¨u, D.-Y . Chen, and Y .-B. Dong, Phys. Rev. D102, no.7, 074021 (2020)

    2020

  27. [34]

    Agaev, K

    S.S. Agaev, K. Azizi, and H. Sundu, Phys. Rev. D 106, no.1, 014019 (2022)

    2022

  28. [35]

    Hu, X.-Y

    M.-W. Hu, X.-Y . Lao, P. Ling, and Q. Wang, Chin. Phys. C45, no.2, 021003 (2021)

    2021

  29. [36]

    Kong, J.-T

    S.-Y . Kong, J.-T. Zhu, D. Song, and J. He, Phys. Rev. D104 no.9, 094012 (2021)

    2021

  30. [37]

    Ke, Y .-F

    H.-W. Ke, Y .-F. Shi, X.-H. Liu, and X.-Q. Li, Phys. Rev. D106, no.11, 114032 (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    Wang, and S.-L

    B. Wang, and S.-L. Zhu, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, no.5, 419 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, R.-R. Dong, and N. Su, Chin. Phys. Lett. 37, no.10, 101201 (2020)

    2020

  33. [41]

    Agaev, K

    S.S. Agaev, K. Azizi, and H. Sundu, J. Phys. G 48, no.8, 085012 (2021)

    2021

  34. [42]

    Chen, Phys

    H.-X. Chen, Phys. Rev. D 105, no.9, 094003 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    Mutuk, J

    H. Mutuk, J. Phys. G 48, no.5, 055007 (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    Molina, T

    R. Molina, T. Branz, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 82, 014010 (2010)

    2010

  37. [45]

    Molina and E

    R. Molina and E. Oset, Phys. Lett. B 811, 135870 (2020) [Erratum: Phys. Lett. B 837, 137645 (2023)]

    2020

  38. [46]

    Huang, J.-X

    Y . Huang, J.-X. Lu, J.-J. Xie, and L.-S. Geng, Eur. Phys. J. C80, no.10, 973 (2020)

    2020

  39. [47]

    Xiao, D.-Y

    C.-J. Xiao, D.-Y . Chen, Y .-B. Dong, and G.-W. Meng, Phys. Rev. D103, no.3, 034004 (2021)

    2021

  40. [48]

    T. J. Burns, and E. S. Swanson, Phys. Rev. D 103, no.1, 014004 (2021)

    2021

  41. [49]

    T. J. Burns, and E. S. Swanson, Phys. Lett. B 813, 136057 (2021)

    2021

  42. [50]

    Chen, J.-J

    Y .-K. Chen, J.-J. Han, Q.-F. L¨u, J.-P. Wang, and F.-S. Yu, Eur. Phys. J. C81, no.1, 71 (2021)

    2021

  43. [51]

    Hsiao, and Y

    Y .-K. Hsiao, and Y . Yu, Phys. Rev. D104, no.3, 034008 (2021)

    2021

  44. [52]

    Li, M.-Z

    J.-W. Li, M.-Z. Yang, and D.-S. Du, HEPNP 27, 665-672 (2003)

    2003

  45. [53]

    Cheng, C.-K

    H.-Y . Cheng, C.-K. Chua, and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. D71, 014030 (2005)

    2005

  46. [54]

    L ¨u, Y .-L

    C.-D. L ¨u, Y .-L. Shen, and W. Wang, Phys. Rev. D73, 034005 (2006)

    2006

  47. [55]

    Wirbel, B

    M. Wirbel, B. Stech, and M. Bauer, Z. Phys. C 29, 637 (1985)

    1985

  48. [56]

    Bauer, B

    M. Bauer, B. Stech, and M. Wirbel, Z. Phys. C 34, 103 (1987)

    1987

  49. [57]

    Buchalla, A.J

    G. Buchalla, A.J. Buras, and M.E. Lautenbacher, Rev. Mod. Phys. 68, 1125-1144 (1996)

    1996

  50. [58]

    Gortchakov, M.P

    O. Gortchakov, M.P. Locher, V .E. Markushin, and S. von Rotz, Z. Phys. A353, 447 (1996)

    1996

  51. [59]

    Cheng, C.-K

    H.-Y . Cheng, C.-K. Chua, and C.-W. Hwang, Phys. Rev. D69, 074025 (2004)

    2004

  52. [60]

    L. J. Reinders, H. Rubinstein, and S. Yazaki, Phys. Rep. 127, 1 (1985)

    1985

  53. [61]

    M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, and V . I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys.B147, 385 (1979)

    1979

  54. [62]

    Colangelo and A

    P. Colangelo and A. Khodjamirian, At the Frontier of Particle Physics, edited by M. Shifman (World Scientific, Singapore, 2001), V ol.3, pp. 1495–1576

    2001

  55. [63]

    Narison, Camb

    S. Narison, Camb. Monogr. Part. Phys. Nucl. Phys. Cosmol.17, 1-812 (2007) Cambridge University Press, 2022, ISBN 978-1-00-929029- 6, 978-1-00-929031-9, 978-1-00-929033-3, 978-0-521-03731-0, 978-0-521-81164-4, 978-0-511-18948-7

    2007

  56. [64]

    Gelhausen, A

    P. Gelhausen, A. Khodjamirian, A.A. Pivovarov, and D. Rosenthal, Phys. Rev. D 88, 014015 (2013) [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 91, 099901 (2015)]

    2013

  57. [65]

    Gubernari, A

    N. Gubernari, A. Khodjamirian, R. Mandal, and T. Mannel, JHEP 12, 015 (2023)

    2023

  58. [66]

    ’t Hooft, G

    G. ’t Hooft, G. Isidori, L. Maiani, A. D. Polosa, and V . Riquer, Phys. Lett. B662, 424 (2008)

    2008

  59. [67]

    Narison, QCD spectral sum rules, volume 26 (1989)

    S. Narison, QCD spectral sum rules, volume 26 (1989)

    1989

  60. [68]

    Jamin, J

    M. Jamin, J. A. Oller, and A. Pich, Eur. Phys. J. C 24, 237 (2002)

    2002

  61. [69]

    Jamin and A

    M. Jamin and A. Pich, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 74, 300 (1999)

    1999

  62. [70]

    B. L. Io ffe, Nucl. Phys. B188, 317 (1981), [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 191, 591–592 (1981)]

    1981

  63. [71]

    Chung, H

    Y . Chung, H. G. Dosch, M. Kremer, and D. Schall, Z. Phys. C25, 151 (1984)

    1984

  64. [72]

    H. G. Dosch, M. Jamin, and S. Narison, Phys. Lett. B 220, 251 (1989)

    1989

  65. [73]

    Khodjamirian, T

    A. Khodjamirian, T. Mannel, N. Offen, and Y . M. Wang, Phys. Rev. D83, 094031 (2011)

    2011

  66. [74]

    Francis, R

    A. Francis, R. J. Hudspith, R. Lewis, and K. Maltman, Phys. Rev. D 99, 054505 (2019) 20

    2019

  67. [75]

    Casalbuoni, A

    R. Casalbuoni, A. Deandrea, N. Di Bartolomeo, R. Gatto, F. Feruglio and G. Nardulli, Phys. Rept. 281, 145 (1997)

    1997

  68. [76]

    Casalbuoni, A

    R. Casalbuoni, A. Deandrea, N. Di Bartolomeo, R. Gatto, F. Feruglio and G. Nardulli, Phys. Lett. B 292, 371 (1992)

    1992

  69. [77]

    Casalbuoni, A

    R. Casalbuoni, A. Deandrea, N. Di Bartolomeo, R. Gatto, F. Feruglio and G. Nardulli, Phys. Lett. B 299, 139 (1993)

    1993

  70. [78]

    Navarra, M

    F.S. Navarra, M. Nielsen, M.E. Bracco, M. Chiapparini, and C.L. Schat, Phys. Lett. B 489, 319 (2000)

    2000

  71. [79]

    Bracco, A

    M.E. Bracco, A. Cerqueira Jr., M. Chiapparini, A. Loz ´ea, and M. Nielsen, Phys. Lett. B 641, 286 (2006)

    2006

  72. [80]

    Colangelo, F

    P. Colangelo, F. De Fazio, G. Nardulli, N. Di Bartolomeo, and R. Gatto, Phys. Rev. D 52, 6422 (1995)

    1995

  73. [81]

    Lin, H.-X

    J.-X. Lin, H.-X. Chen, W.-H. Liang, C.-W. Xiao, and E. Oset, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, no.4, 439 (2024)

    2024

  74. [82]

    Janbazi and R

    M. Janbazi and R. Khosravi, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, no.7, 606 (2018)

    2018

  75. [83]

    Momeni and R

    S. Momeni and R. Khosravi, arXiv: 2003.04165

    2003 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Sundu, J.Y

    H. Sundu, J.Y . Sungu, S. Sahin, N. Yinelek, and K. Azizi, Phys. Rev. D83, 114009 (2011)

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.