Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 41 references

Predicting the spectrum and decay constants of positive-parity heavy-strange mesons using domain-wall fermions

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Pith's one-line read This lattice-QCD study computes masses and decay constants for the positive-parity heavy-strange mesons $D^*_{s0}$, $D_{s1}$, $B^*_{s0}$, and $B_{s1}$, with the bottom-strange decay constants appearing for the first time in a lattice…

desk verdict First lattice decay constants for B*_s0 and B_s1, but the central numbers come from a fit the authors themselves suspect is biased; a transparent, well-scoped work-in-progress report rather than an established result. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.17846 v2 pith:C2UUHNYU submitted 2025-01-29 hep-lat hep-ph

classification hep-lathep-ph
keywords latticeQCDheavy-strangemesonspositive-paritydecayconstantsdomain-wallfermionsD_s0*(2317)B_sspectroscopy
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 sets out to compute, from lattice QCD, the masses and decay constants of the four positive-parity heavy-strange mesons $D^*_{s0}$, $D_{s1}$, $B^*_{s0}$, and $B_{s1}$, with the bottom-strange decay constants appearing in a lattice calculation for the first time. It uses domain-wall fermions for the light and strange quarks, an anisotropic clover action for charm and bottom, and seven ensembles with pion masses from 139 MeV to 431 MeV. The central results are finite-volume binding energies relative to the $D^{(*)}K$ and $B^{(*)}K$ thresholds and decay constants extracted from two analysis types, one with and one without two-meson operators at the source. The paper observes the expected below-threshold ground states but stops short of final numbers, because the two analysis types bracket the ground-state energy: the stable fits may overestimate it, while the two-meson fits underestimate it. A sympathetic reader cares because these states are long-standing candidates for molecular or exotic structure, and their decay constants enter unitarity bounds used to parametrize semileptonic decay form factors.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a correlation-matrix analysis of zero-momentum two-point functions built from a four-operator basis: a local quark-antiquark operator $\bar{Q}s$, a derivative operator $\bar{Q}\gamma_i\nabla_i s$, the renormalized current $J_{V_0}$ or $J_{A_i}$ that defines each decay constant, and a two-meson operator of the form $\Phi_K \Phi_H$ (for $0^+$) or $\Phi_K \Phi_{H^*}$ (for $1^+$) that couples to the $D^{(*)}K$ / $B^{(*)}K$ scattering states. The two-meson operator appears only at the source, reusing precomputed light and strange propagators through a sequential heavy-quark propagator; the fitted overlap $A_3$ of the current operator gives the decay constant via $f = A_3\sqrt{2/E}$. The central issue is whether this basis, with or without the two-meson operator, extracts the ground-state energy without bias; the paper's two analysis types are exactly this comparison.

What would settle it

Reanalyze the same correlation functions with two-meson operators at both source and sink, or extract the $DK$ and $BK$ bound states from a finite-volume quantization of the scattering phase shifts. If the resulting pole sits below the no-two-meson fit and above the two-meson-source fit, the two reported analyses bracket the truth; if it agrees with one, that analysis is the unbiased one.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's claim is that a lattice-QCD calculation with $2+1$ dynamical domain-wall fermions and a tuned anisotropic clover heavy-quark action reproduces the expected below-threshold positive-parity heavy-strange mesons and delivers the first lattice estimates of $f_{B^*_{s0}}$ and $f_{B_{s1}}$. The masses are reported as finite-volume binding energies $\Delta_H = E - E_{H^{(*)}} - E_K$, and the decay constants are obtained from the ground-state overlap of the renormalized vector and axial-vector currents. The paper explicitly labels the results preliminary and says that fits without two-meson operators at the source are more stable yet may overestimate the ground-state energies, while the alternative fits underestimate them; the final answer is therefore bracketed rather than stated.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the fits without two-meson operators at the source recover the true ground-state energies; the paper itself concedes these fits may overestimate the energies, leaving the final values bracketed between two biased analyses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The bottom-strange decay constants $f_{B^*_{s0}}$ and $f_{B_{s1}}$ would become the first lattice determinations in that sector, replacing QCD sum-rule estimates as the direct, systematically improvable input.
  • The observed strong lattice-spacing dependence in the $B^*_{s0}$ and $B_{s1}$ decay constants, if physical and not a fit artifact, will demand a careful continuum extrapolation before these numbers can be used in phenomenology.
  • The mass results, once combined with a finite-volume quantization analysis of the $DK$ and $BK$ systems, would convert the bracketed finite-volume energies into infinite-volume bound-state pole positions for comparison with experiment.
  • The decay constants would enter the single-particle bound-state contributions in dispersive and unitarity bounds on $b\to s$ and $c\to s$ form factors, sharpening the parametrization of semileptonic decays used in new-physics searches.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct extension the authors leave implicit: computing with two-meson operators at both source and sink, or at the sink only, would break the asymmetry that causes their false plateaus and could decide which analysis is biased, using the same correlators they already have.
  • The bracketing structure suggests the true ground-state energies, and hence the true decay constants, lie between the two reported fit results; a weighted combination of the two analyses would already give a range, even before the planned chiral-continuum extrapolation.
  • If the lattice-spacing dependence of the bottom-strange decay constants survives the removal of the two-meson bias, the anisotropic clover action's improvement would be the prime suspect, and tests on finer lattices or at fixed physical volume would be the natural check.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This proceedings contribution reports a lattice-QCD study of the masses and decay constants of the positive-parity heavy-strange mesons D*_{s0}, D_{s1}, B*_{s0}, and B_{s1}. The simulations use seven RBC/UKQCD domain-wall fermion ensembles with pion masses from 139 to 431 MeV and an anisotropic clover action for charm and bottom quarks. The paper describes two analysis strategies: fits that include two-meson operators only at the source, and fits that omit two-meson operators entirely. The latter are more stable but, as the authors state, may overestimate the ground-state energies. The authors present only the second analysis type, finding below-threshold ground states for all four mesons. They emphasize that the results are preliminary, that the largest systematic uncertainty is the missing two-meson-operator analysis, and that continuum extrapolation and a Luescher analysis are planned. The claimed novelty is the first lattice determination of the B*_{s0} and B_{s1} decay constants.

Significance. If the results survive the planned improvements, they would provide a useful addition to heavy-strange spectroscopy and to the parametrization of semileptonic form factors. The use of multiple ensembles including a near-physical pion mass, exact chiral symmetry for light quarks, and a heavy-quark action tuned to D/B spectroscopy are strengths. The authors are also commendably explicit about the limitations of the present fits. However, the current quantitative claims, especially the first-time values for f_{B*_{s0}} and f_{B_{s1}}, are not yet supported because the extraction omits two-meson operators at the sink and the B-sector decay constants show strong lattice-spacing dependence without a continuum extrapolation. At this stage the paper is an honest status report rather than a finalized calculation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4, Eqs. (4)-(5)] The decay constants are extracted from the fits without two-meson operators via f = A_3 sqrt(2/E), while the paper itself states that excluding these operators 'may ... overestimation of the ground-state energy levels' (Sec. 4). Since A_3 and E come from the same fit, any bias in E propagates directly into f. Because D*_{s0}, D_{s1}, B*_{s0}, and B_{s1} lie close to the DK or BK thresholds, a basis containing only quark-antiquark and local current operators cannot reliably project the physical state. The claim in Sec. 1 that this is 'for the first time' the decay constants of B*_{s0} and B_{s1} are computed is therefore not supported by the presented numbers; either the two-meson-operator analysis at both source and sink must be included, or the claim must be weakened to an exploratory study.
  2. [Fig. 3 and Sec. 4] The B-sector decay constants in Fig. 3 show a strong dependence on lattice spacing, and the paper provides no continuum extrapolation. The text itself states that the fit results 'may still be unreliable due to the exclusion of the two-meson operators.' Without a controlled extrapolation or a Luescher analysis, the plotted values are not final lattice determinations. The abstract and figure captions should state this explicitly, and the phrase 'first time' should be reserved for a publication that includes the planned analyses (two-meson operators at the sink, Luescher method, chiral-continuum extrapolation).
  3. [Sec. 4] The paper presents two analysis types that bracket the true result: one underestimates the ground-state energy due to false plateaus (Refs. [38,39]) and one may overestimate it. The paper does not provide a combined estimate or a final central value. This is not only a caveat: the paper's central claim to 'present a lattice-QCD calculation of the masses and decay constants' is not quantitatively fulfilled until a controlled extraction is available. The manuscript should either present such an extraction or be reframed as a status report.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (3)] The convention that 'Phi(3)' denotes the current is introduced only later in the text; the operator numbering in Eqs. (1)-(2) should be made explicit at first use.
  2. [Table 2] There is a formatting issue in the pion mass column ('0 .13917(35)'), and the caption should be grammatically corrected.
  3. [Figs. 2 and 3] The figure captions should state explicitly which bands are experimental PDG values, which are previous lattice results, and whether the plotted points include the systematic uncertainty from the t_min variation.
  4. [Sec. 3.2] The procedure for combining statistical uncertainties with the t_min shift is described only in Sec. 4; it would be clearer to mention it in the fitting section as well.
  5. [Throughout] The paper does not provide a table of numerical results, which limits usability; even a preliminary summary table would improve the proceedings contribution.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the spectrum and decay constants are extracted from standard multi-exponential fits to lattice correlation functions, with input parameters tuned to different (negative-parity) states and external benchmarks.

full rationale

The derivation chain is a standard lattice-QCD spectroscopy analysis. Energies and current amplitudes are obtained by fitting correlation functions C_lm(t) built from local quark-antiquark and (at the source only) two-meson interpolating operators; the ground-state decay constant is then computed from the fitted amplitude via f = A_3 sqrt(2/E). This is a normalization conversion, not a fitted input recycled as a prediction. The heavy-quark action parameters are taken from prior work (Refs. [26,29]), but they were tuned by matching the negative-parity D_s^{(*)} and B_s^{(*)} dispersion relations and hyperfine splittings, not the positive-parity states computed here; the target results are therefore not imposed by the input. The current renormalization factors come from nonperturbative determinations and one-loop matching, again independent of the final decay-constant values. The paper explicitly flags its main systematic caveat in Sec. 4: 'concerns remain that without the two-meson operators there may now be an overestimation of the ground-state energy levels,' and it notes the strong lattice-spacing dependence of the bottom-strange decay constants. That is an acknowledged operator-basis uncertainty, not a circular step. The self-citations (e.g., Ref. [26]) supply infrastructure and parameter values, but the central claim is checked against external PDG masses and prior lattice results, so the derivation is self-contained. No circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on standard lattice QCD background (ensembles, actions, renormalization) plus the specific assumption that omitting two-meson operators does not bias the extracted energies. The paper's own caveats show this assumption is fragile. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • Heavy quark action parameters (a m_Q, nu, c_B=c_E) = from Ref. [26]
    Tuned to D(*)_s and B(*)_s dispersion relations and hyperfine splittings; inherited input, not fit in this paper, but the central results depend on them.
  • Renormalization factors Z and O(a) improvement coefficients = nonperturbative Z; 1-loop rho and improvement
    Computed in prior work (Refs. [21,26,30-36]); needed to extract decay constants.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The RBC/UKQCD ensembles with 2+1 dynamical domain-wall fermions correctly sample the QCD path integral.
    Standard lattice QCD assumption; the paper relies on these ensembles for all results.
  • domain assumption The anisotropic clover action tuned per Ref. [26] correctly describes charm and bottom quarks at the lattice spacings used.
    The action parameters were tuned to D/B spectroscopy; the paper assumes this tuning is valid here.
  • ad hoc to paper Ground-state energies can be extracted from fits without two-meson operators.
    The paper explicitly doubts this: 'concerns remain that without the two-meson operators there may now be an overestimation' (Sec. 4). This is the load-bearing assumption.
  • domain assumption Correlators with two-hadron operators at one end only produce negative bias (Refs. [38,39]), motivating the choice of analysis.
    Cited from the literature; used to justify discarding the two-meson-operator fits.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Predicting the spectrum and decay constants of positive-parity heavy-strange mesons using domain-wall fermions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C2UUHNYU

@misc{pith2026250117846,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Predicting the spectrum and decay constants of positive-parity heavy-strange mesons using domain-wall fermions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C2UUHNYU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.17846}
}
abstract

We present a lattice-QCD calculation of the masses and decay constants of the positive-parity heavy-strange mesons $D^*_{s0}$, $D_{s1}$, $B^*_{s0}$, and $B_{s1}$. The calculations are performed with domain-wall fermions for the light and strange quarks and an anisotropic clover action for the charm and bottom quarks. We use seven different RBC/UKQCD ensembles with pion masses ranging from a near-physical 139 MeV up to 431 MeV. We consider two different analysis types, with or without two-meson operators at the source. We observe the expected below-threshold ground states. The fits without the two-meson operators appear to be more stable, but may overestimate the ground-state energies, while preliminary fits with two-meson operators at the source only appear to underestimate the ground-state energies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.17846 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Correlation functions and corresponding effective-mass plot for the 𝐷𝑠1, fitted from 𝑡min/𝑎 = 10 to 𝑡max/𝑎 = 16 on the C00078 ensemble. The horizontal line shows the central value of fitted ground-state energy. 4. Results The results presented at Lattice 2024 were obtained via the first type of analysis described in Sec. 3.2, with the two-meson operators included at the source. These fits were extremely unstable and… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Finite-volume spectrum and decay constants of the 𝐷 ∗ 𝑠0 and 𝐷𝑠1. For the spectrum, the bands show the experimental results for the ground state [20], and for the decay constants, the bands show the lattice results from Ref. [9]. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Finite-volume spectrum and decay constants of the 𝐵 ∗ 𝑠0 and 𝐵𝑠1. Bands are infinite-volume estimates for the ground state from the lattice calculations of Refs. [13, 14]. Acknowledgments We thank the RBC and UKQCD collaborations for providing the gauge configurations. We are supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of High Energy Physics under Award Number DE-SC0009913. This work used r… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Barnes, F.E

    T. Barnes, F.E. Close and H.J. Lipkin,Implications of a DK molecule at 2.32-GeV,Phys. Rev. D68(2003) 054006 [hep-ph/0305025]

  2. [2]

    BaBarcollaboration, Observation of a narrow meson decaying to𝐷+ 𝑠𝜋0 at a mass of 2.32-GeV/c2,Phys. Rev. Lett.90 (2003) 242001 [hep-ex/0304021]

  3. [3]

    Godfrey and R

    S. Godfrey and R. Kokoski,The Properties of p Wave Mesons with One Heavy Quark,Phys. Rev. D43(1991) 1679. 8 Spectrum and decay constants of positive-parity heavy-strange mesons Forrest Guyton

  4. [4]

    F.-K. Guo, C. Hanhart, U.-G. Meißner, Q. Wang, Q. Zhao and B.-S. Zou,Hadronic molecules,Rev. Mod. Phys.90(2018) 015004 [1705.00141]. [Erratum:Rev. Mod. Phys.94 (2022) 029901]

  5. [5]

    The Status of Molecules

    T. Barnes,The Status of molecules, in29th Rencontres de Moriond: QCD and High-energy Hadronic Interactions, hep-ph/9406215

  6. [6]

    Weinberg,Evidence That the Deuteron Is Not an Elementary Particle,Phys

    S. Weinberg,Evidence That the Deuteron Is Not an Elementary Particle,Phys. Rev.137 (1965) B672

  7. [7]

    UKQCDcollaboration, Comprehensive spectroscopy of𝐷,𝐷𝑠 and charmonium systems from relativistic lattice QCD,Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.53(1997) 398

  8. [8]

    Mohler, C.B

    D. Mohler, C.B. Lang, L. Leskovec, S. Prelovsek and R.M. Woloshyn,𝐷∗ 𝑠0(2317) Meson and𝐷-Meson-Kaon Scattering from Lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett.111 (2013) 222001 [1308.3175]

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    G.S. Bali, S. Collins, A. Cox and A. Schäfer,Masses and decay constants of the𝐷∗ 𝑠0(2317) and𝐷𝑠1(2460) from𝑁𝑓 = 2 lattice QCD close to the physical point, Phys. Rev. D96 (2017) 074501 [1706.01247]

  2. [10]

    Hadron Spectrumcollaboration,𝐷𝐾 𝐼= 0,𝐷𝐾 𝐼= 0, 1scattering and the𝐷∗ 𝑠0(2317) from lattice QCD, JHEP 02(2021) 100 [2008.06432]

  3. [11]

    Alexandrou, J

    C. Alexandrou, J. Berlin, J. Finkenrath, T. Leontiou and M. Wagner,Tetraquark interpolating fields in a lattice QCD investigation of the𝐷∗ 𝑠0(2317) meson, Phys. Rev. D101 (2020) 034502 [1911.08435]

  4. [12]

    Burch, C

    T. Burch, C. Hagen, C.B. Lang, M. Limmer and A. Schafer,Excitations of single-beauty hadrons,Phys. Rev. D79 (2009) 014504 [0809.1103]

  5. [13]

    C.B. Lang, D. Mohler, S. Prelovsek and R.M. Woloshyn,Predicting positive parity𝐵𝑠 mesons from lattice QCD,Phys. Lett. B750 (2015) 17 [1501.01646]

  6. [14]

    Hudspith and D

    R.J. Hudspith and D. Mohler,Exotic tetraquark states with two¯𝑏 quarks and𝐽𝑃 = 0+ and 1+ 𝐵𝑠 states in a nonperturbatively tuned lattice NRQCD setup, Phys. Rev. D107 (2023) 114510 [2303.17295]

  7. [15]

    Capdevila, A

    B. Capdevila, A. Crivellin and J. Matias,Review of semileptonic𝐵 anomalies, Eur. Phys. J. ST 1(2023) 20 [2309.01311]

  8. [16]

    Blake, S

    T. Blake, S. Meinel, M. Rahimi and D. van Dyk,Dispersive bounds for local form factors in Λ𝑏→Λ transitions, Phys. Rev. D108 (2023) 094509 [2205.06041]

  9. [17]

    Flavour Lattice A veraging Group (FLAG)collaboration,FLAG Review 2024, 2411.04268

  10. [18]

    Narison,Decay Constants of Heavy-Light Mesons from QCD, Nucl

    S. Narison,Decay Constants of Heavy-Light Mesons from QCD, Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc. 270-272(2016) 143 [1511.05903]. 9 Spectrum and decay constants of positive-parity heavy-strange mesons Forrest Guyton

  11. [19]

    Q. Li, T. Wang, Y. Jiang, G.-L. Wang and C.-H. Chang,Mixing angle and decay constants of 𝐽𝑃 = 1+ heavy-light mesons, Phys. Rev. D100 (2019) 076020 [1802.06351]

  12. [20]

    Particle Data Groupcollaboration, Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) 030001

  13. [21]

    RBC, UKQCD collaboration, Domain wall QCD with physical quark masses, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 074505 [1411.7017]

  14. [22]

    RBC/UKQCDcollaboration,SU(3)-breaking ratios for𝐷(𝑠) and𝐵(𝑠) mesons, 1812.08791

  15. [23]

    Kaplan,A Method forsimulating chiral fermions onthe lattice,Phys

    D.B. Kaplan,A Method forsimulating chiral fermions onthe lattice,Phys. Lett. B288(1992) 342 [hep-lat/9206013]

  16. [24]

    Brower, H

    R.C. Brower, H. Neff and K. Orginos,Mobius fermions, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.153 (2006) 191 [hep-lat/0511031]

  17. [25]

    Shamir,Chiral fermions from lattice boundaries,Nucl

    Y. Shamir,Chiral fermions from lattice boundaries,Nucl. Phys. B406 (1993) 90 [hep-lat/9303005]

  18. [26]

    Meinel,Status of next-generationΛ𝑏→ 𝑝,Λ,Λ𝑐 form-factor calculations,PoS LATTICE2023(2024) 275 [2309.01821]

    S. Meinel,Status of next-generationΛ𝑏→ 𝑝,Λ,Λ𝑐 form-factor calculations,PoS LATTICE2023(2024) 275 [2309.01821]

  19. [27]

    Shintani, R

    E. Shintani, R. Arthur, T. Blum, T. Izubuchi, C. Jung and C. Lehner,Covariant approximation averaging, Phys. Rev. D91(2015) 114511 [1402.0244]

  20. [28]

    El-Khadra, A.S

    A.X. El-Khadra, A.S. Kronfeld and P.B. Mackenzie,Massive fermions in lattice gauge theory, Phys. Rev. D55(1997) 3933 [hep-lat/9604004]

  21. [29]

    RBC, UKQCD collaboration,Nonperturbative tuning of an improved relativistic heavy-quark action with application to bottom spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. D86 (2012) 116003 [1206.2554]

  22. [30]

    Hashimoto, A.X

    S. Hashimoto, A.X. El-Khadra, A.S. Kronfeld, P.B. Mackenzie, S.M. Ryan and J.N. Simone, Lattice QCD calculation of¯𝐵→𝐷ℓ ¯𝜈 decay form-factors at zero recoil,Phys. Rev.D61 (1999) 014502 [hep-ph/9906376]

  23. [31]

    El-Khadra, A.S

    A.X. El-Khadra, A.S. Kronfeld, P.B. Mackenzie, S.M. Ryan and J.N. Simone,The Semileptonic decays𝐵→𝜋ℓ𝜈 and𝐷→𝜋ℓ𝜈 from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev.D64 (2001) 014502 [hep-ph/0101023]

  24. [32]

    Boyle, L

    P.A. Boyle, L. Del Debbio, A. Jüttner, A. Khamseh, F. Sanfilippo and J.T. Tsang,The decay constants fD and fDs in the continuum limit ofNf = 2+ 1 domain wall lattice QCD,JHEP 12 (2017) 008 [1701.02644]

  25. [33]

    Meinel,Λ𝑐→Λ𝑙+𝜈𝑙 form factors and decay rates from lattice QCD with physical quark masses,Phys

    S. Meinel,Λ𝑐→Λ𝑙+𝜈𝑙 form factors and decay rates from lattice QCD with physical quark masses,Phys. Rev. Lett.118 (2017) 082001 [1611.09696]. 10 Spectrum and decay constants of positive-parity heavy-strange mesons Forrest Guyton

  26. [34]

    Meinel and G

    S. Meinel and G. Rendon,Λ𝑏→Λ∗ 𝑐(2595, 2625)ℓ− ¯𝜈 form factors from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D103 (2021) 094516 [2103.08775]

  27. [35]

    Detmold, C

    W. Detmold, C. Lehner and S. Meinel,Λ𝑏→ 𝑝ℓ− ¯𝜈ℓ andΛ𝑏→Λ𝑐ℓ− ¯𝜈ℓ form factors from lattice QCD with relativistic heavy quarks,Phys. Rev. D92(2015) 034503 [1503.01421]

  28. [36]

    Lehner,Automated lattice perturbation theory and relativistic heavy quarks in the Columbia formulation,PoS LATTICE2012(2012) 126 [1211.4013]

    C. Lehner,Automated lattice perturbation theory and relativistic heavy quarks in the Columbia formulation,PoS LATTICE2012(2012) 126 [1211.4013]

  29. [37]

    Meinel and G

    S. Meinel and G. Rendon,Λ𝑏→Λ∗(1520)ℓ+ℓ− form factors from lattice QCD,Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 074505 [2009.09313]

  30. [38]

    B. Hörz et al.,Two-nucleon S-wave interactions at the𝑆𝑈(3) flavor-symmetric point with 𝑚𝑢𝑑≃𝑚phys 𝑠 : A first lattice QCD calculation with the stochastic Laplacian Heaviside method,Phys. Rev. C103 (2021) 014003 [2009.11825]

  31. [39]

    Iritani et al.,Mirage in Temporal Correlation functions for Baryon-Baryon Interactions in Lattice QCD, JHEP 10(2016) 101 [1607.06371]

    T. Iritani et al.,Mirage in Temporal Correlation functions for Baryon-Baryon Interactions in Lattice QCD, JHEP 10(2016) 101 [1607.06371]

  32. [40]

    Luscher,Two particle states on a torus and their relation to the scattering matrix,Nucl

    M. Luscher,Two particle states on a torus and their relation to the scattering matrix,Nucl. Phys. B354(1991) 531

  33. [41]

    Boerner, S

    T.J. Boerner, S. Deems, T.R. Furlani, S.L. Knuth and J. Towns,ACCESS: Advancing Innovation: NSF’s Advanced Cyberinfrastructure Coordination Ecosystem: Services & Support, inPractice and Experience in Advanced Research Computing 2023: Computing for the Common Good, PEARC ’23, (...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.