Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 69 references

Radially Excited Bottom Mesons in Heavy Quark Effective Theory

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Exact charm-bottom flavor symmetry in HQET fixes the n=3 bottom meson masses, with B(3^1S0)=6326 MeV and B_s(3^1S0)=6463 MeV.

desk verdict Useful HQET cross-check, but the S-wave mass table is off by ~32 MeV because the paper uses the P-wave hyperfine parameter; the error propagates into the widths and Regge extrapolations. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08069 v1 pith:MRZ5XJTT submitted 2025-06-09 hep-ph

Ritu Garg , Preeti Bhall , K.K Vishwakarma This is my paper
classification hep-ph PACS 12.39.Hg14.40.Nd
keywords heavyquarkeffectivetheorybottommesonsbottom-strangeradialexcitationsflavorsymmetrymesonmassesstrongdecaywidthsReggetrajectories
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 establish that Heavy Quark Effective Theory, applied with exact heavy-quark flavor symmetry between charm and bottom, can predict the masses of the still-unobserved radially excited ($n=3$) bottom and bottom-strange mesons. It fixes six non-strange masses between 6326 and 6624 MeV and six strange partners between 6463 and 6826 MeV, then converts computed strong decays into upper bounds on the hadronic couplings $g_{HH}$, $g_{SH}$, $g_{TH}$. If these masses are right, they are concrete search targets that would fill a large gap in the bottom-meson spectrum, which is so far known almost only in ground and low-lying $P$-wave states. The same pattern is extended to $n=4$ through Regge trajectories, giving masses near 6.8--7.3 GeV for future experiments to look for.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the HQET superfield doublet Lagrangian built from the fields $H$, $S$, $T$, $X$, $Y$, together with the mass parameters $\Delta_F$ (the spin-averaged gap between the doublet $F$ and the ground doublet $H$) and $\lambda_F$ (the hyperfine splitting inside the doublet). The identity doing the work is Eq. (11): both parameters are declared identical for charm and bottom, so charm input values such as $\Delta_{\tilde{H}}^{(c)}=468.25$ MeV and $\lambda_{\tilde{H}}^{(c)}=26171.50$ MeV$^2$ transfer directly to the bottom sector. The decay widths are then generated by the effective Lagrangians (12)--(15) and the partial-width formulas (16)--(19), which make every width proportional to a coupling squared times phase space.

What would settle it

Search for the $n=3$ $0^-$ bottom state near 6326 MeV and its strange partner near 6463 MeV in $B\pi$ or $B^+K^-$ invariant-mass spectra; a measured mass more than about 2% away from these values would contradict the exact $\Delta_F$/ $\lambda_F$ transfer of Eq. (11). A cheaper decisive check is to compute the $1/m_c$ corrections to $\Delta_F$ and $\lambda_F$ for charm and show they are negligible at the claimed 1% level, since the paper assumes they vanish.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper reports that exact heavy-quark flavor symmetry between the charm and bottom sectors--Eq. (11), $\Delta_F^{(c)}=\Delta_F^{(b)}$ and $\lambda_F^{(c)}=\lambda_F^{(b)}$--is enough to fix the $n=3$ bottom-meson spectrum. Charm-sector inputs give $M_{B(3\,^1S_0)}=6326$ MeV, $M_{B(3\,^3S_1)}=6342$ MeV, $P$-wave doublet masses at 6568--6624 MeV, and strange partners at 6463--6826 MeV. These sit within about 1% of relativistic quark-model masses and within about 2% of another model's predictions, and the paper takes that proximity as evidence the flavor-symmetry transfer works. The decay calculation expresses partial widths to ground-state mesons as coefficients times $\tilde{\tilde{g}}^2$, and matching the totals to published total widths yields upper bounds on $\tilde{\tilde{g}}_{HH}$, $\tilde{\tilde{g}}_{SH}$, $\tilde{\tilde{g}}_{TH}$. Regge trajectories built on the predicted masses give $n=4$ masses near 6.8--7.3 GeV.

Load-bearing premise

The whole bottom-sector prediction depends on assuming that the spin-averaged energy gap and the hyperfine splitting parameter are exactly the same for charm and bottom mesons, with no correction for the finite charm-quark mass.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The six $n=3$ non-strange bottom states and their strange partners have explicit predicted masses, so a future resonance near 6326 MeV (or 6463 MeV for the strange $0^-$) would be a direct confirmation.
  • Because the computed partial widths are proportional to $\tilde{\tilde{g}}^2$, the upper bounds $\tilde{\tilde{g}}_{HH}\lesssim 0.09$--$0.12$, $\tilde{\tilde{g}}_{SH}\lesssim 0.03$--$0.07$, and $\tilde{\tilde{g}}_{TH}\lesssim 0.03$--$0.06$ constrain any future measurement of these couplings.
  • The predicted masses deviate from the relativistic quark model by about 1% and from another model by about 2%, so future mass measurements would test the heavy-quark-flavor-symmetry transfer at that precision.
  • Regge trajectories through $n=1,2,3$ give $n=4$ masses such as $B(4\,^1S_0)=6812$ MeV and $B_s(4\,^1S_0)=6958$ MeV, extending the prediction one more radial step.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One implication the paper leaves implicit is that the apparent 1% agreement, if it survives future data, would mean the $1/m_Q$ corrections to $\Delta_F$ and $\lambda_F$ largely cancel between charm and bottom despite $m_c \approx 1.3$ GeV.
  • Since the width upper bounds come from only a subset of decay channels, the true couplings are likely smaller; a measured width for $B(6326)$ would directly quantify the missing vector-meson and multi-particle contributions.
  • A test the paper does not run is to predict $n=4$ masses directly from charm inputs through the same Eq. (11) transfer, bypassing the Regge extrapolation; agreement between the two routes would strengthen the claim.
  • The charm inputs are partly quark-model values rather than pure measurements, so the bottom predictions inherit that model dependence; updated charm $3S$ and $3P$ data would sharpen the transfer.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper extends a previous HQET analysis of charm mesons to bottom mesons. Using charm n=3 masses from Refs. [63,64] as inputs, it assumes exact heavy-quark flavor symmetry (Eq. (11)) to set the HQET parameters Δ_F and λ_F equal for charm and bottom, and from these predicts the n=3 bottom and bottom-strange meson masses in Table 3. It then computes strong two-body decay widths in terms of couplings gHH, gSH, gTH, and converts the computed partial widths, compared with total widths from Ref. [65], into upper bounds on the couplings in Tables 4–5. Finally, Regge trajectories in (J, M²) and (n_r, M²) are fitted to predicted masses and used to estimate n=4 masses in Tables 6–7. The central numerical claim is the S-wave prediction B(3¹S₀)=6326 MeV, B_s(3¹S₀)=6463 MeV.

Significance. If the calculation were correct, the paper would provide a useful, falsifiable set of predictions for experimentally missing bottom mesons, with a transparent symmetry-based method and an explicit, checkable worked example. The mass derivation is not circular: the charm inputs enter through the independent flavor-symmetry assumption rather than through fitted bottom data. The coupling 'upper bounds', however, are not data-driven, and the n=4 Regge masses are extrapolations from fits that include the paper's own predicted n=3 points. The main significance at present is therefore conditional: the method is reasonable, but the numerical tables must be internally consistent and the neglected 1/m_Q corrections must be quantified before the predictions can be used.

major comments (4)
  1. [3.1, Eq. (10), Table 3] The S-wave entries of Table 3 are internally inconsistent with the stated inputs. From Table 2, M_c^{tilde tilde H}=3087.50 MeV, M_c^{tilde H}=2619.25 MeV, so Δ=468.25 MeV, and the text quotes λ^c_{tilde tilde H}=26,171.50 MeV². The bottom n=2 spin average is M_b^{tilde H}=(3×5906+5890)/4=5902 MeV, so the n=3 bottom spin average should be M_bar=6370.25 MeV. Using the doublet relation implied by Eqs. (8) and (10), M=[3√(M_bar²−4λ)−M_bar]/2, one obtains M(B(3¹S₀))≈6357.9 MeV with λ=26,171.50 MeV², not 6326.22 MeV as printed. The printed value is reproduced only by inserting a λ of about 93,000 MeV², which is the P-wave λ_S of Eq. (10b) rather than the S-wave λ_H. The same check should be repeated for the strange-sector S-wave rows. The S-wave masses in Table 3 therefore need recalculation, and because they feed the decay-width tables, the coupling bounds, and the n=4 Regge extrapolations, all derived quantities must also be re-evaluated.
  2. [2, Eq. (11); 3.1] The central assumption of exact heavy-quark flavor symmetry, Eq. (11), is used without a quantitative estimate of the neglected 1/m_Q corrections. The known ground-state doublets illustrate the size of this effect: λ_H^c=(M_D*²−M_D²)/8≈66,500 MeV², whereas λ_H^b≈59,700 MeV², a breaking of about 10%, not 1%. Since m_c is only about 1.3 GeV, the claim of agreement at the ±1% level in Section 3.1 is not supported. In addition, Table 2 lists only central theoretical inputs with no uncertainties, so no error propagation is possible even though final masses are quoted to 0.01 MeV. Please provide a sensitivity study, for example varying the 3S charm inputs within the spread of quark-model results and estimating the 1/m_Q shift from the measured charm-bottom difference, and report the resulting ranges for Tables 3–7.
  3. [3.2, Tables 4–5] The 'upper bounds' on the couplings are not experimental bounds. The penultimate columns of Tables 4–5 use total widths from Ref. [65], a quark-model calculation, rather than measured total widths. Setting Γ_tot(model)=α\tilde g² gives \tilde g_max=√(Γ_tot(model)/α), so the quoted upper bounds are rescaled model outputs. This should be stated explicitly in the text and in the table captions; where experimental total widths exist, they should be used to obtain genuine upper bounds.
  4. [3.3, Tables 6–7] The n=4 masses are extrapolations of Regge fits that use the predicted n=3 masses from Table 3 as input. Because the S-wave n=3 masses are affected by the inconsistency described in Major Comment 1, the fitted slopes and intercepts, and therefore the n=4 S-wave entries, will change after the recalculation. Independently, the 4³P₂ rows in Tables 6–7 are labeled J^P=1⁺, but the corresponding 3³P₂ row in Table 3 has J^P=2⁺; please correct this typo and redo the fits after the mass correction.
minor comments (4)
  1. [2, Eqs. (12)–(15)] The text refers to the L_SH interaction and Eq. (17) uses the coupling g_SH, but the S-H interaction Lagrangian is not displayed among Eqs. (12)–(15); please add it explicitly or give a precise reference for its form.
  2. [3.1] The symbols \tilde H and \tilde{\tilde H} are used before being defined; state explicitly that \tilde H denotes the n=2 doublet and \tilde{\tilde H} the n=3 doublet.
  3. [3.2] The glyphs '≈ g_HH' etc. in Tables 4–5 are typesetting artifacts; use a standard notation such as \tilde g_HH, \tilde g_SH, \tilde g_TH throughout.
  4. [1] Some bibliography entries are incomplete or contain artifacts, for example Ref. [17] has an odd author field 'L.C. msrudolp@ syr. edu'; these should be cleaned up before submission.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Partial circularity: coupling upper bounds and n=4 Regge masses reduce to external total widths or to the paper's own n=3 fit inputs; the central mass predictions are not circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2, Tables 4-5 (upper-bound derivation)]
    "We believe that a particular state like B(6326) give 17222.24 g^2_HH total decay width; when compared with total decay widths mentioned by other theoretical paper [69, 65], we provided an upper bound on g_HH value. Now if we take additional modes, then value of g_HH will be lesser than 0.09 (g_HH < 0.09)."

    The numerical upper bounds are not independently predicted; they are obtained by equating the computed width Gamma = C g^2 to the total width Gamma_total from Ref. [65] and solving for g, i.e., g_ub = sqrt(Gamma_total[65]/C). Thus the tabulated 'upper bounds' are rescaled external total widths. The only new content is the coefficient C computed from the predicted masses, so the coupling bounds are fitted inputs rather than genuine predictions.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.3, paragraph before Tables 6-7]
    "masses for n = 1 are taken from PDG [62]; for n = 2, masses are taken from Ref. [63], and for n = 3, we are taking our calculated masses (Table 3). Using calculated slopes and intercepts, we predicted masses for n = 4 bottom mesons for both non-strange and strange states listed in Tables 6 and 7."

    The n=4 masses are obtained by evaluating Regge lines whose slopes and intercepts are fixed using a fit that includes the paper's own n=3 predictions (Table 3). The n=4 output is therefore an extrapolation of the paper's own model output, not an independent calculation; if the n=3 masses shift, the n=4 masses move with them. This is a moderate fitted-input dependence, though not an equation-level identity.

full rationale

The central mass derivation is not circular: Eq. (11) sets Delta_F and lambda_F equal between charm and bottom, an independent heavy-quark flavor-symmetry relation, and the bottom outputs are not used to define the charm inputs. The decay-width coefficients and the n=3 masses have independent content. However, the paper's two secondary 'predictions'—the coupling upper bounds and the n=4 Regge masses—are derived by inverting external total widths or by extrapolating a fit that includes the paper's own n=3 outputs. In addition, the worked example for B(3^1S0) is internally inconsistent: with M_bar = 6370.25 MeV and lambda = 26171.5 MeV^2, the doublet relation gives about 6358 MeV, not 6326.22 MeV; the quoted value corresponds to lambda near 93300 MeV^2, close to the P-wave lambda_S of about 93182 MeV^2. This is a numerical/derivation error, not circularity, but it means the S-wave rows of Table 3 and downstream values in Tables 4-7 are not reproduced by the equations as written. Ref. [64] (authors' prior work) supplies the n=2 bottom masses and 3P charm inputs; this is load-bearing input data but not the target result, contributing a minor self-citation burden.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities. It relies on standard HQET assumptions, flavor symmetry between charm and bottom, empirical Regge linearity, and input masses from prior model calculations. The main free parameters are the Regge slopes and intercepts used for the n=4 extrapolation.

free parameters (1)
  • Regge slopes and intercepts (alpha, beta, alpha0, beta0) = not tabulated
    Used to extrapolate n=4 masses in Eq. (21)-(22); fitted to n=1-3 masses, including the paper's own n=3 predictions, so the fit inputs are partly self-generated.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Heavy quark flavor symmetry: Delta_F^(c) = Delta_F^(b) and lambda_F^(c) = lambda_F^(b)
    Invoked in Eq. (11) and Section 3.1 to translate charm-sector input into bottom-sector predictions; valid only in the infinite heavy-quark mass limit.
  • domain assumption Neglect of 1/m_Q corrections beyond first order in the mass and coupling relations
    Used in Section 2 and Eq. (9); the paper assumes these corrections are small even for charm quarks, which is not quantitatively justified.
  • domain assumption Linearity of Regge trajectories: J = alpha M^2 + alpha0 and n_r = beta M^2 + beta0
    Assumed in Section 3.3 as an empirical tool; the linearity is not derived and the fit quality is not quantified.
  • domain assumption Chiral symmetry and Goldstone-boson treatment of pi, K, eta
    Standard framework used in the effective Lagrangians of Section 2; the pseudoscalar mesons are treated as approximate Goldstone bosons.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Radially Excited Bottom Mesons in Heavy Quark Effective Theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MRZ5XJTT

@misc{pith2026250608069,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Radially Excited Bottom Mesons in Heavy Quark Effective Theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MRZ5XJTT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08069}
}
abstract

In this paper, Heavy Quark Effective Theory (HQET) is employed to investigate experimentally missing radially excited bottom-meson states. It is an extension of our previous work, in which we had applied HQET for the calculation of charm mesons. By incorporating both theoretical insights and available experimental data on charmed mesons with flavor-symmetry parameters, we computed masses of radially excited bottom-meson states with their strange partners. In addition, decay widths are calculated in the form of hadronic coupling constants $\tilde{\tilde{g}}_{HH}$, $\tilde{\tilde{g}}_{SH}$, $\tilde{\tilde{g}}_{TH}$. By comparing our decay width predictions with available total decay widths, we calculated upper bounds on the corresponding couplings. Regge trajectories are also constructed for our predicted data in planes ($J$, $M^2$ ) and ($n_r$, $M^2$ ), and estimate higher masses ($n = 4$) by fixing Regge slopes and intercepts. Future experimental findings can validate the results obtained in this work.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08069 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Regge trajectories with unnatural parity for non-strange bottom mesons. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Regge trajectories with natural parity for non-strange bottom mesons. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Regge trajectories with unnatural parity for strange bottom mesons. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Regge trajectories with natural parity for strange bottom meson. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Regge trajectories for spin average masses for non strange bottom meson in plane( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Regge trajectories for spin average masses for strange bottom meson in plane( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [65]

    Godfrey, K

    S. Godfrey, K. Moats, E.S. Swanson, Phys. Rev. D 94, 054025 (2016), 1607.02169

    arXiv 2016

  2. [1]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 122002 (2021), 2011.09112

    arXiv 2021

  3. [2]

    R.H. Ni, Q. Li, X.H. Zhong, Phys. Rev. D 105, 056006 (2022)

    work page 2022

  4. [3]

    H.X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, Y.R. Liu, S.L. Zhu, Reports on Progress in Physics 86, 026201 (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [4]

    Ortega, J

    P.G. Ortega, J. Segovia, D.R. Entem, F. Fern´ andez, Physics Letters B 827, 136998 (2022)

    work page 2022

  6. [5]

    del Amo Sanchez, J.P

    P. del Amo Sanchez, J.P. Lees, V. Poireau, E. Prencipe, V. Tisserand, J. Garra Tico, E. Grauges, M. Martinelli, A. Palano, M. Pappagallo et al. (BABAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 82, 111101 (2010)

    work page 2010

  7. [6]

    R. Aaij, B. Adeva, M. Adinolfi, C. Adrover, A. Affolder, Z. Ajaltouni, J. Albrecht, F. Alessio, M. Alexander, S. Ali et al., Journal of High Energy Physics 2013, 1 (2013)

    work page 2013

  8. [7]

    R. Aaij, B. Adeva, M. Adinolfi, A. Affolder, Z. Ajaltouni, S. Akar, J. Albrecht, F. Alessio, M. Alexander, S. Ali et al., Physical Review D 91, 092002 (2015)

    work page 2015

Show all 69 references
  1. [8]

    Aubert, R

    B. Aubert, R. Barate, M. Bona, D. Boutigny, F. Couderc, Y. Karyotakis, J. Lees, V. Poireau, V. Tisserand, A. Zghiche et al., Physical review letters 97, 222001 (2006)

    2006

  2. [9]

    Brodzicka, H

    J. Brodzicka, H. Palka, I. Adachi, H. Aihara, V. Aulchenko, A. Bakich, E. Barberio, A. Bay, I. Bedny, U. Bitenc et al., Physical review letters 100, 092001 (2008)

    2008

  3. [10]

    R. Aaij, C. Abell´ an Beteta, B. Adeva, M. Adinolfi, A. Affolder, Z. Ajaltouni, S. Akar, J. Al- brecht, F. Alessio, M. Alexander et al., Journal of High Energy Physics 2016, 1 (2016) 15

    2016

  4. [11]

    Godfrey, K

    S. Godfrey, K. Moats, Phys. Rev. D 93, 034035 (2016)

    2016

  5. [12]

    Gupta, A

    P. Gupta, A. Upadhyay, Phys. Rev. D 97, 014015 (2018)

    2018

  6. [13]

    Narison, Physics Letters B 605, 319 (2005)

    S. Narison, Physics Letters B 605, 319 (2005)

    2005

  7. [14]

    Godfrey, N

    S. Godfrey, N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. D 32, 189 (1985)

    1985

  8. [15]

    Di Pierro, E

    M. Di Pierro, E. Eichten, Phys. Rev. D 64, 114004 (2001)

    2001

  9. [17]

    msrudolp@ syr

    L.C. msrudolp@ syr. edu, R. Aaij, C.A. Beteta, T. Ackernley, B. Adeva, M. Adinolfi, H. Af- sharnia, C. Aidala, S. Aiola, Z. Ajaltouni et al., The European Physical Journal C 81, 1 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    Di Pierro, E

    M. Di Pierro, E. Eichten, Physical Review D 64, 114004 (2001)

    2001

  11. [19]

    Sun, Q.T

    Y. Sun, Q.T. Song, D.Y. Chen, X. Liu, S.L. Zhu, Physical Review D 89, 054026 (2014)

    2014

  12. [20]

    Godfrey, K

    S. Godfrey, K. Moats, E.S. Swanson, Phys. Rev. D 94, 054025 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    L¨ u, T.T

    Q.F. L¨ u, T.T. Pan, Y.Y. Wang, E. Wang, D.M. Li, Physical Review D 94, 074012 (2016)

    2016

  14. [22]

    Asghar, B

    I. Asghar, B. Masud, E. Swanson, F. Akram, M. Atif Sultan, The European Physical Journal A 54, 1 (2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    Godfrey, K

    S. Godfrey, K. Moats, The European Physical Journal A 55, 84 (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    Z.H. Wang, Y. Zhang, T.H. Wang, Y. Jiang, Q. Li, G.L. Wang, Chinese Physics C 42, 123101 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    G.L. Yu, Z.G. Wang, Chinese Physics C 44, 033103 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    Alhendi, T

    H. Alhendi, T. Aliev, M. Savcı, Journal of High Energy Physics 2016, 1 (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    Ferretti, E

    J. Ferretti, E. Santopinto, Physical Review D 97, 114020 (2018)

    2018

  20. [28]

    Wang, The European Physical Journal C 74, 1 (2014)

    Z.G. Wang, The European Physical Journal C 74, 1 (2014)

    2014

  21. [29]

    H. Xu, X. Liu, T. Matsuki, Physical Review D 89, 097502 (2014)

    2014

  22. [30]

    Wang, The European Physical Journal Plus 129, 186 (2014)

    Z.G. Wang, The European Physical Journal Plus 129, 186 (2014)

    2014

  23. [31]

    Zhang, G.L

    J.M. Zhang, G.L. Wang, Physics Letters B 684, 221 (2010)

    2010

  24. [32]

    Luo, X.L

    Z.G. Luo, X.L. Chen, X. Liu et al., Physical Review D 79, 074020 (2009)

    2009

  25. [33]

    Gupta, A

    P. Gupta, A. Upadhyay, Physical Review D 99, 094043 (2019)

    2019

  26. [34]

    Zhu, Y.B

    S.L. Zhu, Y.B. Dai, Modern Physics Letters A 14, 2367 (1999)

    1999

  27. [35]

    Hiorth ¨Orsland, H

    A. Hiorth ¨Orsland, H. H¨ ogaasen, The European Physical Journal C-Particles and Fields9, 503 (1999) 16

    1999

  28. [36]

    G.L. Yu, Z.G. Wang, Z.Y. Li, The European Physical Journal C 79, 798 (2019)

    2019

  29. [37]

    Colangelo, F

    P. Colangelo, F. De Fazio, F. Giannuzzi, S. Nicotri, Physical Review D 86, 054024 (2012)

    2012

  30. [38]

    Zhong, Q

    X.H. Zhong, Q. Zhao, Physical Review D 78, 014029 (2008)

    2008

  31. [39]

    Gandhi, A.K

    K. Gandhi, A.K. Rai, The European Physical Journal C 82, 777 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    Behrends et al

    S. Behrends et al. (CLEO), Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 881 (1983)

    1983

  33. [41]

    Han et al., Phys

    K. Han et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 36 (1985)

    1985

  34. [42]

    Lee-Franzini, U

    J. Lee-Franzini, U. Heintz, D.M.J. Lovelock, M. Narain, R.D. Schamberger, J. Willins, C. Yanagisawa, P. Franzini, P.M. Tuts, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 2947 (1990)

    1990

  35. [43]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), JHEP 04, 024 (2015), 1502.02638

    2015 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Abazov et al

    V.M. Abazov et al. (D0), Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 172001 (2007), 0705.3229

    2007 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Aaltonen et al

    T.A. Aaltonen et al. (CDF), Phys. Rev. D 90, 012013 (2014), 1309.5961

    2014 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Aaltonen et al

    T. Aaltonen et al. (CDF), Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 102003 (2009), 0809.5007

    2009 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 151803 (2013), 1211.5994

    2013 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Aaltonen, J

    T. Aaltonen, J. Adelman, T. Akimoto, M.G. Albrow, B. ´Alvarez Gonz´ alez, S. Amerio, D. Amidei, A. Anastassov, A. Annovi, J. Antos et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 182002 (2008)

    2008

  41. [49]

    Abazov, B

    V.M. Abazov, B. Abbott, M. Abolins, B.S. Acharya, M. Adams, T. Adams, E. Aguilo, S.H. Ahn, M. Ahsan, G.D. Alexeev et al. (D0 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 012001 (2008)

    2008

  42. [50]

    Grinstein, Nucl

    B. Grinstein, Nucl. Phys. B 339, 253 (1990)

    1990

  43. [51]

    Neubert, Heavy quark effective theory , in 20th Johns Hopkins Workshop on Current Prob- lems in Particle Theory: Non-Perturbative Particle Theory and Experimental Tests (1996), pp

    M. Neubert, Heavy quark effective theory , in 20th Johns Hopkins Workshop on Current Prob- lems in Particle Theory: Non-Perturbative Particle Theory and Experimental Tests (1996), pp. 39–78, hep-ph/9610385

    1996 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Georgi, Phys

    H. Georgi, Phys. Lett. B 240, 447 (1990)

    1990

  45. [53]

    Eichten, B.R

    E. Eichten, B.R. Hill, Phys. Lett. B 234, 511 (1990)

    1990

  46. [54]

    Cho, Nucl

    P.L. Cho, Nucl. Phys. B 396, 183 (1993), [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 421, 683–686 (1994)], hep-ph/9208244

    1993 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Kilian, J.G

    U. Kilian, J.G. Korner, D. Pirjol, Phys. Lett. B 288, 360 (1992)

    1992

  48. [56]

    Scherer, Adv

    S. Scherer, Adv. Nucl. Phys. 27, 277 (2003), hep-ph/0210398

    2003 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Davoudiasl, Phys

    H. Davoudiasl, Phys. Rev. D 54, 6830 (1996), hep-ph/9604418

    1996 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Wise, Phys

    M.B. Wise, Phys. Rev. D 45, R2188 (1992)

    1992

  51. [59]

    Casalbuoni, A

    R. Casalbuoni, A. Deandrea, N. Di Bartolomeo, R. Gatto, F. Feruglio, G. Nardulli, Phys. Lett. B 292, 371 (1992), hep-ph/9209248 17

    1992 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Z.G. Wang, T. Huang, Nucl. Phys. A 930, 63 (2014)

    2014

  53. [61]

    Colangelo, F

    P. Colangelo, F. De Fazio, F. Giannuzzi, S. Nicotri, Phys. Rev. D86, 054024 (2012), 1207.6940

    2012 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Workman, Others (Particle Data Group), PTEP 2022, 083C01 (2022)

    R.L. Workman, Others (Particle Data Group), PTEP 2022, 083C01 (2022)

    2022

  55. [63]

    Ebert, R.N

    D. Ebert, R.N. Faustov, V.O. Galkin, Eur. Phys. J. C 66, 197 (2010), 0910.5612

    2010 arXiv

  56. [64]

    R. Garg, K. Kumar, A. Upadhyay, PTEP 2022, 043B06 (2022), 2201.01936

    2022 arXiv

  57. [66]

    Schechter, A

    J. Schechter, A. Subbaraman, Phys. Rev. D 48, 332 (1993), hep-ph/9209256

    1993 arXiv

  58. [67]

    Campanella, P

    S. Campanella, P. Colangelo, F. De Fazio, Phys. Rev. D 98, 114028 (2018), 1810.04492

    2018 arXiv

  59. [68]

    Gross, S.B

    D.J. Gross, S.B. Treiman, F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. D 19, 2188 (1979)

    1979

  60. [69]

    Godfrey, K

    S. Godfrey, K. Moats, Phys. Rev. D 93, 034035 (2016), 1510.08305

    2016 arXiv

  61. [70]

    Casalbuoni, A

    R. Casalbuoni, A. Deandrea, N. Di Bartolomeo, R. Gatto, F. Feruglio, G. Nardulli, Phys. Rept. 281, 145 (1997), hep-ph/9605342 18

    1997 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.