Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 125 references

Heavy-heavy and heavy-light mesons in cold nuclear matter

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Heavy mesons from eta to Upsilon are predicted to form bound states with nuclei.

desk verdict Useful review of a long-running bound-state program, but the quantitative predictions rest on dropping the heaviest loops the authors themselves found dominant, and the two numerical solvers disagree more than the text admits. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08946 v1 pith:T2S6NQJV submitted 2025-06-10 nucl-th hep-exhep-phnucl-ex

J. J. Cobos-Martínez , Guilherme N. Zeminiani , Kazuo Tsushima This is my paper
classification nucl-thhep-exhep-phnucl-ex
keywords heavymesonsnuclearmattermassshiftmeson-nucleusboundstatesquark-mesoncouplingmodeleffectiveLagrangianquarkoniumB_cmeson
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This review argues that every heavy meson it studies — eta, eta prime, phi, eta_c, J/psi, eta_b, Upsilon, and the B_c — loses mass inside a nucleus, and that this downward mass shift is enough to bind the meson to the nucleus. The attraction comes from meson loops: heavy mesons such as J/psi or Upsilon couple to pairs of lighter mesons that contain light quarks, and those light-quark mesons feel the nuclear mean field. The paper collects earlier predictions and adds new bound-state energies for B_c-nucleus systems. If the predictions hold, a whole family of new exotic nuclear states, analogous to pionic and kaonic atoms, should exist and be searchable at existing facilities.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a hybrid: the quark-meson coupling (QMC) model, which gives density-dependent masses for mesons containing light u/d quarks by coupling those quarks to scalar and vector mean fields inside quark bags, plus an effective Lagrangian that lets a heavy meson fluctuate into a pair of lighter mesons (for example, J/psi into D Dbar, Upsilon into B Bbar, eta_b into B B*, B_c into B*D plus BD*, phi into K Kbar). The density dependence enters because the loop mesons' masses fall with density, enlarging the loop contribution and lowering the heavy meson's mass. That mass shift becomes the real part of a local meson-nucleus potential, and bound-state energies are obtained by solving the Klein-Gordon equation in momentum space.

What would settle it

Measure the J/psi mass shift in cold nuclear matter at saturation density, for instance through photoproduction on heavy nuclei: the central prediction is a downward shift of order 5 to 20 MeV depending on cutoff, so a measured shift near zero or positive would rule out the bound-state claim. Equivalently, a lattice QCD calculation of the N-J/psi interaction at physical pion mass that finds repulsion at all distances would contradict the attractive potential used here.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in symmetric nuclear matter all of the mesons considered acquire a negative mass shift, which acts as an attractive Lorentz scalar potential, and that the resulting potentials are strong enough to support bound states with nuclei from helium-4 to lead-208. The in-medium masses of light-quark mesons (K, K*, D, D*, B, B*, eta, eta prime) are computed in the quark-meson coupling model; for mesons with no light valence quarks, the medium effect enters through self-energy loops involving intermediate mesons that do contain light quarks, whose in-medium masses come from the same model. Solving the Klein-Gordon equation with these potentials, the authors find that eta, eta prime, phi, eta_c, J/psi, eta_b, Upsilon, and B_c all form bound states with the nuclei studied, with B_c-nucleus binding energies here presented for the first time.

Load-bearing premise

The predicted binding energies assume that truncating each heavy meson's self-energy to its lightest meson loop (D Dbar for J/psi, B Bbar for Upsilon) is harmless, even though earlier work found the heavier D* D*bar and B* B*bar loops give larger, unexpected contributions; if those loops belong in the calculation, the mass shifts that drive binding will change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A J/psi or Upsilon produced nearly at rest inside a nucleus should form a quasibound state rather than simply scattering or being absorbed.
  • The phi meson, despite broadening by an order of magnitude in medium, should still bind to medium and heavy nuclei when the cutoff is large enough, though its large width may hide the signal.
  • Eta and eta prime mesic nuclei should exist even with absorption, with at least one bound state for the absorption strengths considered.
  • The B_c meson, carrying both charm and bottom flavor, should bind to all nuclei studied, with 1s binding energies of roughly 50 to 100 MeV depending on the cutoff.
  • Bound-state spectra become richer for heavier nuclei: about 70 states for Upsilon-208Pb and roughly 200 for eta_b-208Pb.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If heavier loops such as D* D*bar and B* B*bar are physical, the predicted mass shifts and binding energies could be substantially larger than quoted, since the authors note those loops were found to give unexpectedly large contributions in earlier work.
  • The same mechanism suggests that other two-heavy-flavor mesons, such as B_s and D_s, should also experience downward mass shifts in matter; the formulas here could be applied directly to those cases.
  • A measurement of the phi meson's in-medium width, predicted to grow roughly tenfold at normal nuclear density, would test the mechanism without needing to resolve a bound state.
  • The prediction that B_c binds more strongly than both eta_c and eta_b runs counter to naive interpolation between charm and bottom scales; if confirmed, it would point to the vector-meson structure of the loop, not simply quark mass, as the controlling factor.
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 paper combines the quark-meson coupling (QMC) model with an effective Lagrangian approach to compute in-medium mass shifts of light, heavy-light, and heavy-heavy mesons in symmetric nuclear matter, and from these shifts it constructs meson-nucleus potentials and bound-state energies for a range of nuclei. The mesons covered are K, K*, D, D*, B, B*, eta, eta', phi, eta_c, J/psi, eta_b, Upsilon, and B_c. The central claim, stated in Section 7, is that all the mesons studied are expected to form bound states with nuclei. The paper is largely a review of previous work by the same group, with the B_c-nucleus bound states (Tables 12-13) and some updated comparisons presented as new results.

Significance. If the predicted mass shifts and bound states were robust, the paper would provide a comprehensive survey of heavy-meson nuclear bound states and would be a valuable reference for experiments at J-PARC, JLab, and other facilities. The paper has clear strengths: it compiles a large set of numerical results, gives both real and imaginary parts of the potentials where relevant, presents coordinate-space wave functions in an appendix, and discusses cutoff dependence throughout. The new B_c-nucleus bound-state predictions extend the existing framework to a new system. However, the quantitative reliability of the predictions is limited by two issues: the systematic truncation of the heavy-meson self-energies to the lightest meson loops, which the text itself states excludes contributions previously found to be dominant, and the sizable differences between the two numerical methods used for the bound-state calculations. These issues do not necessarily invalidate the qualitative conclusion that attraction and binding occur, but they must be addressed before the quantitative results can be taken at face value.

major comments (3)
  1. [Secs. 4.2-4.3, Eqs. (24)-(39)] The J/psi and Upsilon self-energies are restricted to the DD and BB loops, respectively, although the text explicitly states that the D*Dbar* loop gives 'larger contributions ... which is unexpected' (Sec. 4.2) and that the B*Bbar* loop gives an 'unexpectedly large contribution' (Sec. 4.3). The DD-only J/psi mass shift at rho0 ranges from -5 to -21 MeV over the cutoff range (Fig. 6, left), and the BB-only Upsilon shift ranges from -16 to -22 MeV (Fig. 7); the omitted loops could change these values by an amount that is not estimated. Since every bound-state energy in Tables 3-13 is derived from these mass shifts, the truncation introduces a systematic uncertainty that is not quantified and that could be larger than the cutoff dependence shown. The manuscript should either include the omitted loops with the same regularization scheme or provide a quantitative estimate of their effect on the mass shifts and bound-state energies.
  2. [Sec. 6, Tables 8-9] The two numerical methods, the Woods-Saxon Fourier transform and the direct Bessel transform, give materially different bound-state energies. For the eta_b-208Pb 1s state at Lambda=2000 MeV, Table 8 gives -74.7 MeV and Table 9 gives -61.4 MeV; for eta_b-48Ca 1s the difference is -76.7 MeV versus -63.9 MeV. These differences are an order of magnitude larger than the 'at most, few MeV difference' stated in Section 6, and they are comparable to or larger than the quoted cutoff uncertainties. The source of this method dependence should be identified and the disagreement resolved or explained before the individual bound-state energies can be considered reliable.
  3. [Table 5 and Sec. 7] The concluding claim that 'all the mesons studied are expected to form bound states with nuclei' is not supported by the J/psi-4He results: Table 5 shows no 1s bound state for Lambda_D=2000 and 3000 MeV, with the bound state appearing only for Lambda_D>=4000 MeV. The summary should be qualified to state that the existence of J/psi-nuclear bound states for 4He is cutoff-dependent. In addition, Table 5 is labeled as calculated with the Schrodinger equation, while Section 6 states the Klein-Gordon equation is solved; this inconsistency should be clarified.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3, Fig. 1 caption] The caption and the text state the results are shown 'versus nuclear matter density rho0/rhoB', but the axes and the text elsewhere use rhoB/rho0; this should be corrected.
  2. [Sec. 4.5, Table 2] In Table 2, the row labeled 'gB*s BD' should read 'gB*c BD'; the subscript 'c' is missing.
  3. [Sec. 4.2, text near Eq. (18)] The text says the eta_c self-energy is computed with only the DD* loop and refers to Ref. [67] for details; since this is a review, a brief description of why the DD* loop is the leading one, rather than the D*D* loop, would help readers understand the truncation logic.
  4. [Sec. 6] The statement that the bound-state energies are 'similar, with, at most, few MeV difference' between the two numerical methods is contradicted by the entries in Tables 8-9 and should be revised.
  5. [Abstract] The abstract contains the typo 'emphasys' instead of 'emphasis'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the in-medium mass shifts and bound-state energies follow from QMC couplings fixed to nuclear saturation and loop couplings fixed to vacuum observables, with bare masses set by vacuum renormalization.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The QMC couplings (g_q^sigma, g_q^omega, g_q^rho) are fixed by nuclear saturation energy, density, and symmetry energy (Section 2); the in-medium D, D*, B, and B* masses are outputs of the QMC model. The effective-Lagrangian couplings are fixed by vacuum decay data or SU(4)/SU(5) relations (for example, g_phi from Gamma(phi->KK) and g_UpsilonBB from Gamma(Upsilon->e+e-)), and the bare meson masses are fixed by reproducing the physical vacuum masses (e.g., Eqs. (23), (29), (36), and (43)). The in-medium mass shifts are genuine outputs of the loop self-energies evaluated with QMC in-medium intermediate masses. Bound-state energies are obtained by solving Eq. (53) with the potential set equal to the mass shift in the local density approximation; this is a model relation, but not a circular one, because the mass shifts are not fitted to any bound-state observable. The main caveat is model dependence, not circularity: Sections 4.2 and 4.3 state that the omitted D*Dbar* and B*Bbar* loops give 'larger contributions' that are 'unexpected' and are dropped 'for consistency.' This truncation is an unquantified systematic uncertainty that propagates into Tables 3-13, but the paper nowhere defines the predicted mass shift or binding energy in terms of the input data. Self-citations (Refs. [11, 37, 38, 67, 72, 75, 84, 100, 101, 115, 123]) are extensive but serve as sources of the reviewed calculations and methods, not as a uniqueness theorem or fitted input that forces the result.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central predictions rest on QMC mean-field couplings fitted to nuclear saturation, bag parameters fitted to free hadron masses, hand-chosen form-factor cutoffs, and an ad hoc SU(4) breaking factor. The paper introduces no new particles.

free parameters (6)
  • Quark-meson coupling constants (g_q^sigma, g_q^omega, g_q^rho) = (5.69, 2.72, 9.33)
    Fitted to reproduce saturation energy (-15.7 MeV at rho0=0.15 fm^-3) and bulk symmetry energy (35 MeV) of symmetric nuclear matter (Section 2).
  • MIT bag constant B_p and zero-point parameter z_h = Not given explicitly in this paper; fitted to free-space hadron masses
    The MIT bag parameters for nucleon and mesons are fixed by fitting free hadron masses (Section 2).
  • eta-eta' mixing angle theta_P = -11.3 degrees
    Input mixing angle for eta and eta' masses, assumed density independent (Section 2).
  • Form-factor cutoffs Lambda_K, Lambda_D, Lambda_B = Varied: Lambda_K 1000-4000 MeV; Lambda_D 1500-6000 MeV; Lambda_B 2000-6000 MeV
    Chosen by hand to regularize divergent loop integrals; results are sensitive to these values (Sections 4.1-4.4).
  • SU(4) breaking factor 0.6/sqrt(2) for g_eta_c DD* = 0.6/sqrt(2) ~ 0.424
    Introduced to reduce the SU(4)-symmetric coupling constant for eta_c; a phenomenological ad hoc factor (Section 4.2).
  • Absorption parameter gamma for eta and eta' widths = 0, 0.25, 0.5, 1.0
    Phenomenological parameter simulating meson absorption in nuclei in the imaginary part of the potential (Section 5).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption MIT bag model describes hadron structure with non-overlapping bags; heavy quarks (s,c,b) do not couple to the sigma, omega, rho mean fields
    Core of the QMC model used throughout Section 2; heavy quarks only interact via confinement, not via mean fields.
  • domain assumption SU(2) isospin symmetry for u and d quarks, and symmetric nuclear matter with zero rho mean field in Hartree approximation
    Assumed in Section 2 to simplify the Dirac equations and mean fields.
  • domain assumption Effective Lagrangian approach treats mesons as point-like and uses SU(4) or SU(5) flavor symmetry to determine coupling constants
    Used in Section 4 for phi, charmonia, bottomonia, and B_c self-energies.
  • domain assumption OZI rule suppresses direct quarkonium-nucleon interactions, so only light-meson loops mediate in-medium mass shifts
    Basis for choosing the self-energy mechanisms in Section 4.
  • domain assumption Local density approximation: meson-nucleus potential at position r equals the nuclear-matter mass shift at local baryon density rho_B(r)
    Used in Section 5 to construct meson-nucleus potentials from nuclear matter results.
  • domain assumption Free-space quark masses (mq=5, ms=250, mc=1270, mb=4200 MeV) and nucleon bag radius R_N=0.8 fm
    Inputs adopted in Section 2 from prior literature/PDG.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Heavy-heavy and heavy-light mesons in cold nuclear matter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T2S6NQJV

@misc{pith2026250608946,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Heavy-heavy and heavy-light mesons in cold nuclear matter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T2S6NQJV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08946}
}
abstract

We review the in-medium modifications of effective masses (Lorentz scalar potentials or phenomenon of mass shift) of heavy-heavy and heavy-light mesons in symmetric nuclear matter and their nuclear bound states. We use a combined approach with the quark-meson coupling (QMC) model and an effective Lagrangian. As demonstrated by the cases of pionic and kaonic atoms, studies of meson-nucleus bound state can provide us with important information on chiral symmetry in dense nuclear medium. In this review, we treat the mesons, $K, K^*, D, D^*, B, B^*, \eta, \eta', \phi, \eta_c, J/\psi, \eta_b, \Upsilon$, and $B_c$, where our emphasys is on the heavy mesons. In addition, we also present some new results for the $B_c$-nucleus bound states.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08946 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. B and B ∗ (left panel), D and D∗ (middle panel) and K and K ∗ (right panel) meson Lorentz￾scalar effective masses in symmetric nuclear matter versus baryon density (ρB/ρ0), calculated with the QMC model. In Figs. 1 and 2 we present respectively the QMC model predictions for the effective masses of B, B ∗ , D, D∗ , K and K ∗ mesons [84], and the effective masses and the mass shift ∆mh (ρB) ≡ m∗ h (ρB) − mh for η and … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. η and η ′ effective masses (left panel) and mass shift (right panel) in symmetric nuclear matter versus baryon density (ρB/ρ0), calculated with the QMC model. 4. Combined the QMC model and effective Lagrangian approach Since the Okubo-Zweig-Iizuka rule suppresses the interactions mediated by the ex￾change of mesons made of light quarks for the case of heavy-heavy mesons, it is therefore necessary to explore other po… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. KK-loop contribution to the ϕ meson self-energy. The ϕ meson properties in nuclear matter, such as mass and decay width, are strongly correlated to its coupling to the KK, which is the dominant decay channel in vacuum. Therefore, the density dependence of the ϕ meson self-energy in nuclear matter arises mainly due to interactions of the kaons and antikaons with the nuclear medium, and the kaon and antikaon in-medium… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (17 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: In-medium mass (left panel) and decay width (right panel) of the ϕ meson in symmetric nuclear matter versus baryon density ρB/ρ0. To calculate the width and mass of the in-medium ϕ meson, Γ ∗ ϕ and m∗ ϕ , respectively, we solve the corresponding equations (16) and (17)…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: ηc mass shift (i) with the SU(4) symmetric coupling [84], gηcDD = 7.64 (left-panel), and (ii) with the broken SU(4) symmetry coupling [67] (0.6/ √ 2) × (gηcDD∗ = 7.64) (right panel), versus nuclear matter density for various values of the cutoff parameter. the present …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Contribution from the DD-loop to the J/ψ mass shift in symmetric nuclear matter without the gauge term (ξ = 0) for five different values of the cutoff ΛD (left panel), and the comparison with including the gauge term (ξ = 1) for two values of ΛD (right panel). First, f…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: ηb mass shift in nuclear matter as a function of the nuclear density ρB/ρ0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Total (B ∗D + BD∗ ) loop contribution for the in-medium Bc mass shift versus baryon density (ρB/ρ0) for five different values of the cutoff mass Λ. Including the total (BD∗ + B ∗D) loop contributions, the Bc mass shift amount ∆mBc (BD∗ + B ∗D) at ρ0 ranges from -90.4 t…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: BD loop (total) contribution for the in-medium B ∗ c mass shift versus baryon density (ρB/ρ0) for five different values of the cutoff mass Λ. 4.5. Comparison with heavy quarkonia We now compare in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of the mass shift of Bc with ηb and ηc (upper panel) as well as of B ∗ c with Υ and J/ψ (lower panel). In the study of the ηc mass shift, only the DD∗ loop contribution was included, and it corresponds to the mass shift value ∆mηc (DD∗ ) at ρ0 ranges -49.2 …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Real [Uϕ(r)](r)] part of the ϕ-meson-nucleus potentials in some nuclei selected, for three values of the cutoff parameter ΛK. dependence is, indeed, an uncertainty in the results obtained in our approach, when using an effective Lagrangian approach. Note that this is …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Imaginary [Wϕ(r)] part of the ϕ-meson-nucleus potentials in some nuclei, for three values of the cutoff parameter ΛK. note that for a given nucleus, the potentials for the η and η ′ are very similar, the reason for this is that values of the mass shift for the are ver…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: ηc-nucleus potentials for various nuclei and values of the cutoff parameter ΛD [67]. Note that the potentials are calculated with the SU(4) breaking parameter, 0.6/ √ 2 for the coupling constant, as explained in Sec. 4.2. meson h-nucleus A system mhmA/(mh + mA), in va…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: J/ψ-nucleus potentials for various nuclei and values of the cutoff parameter ΛD. momentum ℓ, the eigenvalues of the resulting equation are found by the inverse iteration eigenvalue algorithm. The detailed comparison and discussions were made in Ref. [115], and it turn…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Υ-nucleus potentials for various nuclei with several values of the cutoff parameter ΛB. bound states in all the nuclei selected, including the lightest 4He nucleus. However, in this case, whether or not the bound states can be observed experimentally, is sensitive to …
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: ηb -nucleus potentials for various nuclei with several values of the cutoff parameter ΛB. in absolute value as ΛD increases. This was expected from the behavior of the ηc potentials, since these are deeper for larger values of the cutoff parameter. Note also that the …
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: η-nucleus potentials for several nuclei. results imply that many nuclei should form J/ψ-nuclear bound states, it may be possible to find such kinematics by careful selection of the beam and target nucleus [124,125]. The bound state energies E of the Υ-nucleus and ηb -…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: η ′ -nucleus potentials for several nuclei. since these are more attractive for larger values of the cutoff parameter. Note also that bottomonium (ηb or Υ) bounds more strongly to heavier nuclei and therefore a richer spectrum is expected for these nuclei [75]. Howeve…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Attractive and repulsive Coulomb potentials, together with the strong nuclear potentials for the B ± c -A systems. and cutoff values in Appendix A, which will help to understand better the meson-nucleus bound systems. In Tables 10 and 11, we show, respectively, the re…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

125 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Accardi, P

    A. Accardi, P . Achenbach, D. Adhikari, A. Afanasev, C. S. Akondi, N. Akopov, M. Albaladejo, H. Albataineh, M. Albrecht and B. Almeida-Zamora,et al.Eur. Phys. J. A60, 173 (2024) [arXiv:2306.09360 [nucl-ex]]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    S. J. Brodsky, A. L. Deshpande, H. Gao, R. D. McKeown, C. A. Meyer, Z. E. Meziani, R. G. Milner, J. Qiu, D. G. Richards and C. D. Roberts, [arXiv:1502.05728 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  3. [3]

    Heinz, P

    U. Heinz, P . Sorensen, A. Deshpande, C. Gagliardi, F. Karsch, T. Lappi, Z. E. Meziani, R. Milner, B. Muller and J. Nagle,et al. [arXiv:1501.06477 [nucl-th]]

    arXiv

  4. [4]

    Alkofer and L

    R. Alkofer and L. von Smekal, Phys. Rept.353, 281 (2001), [arXiv:hep-ph/0007355 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2001

  5. [5]

    Brambilla, S

    N. Brambilla, S. Eidelman, P . Foka, S. Gardner, A. S. Kronfeld, M. G. Alford, R. Alkofer, M. Butenschoen, T. D. Cohen and J. Erdmenger,et al.Eur. Phys. J. C74, 2981 (2014), [arXiv:1404.3723 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2014

  6. [6]

    Bashir, L

    A. Bashir, L. Chang, I. C. Cloet, B. El-Bennich, Y. X. Liu, C. D. Roberts and P . C. Tandy, Commun. Theor. Phys.58, 79 (2012), [arXiv:1201.3366 [nucl-th]]

    arXiv 2012

  7. [7]

    I. C. Cloet and C. D. Roberts, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.77, 1 (2014), [arXiv:1310.2651 [nucl-th]]

    arXiv 2014

  8. [8]

    Hosaka, T

    A. Hosaka, T. Hyodo, K. Sudoh, Y. Yamaguchi and S. Yasui, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.96, 88 (2017), [arXiv:1606.08685 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2017

Show all 125 references
  1. [9]

    Krein, AIP Conf

    G. Krein, AIP Conf. Proc.1701, 020012 (2016)

    2016

  2. [10]

    Metag, M

    V . Metag, M. Nanova and E. Y. Paryev, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.97, 199 (2017), [arXiv:1706.09654 [nucl-ex]]

    2017 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Krein, A

    G. Krein, A. W. Thomas and K. Tsushima, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.100, 161 (2018), [arXiv:1706.02688 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Hatsuda and T

    T. Hatsuda and T. Kunihiro, Phys. Rept.247, 221-367 (1994), [arXiv:hep-ph/9401310 [hep-ph]]

    1994 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Leupold, V

    S. Leupold, V . Metag and U. Mosel, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E19, 147-224 (2010), [arXiv:0907.2388 [nucl-th]]

    2010 arXiv

  6. [14]

    R. S. Hayano and T. Hatsuda, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 2949 (2010), [arXiv:0812.1702 [nucl-ex]]

    2010 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Nishiet al.[piAF], Nature Phys.19, 788 (2023), [arXiv:2204.05568 [nucl-ex]]

    T. Nishiet al.[piAF], Nature Phys.19, 788 (2023), [arXiv:2204.05568 [nucl-ex]]

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Schroedter, R

    M. Schroedter, R. L. Thews, and J. Rafelski, Phys. Rev. C62, 024905 (2000), [arXiv:hep-ph/0004041 [hep-ph]]

    2000 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Andronic, F

    A. Andronic, F. Arleo, R. Arnaldi, A. Beraudo, E. Bruna, D. Caffarri, Z. C. del Valle, J. G. Contreras, T. Dahms, A. Daineseet al., Eur. Phys. J. C76, 107 (2016), [arXiv:1506.03981 [nucl-ex]]

    2016 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Y. S. Li and X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D108, 093005 (2023), [arXiv:2309.08191 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    C. Bird, P . Jackson, R. V . Kowalewski and M. Pospelov, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 201803 (2004), [arXiv:hep-ph/0401195 [hep-ph]]

    2004 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Altmannshofer and D

    W. Altmannshofer and D. M. Straub, Eur. Phys. J. C75, 382 (2015), [arXiv:1411.3161 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  13. [21]

    A. J. Buras, J. Girrbach-Noe, C. Niehoff and D. M. Straub, JHEP02, 184 (2015), [arXiv:1409.4557 [hep-ph]]. Version September 17, 2025 submitted toJournal Not Specified 37 of 58 Table 11.Bound state energies ( E) and full widths ( Γ) of η′ meson in nucleus of mass number A obta...

    2015 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Descotes-Genon, L

    S. Descotes-Genon, L. Hofer, J. Matias and J. Virto, JHEP06, 092 (2016), [arXiv:1510.04239 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Dutta and A

    R. Dutta and A. Bhol, Phys. Rev. D96, 076001 (2017), [arXiv:1701.08598 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Tumasyanet al.[CMS], Phys

    A. Tumasyanet al.[CMS], Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 032001 (2022), [arXiv:2111.02219 [hep-ex]]. Version September 17, 2025 submitted toJournal Not Specified 38 of 58 Table 13.Bound state energies of B+c in nucleus of mass number A, obtained by the Direct Bessel transform method. All ...

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Hadronic Cross Sections ofB c Mesons,

    F. Akram, “Hadronic Cross Sections ofB c Mesons,” PhD Punjab U. (2013)

    2013

  18. [26]

    M. A. K. Lodhi and R. Marshall, Nucl. Phys. A790, 323 (2007),

    2007

  19. [27]

    M. A. K. Lodhi, F. Akram and S. Irfan, Phys. Rev. C84, 034901 (2011), [arXiv:1309.2912 [nucl-th]]

    2011 arXiv

  20. [28]

    B. Wu, Z. Tang, M. He and R. Rapp, Phys. Rev. C109, 014906 (2024), [arXiv:2302.11511 [nucl-th]]

    2024

  21. [29]

    Tumasyanet al.[CMS], Phys

    A. Tumasyanet al.[CMS], Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 252301 (2022), [arXiv:2201.02659 [hep-ex]]

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    J. W. Harris and B. Müller, [arXiv:2308.05743 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  23. [31]

    Z. w. Lin and C. M. Ko, Phys. Lett. B503, 104 (2001), [arXiv:nucl-th/0007027 [nucl-th]]

    2001 arXiv

  24. [32]

    A. M. Sirunyanet al.[CMS], Phys. Lett. B790, 270 (2019), [arXiv:1805.09215 [hep-ex]]

    2019 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Aadet al.[ATLAS], Phys

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], Phys. Rev. C107, 054912 (2023), [arXiv:2205.03042 [nucl-ex]]

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Aboonaet al.[STAR], Phys

    B. Aboonaet al.[STAR], Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 112301 (2023), [arXiv:2207.06568 [nucl-ex]]

    2023

  27. [35]

    P . A. M. Guichon, Phys. Lett. B200, 235 (1988)

    1988

  28. [36]

    S. J. Brodsky and G. A. Miller, Phys. Lett. B412, 125 (1997), [arXiv:hep-ph/9707382 [hep-ph]]

    1997 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Krein, A

    G. Krein, A. W. Thomas and K. Tsushima, Phys. Lett. B697, 136 (2011), [arXiv:1007.2220 [nucl-th]]

    2011 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Tsushima, D

    K. Tsushima, D. H. Lu, G. Krein and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Rev. C83, 065208 (2011), [arXiv:1103.5516 [nucl-th]]

    2011 arXiv

  31. [39]

    C. M. Ko, P . Levai, X. J. Qiu and C. T. Li, Phys. Rev. C45, 1400 (1992)

    1992

  32. [40]

    Asakawa, C

    M. Asakawa, C. M. Ko, P . Levai and X. J. Qiu, Phys. Rev. C46, R1159 (1992)

    1992

  33. [41]

    Friedman and G

    E. Friedman and G. Soff, J. Phys. G11, L37 (1985)

    1985

  34. [42]

    et al., Z

    Yamazaki, T., Hayano, R.S., Itahashi, K. et al., Z. Physik A 355, 219 (1996)

    1996

  35. [43]

    J. D. Davies, G. J. Pyle, G. T. A. Squier, C. J. Batty, S. F. Biagi, S. D. Hoath, P . Sharman and A. S. Clough, Phys. Lett. B83, 55 (1979)

    1979

  36. [44]

    C. H. Lee, G. E. Brown, D. P . Min and M. Rho, Nucl. Phys. A585, 401 (1995), [arXiv:hep-ph/9406311 [hep-ph]]

    1995 arXiv

  37. [45]

    T. M. Ito, R. S. Hayano, S. N. Nakamura, T. P . Terada, M. Iwasaki, D. R. Gill, L. Lee, A. Olin, M. Salomon and S. Yen,et al.Phys. Rev. C58, 2366 (1998)

    1998

  38. [46]

    Curceanu, C

    C. Curceanu, C. Guaraldo, M. Iliescu, M. Cargnelli, R. Hayano, J. Marton, J. Zmeskal, T. Ishiwatari, M. Iwasaki and S. Okada,et al. Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 025006 (2019)

    2019

  39. [47]

    Hirenzaki, Y

    S. Hirenzaki, Y. Okumura, H. Toki, E. Oset and A. Ramos, Phys. Rev. C61, 055205 (2000)

    2000

  40. [48]

    R. S. Hayano, S. Hirenzaki and A. Gillitzer, Eur. Phys. J. A6, 99 (1999), [arXiv:nucl-th/9806012 [nucl-th]]

    1999 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Tsushima, D

    K. Tsushima, D. H. Lu, A. W. Thomas and K. Saito, Phys. Lett. B443, 26 (1998), [arXiv:nucl-th/9806043 [nucl-th]]

    1998 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Tsushima, D

    K. Tsushima, D. H. Lu, A. W. Thomas, K. Saito and R. H. Landau, Phys. Rev. C59, 2824 (1999), [arXiv:nucl-th/9810016 [nucl-th]]

    1999 arXiv

  43. [51]

    S. J. Brodsky, I. A. Schmidt and G. F. de Teramond, Phys. Rev. Lett.64, 1011 (1990)

    1990

  44. [52]

    S. H. Lee and C. M. Ko, Phys. Rev. C67, 038202 (2003), [arXiv:nucl-th/0208003 [nucl-th]]

    2003 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Krein, J

    G. Krein, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.422, 012012 (2013)

    2013

  46. [54]

    Klingl, S

    F. Klingl, S. s. Kim, S. H. Lee, P . Morath and W. Weise, Phys. Rev. Lett.82(1999), 3396;83, 4224 (1999), [arXiv:nucl-th/9811070 [nucl-th]]

    1999 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Hayashigaki, Prog

    A. Hayashigaki, Prog. Theor. Phys.101(1999), 923. [arXiv:nucl-th/9811092 [nucl-th]]

    1999 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Kumar and A

    A. Kumar and A. Mishra, Phys. Rev. C82, 045207 (2010), [arXiv:1005.2748 [nucl-th]]. Version September 17, 2025 submitted toJournal Not Specified 39 of 58 0 5 10 15 r[fm] 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Ψl(r) 1s state 1p state B - c - 12 C (Λ= 2000 MeV) 0 5 10 15 r[fm] 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 ...

    2010 arXiv

  49. [57]

    V . B. Belyaev, N. V . Shevchenko, A. I. Fix and W. Sandhas, Nucl. Phys. A780, 100 (2006), [arXiv:nucl-th/0601058 [nucl-th]]

    2006 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Yokota, E

    A. Yokota, E. Hiyama and M. Oka, PTEP2013, 113D01 (2013), [arXiv:1308.6102 [nucl-th]]

    2013 arXiv

  51. [59]

    M. E. Peskin, Nucl. Phys. B156, 365 (1979)

    1979

  52. [60]

    Kharzeev, Proc

    D. Kharzeev, Proc. Int. Sch. Phys. Fermi130, 105 (1996), [arXiv:nucl-th/9601029 [nucl-th]]

    1996 arXiv

  53. [61]

    A. B. Kaidalov and P . E. Volkovitsky, Phys. Rev. Lett.69, 3155 (1992)

    1992

  54. [62]

    M. E. Luke, A. V . Manohar and M. J. Savage, Phys. Lett. B288(1992), 355. [arXiv:hep-ph/9204219 [hep-ph]]

    1992 arXiv

  55. [63]

    G. F. de Teramond, R. Espinoza and M. Ortega-Rodriguez, Phys. Rev. D58, 034012 (1998), [arXiv:hep-ph/9708202 [hep-ph]]

    1998 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Sibirtsev and M

    A. Sibirtsev and M. B. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. D71, 076005 (2005), [arXiv:hep-ph/0502068 [hep-ph]]

    2005 arXiv

  57. [65]

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

    2008 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Tarrús Castellà and G

    J. Tarrús Castellà and G. Krein, Phys. Rev. D98, 014029 (2018), [arXiv:1803.05412 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  59. [67]

    J. J. Cobos-Martínez, K. Tsushima, G. Krein and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Lett. B811, 135882 (2020), [arXiv:2007.04476 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Yokokawa, S

    K. Yokokawa, S. Sasaki, T. Hatsuda and A. Hayashigaki, Phys. Rev. D74, 034504 (2006), [arXiv:hep-lat/0605009 [hep-lat]]

    2006 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Kawanai and S

    T. Kawanai and S. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. D82, 091501 (2010), [arXiv:1009.3332 [hep-lat]]

    2010 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Skerbis and S

    U. Skerbis and S. Prelovsek, Phys. Rev. D99, 094505 (2019), [arXiv:1811.02285 [hep-lat]]

    2019 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Chizzali, Y

    E. Chizzali, Y. Kamiya, R. Del Grande, T. Doi, L. Fabbietti, T. Hatsuda and Y. Lyu, Phys. Lett. B848, 138358 (2024), [arXiv:2212.12690 [nucl-ex]]

    2024 arXiv

  64. [72]

    G. N. Zeminiani, J. J. Cobos-Martinez and K. Tsushima, Eur. Phys. J. A57, 259 (2021), [arXiv:2012.11381 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  65. [73]

    G. N. Zeminiani, [arXiv:2201.09158 [nucl-th]]

    arXiv

  66. [74]

    Zeminiani, J

    G. Zeminiani, J. J. Cobos-Martínez and K. Tsushima, PoSPANIC2021, 208 (2022), [arXiv:2109.08636 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  67. [75]

    J. J. Cobos-Martínez, G. N. Zeminiani and K. Tsushima, Phys. Rev. C105, 025204 (2022), [arXiv:2201.05696 [nucl-th]]

    2022 arXiv

  68. [76]

    J. J. Aubertet al.[European Muon], Phys. Lett. B123, 275 (1983)

    1983

  69. [77]

    For a review, D. F. Geesaman, K. Saito and A. W. Thomas, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.45, 337 (1995)

    1995

  70. [78]

    Dieterich, P

    S. Dieterich, P . Bartsch, D. Baumann, J. Bermuth, K. Bohinc, R. Bohm, D. Bosnar, S. Derber, M. Ding and M. Distler,et al.Phys. Lett. B500, 47 (2001), [arXiv:nucl-ex/0011008 [nucl-ex]]

    2001 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Strauch (Jefferson Lab E93-049 Collaboration), Eur

    S. Strauch (Jefferson Lab E93-049 Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. A19, 153 (2004), S. Strauchet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 052301 (2003). Version September 17, 2025 submitted toJournal Not Specified 40 of 58 0 5 10 15 r[fm] 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Ψl(r) 1s state 1p state B - c -...

    2004

  72. [80]

    Saito, K

    K. Saito, K. Tsushima and A. W. Thomas, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.58, 1 (2007), [arXiv:hep-ph/0506314 [hep-ph]]

    2007 arXiv

  73. [81]

    P . A. M. Guichon, A. W. Thomas and K. Tsushima, Nucl. Phys. A814, 66 (2008), [arXiv:0712.1925 [nucl-th]]

    2008 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Shyam and K

    R. Shyam and K. Tsushima, [arXiv:1901.06090 [nucl-th]]

    1901 arXiv

  75. [83]

    P . A. M. Guichon, J. R. Stone and A. W. Thomas, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.100, 262 (2018)

    2018

  76. [84]

    G. N. Zeminiani, S. L. P . G. Beres and K. Tsushima, Phys. Rev. D110, 094045 (2024), [arXiv:2401.00250 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Tsushima, K

    K. Tsushima, K. Saito, A. W. Thomas and S. V . Wright, Phys. Lett. B429, 239 (1998), [erratum: Phys. Lett. B436, 453 (1998)], [arXiv:nucl-th/9712044 [nucl-th]]

    1998 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Sibirtsev, K

    A. Sibirtsev, K. Tsushima and A. W. Thomas, Eur. Phys. J. A6, 351 (1999), [nucl-th/9904016]

    1999 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Sibirtsev, K

    A. Sibirtsev, K. Tsushima, K. Saito and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Lett. B484, 23 (2000), [nucl-th/9904015]

    2000 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Tsushima and F

    K. Tsushima and F. C. Khanna, Phys. Lett. B552, 138 (2003), [nucl-th/0207036]

    2003 arXiv

  81. [89]

    P . A. M. Guichon, K. Saito, E. N. Rodionov and A. W. Thomas, Nucl. Phys. A601, 349 (1996), [arXiv:nucl-th/9509034 [nucl-th]]

    1996 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Tsushima, PTEP2022, 043D02 (2022), [arXiv:2008.03724 [hep-ph]]

    K. Tsushima, PTEP2022, 043D02 (2022), [arXiv:2008.03724 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Review of Particle Physics,

    R. L. Workmanet al.[Particle Data Group], “Review of Particle Physics,” PTEP2022, 083C01 (2022)

    2022

  84. [93]

    Tanabashiet al.[Particle Data Group], Phys

    M. Tanabashiet al.[Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D98, 030001 (2018)

    2018

  85. [94]

    Okubo, Phys

    S. Okubo, Phys. Lett.5, 165 (1963), Phys. Rev. D16, 2336 (1977); G. Zweig, CERN Report No. 8419 TH 412, 1964, (unpublished); J. Iizuka, K. Okada, and O. Shito, Prog. Theor. Phys.35, 1061 (1966), J. Iizuka, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.37, 21 (1966)

    1963

  86. [95]

    Tsushima, D

    K. Tsushima, D. Lu, G. Krein and A. W. Thomas, AIP Conf. Proc.1354, 39 (2011), [arXiv:1101.3389 [nucl-th]]

    2011 arXiv

  87. [96]

    Y. Lyu, T. Doi, T. Hatsuda and T. Sugiura, Phys. Lett. B860, 139178 (2025), [arXiv:2410.22755 [hep-lat]]

    2025 arXiv

  88. [97]

    Y. Lyu, T. Doi, T. Hatsuda and T. Sugiura, [arXiv:2502.00054 [hep-lat]]

    arXiv

  89. [98]

    Klingl, N

    F. Klingl, N. Kaiser and W. Weise, Z. Phys. A356, 193 (1996), [hep-ph/9607431]

    1996 arXiv

  90. [99]

    Z. w. Lin, C. M. Ko and B. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C61, 024904 (2000), [nucl-th/9905003]

    2000 arXiv

  91. [100]

    J. J. Cobos-Martínez, K. Tsushima, G. Krein and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Lett. B771, 113 (2017), [arXiv:1703.05367 [nucl-th]]

    2017 arXiv

  92. [101]

    J. J. Cobos-Martínez, K. Tsushima, G. Krein and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Rev. C96, 035201 (2017), [arXiv:1705.06653 [nucl-th]]

    2017 arXiv

  93. [102]

    J. J. Cobos-Martínez, K. Tsushima, G. Krein and A. W. Thomas, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.912, 012009 (2017), [arXiv:1711.06358 [nucl-th]]

    2017 arXiv

  94. [103]

    J. J. Cobos-Martínez, K. Tsushima, G. Krein and A. W. Thomas, PoSHadron2017, 209 (2018), [arXiv:1711.09895 [nucl-th]]. Version September 17, 2025 submitted toJournal Not Specified 41 of 58 0 5 10 15 r[fm] 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Ψl(r) 1s state 1p state B - c - 40 Ca (Λ= 2000 MeV...

    2018 arXiv

  95. [104]

    J. J. Cobos-Martínez, K. Tsushima, G. Krein and A. W. Thomas, JPS Conf. Proc.26, 024033 (2019), [arXiv:1901.07404 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  96. [105]

    Lucha, D

    W. Lucha, D. Melikhov, H. Sazdjian and S. Simula, Phys. Rev. D93, no. 1, 016004 (2016); Addendum: [Phys. Rev. D93, 019902 (2016)], [arXiv:1506.09213 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  97. [106]

    Z. w. Lin and C. M. Ko, Phys. Rev. C62, 034903 (2000), [nucl-th/9912046]

    2000 arXiv

  98. [107]

    Hayashigaki, Phys

    A. Hayashigaki, Phys. Lett. B48796 (2000), [arXiv:nucl-th/0001051 [nucl-th]]

    2000 arXiv

  99. [108]

    Azizi, N

    K. Azizi, N. Er and H. Sundu, Eur. Phys. J. C74, 3012 (2014), [arXiv:1405.3058 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  100. [109]

    Z. G. Wang, Phys. Rev. C92, 065205 (2015), [arXiv:1501.05093 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  101. [110]

    Suzuki, P

    K. Suzuki, P . Gubler and M. Oka, Phys. Rev. C93, 045209 (2016), [arXiv:1511.04513 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  102. [111]

    A. Park, P . Gubler, M. Harada, S. H. Lee, C. Nonaka and W. Park, Phys. Rev. D93, 054035 (2016), [arXiv:1601.01250 [nucl-th]]

    2016 arXiv

  103. [112]

    Gubler, T

    P . Gubler, T. Song and S. H. Lee, Phys. Rev. D101, 114029 (2020), [arXiv:2003.09073 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  104. [113]

    Hilger, R

    T. Hilger, R. Thomas and B. Kampfer, Phys. Rev. C79, 025202 (2009), [arXiv:0809.4996 [nucl-th]]

    2009 arXiv

  105. [114]

    T. F. Caramés, C. E. Fontoura, G. Krein, K. Tsushima, J. Vijande and A. Valcarce, Phys. Rev. D94, 034009 (2016), [arXiv:1608.04040 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  106. [115]

    G. N. Zeminiani, J. J. Cobos-Martínez and K. Tsushima, [arXiv:2406.11114 [nucl-th]]

    arXiv

  107. [116]

    Saito, K

    K. Saito, K. Tsushima and A. W. Thomas, Nucl. Phys. A609, 339 (1996), [arXiv:nucl-th/9606020 [nucl-th]]

    1996 arXiv

  108. [117]

    Saito, K

    K. Saito, K. Tsushima and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Rev. C56, 566 (1997), [nucl-th/9703011]

    1997 arXiv

  109. [118]

    Y. R. Kwan and F. Tabakin, Phys. Rev. C18, 932 (1978)

    1978

  110. [119]

    Buhleret al., Prog

    P . Buhleret al., Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.186, 337 (2010)

    2010

  111. [120]

    Ohnishiet al., Acta Phys

    H. Ohnishiet al., Acta Phys. Polon. B45, 819 (2014)

    2014

  112. [121]

    Csörg˝ o, M

    T. Csörg˝ o, M. Csanád and T. Novák, Proceedings, 10th Workshop on Particle Correlations and Femtoscopy (WPCF 2014) : Gyöngyös, Hungary, August 25-29, 2014, SLAC-econf-C140825.8

    2014

  113. [122]

    https://www.jlab.org/exp_prog/PACpage/PAC42/PAC42_FINAL_Report.pdf

  114. [123]

    J. J. Cobos-Martinez and K. Tsushima, Phys. Rev. C109, 2 (2024), [arXiv:2308.07836 [nucl-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  115. [124]

    J. J. Cobos-Martinez, K. Tsushima, G. Krein and A. W. Thomas, PoSCHARM2020, 041 (2021), [arXiv:2109.10995 [nucl-th]]

    2021 arXiv

  116. [125]

    Cobos Martinez, K

    J. Cobos Martinez, K. Tsushima, G. Krein and A. W. Thomas, PoSPANIC2021, 199 (2022), [arXiv:2111.13820 [nucl-th]]. Version September 17, 2025 submitted toJournal Not Specified 42 of 58 0 5 10 15 r[fm] 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Ψl(r) 1s state 1p state B - c - 48 Ca (Λ= 2000 MeV) 0 ...

    2022 arXiv

  117. [126]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024). Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note:The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or ...

    2024

Pith tools

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