Rydberg Exciton Dynamics in the Blockade Regime of Cu2O

Eric A. Arsenault; Gillian E. Minarik; Taketo Handa; Vin\'icius da Silveira Lan Avelar; X.-Y. Zhu

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 45 references

Rydberg Exciton Dynamics in the Blockade Regime of Cu2O

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that, at densities of 10^14–10^16 cm^-3, Rydberg blockade in Cu2O excitons is governed by resonant dipole-dipole interactions, and that exciton recombination is coupled to the blockade.

desk verdict The submitted body is a CMS B* meson paper, not the Cu2O Rydberg study; the abstract alone cannot support the claims, so the right verdict is UNVERDICTED and the file should be returned before any review. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.05806 v1 pith:MKUO5WXK submitted 2025-08-07 cond-mat.other

Gillian E. Minarik , Eric A. Arsenault , Vinícius da Silveira Lan Avelar , Taketo Handa , X.-Y. Zhu This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.other PACS 71.35.-y78.47.-p

keywords Cu2ORydbergexcitonsblockaderesonantdipole-dipoleinteractionstime-resolvedspectroscopyexcitonrecombinationstronglyinteractingregime

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 aims to show that dense populations of Rydberg excitons in cuprous oxide are not just interacting—they are dynamically controlled by the interaction. Using time-resolved spectroscopy at densities where excitons sit close enough to block one another, the authors resolve blockade dynamics for principal quantum numbers $n=2$ through $7$. Their central finding is that the blockade is set by resonant dipolar interactions rather than by other interaction channels, and that recombination of the excitons is tied to the blockade itself. A sympathetic reader would care because this places a solid-state, potentially device-compatible system firmly in the strongly interacting regime of Rydberg physics.

What carries the argument

The Rydberg blockade—the suppression of creating a second exciton within an interaction radius of an existing one—is the central mechanism. Its strength and range are set by resonant dipole-dipole interactions between neighboring excitons, and the paper uses time-resolved optical spectroscopy across $n=2$–$7$ to track how this interaction-dependent suppression shows up in both excitation and recombination.

What would settle it

A pump–probe experiment that measures the same transients with an independent probe of the Rydberg-exciton population—such as terahertz absorption from the exciton or emission from a lower state—and finds no density-dependent slowdown in recombination beyond ordinary density-dependent Auger effects would falsify the claim that recombination is coupled to the blockade. More simply, if the observed decay shapes can be reproduced by a model with no blockade term, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Rydberg blockade in Cu2O is primarily governed by resonant dipolar interactions, and that exciton recombination is coupled to the blockade. At excitation densities of $10^{14}$–$10^{16}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$, the paper reports resolving the resulting dynamics for $n=2$ through $7$ using time-resolved spectroscopy. The finding implies that the same interaction that suppresses further excitation also shapes how the exciton population decays, so the blockade is not merely an excitation bottleneck but an active participant in the recombination dynamics.

Load-bearing premise

The time-resolved optical signal is assumed to report the true Rydberg-exciton population at densities of $10^{14}$–$10^{16}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$, with no confounding contributions from free carriers, charged excitons, or lattice heating, and the shape of the decay is assumed to be interpretable as recombination tied to the blockade.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

At sufficiently high density, excitation of Cu2O Rydberg excitons is self-limiting: already-created excitons suppress the creation of new ones within the blockade radius.
The dominant interaction in this regime is resonant dipolar rather than the often-assumed van der Waals form, so blockade radii and energy shifts must be modeled with dipole-exchange terms.
Recombination dynamics carry blockade information, meaning time-domain decay shapes can be used as a probe of the interacting state.
The results establish a solid-state platform in which Rydberg blockade physics can be manipulated optically.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial note: the body text supplied with this record describes a different measurement (excited B mesons) rather than the Cu2O study announced in the title and abstract, so the experimental support for the abstract's claims is not contained in this record.
If the recombination–blockade coupling holds, the blockade radius might be extractable from decay kinetics alone, giving a time-domain complement to static suppression measurements.
The same mechanism may be sought in other semiconductors with hydrogenic excitons by looking for density-dependent changes in decay shape.
An independent probe of the Rydberg-exciton population, such as photoionization or a separate optical transition, would directly test whether the observed transients are governed by blockade rather than ordinary density-dependent recombination.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's my take. The submission as we have it is unreviewable. The body is the CMS paper on B* meson masses; nothing in it concerns Cu2O, Rydberg excitons, blockade, or time-resolved spectroscopy. So the only real evidence is the abstract. The reader's UNVERDICTED verdict is right, and not just out of caution: there is no material on which to judge soundness, novelty, or reproducibility.

What the abstract claims is coherent and, if true, worth attention: time-resolved access to blockade dynamics at 1e14–1e16 cm^-3 for n=2–7, plus the specific mechanistic claim that resonant dipolar interactions set the blockade and that recombination is coupled to the blockade itself. That would be a legitimate step beyond static blockade observations. But the n range is modest, and the abstract gives no way to test whether the transients are actually free of confounds like free-carrier absorption or ordinary density-dependent recombination. That is not a flaw in the physics; it is simply that the abstract cannot carry the weight of those conclusions.

On the soft spots: the full-text mismatch is a load-bearing problem in this submission, not a minor formatting issue. We have no methods, no data, no fits, no error bars. The circularity worry—using the same transients both to infer blockade and to fit the interaction/recombination model—cannot be evaluated, but I would not award a low burden on faith. The claim that recombination is coupled to the blockade needs an independent probe or an explicit model comparison; the abstract shows neither.

I would not send this to peer review in its current form. The right move is to return it to the authors to replace the corrupted file, then reassess. If the real manuscript does what the abstract says, it could deserve a referee who knows the existing Cu2O Rydberg literature and checks carefully how the blockade signature is separated from ordinary recombination. As it stands, I would not cite it and I would not put it on the reading group.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The submission consists of an abstract claiming time-resolved spectroscopy of Cu2O Rydberg excitons in the strongly interacting regime, with resonantly dipolar-interaction-governed blockade dynamics for n = 2–7 at densities of 10^14–10^16 cm^-3, and a full text that is a completely unrelated CMS paper on the first exclusive reconstruction of B* mesons and precise mass-difference measurements. None of the experimental setup, data, analysis, fits, or modeling needed to support the Cu2O claims appears anywhere in the body of the manuscript.

Significance. If the Cu2O claims were supported, the work would be of genuine interest to solid-state Rydberg physics: demonstrating blockade dynamics and blockade-coupled recombination in a dense Cu2O Rydberg-exciton system would extend Rydberg many-body studies to a solid-state platform. However, as submitted, the manuscript provides no evidence for these claims. The body contains no time-resolved spectroscopy, no density calibration, no n = 2–7 state analysis, no dipolar-interaction calculation, and no recombination model. The CMS B* analysis in the body is internally detailed and appears to be a competent experimental paper, but it is irrelevant to the stated abstract. There are no machine-checked proofs, reproducible code, parameter-free derivations, or falsifiable predictions related to the Cu2O claim in the submitted record.

major comments (3)

[Abstract vs. Full text] The full text is CERN-EP-2025-162 / CMS-BPH-24-011, 'First exclusive reconstruction of the B*+, B*0, and B*0_s mesons and precise measurement of their masses.' A search of the body for 'Cu2O', 'Rydberg', 'exciton', 'blockade', or 'dipolar' returns no relevant material outside the abstract. The central claim of the abstract is therefore entirely unsupported by the submitted manuscript.
[Full text, Methods and Results] The abstract reports 'time-resolved spectroscopy' resolving blockade dynamics for n = 2–7. The body contains no experimental section, sample description, excitation scheme, detection method, density determination, transient data, or fitting procedure for Cu2O excitons. Without these, no statement about resonant dipolar interactions or blockade dynamics can be evaluated.
[Abstract, recombination claim] The sentence 'exciton recombination is coupled to the blockade itself' implies a mechanistic inference from transient decay shapes. No recombination model, rate equation, or comparison against ordinary density-dependent recombination is presented anywhere in the manuscript. The claim is therefore not only unsubstantiated but also not falsifiable from the submitted record.

minor comments (3)

[Abstract] Typo: 'Rydberg exctions' should read 'Rydberg excitons.'
[Abstract] The density notation '10^14-10^16/cm^3' should be typeset with superscripts and a negative exponent: 10^{14}–10^{16} cm^{-3}.
[Header/body metadata] The body carries arXiv:2508.05820v2 and a CMS paper number, while the submitted record is arXiv:2508.05806. This mismatch suggests the wrong full text was uploaded; the authors should resubmit the correct manuscript.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation present; the abstract's Cu2O blockade claim is unsupported because the submitted full text is an unrelated CMS B* mass measurement.

full rationale

The circularity pass looks for derivations whose outputs are equivalent to their inputs by construction. The abstract claims time-resolved Rydberg blockade dynamics for Cu2O excitons (n=2-7, 10^14-10^16 cm^-3), governed by resonant dipolar interactions, with recombination coupled to the blockade. The full text supplied, however, is CERN-EP-2025-162 / CMS-BPH-24-011, 'First exclusive reconstruction of the B*+, B*0, and B*0_s mesons and precise measurement of their masses.' It contains no Cu2O spectroscopy, no density calibration, no n=2-7 blockade analysis, no resonant dipolar interaction calculation, and no recombination modeling. Therefore there is no derivation chain in which a 'prediction' reduces to a fitted input, no parameter renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing self-citation that forces the abstract's conclusion. The mismatch between abstract and full text is a severe evidentiary gap: the central claim is unsupported by the provided manuscript. But an absent derivation is not a circular derivation. Within the full text that is actually present, the CMS B* analysis is self-contained: it reconstructs B*->B gamma with converted photons, calibrates the photon energy scale using pi0->gamma gamma decays, fits the invariant mass distributions, and compares with PDG and lattice QCD inputs. None of those steps reduces to the reported mass differences by construction. Thus the circularity score is 0, while the correctness/evidence risk is high for reasons external to the circularity rubric.

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

This ledger is provisional because only the abstract is available; the provided full text is a different CERN CMS paper. No free parameters are explicitly named, but any fit of a blockade model or recombination model to the transient decays would add parameters not visible here.

assumptions (2)

domain assumption Dense Rydberg exciton dynamics in Cu2O are governed by effective pairwise dipole-dipole interactions rather than by single-particle kinetics, screening, or free-carrier backgrounds.
The abstract concludes that blockades are 'primarily governed by resonant dipolar interactions'; this is meaningful only if the high-density regime is dominated by such pairwise interactions. No microscopic model is shown in the provided text.
domain assumption Time-resolved spectra can be inverted to separate blockade-driven recombination from ordinary excitation and decay dynamics.
The abstract claims recombination is 'coupled to the blockade itself,' which requires an interpretation of transient shapes as revealing a distinct recombination channel. No independent probe or control is visible.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Rydberg Exciton Dynamics in the Blockade Regime of Cu2O." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MKUO5WXK

@misc{pith2026250805806,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Rydberg Exciton Dynamics in the Blockade Regime of Cu2O},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MKUO5WXK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.05806}
}

read the original abstract

Hosting giant Rydberg excitons with principal quantum numbers up to n = 30, cuprous oxide (Cu2O) provides a rare solid-state setting for exploring Rydberg physics, as exemplified by the blockade effect. Here we access the strongly interaction regime at high excitation densities (10^14-10^16/cm^3) and resolve the corresponding blockade dynamics for n = 2-7 using time-resolved spectroscopy. We find that Rydberg blockades are primarily governed by resonant dipolar interactions and that exciton recombination is coupled to the blockade itself. These findings demonstrate the potential for manipulating Rydberg exctions in the strongly interacting blockade regime in a solid state system.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

[1]

B* production in Z decays at LEP

L3 Collaboration, “B* production in Z decays at LEP”,Phys. Lett. B345(1995) 589, ��

work page 1995
[2]

Production of excited beauty states in Z decays

ALEPH Collaboration, “Production of excited beauty states in Z decays”,Z. Phys. C69 (1996) 393,��

work page 1996
[3]

B* production in Z decays

DELPHI Collaboration, “B* production in Z decays”,Z. Phys. C68(1995) 353, ��

work page 1995
[4]

B* production in Z 0 decays

OPAL Collaboration, “B* production in Z 0 decays”,Z. Phys. C74(1997) 413, ��

work page 1997
[5]

First observation of the decayB ∗ s2(5840)0 →B ∗+K− and studies of excitedB 0 s mesons

LHCb Collaboration, “First observation of the decayB ∗ s2(5840)0 →B ∗+K− and studies of excitedB 0 s mesons”,Phys. Rev. Lett.110(2013) 151803, ��,��

work page 2013
[6]

Studies of B ∗ s2(5840)0 and Bs1(5830)0 mesons including the observation of the B∗ s2(5840)0 →B 0K0 S decay in proton-proton collisions at √s=8 TeV

CMS Collaboration, “Studies of B ∗ s2(5840)0 and Bs1(5830)0 mesons including the observation of the B∗ s2(5840)0 →B 0K0 S decay in proton-proton collisions at √s=8 TeV”, � Eur. Phys. J. C78(2018) 939,��, ��

work page 2018
[7]

First measurements of the exclusive decays of the� (5S) to B meson final states and improved B∗ s mass measurement

CLEO Collaboration, “First measurements of the exclusive decays of the� (5S) to B meson final states and improved B∗ s mass measurement”,Phys. Rev. Lett.96(2006) 152001,��,��

work page 2006
[8]

Measurement of the decay B 0 s →D − s � + and evidence for B0 s →D ± s K∓ in e+e− annihilation at √s≈10.87 GeV

Belle Collaboration, “Measurement of the decay B 0 s →D − s � + and evidence for B0 s →D ± s K∓ in e+e− annihilation at √s≈10.87 GeV”,Phys. Rev. Lett.102(2009) 021801, ��,��

work page 2009

Show all 45 references

[9]

Meson masses from SU(3) and heavy quark symmetry

J. L. Rosner and M. B. Wise, “Meson masses from SU(3) and heavy quark symmetry”, Phys. Rev. D47(1993) 343,��

1993
[10]

Strong and electromagnetic mass splittings in heavy mesons

J. L. Goity and C. P . Jayalath, “Strong and electromagnetic mass splittings in heavy mesons”,Phys. Lett. B650(2007) 22,��, ��

2007
[11]

Status of isospin splittings in mesons and baryons

M. Karliner and J. L. Rosner, “Status of isospin splittings in mesons and baryons”,Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 073006,��, ��

2019
[12]

Precision luminosity measurement in proton-proton collisions at√s=13 TeV in 2015 and 2016 at CMS

CMS Collaboration, “Precision luminosity measurement in proton-proton collisions at√s=13 TeV in 2015 and 2016 at CMS”,Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 800, ��,��

2015
[13]

CMS luminosity measurement for the 2017 data-taking period at√s=13 TeV

CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurement for the 2017 data-taking period at√s=13 TeV”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004, 2018

2017
[14]

CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 data-taking period at√s=13 TeV

CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 data-taking period at√s=13 TeV”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002, 2019

2018
[15]

HEPData record for this analysis, 2025.��

2025
[16]

The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC

CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,JINST3(2008) S08004, ��

2008
[17]

Development of the CMS detector for the CERN LHC Run 3

CMS Collaboration, “Development of the CMS detector for the CERN LHC Run 3”, JINST19(2024) P05064,��, ��

2024
[18]

The CMS trigger system

CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”,JINST12(2017) P01020, ��,��

2017
[19]

Performance of the CMS Level-1 trigger in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS Level-1 trigger in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,JINST15(2020) P10017, ��,��

2020
[20]

Performance of the CMS high-level trigger during LHC Run 2

CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS high-level trigger during LHC Run 2”, JINST19(2024) P11021,��, ��

2024
[21]

Electron and photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC

CMS Collaboration, “Electron and photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,JINST16(2021) P05014, ��,��. ��

2021
[22]

Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,JINST13(2018) P06015, ��,��

2018
[23]

Description and performance of track and primary-vertex reconstruction with the CMS tracker

CMS Collaboration, “Description and performance of track and primary-vertex reconstruction with the CMS tracker”,JINST9(2014) P10009, ��,��

2014
[24]

Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector

CMS Collaboration, “Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector”,JINST12(2017) P10003,��, ��

2017
[25]

Strategies and performance of the CMS silicon tracker alignment during LHC Run 2

CMS Collaboration, “Strategies and performance of the CMS silicon tracker alignment during LHC Run 2”,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A1037(2022) 166795, ��,��

2022
[26]

The CMS phase-1 pixel detector upgrade

CMS Tracker Group Collaboration, “The CMS phase-1 pixel detector upgrade”,JINST 16(2021) P02027,��,��

2021
[27]

Performance of CMS muon reconstruction in pp collision events at√s=7 TeV

CMS Collaboration, “Performance of CMS muon reconstruction in pp collision events at√s=7 TeV”,JINST7(2012) P10002,��, ��

2012
[28]

Review of particle physics

Particle Data Group, S. Navas et al., “Review of particle physics”,Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) 030001,��

2024
[29]

Measurement of the production cross section ratio �(� b2(1P))/�(� b1(1P))in pp collisions at √s=8 TeV

CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the production cross section ratio �(� b2(1P))/�(� b1(1P))in pp collisions at √s=8 TeV”,Phys. Lett. B743(2015) 383, ��,��

2015
[30]

Study of excited� 0 b states decaying to� 0 b� +� − in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

CMS Collaboration, “Study of excited� 0 b states decaying to� 0 b� +� − in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,Phys. Lett. B803(2020) 135345, ��,��

2020
[31]

Observation of a new excited beauty strange baryon decaying to � − b � +� −

CMS Collaboration, “Observation of a new excited beauty strange baryon decaying to � − b � +� −”,Phys. Rev. Lett.126(2021) 252003, ��,��

2021
[32]

Observation of the� − b →�(2S)� − decay and studies of the � b(5945)0 baryon in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

CMS Collaboration, “Observation of the� − b →�(2S)� − decay and studies of the � b(5945)0 baryon in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 012002,��,��

2024
[33]

Observation of the� b1(3P) and� b2(3P) and measurement of their masses

CMS Collaboration, “Observation of the� b1(3P) and� b2(3P) and measurement of their masses”,Phys. Rev. Lett.121(2018) 092002, ��,��

2018
[34]

See Supplemental Material at [URL will be inserted by publisher] for the fit projections in extra rapidity ranges and systematic uncertainties in the differences and ratios of the mass differences
[35]

An introduction toPYTHIA8.2

T. Sj ¨ostrand et al., “An introduction toPYTHIA8.2”,Comput. Phys. Commun.191(2015) 159,��,��. ��

2015
[36]

Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA8 tunes from underlying-event measurements

CMS Collaboration, “Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA8 tunes from underlying-event measurements”,Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 4, ��,��

2020
[37]

The EvtGen particle decay simulation package

D. J. Lange, “The EvtGen particle decay simulation package”,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A462 (2001) 152,��

2001
[38]

PHOTOS: A universal Monte Carlo for QED radiative corrections in decays

E. Barberio, B. van Eijk, and Z. Wa ¸s, “PHOTOS: A universal Monte Carlo for QED radiative corrections in decays”,Comput. Phys. Commun.66(1991) 115, ��

1991
[39]

PHOTOS: A universal Monte Carlo for QED radiative corrections. version 2.0

E. Barberio and Z. Wa ¸s, “PHOTOS: A universal Monte Carlo for QED radiative corrections. version 2.0”,Comput. Phys. Commun.79(1994) 291, ��

1994
[40]

GEANT4—a simulation toolkit

GEANT4 Collaboration, “GEANT4—a simulation toolkit”,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A506 (2003) 250,��

2003
[41]

A study of the reactions� ′ →��

M. J. Oreglia, “A study of the reactions� ′ →��”. PhD thesis, Stanford University, 1980

1980
[42]

A detailed test of the CsI(Tl) calorimeter for BELLE with photon beams of energy between 20 MeV and 5.4 GeV

Belle Collaboration, “A detailed test of the CsI(Tl) calorimeter for BELLE with photon beams of energy between 20 MeV and 5.4 GeV”,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A441(2000) 401, ��

2000
[43]

B-meson spectroscopy in HQET at order 1/m

F. Bernardoni et al., “B-meson spectroscopy in HQET at order 1/m”,Phys. Rev. D92 (2015) 054509,��,��

2015
[44]

Precise heavy-light meson masses and hyperfine splittings from lattice QCD including charm quarks in the sea

R. J. Dowdall, C. T. H. Davies, T. C. Hammant, and R. R. Horgan, “Precise heavy-light meson masses and hyperfine splittings from lattice QCD including charm quarks in the sea”,Phys. Rev. D86(2012) 094510,��, ��

2012
[45]

Highly excitedB,B s andB c meson spectroscopy from lattice QCD

Hadron Spectrum Collaboration, “Highly excitedB,B s andB c meson spectroscopy from lattice QCD”,JHEP01(2025) 123,��, ��. �� The distributions of the��invariant mass from two converted ph...

2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

B* production in Z decays at LEP

L3 Collaboration, “B* production in Z decays at LEP”,Phys. Lett. B345(1995) 589, ��

work page 1995

[2] [2]

Production of excited beauty states in Z decays

ALEPH Collaboration, “Production of excited beauty states in Z decays”,Z. Phys. C69 (1996) 393,��

work page 1996

[3] [3]

B* production in Z decays

DELPHI Collaboration, “B* production in Z decays”,Z. Phys. C68(1995) 353, ��

work page 1995

[4] [4]

B* production in Z 0 decays

OPAL Collaboration, “B* production in Z 0 decays”,Z. Phys. C74(1997) 413, ��

work page 1997

[5] [5]

First observation of the decayB ∗ s2(5840)0 →B ∗+K− and studies of excitedB 0 s mesons

LHCb Collaboration, “First observation of the decayB ∗ s2(5840)0 →B ∗+K− and studies of excitedB 0 s mesons”,Phys. Rev. Lett.110(2013) 151803, ��,��

work page 2013

[6] [6]

Studies of B ∗ s2(5840)0 and Bs1(5830)0 mesons including the observation of the B∗ s2(5840)0 →B 0K0 S decay in proton-proton collisions at √s=8 TeV

CMS Collaboration, “Studies of B ∗ s2(5840)0 and Bs1(5830)0 mesons including the observation of the B∗ s2(5840)0 →B 0K0 S decay in proton-proton collisions at √s=8 TeV”, � Eur. Phys. J. C78(2018) 939,��, ��

work page 2018

[7] [7]

First measurements of the exclusive decays of the� (5S) to B meson final states and improved B∗ s mass measurement

CLEO Collaboration, “First measurements of the exclusive decays of the� (5S) to B meson final states and improved B∗ s mass measurement”,Phys. Rev. Lett.96(2006) 152001,��,��

work page 2006

[8] [8]

Measurement of the decay B 0 s →D − s � + and evidence for B0 s →D ± s K∓ in e+e− annihilation at √s≈10.87 GeV

Belle Collaboration, “Measurement of the decay B 0 s →D − s � + and evidence for B0 s →D ± s K∓ in e+e− annihilation at √s≈10.87 GeV”,Phys. Rev. Lett.102(2009) 021801, ��,��

work page 2009