Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

A QCD sum-rule analysis predicts that Omega_bbb-Omega_bbb may form a deeply bound six-bottom-quark dibaryon, while Omega_ccc-Omega_ccc sits slightly above threshold.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 20:53 UTC pith:H2O5PEIF

load-bearing objection A technically serious sum-rule calculation whose central claim that Omega_bbb-Omega_bbb binds by ~2.1 GeV is not robust to the heavy-quark scheme choice. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2602.21872 v2 pith:H2O5PEIF submitted 2026-02-25 hep-ph hep-exhep-lat

Study of the Ω_(ccc)Ω_(ccc) and Ω_(bbb)Ω_(bbb) dibaryons in QCD Sum Rules

Xu-Liang Chen , Jin-Peng Zhang , Zi-Xi Ou-Yang , Wei Chen , Jia-Jun Wu This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-exhep-lat
keywords dibaryonsfully-heavy baryonsOmega_cccOmega_bbbQCD sum rulessix-quark statesgluon condensateheavy quark bound states
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper aims to establish whether pairs of fully-heavy baryons, Omega_ccc and Omega_bbb, can form stable dibaryons — the fully-heavy analogue of the deuteron. Using QCD sum rules with an interpolating current that couples to both scalar and tensor channels, and computing the five-loop operator-product-expansion diagrams with the iterative dispersion relation method, the authors extract masses for the 0+ and 2+ states. In the MS-bar scheme, the scalar Omega_ccc-Omega_ccc mass is 9.77 GeV, slightly above the two-baryon threshold, so it would not be bound; the scalar Omega_bbb-Omega_bbb mass is 26.60 GeV, about 2.1 GeV below threshold, suggesting a real bound state. If true, this would be a new class of six-heavy-quark hadrons bound without light quarks, and a sharp test of QCD sum rules against lattice and quark-model predictions.

Core claim

The central claim is that in the MS-bar renormalization scheme, the QCD sum rule for the scalar (1S0) Omega_bbb-Omega_bbb dibaryon yields a mass of 26.60 ± 0.05 GeV, far below the 2 Omega_bbb threshold (~28.7 GeV), implying a bound state with roughly 2.1 GeV binding; the analogous Omega_ccc-Omega_ccc scalar state is predicted at 9.77 ± 0.04 GeV, slightly above its 9.586 GeV threshold and thus unbound. In both systems the tensor (5S2) partner is heavier. The authors emphasize that the bottom bound-state conclusion depends critically on the choice of MS-bar masses: with on-shell quark masses the dibaryons come out 'much heavier' and not bound, though those numbers are not tabulated.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a symmetric tensor interpolating current J_mu_nu built from two color-singlet clusters of three heavy quarks, which couples to both J^P = 0+ and 2+ dibaryon states. The two-point correlation function is computed via the operator product expansion up to the dimension-four gluon condensate, with the massive five-loop banana diagrams evaluated using the iterative dispersion relation (IDR) method, which recursively builds multi-loop integrals from one-loop bubble dispersive representations. A specific strategy, borrowed from an earlier paper, is used to sidestep the small-circle divergence that otherwise appears in the gluon-condensate contribution. The Borel-transformed sum rul

Load-bearing premise

The entire bound-state conclusion rests on the unexamined choice of the MS-bar renormalization scheme for the heavy-quark masses; with on-shell masses the same sum rules give dibaryons that are much heavier and not bound, and the paper never explains why MS-bar is the physically correct choice for this Borel sum rule.

What would settle it

Compute the same Omega_bbb-Omega_bbb 1S0 sum rule using on-shell quark masses and check whether any Borel window yields a mass below threshold with acceptable pole contribution; if no such window exists, the bound-state claim fails. Alternatively, a lattice QCD calculation of the Omega_bbb-Omega_bbb ground state that finds no bound state, or a collider search that sees no narrow resonance near 26.6 GeV in six-bottom-quark final states, would falsify the prediction.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The Omega_bbb-Omega_bbb scalar dibaryon is a bound state with binding energy around 2.1 GeV (26.60 GeV vs 28.73 GeV threshold).
  • The Omega_ccc-Omega_ccc scalar dibaryon is not bound; it sits slightly above threshold and should appear as a near-threshold enhancement rather than a resonance.
  • In both charm and bottom systems, the scalar (1S0) state is lighter than the tensor (5S2) partner.
  • The same sum-rule framework, with the IDR method, is now available for other fully-heavy multiquark systems that require five-loop OPE diagrams.
  • The prediction is directly testable in experiments that produce six bottom quarks, for instance through double-Upsilon production channels.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The scheme sensitivity is the key uncertainty: the paper shows the on-shell scheme gives unbound dibaryons, so the bound-state claim is really a claim about which renormalization scheme QCD sum rules should use for fully-heavy systems; a principled scheme choice would settle the physics.
  • If the MS-bar result holds, it implies a new class of deeply bound six-heavy-quark states with no light-quark content, and the binding mechanism (gluon exchange only) would be distinct from nuclear binding.
  • A lattice QCD calculation in the bottom sector, or a precise measurement of the gluon condensate, could discriminate between the MS-bar and on-shell predictions; the paper's own Fig. 7 shows the extracted mass is very sensitive to the condensate value.
  • The near-threshold charm result suggests searching for a cusp or bound-state signature just above 2 Omega_ccc in fully-charm events already seen at colliders.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper computes QCD sum-rule masses for fully-heavy dibaryons Omega_ccc Omega_ccc and Omega_bbb Omega_bbb in the 0+ and 2+ channels, using a symmetric tensor interpolating current, OPE up to the dimension-four gluon condensate, and the iterative dispersion relation (IDR) method to compute the massive five-loop banana diagrams. With MS-bar heavy-quark masses (Eq. 18), the authors find the scalar Omega_ccc Omega_ccc dibaryon at 9.77 +/- 0.04 GeV, slightly above the 2 Omega_ccc threshold, and the scalar Omega_bbb Omega_bbb dibaryon at 26.60 +/- 0.05 GeV, about 2.1 GeV below 2 Omega_bbb, suggesting a bound state. The abstract, however, states that in the on-shell scheme the dibaryons are 'much heavier,' and this result is not presented or analyzed in the body.

Significance. If the prediction were robust, the claimed ~2.1 GeV binding of Omega_bbb Omega_bbb would be a striking, new class of six-heavy-quark bound states and a useful input for searches and for quark-model and lattice comparisons. The paper has genuine technical strengths: it pushes QCD sum-rule technology to five-loop massive banana diagrams via the IDR method, it makes the OPE convergence and pole-contribution criteria explicit (Eqs. 19-20), and it compares with a broad set of lattice and quark-model results in Table II. However, the central bound-state claim is currently tied to an unexamined scheme choice, because the threshold from lattice QCD is physical while the OPE mass is computed in the MS-bar scheme; the body neither tabulates the on-shell results nor argues why MS-bar should be preferred for this comparison.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. III/IV] The abstract concedes that in the on-shell scheme the dibaryons are 'much heavier,' i.e., not bound, yet all numerical results in Table I and the conclusions in Sec. IV use only the MS-bar masses of Eq. (18). The physical threshold 2 M_Omega_bbb is scheme-independent (taken from lattice QCD), so the ~2.1 GeV binding energy is a statement about the difference between an MS-bar OPE mass and a physical pole mass. This is a load-bearing issue: the quoted binding is two orders of magnitude larger than typical QCD sum-rule scheme ambiguities. The manuscript must either tabulate and analyze the on-shell results, demonstrate that the MS-bar prediction is stable under scheme choice within uncertainties, or explicitly retract the bound-state claim.
  2. [Sec. II, Eq. (10) and Ref. [47]] The treatment of the gluon-condensate contribution is not self-contained: the small-circle divergence is stated to be handled by 'a different strategy that avoids the GDR calculations entirely, as presented in Ref. [47],' but that strategy is not summarized. Since the condensate term is the only nonperturbative OPE input and Fig. 7 shows a ~0.5 GeV sensitivity of m_X to <g_s^2 G^2> over the plotted range, the reader cannot assess whether the advertised OPE result is reliable. Please describe the regularization method in sufficient detail or provide a derivation in an appendix.
  3. [Sec. III, Fig. 7 and Eq. (23)] The uncertainty quoted in Eq. (23), +-0.04 GeV, appears inconsistent with Fig. 7, where the extracted mass varies by roughly 0.5 GeV as <g_s^2 G^2> moves from 0.5 to 1.0 GeV^4. The input value in Eq. (18) is <alpha_s G^2> = (6.35 +/- 0.35) x 10^-2 GeV^4, while Fig. 7 uses <g_s^2 G^2>; the 4 pi conversion should be stated explicitly. The error analysis should propagate the full uncertainty of the gluon condensate, or justify why a narrower range is appropriate.
  4. [Sec. III, Eq. (21)] The chi^2 minimization chooses the continuum threshold by minimizing the flatness of m_X versus the Borel mass. This is a standard procedure, but the reported mass is then read off the plateau selected by that fit. Fig. 4 shows that m_X^2 varies from about 90 to 105 GeV^2 over the scanned s0 range; the sensitivity of the final mass to the choice of s0 window is not quantified beyond the +-0.2 discretization. Please provide the variation of m_X with s0 within a physically motivated range, so the reader can see how much of the central result depends on this fitting choice.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The last sentence, 'However, they are predicted to be much heavier in the on-shell scheme,' is not reflected in the body. Either remove it or discuss it explicitly in Sec. III.
  2. [Sec. II, Eqs. (14)-(16)] The notation Π_pert(q^2) ≡ m_Q^14 Π̃_pert(q^2) is dimensionally odd given that Π has mass dimension 12 for a six-quark current; please clarify the mass dimension convention and the definition of q^2.
  3. [Sec. III, Fig. 7 caption] Typo: 'gloun' should be 'gluon'.
  4. [Sec. I, Introduction] Typo: 'the recently discovered d*(2380) by the W ASA-at-COSY Collaboration' should be 'WASA-at-COSY Collaboration.'
  5. [Sec. III, Eq. (18)] The symbol <alpha_s G^2> is used in Eq. (18) while Fig. 7 plots <g_s^2 G^2>. Please define the relation (g_s^2 = 4 pi alpha_s) explicitly and use consistent notation throughout.
  6. [Table II] The label 'Lattic QCD' should be 'Lattice QCD.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the mass extraction is a standard QCD sum-rule output; the main weakness is scheme dependence, not a self-referential derivation.

full rationale

The derivation is a conventional QCD sum-rule extraction: an explicit interpolating current is chosen, the OPE spectral density is computed, and the hadron mass is obtained from the ratio m_X = sqrt(L1/L0) of Borel-transformed sum rules (Eqs. 16-17). The continuum threshold s0 is selected by a chi-squared flatness criterion (Eq. 21), but the reported mass is not fitted to any known dibaryon mass; it is an output of the OPE integral. No input quark mass, condensate, or threshold is defined in terms of the predicted dibaryon mass, and no prior result of the same authors is invoked to force the bound-state conclusion. The paper compares with external lattice and quark-model predictions (Table II), which is independent cross-checking. The abstract's admission that the on-shell scheme gives 'much heavier' masses, the gluon-condensate sensitivity shown in Fig. 7, and the reliance on the self-cited small-circle-divergence method of Ref. [47] are serious scientific risks: if the MS-bar scheme or the condensate treatment is not physically appropriate, the Omega_bbb-Omega_bbb bound-state conclusion collapses. However, a fragile or possibly wrong physical assumption is not circularity. The load-bearing quantities are not defined in terms of the target, and the self-citations are to computational techniques rather than to the claimed physical result. Therefore no step reduces, by the paper's own equations or by self-citation, to its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The calculation rests on the standard QCD sum rule protocol (fitted continuum threshold, narrow-resonance duality, hand-chosen Borel window), an external gluon condensate whose central value moves the result by hundreds of MeV, and the authors' own IDR/GDR-avoidance technology. The only non-perturbative input is the condensate; the most fragile piece is the scheme choice (MS-bar vs on-shell), which is not defended anywhere in the body. No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Continuum threshold s0-tilde (per channel) = 63.8 (charm 0+), 73.6 (charm 2+), 41.8 (bottom 0+), 43.2 (bottom 2+), each +/-0.2
    Fitted via the chi2(mass-stability) criterion of Eq. (21); the extracted hadron mass in Eq. (17) is a direct function of this parameter, and Fig. 4 shows the output varies by ~1 GeV across the scanned range.
  • Borel window M-tilde_B^2 = 3.3-3.9 (charm 0+), 3.9-4.4 (charm 2+), 0.57-0.85 (bottom 0+), 0.64-0.83 (bottom 2+)
    Window boundaries are chosen by hand via two criteria: gluon condensate <= 30% of the perturbative term (Eq. 19) and pole contribution >= 40% (Eq. 20). The reported mass is the plateau value inside this hand-chosen window.
  • Gluon condensate <g_s^2 G^2> (input) = ~0.798 GeV^4 (from <alpha_s G^2> = (6.35 +/- 0.35) x 10^-2 GeV^4, Eq. 18)
    Not fitted in this paper, but its central value is contested across the literature by roughly a factor of two, and Fig. 7 shows the extracted mass swings ~600 MeV over 0.5-1.0 GeV^4. This is the largest single systematic in the analysis.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Quark-hadron duality with a narrow single-resonance spectral function (Eq. 8): rho(s) = f^2 delta(s - m_X^2) + continuum.
    This is the standard sum-rule spectral model, but it is fragile exactly for the states studied: a dibaryon within ~0.2 GeV of the two-baryon threshold will overlap heavily with the two-baryon scattering continuum, and no scattering-state subtraction is performed.
  • domain assumption The molecular interpolating current (Eq. 1) has dominant overlap with the dibaryon ground state.
    If the six-quark current couples mainly to the free Omega_ccc-Omega_ccc continuum rather than to a compact/molecular bound state, the extracted 'mass' is not the dibaryon mass. The 40% pole-contribution criterion is a necessary but not sufficient guard for near-threshold exotics.
  • domain assumption The dimension-six triple-gluon condensate is negligible.
    Invoked in Sec. II after Eq. (9) with citations to Refs. [34-39], most of which are from the same collaboration; no explicit estimate is given in this paper.
  • domain assumption The small-circle-divergence avoidance strategy of Ref. [47] is correct.
    The paper says 'we adopted a different strategy that avoids the GDR calculations entirely, as presented in Ref. [47].' The correctness of the gluon-condensate contribution - the driver of binding - rests on this self-cited predecessor, with no independent verification in this text.
  • ad hoc to paper The MS-bar scheme is the operative scheme for the hadron mass prediction; the on-shell result is not used.
    No justification is given for preferring MS-bar despite the abstract conceding that on-shell quark masses give 'much heavier' dibaryons, which would erase the binding. This is the load-bearing scheme choice of the entire paper.
  • domain assumption The dimensionless OPE spectral densities are formally identical for charm and bottom under the substitution m_Q = 1.
    Assumed at the end of Sec. II: the c-to-b transfer of the spectral densities relies on pure power-law scaling in m_Q with no residual ln(m_Q) dependence in the massive five-loop integrals; any logarithmic terms would break this formal identity.
  • domain assumption The iterative dispersion relation recursion (Refs. [40,41]) is valid at five loops for the six-quark banana topology.
    The recursive construction is assumed to generalize from the cases treated in Refs. [40,41] to the present topology without hidden subtleties; no proof or independent cross-check is presented.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 5877 in / 6203 out tokens · 256762 ms · 2026-08-02T20:53:57.761598+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The recent observation of a family of fully-charm tetraquark states by the LHCb, ATLAS and CMS Collaborations suggests the possible existence of fully-heavy dibaryons. In this work, we investigate the $\Omega_{ccc}\Omega_{ccc}$ and $\Omega_{bbb}\Omega_{bbb}$ dibaryons in both the $^1S_0$ and $^5S_2$ channels using the method of QCD sum rules. We employ the iterative dispersion relation (IDR) method to efficiently compute the massive five-loop banana diagrams that appear in these systems, and properly address the tricky small-circle divergence problem in the nonperturbative terms. Our analyses reveal that for both charm and bottom systems, the scalar dibaryon lies lower than its tensor counterpart. In $\overline{\text{MS}}$ scheme, the mass of the scalar $\Omega_{ccc}\Omega_{ccc}$ dibaryon is found to be slightly above the $2\Omega_{ccc}$ mass threshold, while the $\Omega_{bbb}\Omega_{bbb}$ systems may form bound states. However, they are predicted to be much heavier in the on-shell scheme.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.21872 by Jia-Jun Wu, Jin-Peng Zhang, Wei Chen, Xu-Liang Chen, Zi-Xi Ou-Yang.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: OPE convergence for the Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: The variation of hadron mass with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Variation of hadron mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: The sensitivity of extracted hadron mass to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Interpretation of $\Omega(2012)$ as a $\Xi(1530)K$ molecular state

    hep-ph 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Ω(2012) is interpreted as a Ξ(1530)K molecular state with mass 2.00 ± 0.15 GeV and total decay width 0.96 MeV.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    When κ <−1 2 , the integral is clearly divergent

    Given the asymptotic behavior ImB(s)∝(s−s N )κ near the thresholds N , the dispersion integral converges ifκ≥ −1 2 , making the application of the DR valid. When κ <−1 2 , the integral is clearly divergent. In QCD sum rules calculations, the problem of small-circle divergence has often not been correctly ad- dressed [26, 42], as the regularization method ...

  2. [2]

    H. C. Urey, F. G. Brickwedde, and G. M. Murphy, Phys. Rev.39, 164 (1932)

    1932

  3. [3]

    H. C. Urey, F. G. Brickwedde, and G. M. Murphy, Phys. Rev.40, 1 (1932)

    1932

  4. [4]

    Adlarson et al., Phys

    P. Adlarson et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 242302 (2011)

    2011

  5. [5]

    Adlarson et al., Phys

    P. Adlarson et al., Phys. Rev. C88, 055208 (2013)

    2013

  6. [6]

    Dyson and N

    F. Dyson and N. H. Xuong, Phys. Rev. Lett.13, 815 (1964)

    1964

  7. [7]

    Clement, Prog

    H. Clement, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.93, 195 (2017)

    2017

  8. [8]

    Gal, Acta Phys

    A. Gal, Acta Phys. Polon. B47, 471 (2016)

    2016

  9. [9]

    Gal, EPJ Web Conf.130, 01030 (2016)

    A. Gal, EPJ Web Conf.130, 01030 (2016)

    2016

  10. [10]

    LHCb collaboration, Science Bulletin65, 1983 (2020)

    1983

  11. [11]

    Hayrapetyan et al., Phys

    A. Hayrapetyan et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 111901 (2024)

    2024

  12. [12]

    Aad et al., Phys

    G. Aad et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 151902 (2023)

    2023

  13. [13]

    Lyu et al., Phys

    Y. Lyu et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 072003 (2021)

    2021

  14. [14]

    Mathur, M

    N. Mathur, M. Padmanath, and D. Chakraborty, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 111901 (2023)

    2023

  15. [15]

    N. S. Dhindsa, N. Mathur, and M. Padmanath, Phys. Rev. D112, 054501 (2025)

    2025

  16. [16]

    Junnarkar and N

    P. Junnarkar and N. Mathur, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 162003 (2019)

    2019

  17. [17]

    P. M. Junnarkar and N. Mathur, Phys. Rev. D106, 054511 (2022)

    2022

  18. [18]

    P. M. Junnarkar and N. Mathur, Phys. Rev. D111, 014512 (2025)

    2025

  19. [19]

    Mart ´ ın-Higueras, D

    P. Mart ´ ın-Higueras, D. R. Entem, P. G. Ortega, J. Segovia, and F. Fern´ andez, Phys. Rev. D111, 054002 (2025)

    2025

  20. [20]

    Huang, J

    H. Huang, J. Ping, X. Zhu, and F. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 805 (2022)

    2022

  21. [21]

    Weng and S.-L

    X.-Z. Weng and S.-L. Zhu, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 126 (2024)

    2024

  22. [22]

    L¨ u, D.-Y

    Q.-F. L¨ u, D.-Y. Chen, and Y.-B. Dong, arXiv:2208.03041 (2022)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  23. [23]

    J. M. Alcaraz-Pelegrina and M. C. Gordillo, Phys. Rev. D106, 114028 (2022)

    2022

  24. [24]

    Richard, A

    J.-M. Richard, A. Valcarce, and J. Vijande, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 212001 (2020)

    2020

  25. [25]

    M. C. Gordillo and J. M. Alcaraz-Pelegrina, Phys. Rev. D108, 054027 (2023)

    2023

  26. [26]

    Liu and L.-S

    M.-Z. Liu and L.-S. Geng, Chin. Phys. Lett.38, 101201 (2021)

    2021

  27. [27]

    Wang, Int

    Z.-G. Wang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A37, 2250166 (2022)

    2022

  28. [28]

    Shifman, A

    M. Shifman, A. Vainshtein, and V. Zakharov, Nuclear Physics B147, 385 (1979)

    1979

  29. [29]

    M. A. Shifman, A. Vainshtein, and V. I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B147, 448 (1979)

    1979

  30. [30]

    Reinders, H

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

    1985

  31. [31]

    Chen, Q.-N

    X.-H. Chen, Q.-N. Wang, W. Chen, and H.-X. Chen, Chin. Phys. C45, 041002 (2021)

    2021

  32. [32]

    Chen, Z.-X

    W. Chen, Z.-X. Cai, and S.-L. Zhu, Nucl. Phys. B887, 201 (2014)

    2014

  33. [33]

    Chen, H.-X

    W. Chen, H.-X. Chen, X. Liu, T. G. Steele, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D95, 114005 (2017)

    2017

  34. [34]

    Chen, H.-X

    W. Chen, H.-X. Chen, X. Liu, T. G. Steele, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D96, 114017 (2017)

    2017

  35. [35]

    Wu, Y.-S

    R.-H. Wu, Y.-S. Zuo, C. Meng, Y.-Q. Ma, and K.-T. Chao, Chin. Phys. C45, 093103 (2021)

    2021

  36. [36]

    Chen, H.-X

    W. Chen, H.-X. Chen, X. Liu, T. G. Steele, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Lett. B773, 247 (2017)

    2017

  37. [37]

    Wang, Z.-Y

    Q.-N. Wang, Z.-Y. Yang, and W. Chen, Phys. Rev. D 104, 114037 (2021)

    2021

  38. [38]

    Wang, Z.-Y

    Q.-N. Wang, Z.-Y. Yang, W. Chen, and H.-X. Chen, Phys. Rev. D104, 014020 (2021)

    2021

  39. [39]

    Yang, Q.-N

    Z.-H. Yang, Q.-N. Wang, W. Chen, and H.-X. Chen, Phys. Rev. D104, 014003 (2021)

    2021

  40. [40]

    Wang, AAPPS Bull.31, 5 (2021)

    Z.-G. Wang, AAPPS Bull.31, 5 (2021)

    2021

  41. [41]

    Remiddi and L

    E. Remiddi and L. Tancredi, Nucl. Phys. B907, 400 (2016)

    2016

  42. [42]

    Chen, P.-F

    X.-L. Chen, P.-F. Yang, and W. Chen, Chin. Phys. Lett. 41, 111101 (2024)

    2024

  43. [43]

    Wang, Nucl

    Z.-G. Wang, Nucl. Phys. B973, 115579 (2021)

    2021

  44. [44]

    B. L. Ioffe and K. N. Zyablyuk, Eur. Phys. J. C27, 229 (2003)

    2003

  45. [45]

    Palameta, J

    A. Palameta, J. Ho, D. Harnett, and T. G. Steele, Phys. Rev. D97, 034001 (2018)

    2018

  46. [46]

    S. Esau, A. Palameta, R. T. Kleiv, D. Harnett, and T. G. Steele, Phys. Rev. D100, 074025 (2019)

    2019

  47. [47]

    Palameta, D

    A. Palameta, D. Harnett, and T. G. Steele, Phys. Rev. D98, 074014 (2018)

    2018

  48. [48]

    Xu, X.-L

    G.-F. Xu, X.-L. Chen, J.-P. Zhang, N. Li, and W. Chen, 8 Chin. Phys. Lett.42, 070201 (2025)

    2025

  49. [49]

    Navas et al., Phys

    S. Navas et al., Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  50. [50]

    Narison, Int

    S. Narison, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A33, 1850045 (2018)

    2018

  51. [51]

    Narison, J

    S. Narison, J. Subatomic Part. Cosmol.3, 100038 (2025)

    2025

  52. [52]

    Chen, X.-L

    Z.-Z. Chen, X.-L. Chen, P.-F. Yang, and W. Chen, Phys. Rev. D109, 094011 (2024)

    2024

  53. [53]

    Li, W.-Y

    S.-H. Li, W.-Y. Lai, and H.-Y. Jin, arXiv:2512.16637 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    Li, Z.-R

    S.-H. Li, Z.-R. Huang, W. Chen, and H.-Y. Jin, arXiv:2506.22412 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    N. S. Dhindsa, D. Chakraborty, A. Radhakrishnan, N. Mathur, and M. Padmanath, Phys. Rev. D112, L111501 (2025)

    2025

  56. [56]

    Narison, Nucl

    S. Narison, Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc.300-302, 153 (2018)

    2018

  57. [57]

    Horsley et al., Phys

    R. Horsley et al., Phys. Rev. D86, 054502 (2012)

    2012

  58. [58]

    Chakraborty et al., Phys

    B. Chakraborty et al., Phys. Rev. D91, 054508 (2015)

    2015

  59. [59]

    B. V. Geshkenbein, Phys. Rev. D70, 074027 (2004)

    2004

  60. [60]

    Guberina, R

    B. Guberina, R. Meckbach, R. D. Peccei, and R. Ruckl, Nucl. Phys. B184, 476 (1981)

    1981

  61. [61]

    Abreu et al., Nucl

    P. Abreu et al., Nucl. Phys. B418, 403 (1994)

    1994