Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 31 references

Connecting Heavy-Quarkonium Born-Oppenheimer EFT to the Peskin OPE

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single projected gluonic response connects heavy-quarkonium Born-Oppenheimer EFT to Peskin's local OPE and yields two new magnetic Wilson coefficients.

desk verdict The BOEFT-to-Peskin bridge and magnetic Wilson coefficients are new and plausible, but the paper's Coulombic consistency check has a concrete algebraic error that must be fixed before the electric reduction is credible. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10201 v1 pith:ZZ3YQWHE submitted 2026-08-10 hep-ph hep-th

Arkadiy I. Syamtomov This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-th
keywords heavyquarkoniumBorn-OppenheimerEFTpotentialNRQCDPeskinOPEgluonicresponsechromomagneticmatchinggluo-dissociationpolarizability
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 the full gluonic response of a compact heavy-quarkonium state, computed on the gauge-covariant static-source Hilbert space of Born-Oppenheimer EFT, is the same object that Peskin's short-distance expansion describes: under explicit hierarchies (multipole locality, a source-accessible spectral gap, small propagation and source-creation corrections, and weak coupling), the response collapses to a channel-factorized local operator product expansion, with the same electric moments and dissociation cut as in the established Bhanot-Peskin construction. The new quantitative content is magnetic: for a spin-singlet 1S Coulombic state, the isotropic sequential M1 inverse moment gives $c_{B,GG}^{(1)ij} = (5\pi/16)\alpha_s^2 (c_F V_{\rm iso}^{(s)})^2 \delta^{ij}$, and the leading covariant-kinetic diamagnetic seagull gives $c_{B,\rm dia}^{(1)ij} = -(\pi/4)\alpha_s^2 \delta^{ij}$, both stated as identifiable contributions to, not the complete value of, the magnetic matching coefficient. A sympathetic reader would care because this supplies a bridge between two widely used effective-field-theory descriptions of quarkonium and produces concrete, testable Wilson coefficients at the same velocity order as the electric polarizability.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the source-dependent projected response $\alpha^{ab}_{BO,ij}(\omega)$ of Eq. (16), defined as the fixed-singlet contraction of the resolvent $(\Delta_Q - z_\pm)^{-1}$ on the auxiliary gauge-covariant static-source Hilbert space $K_{\rm adj}$, with $\Delta_Q$ the physical pullback of $Q_\phi(H_0 - E_\phi)Q_\phi$ and $|d_i^a\rangle$ the short-distance E1 transition vector. The structure that makes the argument run is the Feshbach-Schur separation: retained BO channels stay in a dynamical resolvent $\mathcal{S}_R(z)^{-1}$, while gapped sectors are integrated out and expanded in inverse powers of the source-accessible gap $\Delta_{\rm src}$, producing local Wilson coefficients from inverse moments of a positive semidefinite spectral measure $\mathrm{d}\mu^{ab}_{ij}(\Delta) = \delta^{ab}\mathrm{d}\mu_{ij}(\Delta)$. The same measure's boundary value on the cut yields the dissociation kernel, so locality (inverse moments) and absorption (cut) are two readings of one object. The sufficient criteria for channel-factorized locality are the propagation-vertex bounds $q_H \ll 1$, $q_d \ll 1$ of Eq. (35), with the weak-coupling hierarchy of Eq. (38) making the reference propagator and vertices calculable in pNRQCD.

What would settle it

Compute, in lattice QCD or in a weakly coupled model, the norms $q_H$ and $q_d$ of Eq. (35) for a compact 1S state, together with the source-accessible gap $\Delta_{\rm src}$; if either norm is not parametrically small while $\Delta_{\rm src}$ is large, or if the subthreshold inverse moments of the projected response fail to satisfy the Bhanot-Peskin moment relation (46), then the channel-factorized local OPE is not the leading description. Equivalently, a direct NRQCD/pNRQCD computation of the magnetic polarizability for the spin-singlet 1S state that disagrees with the partial ratio $\frac{3}{14}v_C^2$ at tree level would falsify the new matching coefficients.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the projected, source-dependent response of Eq. (16), built from the auxiliary adjoint static-source space and the singlet map of BOEFT, is the correct matching object: before any derivative expansion or partonic projection, it separates the BO channels kept dynamical from gapped sectors encoded as local inverse moments, and under the hierarchy of Eq. (39) it reduces exactly to Peskin's local OPE. In the Coulombic, leading-E1, free-octet, forward-on-shell-gluon limit, the paper shows the known Bhanot-Peskin electric coefficients $c_{E,BP}^{(N)ij} = \delta^{ij} d_{2N}/2$ and the dissociation kernel both follow from the boundary value and inverse moments of one spectral measure $\mathrm{d}\mu_{ij}(\Delta)$. As a magnetic extension, for a spin-singlet 1S state the subthreshold inverse moment of the known isotropic M1 spectral density yields $c_{B,GG}^{(1)ij} = \frac{5\pi}{16}\alpha_s^2(c_F V_{\rm iso}^{(s)})^2\delta^{ij}$, and the covariant-kinetic seagull, whose coefficient is fixed by Poincar\'e invariance, yields $c_{B,\rm dia}^{(1)ij} = -\frac{\pi}{4}\alpha_s^2\delta^{ij}$. These are explicitly identified as contributions to, not the complete value of, the magnetic matching coefficient; the physical $\alpha_B/\alpha_E$ ratio requires the full decomposition of Eq. (67), including Hamiltonian insertions, higher one-field vertices, and irreducible two-field matching terms.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the corrections to how gluonic channels propagate between the two source insertions, and to how the source creates those channels, are genuinely small in QCD; the paper proves sufficient bounds for these corrections but does not itself establish that smallness from the EFT hierarchy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Under the hierarchy of Eq. (39), the full BOEFT gluonic response reduces to a channel-factorized local OPE, so the standard Bhanot-Peskin electric moments and the gluo-dissociation cut are recovered from a single spectral measure rather than from separate constructions.
  • The new magnetic coefficient $c_{B,GG}^{(1)ij} = \frac{5\pi}{16}\alpha_s^2(c_F V_{\rm iso}^{(s)})^2\delta^{ij}$ for a spin-singlet 1S state comes with definite polarization averages: $1/3$ for a vector state and $1/2$ for the full hyperfine multiplet.
  • The covariant-kinetic diamagnetic seagull $c_{B,\rm dia}^{(1)ij} = -\frac{\pi}{4}\alpha_s^2\delta^{ij}$ is spin-independent and its coefficient is fixed by Poincar\'e invariance, so the combined partial ratio at strict tree level is $(c_{B,GG} + c_{B,\rm dia})/c_{E,BP} = \frac{3}{14} v_C^2$, showing that two M1 insertions are suppressed by $v^2$ relative to two E1 insertions.
  • The physical magnetic polarizability $\alpha_B/\alpha_E$ is the ratio of the full matched coefficients in Eq. (67), not merely the two computed pieces; the remaining Hamiltonian, higher-one-field, and irreducible two-field terms contribute at the same nominal order in the Coulombic counting.
  • At the bare matching scale the electric tower decomposes into a twist-two gluon operator plus correlated metric-trace components that renormalize separately, so a common bare coefficient does not imply common renormalization-group evolution.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The sufficient criteria of Eqs. (35)-(36) could be tested directly in lattice or model calculations: measure the source-accessible gap and the norms of the light-channel perturbation and source correction; if $q_H$ or $q_d$ is not small, the mismatch would appear as nonlocal or channel-dependent corrections that no local Wilson coefficient can absorb.
  • Because the diamagnetic seagull carries no independent Wilson coefficient, a precision determination of the full magnetic coefficient, say from lattice NRQCD or from quarkonium in a magnetic field, could isolate the Hamiltonian-insertion and irreducible two-field contributions that the paper leaves uncomputed.
  • The same projected-resolvent construction should extend to spin-triplet, hybrid, and open-flavor channels; in noncentral or coupled BO channels the $GT$ interference between isotropic and traceless magnetic vertices need not vanish and would enter at relative $O(\alpha_s)$, affecting medium-modification predictions.
  • One testable extension is to compute the next inverse moment ($N=2$) of the same M1 spectral measure and compare its evolution under the enlarged renormalization group with the twist-two sector, which would probe whether the correlated trace components matter numerically.
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. The paper constructs a source-dependent QCD-to-BOEFT matching formalism for the gluonic response of compact heavy quarkonium. The central object is the projected resolvent on a gauge-covariant static-source space, which is then reduced to a channel-factorized local OPE under multipole, source-gap, and weak-coupling hierarchies. In the Coulombic limit the paper claims that the Bhanot-Peskin electric moments and dissociation cut arise from a single spectral measure, and it derives new magnetic Wilson-coefficient contributions for a spin-singlet 1S state: c_{B,GG}^{(1)ij}=(5\pi/16)\alpha_s^2(c_F V_{iso}^{(s)})^2\delta^{ij} and c_{B,dia}^{(1)ij}=-(\pi/4)\alpha_s^2\delta^{ij}, with the explicit caveat that these are identifiable contributions to, not the complete value of, the magnetic matching coefficient.

Significance. If the formal construction and the Coulombic reduction are correct, the paper offers a useful bridge between BOEFT channel structure and the classic Peskin OPE, and the two derived magnetic coefficients are concrete, falsifiable numbers in a regime where they can be checked against pNRQCD. The manuscript is careful in several respects: it states its axioms explicitly, does not fit any free parameters to the new numbers, and is transparent about the incompleteness of the magnetic coefficient. The algebraic computations for the M1 spectral density, its inverse moments, and the diamagnetic seagull are internally consistent. The significance is therefore real, provided the normalization defect in the electric spectral-measure relations is fixed; as written, the paper's central "one spectral measure" claim is not yet established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Eqs. (42)-(47)] The claimed reduction of the Bhanot-Peskin electric moments and dissociation cut to one spectral measure is not internally consistent. Direct evaluation from the stated wavefunction \psi_{1S}(p)=8\sqrt{\pi}a_0^{3/2}/(1+a_0^2p^2)^2 and \Delta_o=p^2/m_Q+\epsilon_0 gives \rho^{(r)}_{1S}(\Delta)=\frac{256}{\pi}\frac{a_0^2}{\epsilon_0}\frac{y^{3/2}}{(1+y)^6}\theta(y). This physical density satisfies \int d\Delta\,\rho=3a_0^2 and, through Eq. (33), yields c_E^{(1),ij}=14\pi\delta^{ij}/(3N_c^2), so it is evidently the intended normalization. Yet substituting it into Eq. (44) produces \sigma=(2048\pi/(3N_c^2))a_0^3\epsilon_0 y^{3/2}/(1+y)^5, disagreeing with the coefficient 16/(3\pi N_c^2) in Eq. (43). Similarly, Eq. (46) is off by a factor 256: at N=1 the left-hand side is 7a_0^2/(4\epsilon_0), while the right-hand side, with d_2 from Eq. (45), is 7a_0^2/(1024\epsilon_0). The equivalence of the BOEFT measure, the Bhanot-Peskin moments, and the dissociation cut therefore fails as written, and a missing power-of-two/\pi normalization factor must be identified and corrected.
  2. [Section 2.4, Eqs. (35)-(39)] The channel-factorized local OPE reduction rests on the inequalities q_H,q_d\ll 1 in Eq. (35), but the paper explicitly notes that these are sufficient operator-theoretic criteria and do not by themselves establish smallness in QCD. The power-counting estimates in Eq. (37) are schematic rather than derived from \delta H_{\rm light} and \delta D. Because the abstract and Section 4 claim that the full response reduces to the Peskin construction under the hierarchy Eq. (39), this is a load-bearing point: either an explicit estimate of q_H and q_d in the weak-coupling domain m_Q v\gg\Lambda_{\rm QCD} should be supplied, or the statement should be weakened to an assumption. The Coulombic numbers are computed in the strict free-octet limit and are not affected by this issue, but the general formal claim is.
  3. [Section 2.1, Eqs. (5)-(16)] The formal setup relies on several mathematical assertions that are stated but not proved: self-adjointness of the static transfer Hamiltonian with respect to the inner product (5), the transfer-matrix spectral representation for Gauss-law-constrained states, and the existence of the isometry J in Eq. (8). Since the spectral representation of \Delta_Q in Eq. (16) and the measure in Eq. (22) are built on these assertions, the authors should either provide proofs or explicitly present these as assumptions of the matching construction rather than as derived facts.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (42)] The typesetting of the coefficient in Eq. (42) is ambiguous: what should be 2^8/\pi appears as "28/\pi", and the factor a_0^2/\epsilon_0 appears as a_0^2\epsilon_0. Please clarify, because the dimensional and sum-rule checks depend on the correct reading.
  2. [Eq. (15)] There is an unresolved cross-reference "Equation(??)" in the text immediately after Eq. (15); the intended equation number should be filled in.
  3. [Eqs. (42), (56), (57)] The paper should explicitly distinguish the normalizations of \rho^{(r)}_{1S} (which has dimension length cubed and reproduces \langle r^2\rangle) from \rho^{(0)}_{M,1S} (which is normalized to unity). The current notation invites confusion between a transition-strength density and a probability density.
  4. [Section 3, around Eq. (44)] The phrase "standard optical-theorem normalization" should spell out the color, polarization, and flux factors used to relate \sigma to \rho^{(r)}; as written, Eq. (44) is not consistent with the displayed Eqs. (42) and (43), and the missing factors should be exhibited explicitly.
  5. [Section 3, Eq. (47) and surrounding text] The statement that Eq. (47) follows from Eq. (46) is not supported by the displayed definitions: with d_2 from Eq. (45), one has c_E^{(1),ij}=\delta^{ij}d_2/2=7\pi\delta^{ij}/(384N_c^2), not the quoted 14\pi\delta^{ij}/(3N_c^2). The definition of d_n or the prefactor in Eq. (45) must be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derived magnetic coefficients are inverse moments of the independently published M1 spectral density and of the Coulomb wavefunction, with no fitted parameters and no self-citation chain supplying the central numbers.

full rationale

The new quantitative claims, c_{B,GG}^{(1)ij}=5πα_s^2(c_F V_iso^{(s)})^2δ^ij/16 and c_{B,dia}^{(1)ij}=-πα_s^2δ^ij/4, are obtained by direct evaluation of Eq. (53) using the free-octet spectral density (56) and the Coulomb wavefunction; Eq. (59) follows from an elementary Beta-function integral, and Eq. (64) from ⟨r^2⟩=3a_0^2 and ⟨r_i r_j⟩=a_0^2δ_ij. No parameter is fitted to the target result, and the numbers are not imported from the author's own preprints. The self-citations (Refs. [18,28]) supply the normalized-source-residue formalism and the renormalization-scheme context; the magnetic results do not reduce to equations of those papers. The electric reduction is an identity: the Bhanot-Peskin moments and cut are the inverse moments and boundary value of the same dipole spectral measure introduced in Eq. (22), so presenting them as 'one spectral measure' is an organizational statement rather than a new prediction. The paper itself concedes in Section 2.4 that Eqs. (35)-(36) do not establish smallness of q_H and q_d in QCD and that the hierarchy must come from the EFT; this is an unproven assumption, not a circular step. A separate algebraic concern is that Eq. (42) as printed appears inconsistent with the sum rule ∫ρ dΔ=3a_0^2 and with Eq. (43) via Eq. (44) unless an additional factor is supplied; this is an internal-consistency and correctness issue, and since no coefficient is fitted to enforce it, it does not constitute circularity.

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

The central results rest on standard QCD/EFT domain assumptions and the paper's own static-source matching construction. No physical entities are invented: the auxiliary Hilbert space and isometry J are mathematical scaffolding. No numbers are fitted; α_s, c_F, V_iso, and V_A are external EFT inputs held symbolic. The balance of assumptions is typical for a heavy-quark EFT matching paper.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The static-source adjoint Hilbert space K_adj with Gauss-law constraint admits a transfer-matrix spectral representation with the orthonormality of Eq. (7).
    Invoked in Section 2.1 to define the response residues and the resolution of identity on the auxiliary fiber; if confining dynamics invalidate the transfer-matrix discrete/continuum decomposition, the matching construction loses its foundation.
  • domain assumption The multipole expansion and the pNRQCD interaction (Eq. 1) capture the leading E1 coupling.
    Used throughout; standard for compact quarkonium but an assumption about the EFT power counting.
  • domain assumption The weak-coupling hierarchy m_Q v >> Λ_QCD and α_s(m_Q v) << 1 (Eq. 38) holds for the states considered.
    Required for the perturbative (Coulombic) evaluation of wave functions, octet propagator, and source vertex.
  • domain assumption The source-accessible gap Δ_src > 0 with supp dµ in [Δ_src, ∞) holds for the stable ground state (Eq. 25).
    Needed for the full-local inverse-moment expansion of Eq. (26); the paper notes one returns to Feshbach reduction if a low-lying singularity remains dynamical.
  • domain assumption Poincaré invariance fixes the covariant kinetic coefficient to unity (applied to the diamagnetic seagull).
    Cites Ref. [30]; the coefficient of the covariant kinetic term is not an independent fitting parameter.
  • ad hoc to paper The local matching-value approximation V_A(r) -> V_A(µ_s) and V_iso(r) -> V_iso(µ_s) is accurate for extracting the leading moments.
    Used to pull the vertices out of the matrix elements in Eqs. (48), (53), and (59); the paper labels this an approximation, not an operator identity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Connecting Heavy-Quarkonium Born-Oppenheimer EFT to the Peskin OPE." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZZ3YQWHE

@misc{pith2026260810201,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Connecting Heavy-Quarkonium Born-Oppenheimer EFT to the Peskin OPE},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZZ3YQWHE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10201}
}
abstract

We construct a source-dependent QCD-to-BOEFT matching for the gluonic response of compact heavy quarkonium. A gauge-covariant projected response separates BO channels retained dynamically from gapped sectors represented by local inverse moments. Propagation-vertex bounds provide sufficient criteria for a channel-factorized local OPE, while the additional weak-coupling and source-gap hierarchies reduce this response to the Peskin construction. In the Coulombic limit the established Bhanot-Peskin electric moments and dissociation cut arise from one spectral measure. As a magnetic extension, for a spin-singlet $1S$ state the isotropic sequential $M1$ inverse moment gives $c_{B,GG}^{(1)ij}=5\pi\alpha_s^2 (c_FV_{\rm iso}^{(s)})^2\delta^{ij}/16$, while the leading covariant-kinetic seagull gives $c_{B,{\rm dia}}^{(1)ij}=-\pi\alpha_s^2\delta^{ij}/4$. These are identifiable contributions to, rather than the complete value of, the magnetic matching coefficient.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M. E. Peskin, Short-distance analysis for heavy-quark systems. I. Diagrammatics, Nucl. Phys. B156(1979) 365–390, doi:10.1016/0550-3213(79)90199-8

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(79)90199-8 1979

  2. [2]

    Bhanot and M

    G. Bhanot and M. E. Peskin, Short-distance analysis for heavy-quark systems. II. Applications, Nucl. Phys. B156(1979) 391–416, doi:10.1016/0550-3213(79)90200-1

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(79)90200-1 1979

  3. [3]

    M. B. Voloshin, On dynamics of heavy quarks in a non-perturbative QCD vacuum, Nucl. Phys. B154(1979) 365–380, doi:10.1016/0550-3213(79)90037-3

    work page doi:10.1016/0550-3213(79)90037-3 1979

  4. [4]

    Kuang, QCD multipole expansion and hadronic transitions in heavy quarkonium systems, Front

    Y.-P. Kuang, QCD multipole expansion and hadronic transitions in heavy quarkonium systems, Front. Phys. China1(2006) 19–37, doi:10.1007/s11467-005-0012-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s11467-005-0012-6 2006

  5. [5]

    Brambilla, A

    N. Brambilla, A. Pineda, J. Soto and A. Vairo, Potential NRQCD: an effective theory for heavy quarkonium, Nucl. Phys. B 566(2000) 275–310, doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(99)00693-8

    doi:10.1016/s0550-3213(99)00693-8 2000

  6. [6]

    Brambilla, G

    N. Brambilla, G. Krein, J. Tarrús Castellà and A. Vairo, Long-range properties of1S bottomonium states, Phys. Rev. D93 (2016) 054002, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.054002

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.93.054002 2016

  7. [7]

    Berwein, N

    M. Berwein, N. Brambilla, J. Tarrús Castellà and A. Vairo, Quarkonium hybrids with nonrelativistic effective field theories, Phys. Rev. D92(2015) 114019, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.114019

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.92.114019 2015

  8. [8]

    Brambilla, G

    N. Brambilla, G. Krein, J. Tarrús Castellà and A. Vairo, The Born–Oppenheimer approximation in an effective field theory language, Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 016016, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.016016

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.97.016016 2018

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Berwein, N

    M. Berwein, N. Brambilla, A. Mohapatra and A. Vairo, One Born–Oppenheimer effective theory to rule them all: hybrids, tetraquarks, pentaquarks, doubly heavy baryons and quarkonium, Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 094040, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.094040

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    Brambilla, R

    N. Brambilla, R. Bruschini, A. Mohapatra, F.-Z. Peng and T. Scirpa, Quarkoniumlike states above open-flavor thresholds in Born–Oppenheimer EFT, arXiv:2608.04105 [hep-ph] (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  3. [11]

    M. E. Luke, A. V. Manohar and M. J. Savage, A QCD calculation of the interaction of quarkonium with nuclei, Phys. Lett. B288(1992) 355–359, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92)91114-O

    1992 doi

  4. [12]

    Lakhina and E

    O. Lakhina and E. S. Swanson, Hybrid meson potentials and the gluonic van der Waals force, Phys. Lett. B582(2004) 172–178, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2004.01.011

    2004 doi

  5. [13]

    Arleo, P.-B

    F. Arleo, P.-B. Gossiaux, T. Gousset and J. Aichelin, Heavy-quarkonium hadron cross section in QCD at leading twist, Phys. Rev. D65(2002) 014005, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.65.014005

    2002 doi

  6. [14]

    Arleo, J

    F. Arleo, J. Cugnon and Y. Kalinovsky, Heavy-quarkonium interaction in QCD at finite temperature, Phys. Lett. B614 (2005) 44–52, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2005.03.065

    2005 doi

  7. [15]

    Brambilla, M

    N. Brambilla, M. A. Escobedo, J. Ghiglieri and A. Vairo, Thermal width and gluo-dissociation of quarkonium in pNRQCD, JHEP12(2011) 116, doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2011)116

    2011 doi

  8. [16]

    Brambilla, P

    N. Brambilla, P. Pietrulewicz and A. Vairo, Model-independent study of electric dipole transitions in quarkonium, Phys. Rev. D85(2012) 094005, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.094005

    2012 doi

  9. [17]

    Brambilla, W

    N. Brambilla, W. K. Lai, A. Mohapatra and A. Vairo, Heavy hybrid decays to quarkonia, Phys. Rev. D107(2023) 054034, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.054034

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    A. I. Syamtomov, Complex chromoelectric polarizability of a heavy-quarkonium resonance: pole definition and channel- complete pNRQCD matching, arXiv:2608.00611 [hep-ph] (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Chen and M

    S. Chen and M. He, Gluo-dissociation of heavy quarkonium in the quark-gluon plasma revisited, Phys. Rev. C96(2017) 034901, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.96.034901

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    Yang and X

    D.-L. Yang and X. Yao, Quarkonium polarization in medium from open quantum systems and chromomagnetic correlators, Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 074037, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.074037

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    Philipsen, On the non-perturbative gluon mass and heavy quark physics, Nucl

    O. Philipsen, On the non-perturbative gluon mass and heavy quark physics, Nucl. Phys. B628(2002) 167–192, doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(02)00089-5. 12

    2002 doi

  14. [22]

    Philipsen and M

    O. Philipsen and M. Wagner, On the definition and interpretation of a static quark–antiquark potential in the colour-adjoint channel, Phys. Rev. D89(2014) 014509, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.014509

    2014 doi

  15. [23]

    Feshbach, Unified theory of nuclear reactions, Ann

    H. Feshbach, Unified theory of nuclear reactions, Ann. Phys.5(1958) 357–390, doi:10.1016/0003-4916(58)90007-1

    1958 doi

  16. [24]

    Georgi and H

    H. Georgi and H. D. Politzer, Freedom at moderate energies: masses in color dynamics, Phys. Rev. D14(1976) 1829–1848, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.14.1829

    1976 doi

  17. [25]

    Kodaira, T

    J. Kodaira, T. Nasuno, H. Tochimura, K. Tanaka and Y. Yasui, Renormalization of gauge-invariant operators for the structure functiong 2(x, Q2), Prog. Theor. Phys.99(1998) 315–320, doi:10.1143/PTP.99.315

    1998 doi

  18. [26]

    Tanaka, Three-loop formula for quark and gluon contributions to the QCD trace anomaly, JHEP01(2019) 120, doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2019)120

    K. Tanaka, Three-loop formula for quark and gluon contributions to the QCD trace anomaly, JHEP01(2019) 120, doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2019)120

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    Panagopoulos, H

    G. Panagopoulos, H. Panagopoulos and G. Spanoudes, Two-loop renormalization and mixing of gluon and quark energy– momentum tensor operators, Phys. Rev. D103(2021) 014515, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.014515

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    A. I. Syamtomov, Chromoelectric and chromomagnetic matching to scalar and spin-two nucleon structure, arXiv:2607.18831 [hep-ph] (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Kato,Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators, Springer, Berlin (1995), doi:10.1007/978-3-642-66282-9

    T. Kato,Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators, Springer, Berlin (1995), doi:10.1007/978-3-642-66282-9

    1995 doi

  22. [30]

    Brambilla, D

    N. Brambilla, D. Gromes and A. Vairo, Poincaré invariance constraints on NRQCD and potential NRQCD, Phys. Lett. B 576(2003) 314–327, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2003.09.087

    2003 doi

  23. [31]

    Alford and M

    J. Alford and M. Strickland, Charmonia and bottomonia in a magnetic field, Phys. Rev. D88(2013) 105017, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.105017. 13

    2013 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.