Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 79 references

The decay properties of two- and three- gluon glueballs

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read By converting each constituent gluon into a quark–antiquark pair and applying exact color and Lorentz Fierz rearrangements, this paper derives glueball branching-ratio patterns that support a sizable gluon component in f0(1710), favor the…

desk verdict A competent, honest extension of the authors' Fierz program to tensor and three-gluon glueballs, with a useful scalar sum-rule cross-check, but the headline predictions rest on an untested vector-only effective vertex. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.11814 v1 pith:5B5KKH22 submitted 2026-08-12 hep-ph

Wei-Han Tan , Hua-Xing Chen , Ding-Kun Lian , Wen-Ying Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph PACS 12.39.Mk13.25.-k
keywords glueballinterpolatingcurrentQCDsumrulesFierzrearrangementtwo-gluonthree-gluonrelativebranchingratiosf0(1710)
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to show that the decay patterns of glueballs are fixed largely by the algebraic color and Lorentz structure of QCD, not by a detailed dynamical model. Its method converts each constituent gluon into a quark–antiquark pair through a vector current, then uses Fierz rearrangements to rewrite two- and three-gluon glueball currents as sums of ordinary meson operators. The predicted relative branching ratios single out f0(1710) as having a sizable scalar-glueball component, support identifying eta(2370) as the $0^{{-+}}$ glueball, and point to vector–vector channels, especially K*(892) Kbar*(892), as the best place to find the tensor glueball. A separate QCD sum rule calculation for the scalar glueball gives an eta-eta/pi-pi ratio close to the Fierz result, which the authors read as evidence that the algebraic pattern captures the dominant physics. If these identifications are right, future searches already know which specific meson pairs to look at.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the effective gluon-to-quark vertex of Eq. (16), $A_i^\mu \to \lambda^i_{ab}\bar q_a\gamma^\mu q_b$, together with the color identity $\lambda^i_{ab}\lambda^i_{cd}=2\delta_{ad}\delta_{cb}-\frac{2}{3}\delta_{ab}\delta_{cd}$ and the standard Lorentz-space Fierz identities. These transformations convert a glueball current into a finite sum of color-singlet quark-bilinear currents, which are then matched to physical meson states through the current–meson couplings of Table I. Two-gluon currents need one Fierz rearrangement; three-gluon currents need two, producing three-meson final states. The overall normalization of the amplitudes is not fixed, so the framework predicts relative branching ratios rather than absolute widths.

What would settle it

Measure the $K^*(892)\bar K^*(892)$ rate of the tensor glueball candidate relative to $\pi\pi$: the Fierz analysis predicts a ratio near 116, so finding that vector–vector modes are not enhanced, or observing a sizable scalar–scalar mode such as $f_0(980)f_0(980)$, would falsify the central decay pattern.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the relative strengths of glueball decay channels can be obtained by exact Fierz rearrangement of the glueball interpolating currents, once each gluon is converted into a quark–antiquark pair through the effective vertex $A_i^\mu \to \lambda^i_{ab}\bar q_a\gamma^\mu q_b$. For the scalar two-gluon glueball this gives $B(\eta\eta)/B(\pi\pi)=0.42$ and a pattern that differs from f0(1500), consistent with a sizable gluon component in f0(1710). For the pseudoscalar glueball the calculation produces large vector–vector modes (omega-phi, omega-omega, phi-phi) and a suppressed $K\bar K^*(892)$ mode, matching the observed behavior of eta(2370) and favoring its $0^{-+}$ glueball interpretation. For the tensor glueball the vector–vector channels dominate, with $K^*(892)\bar K^*(892)$ the most favorable, and scalar–scalar modes vanish identically at leading order. For three-gluon glueballs the paper identifies $\pi\pi\omega$ and $K\bar K\phi$ as promising channels for the $0^{++}$ state and $\pi\pi\omega$, $\pi\pi\phi$, and $K\bar K\phi$ for the $1^{+-}$ state.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that each gluon creates a quark–antiquark pair through the vector current of Eq. (16); if the true gluon-to-meson conversion is not dominated by this coupling, every relative branching ratio in the paper changes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If f0(1710) is a predominantly two-gluon scalar glueball, its eta-eta to pi-pi branching ratio should be about 0.42 and its decay pattern should differ clearly from that of f0(1500).
  • If eta(2370) is the $0^{-+}$ glueball, its dominant decay modes should be omega-phi, omega-omega, and phi-phi, with the $K\bar K^*(892)$ mode suppressed, as recently observed.
  • A tensor glueball near 2.34 GeV should be searched for in $K^*(892)\bar K^*(892)$ and other vector–vector channels, while scalar–scalar final states are predicted to be absent at leading order.
  • The $0^{++}$ three-gluon glueball should be searched for in $\pi\pi\omega$ and $K\bar K\phi$, and the $1^{+-}$ state in $\pi\pi\omega$, $\pi\pi\phi$, and $K\bar K\phi$.
  • The QCD sum rule estimate for the scalar glueball gives a total width around 107 MeV with vanishing rho-rho and omega-omega contributions, consistent with the Fierz pattern and supporting the use of the Fierz method as a survey tool.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same algebraic machinery could be applied to other gluonic candidates, such as hybrid mesons, with the vanishing scalar–scalar couplings of the tensor glueball serving as a sharp null test against conventional $q\bar q$ tensor mesons.
  • Because every prediction flows from the vector-current vertex of Eq. (16), repeating the calculation with axial-vector or tensor couplings would map how much of the branching-ratio hierarchy is model-dependent.
  • The predicted $K^*(892)\bar K^*(892)$ dominance is strong enough to be tested in high-statistics partial-wave analyses of radiative quarkonium decays once the tensor candidate's sample size grows.
  • If future measurements find sizable rho-rho or omega-omega decays of the scalar glueball, that would point to subleading or non-vector mechanisms that the leading-order Fierz and sum-rule treatments both omit.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper extends a previously proposed Fierz-rearrangement framework to compute relative branching ratios for two-gluon glueballs with J^PC = 0++, 0-+, 2++, and 2-+, and for three-gluon glueballs with 0++ and 1+-. The gluon fields are converted into quark-antiquark currents through the effective vertex A_i^mu -> lambda^i_ab qbar_a gamma^mu q_b, followed by color and Lorentz Fierz rearrangements; the resulting operators are matched to meson states using the couplings in Table I. The paper also performs a leading-order QCD sum rule analysis of the scalar glueball two-pion decay and compares the resulting Gamma(eta eta)/Gamma(pi pi) ratio with the Fierz prediction. Based on the decay patterns, the authors argue for a sizable gluon component in f0(1710), a 0-+ glueball interpretation of eta(2370), and K*(892) Kbar*(892) as a favorable search channel for the tensor glueball, and they identify pi pi omega and K Kbar phi as promising three-body modes.

Significance. If the effective-vertex assumption is accepted, the paper provides a systematic and transparent classification of the flavor and Lorentz structures of two- and three-gluon glueball decays, with explicit relative branching ratios that could guide experimental searches. The scalar-channel QCD sum rule check is a useful independent consistency test, and the algebraic Fierz decompositions in Appendix A are presented in enough detail to be checked. The significance of the main phenomenological claims is, however, conditional on the undetermined Lorentz structure of the gluon-to-quark conversion: the claimed hierarchies, such as K*Kbar* dominance for the tensor glueball and omega-phi/omega-omega dominance for the pseudoscalar glueball, are inherited from the vector-only vertex in Eq. (16), and the paper does not demonstrate their stability under alternative Lorentz couplings.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III, Eq. (16)] The central predictions all rest on the ad hoc effective vertex A_i^mu -> lambda^i_ab qbar_a gamma^mu q_b. Every Fierz amplitude in Secs. IV and V is obtained by rearranging products of this vector coupling, so the relative weights of the scalar, pseudoscalar, vector, and tensor meson operators in Eqs. (20) and (A1) are fixed by the choice of gamma^mu. An axial-vector, tensor, or mixed Lorentz structure would redistribute these weights and would change essentially every entry in Tables II and III. The manuscript does not show that the quoted hierarchies, including K*Kbar* dominance for 2++, omega-phi and omega-omega dominance for 0-+, and the suppression of the small three-body modes, survive such a replacement. Because the abstract and Sec. VII present these hierarchies as the main results, this is a load-bearing model assumption rather than an overall normalization that cancels in ratios.
  2. [Sec. V, three-gluon amplitudes] The three-gluon section explicitly states that the explicit decay amplitudes and their squared forms are not listed, and only the final relative branching ratios in Table III are given. This means the 37 branching ratios for the 0++ three-gluon glueball and the 29 ratios for the 1+- state cannot be independently checked from the text, and no ancillary or machine-readable derivation is provided. Since the three-gluon predictions are part of the paper's claimed results, the omission blocks verification and should be remedied by including the amplitudes (or a reproducible derivation) or by clearly marking these results as provisional.
  3. [Sec. VI, Eq. (29)] The QCD sum rule analysis is limited to the scalar glueball, and the central OPE expression T_OPE = <g_s^2 GG>^2/(48 pi^2 k^2) is presented without derivation. The check therefore provides only one number, Gamma(eta eta)/Gamma(pi pi) ~ 0.44 versus 0.42, and it does not constrain the pseudoscalar, tensor, pseudotensor, or three-gluon predictions. As a result, the sum rule cannot serve as an independent validation of the main claims beyond the scalar ratio, and the paper should state this limitation more prominently rather than presenting the consistency as a general check of the Fierz framework.
  4. [Sec. IV, mass inputs and interpretation] The paper adopts the masses of f0(1710), eta(2370), f2(2340), and X(2600) as inputs and then uses agreement between the computed branching patterns and the measured or assumed properties of these states to support their glueball interpretation. Using a candidate's mass as input is not circular by itself, but the argument would be much stronger if the framework also showed how a conventional q-qbar state with the same quantum numbers would differ in the same observables. Without such a benchmark, the conclusion that the patterns 'support a sizable gluon component' rests on a comparison against only the glueball candidate, which limits the discriminative power of the analysis.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (20)] In the last displayed term of Eq. (20), the momentum factor is written as (q^nu_a + q^nu_b) with lowercase indices, whereas all other terms in the same equation use q_A and q_B; this appears to be a typographical error.
  2. [Sec. VI, Eq. (30)] The Borel-transformed expression in Eq. (30) uses an undefined variable T; please specify the Borel mass parameter and the Borel window used in the numerical analysis.
  3. [Table I] The formatting of Table I is very compressed (for example, the kaon-strange-scalar rows), which makes the quark-flavor assignments and quantum numbers harder to read than necessary.
  4. [Sec. V] The paper says the three-gluon squared amplitudes are 'not particularly useful to display in full,' but the analogous two-gluon squared amplitudes are provided in Appendix B; a brief statement of the phase-space integration method and the Dalitz variables used for Table III would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the branching-ratio tables are algebraic outputs of a stated vector-coupling ansatz, and no predicted quantity is fitted to the data it is used to explain.

full rationale

The derivation chain is transparent: interpolating currents (Eqs. 1-6), the effective gluon-to-quark vertex A_i^mu -> lambda^i_ab qbar_a gamma^mu q_b (Eq. 16, explicitly stated as a constituent-gluon assumption), exact color and Dirac Fierz rearrangements (Eqs. 17, 20, A1), matching to meson operators via the external couplings in Table I, and phase-space factors. No relative branching ratio in Tables II or III is used as an input, and no parameter is fitted to the f0(1710), eta(2370), f2(2340), or X(2600) decay data that the paper then interprets. The candidate masses are inputs, which partially presupposes the identifications, but the masses do not by themselves determine the branching-ratio pattern; outputs such as Gamma(eta eta)/Gamma(pi pi)=0.42, the VV dominance for 2++, and the near-vanishing of tiny three-body modes are nontrivial algebraic consequences and are compared with external PDG/BESIII data. The tensor and three-gluon currents are cited from the same group's Ref. [24], but the currents are explicitly written in the present paper and the Fierz algebra is carried out here, so the central argument does not reduce to the self-citation. The QCD sum-rule section is a leading-order check that shares the same candidate mass and the same scalar interpolating current; Eq. (29) is asserted without derivation and the glueball decay constant f_G entering Eq. (30) is not specified. These are genuine limitations on the claimed independence of the cross-check, and the paper itself acknowledges that normalization and dynamical overlap/FSI corrections are undetermined (Sec. III and Appendix A). However, none of these limitations exhibits the specific reduction required for circularity: no predicted quantity equals an input by construction, and no load-bearing argument collapses into a self-citation chain. The central branching-ratio predictions are model-dependent consequences of the stated Eq. (16) ansatz, not circular restatements of the data.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on a hand-written effective gluon-to-quark-pair vertex and on candidate-mass assignments for each J^PC. No free coupling is fitted to the predicted decay data, but the choice of candidate masses controls the phase space and the interpretation claims.

free parameters (4)
  • Scalar glueball mass input = 1723 MeV (f0(1710) mass)
    Adopted as the scalar glueball mass for all 0++ branching ratios; this presupposes the f0(1710) identification used in the interpretation, and the phase-space factors depend on it.
  • Pseudoscalar glueball mass input = 2377 MeV (eta(2370) mass)
    Adopted to compute the 0-+ branching ratios and later used to claim the eta(2370) glueball interpretation.
  • Tensor glueball mass input = 2346 MeV (f2(2340) mass)
    Used as the 2++ glueball mass; f2(2340) is a candidate, not an established glueball.
  • Pseudotensor glueball mass input = 2618 MeV (X(2600) mass)
    Chosen as a representative input for an unestablished 2-+ state; the paper states this is only a representative mass, and it directly affects phase-space factors.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper Each constituent gluon creates a quark-antiquark pair through A_i^mu -> lambda^i_ab qbar_a gamma^mu q_b (Eq. (16)), with same-flavor quark pairing.
    This hand-written effective vertex fixes the algebraic structure of every decay amplitude in the paper and is not derived from QCD.
  • domain assumption Decays are dominated by converting each gluon separately into a q qbar pair; mesons are q qbar states; final-state interactions and wave-function overlaps are neglected.
    Stated in Secs. I and III; if these effects are large, channel-dependent corrections change the relative branching ratios.
  • domain assumption The interpolating currents of Eqs. (1)-(6) couple to the corresponding glueball states with the quantum numbers given in Eqs. (9)-(14), as proposed in Ref. [24].
    The entire Fierz construction starts from these currents; a different current choice changes the algebraic decomposition.
  • domain assumption The QCD sum rule OPE is dominated by the double-gluon condensate and the leading Lorentz structure, with equal final-state momenta k^2 = q^2; continuum and higher condensates are neglected.
    Used to extract g_pi_pi in Eqs. (29)-(30); the paper labels this a leading-order estimate with large errors.
  • standard math SU(3) color Fierz identities (Eqs. (18), (24), (25)) and Lorentz-space Fierz identities from Ref. [59] are correct.
    Standard algebraic identities used to reorganize quark operators; they are background mathematics, not new physics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The decay properties of two- and three- gluon glueballs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5B5KKH22

@misc{pith2026260811814,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The decay properties of two- and three- gluon glueballs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5B5KKH22}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11814}
}
abstract

We previously studied the decay properties of two- and three-gluon glueballs using the Fierz rearrangement method and obtained their relative branching ratios in Ref.~\cite{Tan:2026uue}. In this work, we extend and develop this analysis by providing a more complete treatment of two-gluon glueball decays and by considering the tensor and pseudotensor states with $J^{PC}=2^{++}$ and $2^{-+}$. We also perform an independent QCD sum rule analysis of the $0^{++}$ two-gluon glueball decay. The consistency between the two approaches provides a useful check of the Fierz analysis. Our results support a sizable gluon component in the $f_0(1710)$ and favor the $0^{-+}$ glueball interpretation of the $\eta(2370)$. For the tensor glueball, the vector--vector ($VV$) decay channels, especially $K^{*}(892)\bar{K}^{*}(892)$, are found to be favorable for experimental searches. We also study three-gluon glueballs with $J^{PC}=0^{++}$ and $1^{+-}$ and identify several potentially favorable three-meson decay channels, including $\pi\pi\omega$ and $K\bar K\phi$. These results provide possible guidance for future experimental searches for glueball states.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.11814 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Diagram (a) illustrates the schematic diagram of a two-gluon glueball decaying into two mesons via a single Fierz [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    W. H. Tan and H. X. Chen, Fierz analyses on the decay properties of two- and three-gluon glueballs, Phys. Rev. D113(2026) no.11, 114030

    work page 2026

  2. [2]

    Here,σdenotesf 0(500),κdenotesK ∗ 0 (700),f 0 denotes f0(980), andK ∗ denotesK ∗(892). Operators– (IG)JPC Mesons (IG)JPC Couplings Decay Constants ¯qq (0+)0++ σ (0+)0++ ⟨0|J|σ⟩=m σfσ fσ∼380 MeV ¯qiγ5q (0+)0−+ η (0+)0−+ ⟨0|J|η⟩=λ ηq ληq = 172466 MeV 2 η′ (0+)0−+ ⟨0|J|η′⟩=λ η′q λη′q = 119280 MeV 2 ¯qγµq (0−)1−− ω (0−)1−− ⟨0|Jµ|ω⟩=m ωfωϵµ fω≈f ρ = 216 MeV ¯q...

    work page

  3. [3]

    The global factorsC 1,C 2,C 3,C 4 andC 5 appearing at different stages of the derivation are related to one another and should not be regarded as independent parameters

    +··· −−−→C5×−(∂ µ[¯qa 1qa 4]A−[¯qa 1 ← →∂ µqa 4]A)×(∂ µ[¯qb 3qb 2]B−[¯qb 3 ← →∂ µqb 2]B) +··· −−−→+1 4[¯ua 1γµγ5da 4]A[ ¯db 3γµγ5ub 2]B×(qν A +qν B)2 + 1 2[¯ua 1γµγ5da 4]A[ ¯db 3γνγ5ub 2]B×(qµ A +qµ B)(qν A +qν B) + 3 4[¯ua 1γ5da 4]A[ ¯db 3γ5ub 2]B×(q 2 A +q 2 B + 2qA·qB) + 1 4[¯ua 1γµda 4]A[ ¯db 3γµub 2]B×(qν A +qν B)2 + 1 2[¯ua 1γµda 4]A[ ¯db 3γνub 2]B×...

    work page

  4. [4]

    +··· color −−−→C3×δadδcb×∂ µ¯qa 1γνqb 2×∂µ¯qc 3γνqd 4 +··· Fierz −−−→C4×δadδcb×(−∂ µ¯qa 1qd 4×∂µ¯qc 3qb 2 + 1 2∂µ¯qa 1γνqd 4×∂µ¯qc 3γνqb 2 + 1 2∂µ¯qa 1γνγ5qd 4×∂µ¯qc 3γνγ5qb 2 +∂ µ¯qa 1γ5qd 4×∂µ¯qc 3γ5qb

    work page

  5. [5]

    Navaset al.[Particle Data Group], Review of particle physics, Phys

    S. Navaset al.[Particle Data Group], Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D110(2024) no.3, 030001

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    T. A. DeGrand, R. L. Jaffe, K. Johnson and J. E. Kiskis, Masses and Other Parameters of the Light Hadrons, Phys. Rev. D12(1975), 2060

    work page 1975

  7. [7]

    C. E. Carlson, T. H. Hansson and C. Peterson, Meson, Baryon and Glueball Masses in the MIT Bag Model, Phys. Rev. D27(1983), 1556-1564

    work page 1983

  8. [8]

    Isgur and J

    N. Isgur and J. E. Paton, A Flux Tube Model for Hadrons, Phys. Lett. B124(1983), 247-251

    work page 1983

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    Isgur and J

    N. Isgur and J. E. Paton, A Flux Tube Model for Hadrons in QCD, Phys. Rev. D31(1985), 2910

    1985

  2. [10]

    Michael and M

    C. Michael and M. Teper, The Glueball Spectrum in 14 SU(3), Nucl. Phys. B314(1989), 347-362

    1989

  3. [11]

    Szczepaniak, E

    A. Szczepaniak, E. S. Swanson, C. R. Ji and S. R. Cotanch, Glueball spectroscopy in a relativistic many body approach to hadron structure, Phys. Rev. Lett.76(1996), 2011-2014

    1996

  4. [12]

    C. J. Morningstar and M. J. Peardon, The Glueball spec- trum from an anisotropic lattice study, Phys. Rev. D60 (1999), 034509

    1999

  5. [13]

    H. B. Meyer, Glueball regge trajectories, [arXiv:hep- lat/0508002 [hep-lat]]

  6. [14]

    F. J. Llanes-Estrada, P. Bicudo and S. R. Cotanch, Odd- balls and a low odderon intercept, Phys. Rev. Lett.96 (2006), 081601

    2006

  7. [15]

    Y. Chen, A. Alexandru, S. J. Dong, T. Draper, I. Hor- vath, F. X. Lee, K. F. Liu, N. Mathur, C. Morningstar and M. Peardon,et al.Glueball spectrum and matrix el- ements on anisotropic lattices, Phys. Rev. D73(2006), 014516

    2006

  8. [16]

    Karch, E

    A. Karch, E. Katz, D. T. Son and M. A. Stephanov, Lin- ear confinement and AdS/QCD, Phys. Rev. D74(2006), 015005

    2006

  9. [17]

    Forkel, Holographic glueball structure, Phys

    H. Forkel, Holographic glueball structure, Phys. Rev. D 78(2008), 025001

    2008

  10. [18]

    Mathieu, F

    V. Mathieu, F. Buisseret and C. Semay, Gluons in glue- balls: Spin or helicity?, Phys. Rev. D77(2008), 114022

    2008

  11. [19]

    C. M. Richardset al.[UKQCD], Glueball mass mea- surements from improved staggered fermion simulations, Phys. Rev. D82(2010), 034501

    2010

  12. [20]

    Z. C. Ye, X. Wang, X. Liu and Q. Zhao, The mass spec- trum and strong decays of isoscalar tensor mesons, Phys. Rev. D86(2012), 054025

    2012

  13. [21]

    Gregory, A

    E. Gregory, A. Irving, B. Lucini, C. McNeile, A. Rago, C. Richards and E. Rinaldi, Towards the glueball spec- trum from unquenched lattice QCD, JHEP10(2012), 170

    2012

  14. [22]

    Li and M

    D. Li and M. Huang, Dynamical holographic QCD model for glueball and light meson spectra, JHEP11(2013), 088

    2013

  15. [23]

    Br¨ unner and A

    F. Br¨ unner and A. Rebhan, Nonchiral enhancement of scalar glueball decay in the Witten-Sakai-Sugimoto model, Phys. Rev. Lett.115(2015) no.13, 131601

    2015

  16. [24]

    Yamanaka, H

    N. Yamanaka, H. Iida, A. Nakamura and M. Wakayama, Glueball scattering cross section in lattice SU(2) Yang- Mills theory, Phys. Rev. D102(2020) no.5, 054507

    2020

  17. [25]

    Athenodorou and M

    A. Athenodorou and M. Teper, The glueball spectrum of SU(3) gauge theory in 3 + 1 dimensions, JHEP11 (2020), 172

    2020

  18. [26]

    A. V. Sarantsev, I. Denisenko, U. Thoma and E. Klempt, Scalar isoscalar mesons and the scalar glueball from ra- diativeJ/ψdecays, Phys. Lett. B816(2021), 136227

    2021

  19. [27]

    H. X. Chen, W. Chen and S. L. Zhu, Two- and three- gluon glueballs of C=+, Phys. Rev. D104(2021) no.9, 094050

    2021

  20. [28]

    J. P. Leeset al.[BaBar], Study of Υ(1S) radiative decays toγπ +π− andγK +K−, Phys. Rev. D97(2018) no.11, 112006

    2018

  21. [29]

    J. P. Leeset al.[BaBar], Light meson spectroscopy from Dalitz plot analyses ofη c decays toη ′K +K−,η ′π+π−, andηπ +π− produced in two-photon interactions, Phys. Rev. D104(2021) no.7, 072002

    2021

  22. [30]

    Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Observation of a State X(2600) in theπ +π−η′ System in the ProcessJ/ψ→ γπ +π−η′, Phys

    M. Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Observation of a State X(2600) in theπ +π−η′ System in the ProcessJ/ψ→ γπ +π−η′, Phys. Rev. Lett.129(2022) no.4, 042001

    2022

  23. [31]

    Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Determination of Spin-Parity Quantum Numbers ofX(2370) as 0 −+ fromJ/ψ→ γK 0 sK 0 sη′, Phys

    M. Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Determination of Spin-Parity Quantum Numbers ofX(2370) as 0 −+ fromJ/ψ→ γK 0 sK 0 sη′, Phys. Rev. Lett.132(2024) no.18, 181901

    2024

  24. [32]

    Aaijet al.[LHCb], Study of light-meson resonances decaying toK 0 SKπin theB→(K 0 SKπ)Kchannels, Phys

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], Study of light-meson resonances decaying toK 0 SKπin theB→(K 0 SKπ)Kchannels, Phys. Rev. D111(2025) no.9, 092009

    2025

  25. [33]

    Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Lightest 0 −+ Glueball as Dominant Constituent ofX(2370), [arXiv:2607.20366 [hep-ex]]

    M. Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Lightest 0 −+ Glueball as Dominant Constituent ofX(2370), [arXiv:2607.20366 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv

  26. [34]

    Amsler and F

    C. Amsler and F. E. Close, Evidence for a scalar glueball, Phys. Lett. B353(1995), 385-390

    1995

  27. [35]

    Klempt and A

    E. Klempt and A. Zaitsev, Glueballs, Hybrids, Multi- quarks. Experimental facts versus QCD inspired con- cepts, Phys. Rept.454(2007), 1-202

    2007

  28. [36]

    Crede and C

    V. Crede and C. A. Meyer, The Experimental Status of Glueballs, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.63(2009), 74-116

    2009

  29. [37]

    Mathieu, N

    V. Mathieu, N. Kochelev and V. Vento, The Physics of Glueballs, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E18(2009), 1-49

    2009

  30. [38]

    C. A. Meyer and Y. Van Haarlem, The Status of Exotic- quantum-number Mesons, Phys. Rev. C82(2010), 025208

    2010

  31. [39]

    Ochs, The Status of Glueballs, J

    W. Ochs, The Status of Glueballs, J. Phys. G40(2013), 043001

    2013

  32. [40]

    Brambilla, S

    N. Brambilla, S. Eidelman, P. Foka, S. Gardner, A. S. Kronfeld, M. G. Alford, R. Alkofer, M. Buten- schoen, T. D. Cohen and J. Erdmenger,et al.QCD and Strongly Coupled Gauge Theories: Challenges and Per- spectives, Eur. Phys. J. C74(2014) no.10, 2981

    2014

  33. [41]

    C. A. Meyer and E. S. Swanson, Hybrid Mesons, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.82(2015), 21-58

    2015

  34. [42]

    Sonnenschein, Holography Inspired Stringy Hadrons, Prog

    J. Sonnenschein, Holography Inspired Stringy Hadrons, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.92(2017), 1-49

    2017

  35. [43]

    R. A. Briceno, J. J. Dudek and R. D. Young, Scattering processes and resonances from lattice QCD, Rev. Mod. Phys.90(2018) no.2, 025001

    2018

  36. [44]

    F. K. Guo, C. Hanhart, U. G. Meißner, Q. Wang, Q. Zhao and B. S. Zou, Hadronic molecules, Rev. Mod. Phys.90 (2018) no.1, 015004

    2018

  37. [45]

    S. D. Bass and P. Moskal,η ′ andηmesons with connec- tion to anomalous glue, Rev. Mod. Phys.91(2019) no.1, 015003

    2019

  38. [46]

    Ketzer, B

    B. Ketzer, B. Grube and D. Ryabchikov, Light-Meson Spectroscopy with COMPASS, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 113(2020), 103755

    2020

  39. [47]

    C. D. Roberts, D. G. Richards, T. Horn and L. Chang, Insights into the emergence of mass from studies of pion and kaon structure, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.120(2021), 103883

    2021

  40. [48]

    S. S. Fang, B. Kubis and A. Kupsc, What can we learn about light-meson interactions at electron–positron col- liders?, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.120(2021), 103884

    2021

  41. [49]

    Jin and X

    S. Jin and X. Shen, Highlights of light meson spec- troscopy at the BESIII experiment, Natl. Sci. Rev.8 (2021) no.11, nwab198

    2021

  42. [50]

    Gross, E

    F. Gross, E. Klempt, S. J. Brodsky, A. J. Buras, V. D. Burkert, G. Heinrich, K. Jakobs, C. A. Meyer, K. Orginos and M. Strickland,et al.50 Years of Quan- tum Chromodynamics, Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023), 1125

    2023

  43. [51]

    W. Qin, Q. Zhao and X. H. Zhong, Revisiting the pseu- doscalar meson and glueball mixing and key issues in the search for a pseudoscalar glueball state, Phys. Rev. D97 (2018) no.9, 096002

    2018

  44. [52]

    Klempt and A

    E. Klempt and A. V. Sarantsev, Singlet-octet-glueball mixing of scalar mesons, Phys. Lett. B826(2022), 136906. 15

    2022

  45. [53]

    H. X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, Y. R. Liu and S. L. Zhu, An updated review of the new hadron states, Rept. Prog. Phys.86(2023) no.2, 026201

    2023

  46. [54]

    Z. G. Wang, Analysis of theX(2370) as a glueball based on rigorous current-field duality, [arXiv:2608.03362 [hep- ph]]

    arXiv

  47. [55]

    Fierz, Zur Fermischen Theorie desβ-Zerfalls, Z

    M. Fierz, Zur Fermischen Theorie desβ-Zerfalls, Z. Phys. 104(1937) no.7-8, 553-565

    1937

  48. [56]

    Gell-Mann, A Schematic Model of Baryons and Mesons, Phys

    M. Gell-Mann, A Schematic Model of Baryons and Mesons, Phys. Lett.8(1964), 214-215

    1964

  49. [57]

    Zweig, An SU(3) model for strong interaction symme- try and its breaking

    G. Zweig, An SU(3) model for strong interaction symme- try and its breaking. Version 1

  50. [58]

    Zweig, An SU(3) model for strong interaction symme- try and its breaking

    G. Zweig, An SU(3) model for strong interaction symme- try and its breaking. Version 2

  51. [59]

    De Rujula, H

    A. De Rujula, H. Georgi and S. L. Glashow, Hadron Masses in a Gauge Theory, Phys. Rev. D12(1975), 147- 162

    1975

  52. [60]

    Isgur and G

    N. Isgur and G. Karl, P Wave Baryons in the Quark Model, Phys. Rev. D18(1978), 4187

    1978

  53. [61]

    Godfrey and N

    S. Godfrey and N. Isgur, Mesons in a Relativized Quark Model with Chromodynamics, Phys. Rev. D32(1985), 189-231

    1985

  54. [62]

    H. X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, The hidden- charm pentaquark and tetraquark states, Phys. Rept. 639(2016), 1-121

    2016

  55. [63]

    W. H. Tan, W. Y. Liu, H. Z. Xi and H. X. Chen, QCD sum rule study of excited light meson operators, Phys. Rev. D112(2025) no.5, 054040

    2025

  56. [64]

    Moshinsky, Transformation brackets for harmonic os- cillator functions, Nucl

    M. Moshinsky, Transformation brackets for harmonic os- cillator functions, Nucl. Phys.13(1959) no.1, 104-116

    1959

  57. [65]

    J. E. Ribeiro, Matrix Elements of the Exchange Opera- tor for Arbitrary Angular Momentum Two Meson States, Phys. Rev. D25(1982), 2406

    1982

  58. [66]

    I. J. Thompson, Coupled reaction channels calculations in nuclear physics, Comput. Phys. Rept.7(1988), 167- 212

    1988

  59. [67]

    Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Amplitude analysis of the π0π0 system produced in radiativeJ/ψdecays, Phys

    M. Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Amplitude analysis of the π0π0 system produced in radiativeJ/ψdecays, Phys. Rev. D92(2015) no.5, 052003

    2015

  60. [68]

    Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Amplitude analysis of the KSKS system produced in radiativeJ/ψdecays, Phys

    M. Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Amplitude analysis of the KSKS system produced in radiativeJ/ψdecays, Phys. Rev. D98(2018) no.7, 072003

    2018

  61. [69]

    Gasser and H

    J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Chiral Perturbation Theory to One Loop, Annals Phys.158(1984), 142

    1984

  62. [70]

    Ecker, J

    G. Ecker, J. Gasser, A. Pich and E. de Rafael, The Role of Resonances in Chiral Perturbation Theory, Nucl. Phys. B321(1989), 311-342

    1989

  63. [71]

    Borsanyi, G

    S. Borsanyi, G. Endrodi, Z. Fodor, A. Jakovac, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg, C. Ratti and K. K. Szabo, The QCD equation of state with dynamical quarks, JHEP11 (2010), 077

    2010

  64. [72]

    S. L. Adler, Consistency conditions on the strong inter- actions implied by a partially conserved axial vector cur- rent, Phys. Rev.137(1965), B1022-B1033

    1965

  65. [73]

    Becher and H

    T. Becher and H. Leutwyler, Low energy analysis of πN→πN, JHEP06(2001), 017

    2001

  66. [74]

    Bicudo, Analytic proof that the quark model complies with partially conserved axial current theorems, Phys

    P. Bicudo, Analytic proof that the quark model complies with partially conserved axial current theorems, Phys. Rev. C67(2003), 035201

    2003

  67. [75]

    Berger and L

    C. Berger and L. M. Sehgal, PCAC and coherent pion production by low energy neutrinos, Phys. Rev. D79 (2009), 053003

    2009

  68. [76]

    F. S. Navarra, M. Nielsen and S. H. Lee, QCD sum rules study of QQ - anti-u anti-d mesons, Phys. Lett. B649 (2007), 166-172

    2007

  69. [77]

    Narison, Gluon condensates and c, b quark masses from quarkonia ratios of moments, Phys

    S. Narison, Gluon condensates and c, b quark masses from quarkonia ratios of moments, Phys. Lett. B693 (2010), 559-566

    2010

  70. [78]

    J. Lu, G. L. Yu, Z. G. Wang and B. Wu, Analysis of the strong vertices of Σc∆D∗ and Σb∆B∗ in QCD sum rules, Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) no.10, 907

    2023

  71. [79]

    N. Su, E. L. Cui, Y. W. Jiang and H. X. Chen, A tetraquark 81-plet withJ PC = 1−+ or a hybrid nonet, Eur. Phys. J. C86(2026) no.6, 724

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.