Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 57 references

Investigate the glueball-like particle $X(2370)$ in $B$ meson decays

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read If X(2370) is the lightest pseudoscalar glueball, B meson decays to it should be observable at rates near 10^-6.

desk verdict The paper gives a coherent, fully derived set of B->X(2370) branching fractions in PQCD, but the quoted error bars ignore the dominant fs and a2 model uncertainties, so the detectability claim is not supported by the error budget. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.15224 v1 pith:CJREMYT5 submitted 2025-01-25 hep-ph

Xiao-Tong Li , Guang-Yu Wang , Qi-An Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords X(2370)pseudoscalarglueballBmesondecaysPQCDfactorizationtransitionformfactorslight-conedistributionamplitudeB-factoryexperiments
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 argues that heavy $B$ meson decays are a new, clean hunting ground for the $X(2370)$ state, provided $X(2370)$ is the lightest pseudoscalar glueball. Using perturbative QCD factorization, the authors compute the transition form factors for $B \to X(2370)$ and find semileptonic branching fractions of order $10^{-6}$ and nonleptonic ones of order $10^{-8}$. Because these rates are within reach of next-generation $B$-factory experiments, a measurement would test the glueball assignment of $X(2370)$ from a direction independent of the charmonium radiative decays that first exposed the state.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the light-cone distribution amplitude of a pseudoscalar glueball, defined through the gauge-invariant bilocal product of field-strength tensors and parametrized as $\phi_G(x) = 30 x^2(1-x)^2 \left(1 + a_2 C_2^{5/2}(2x-1)\right)$ with normalization $f_s = 0.13\,\text{GeV}$ and shape $a_2 = 0.2$. These inputs enter a hard-scattering kernel in $k_T$ factorization, together with the $B$ meson wave function and Sudakov form factors, to produce the form factors $F_1$, $F_0$, and $F_T$. The same form factors then feed the semileptonic and nonleptonic decay widths.

What would settle it

Measure $B \to X(2370)\ell\nu$ with the full data set of the next $B$-factory experiment: a branching fraction below roughly $3\times 10^{-7}$, more than two standard deviations under the central prediction, would contradict the calculation. Equally decisive would be a lattice QCD determination of the pseudoscalar glueball's first Gegenbauer coefficient that disagrees sharply with the assumed $a_2 = 0.2$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the central claim is that the $B \to X(2370)$ transition is governed by calculable form factors $F_1$, $F_0$, $F_T$ at large recoil, and that these form factors translate into observable rates. The paper reports $F_1(0) = F_0(0) \approx 0.088$ and $F_T(0) \approx 0.114$ in the PQCD framework, with two independent parametrizations (dipole and $z$-series) giving consistent results. The resulting branching fractions are roughly $1.9\times 10^{-6}$ for $B \to X(2370)\ell\nu$ ($\ell = e,\mu$), $0.27\times 10^{-6}$ for $B \to X(2370)\tau\nu$, $4.9\times 10^{-7}$ for $B^\pm \to \pi^\pm X(2370)$, and $0.38\times 10^{-7}$ for $B^\pm \to K^\pm X(2370)$. The paper argues these rates are detectable and that the $K_S^0 K_S^0 \eta'$ decay chain offers a clean experimental signature.

Load-bearing premise

The prediction depends on a modeled light-cone distribution amplitude for the pseudoscalar glueball — normalization $f_s = 0.13\,\text{GeV}$ borrowed from a scalar-glueball estimate and shape $a_2 = 0.2$ chosen by hand — and all branching fractions scale with these inputs, so an error in that model shifts the rates directly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A measurement of $B \to X(2370)\ell\nu$ at the predicted $10^{-6}$ level would provide independent evidence that $X(2370)$ behaves as a pseudoscalar glueball.
  • If the semileptonic mode is not found within roughly a factor of two of the central prediction, the pure-glueball interpretation of this transition would face pressure.
  • The differential $q^2$ distribution distinguishes the dipole and $z$-series extrapolations, giving a shape test of the prediction.
  • The nonleptonic modes $B^\pm \to \pi^\pm X(2370)$ and $B^\pm \to K^\pm X(2370)$, though rarer, add a hadronic cross-check.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A lattice QCD computation of the pseudoscalar glueball's light-cone distribution amplitude, replacing the hand-picked $a_2 = 0.2$, would sharpen the branching fraction prediction by a factor of a few.
  • The same form-factor machinery could be applied to tensor or scalar glueball candidates in $B$ decays, extending flavor-factory searches across the glueball spectrum.
  • Because every predicted rate scales linearly with $f_s$, a measurement of any one of these modes effectively constrains the glueball decay constant.
  • Comparing $B \to X(2370)$ with $B \to \eta'$ decays might help disentangle the glueball component from light-quark and $\eta'$ mixing contributions.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript assumes that the X(2370) state is the lightest pseudoscalar glueball and investigates B meson decays into it. The authors define a model light-cone distribution amplitude for the pseudoscalar glueball, compute the B→G transition form factors F1, F0, FT in the PQCD factorization framework at low q^2, extrapolate to the full kinematic region with dipole and BCL z-series parametrizations, and then derive branching fractions for semileptonic B→G lν (l=e, μ, τ) and nonleptonic B^−→π^−G, K^−G decays. The central results are branching fractions of order 2×10^-6 for the semileptonic modes and of order 5×10^-7 (π) and 4×10^-8 (K) for the nonleptonic modes, which the paper argues should be observable at Belle-II.

Significance. The paper identifies a concrete new observable for testing the pseudoscalar-glueball interpretation of X(2370), and the calculation is internally coherent: it follows the standard PQCD machinery, quotes errors from ω_B, f_B and |Vub|, and compares two independent form-factor extrapolations. No quantity is fitted to the target branching fractions, so circularity is not an issue. The main significance-limiting weakness is that the absolute normalization of the glueball LCDA, fs=0.13 GeV, is borrowed from a scalar-glueball estimate, and the shape parameter a2=0.2 is chosen without a dedicated determination; since all form factors scale linearly with fs, every final branching fraction scales as fs^2. If the glueball LCDA inputs are anchored by a dedicated lattice or sum-rule estimate, or at least varied over a defensible range, the paper would provide a useful phenomenological prediction.

major comments (2)
  1. [II.B and III.A, Eqs. (8), (17)-(20), (30)-(33)] The quoted uncertainty bars are incomplete because they vary ω_B, f_B and |Vub| but not the glueball inputs fs and a2. Equation (8) shows that F1, F0 and FT are each linear in fs, so all branching fractions inherit a quadratic fs dependence. The text in Sec. II.A itself acknowledges that no dedicated calculation of the pseudoscalar-glueball LCDA exists, with fs taken from a scalar-glueball estimate in Ref. [51] and a2=0.2 chosen as an estimate. A concrete illustration: reducing fs from 0.13 GeV to 0.09 GeV lowers the central semileptonic branching fraction in Eq. (17) from 1.96×10^-6 to roughly 0.9×10^-6, which lies outside the quoted error bars of ±0.88/−0.68. The detectability claim therefore rests on unquantified model dependence, and the paper should include a sensitivity scan over fs and a2 (or a defended theoretical error band) and state how the Belle-II conclusions depend on those inputs.
  2. [II.A, Eq. (5)] The definition of the pseudoscalar-glueball LCDA in Eq. (5) is written in terms of gauge fields A_μ in the A^+=0 gauge, and its normalization fs is identified with the scalar-glueball decay constant from Ref. [51]. Because Eq. (8) makes all form factors proportional to this fs, the absolute scale of the predictions depends on an identification that is not established in the paper: the relation between this A^+=0-gauge matrix element and a physical, gauge-invariant pseudoscalar-glueball decay constant is not demonstrated. The authors should either provide a gauge-invariant definition and a dedicated estimate of fs for the pseudoscalar glueball, or explicitly state that all numerical results are conditional on this unvalidated normalization and quantify the resulting shift.
minor comments (4)
  1. [II.A, after Eq. (6)] The statement that the choice a2=0.2 "allows us to roughly estimate the uncertainty" is not substantiated, because no variation of a2 is performed anywhere in the numerical analysis.
  2. [Abstract and Sec. III.B, Eqs. (30)-(33)] The abstract and introduction state that nonleptonic branching fractions are at the order of 10^-8, while the central values in Eqs. (30)-(33) include 4.9×10^-7 for B^±→π^±G; please harmonize the order-of-magnitude wording, for example by saying "10^-8 to 10^-7".
  3. [III.B, Eqs. (26)-(29)] The quoted errors for the nonleptonic widths are not itemized by source even though the text says they include form-factor and |Vub| uncertainties; a breakdown analogous to Table III would make the error budget transparent.
  4. [II.A, Eq. (5)] The vector n^- appearing in the denominator n^-·P in Eq. (5) is not explicitly defined; the earlier text defines n and v, but the relation between v and n^- should be stated for readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity found: the branching fractions are genuine PQCD predictions built from independent inputs; the unpropagated glueball-LCDA uncertainty is a model-robustness gap, not a circular step.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and not circular. The form factors in Eq. (8) are integrals over the B-meson LCDA (Eq. (3), with fB=0.19 GeV and omega_B=0.40 GeV) and the glueball LCDA (Eq. (6), with fs=0.13 GeV and a2=0.2). The branching fractions in Eqs. (17)-(20) and (30)-(33) are obtained by integrating these form factors in Eq. (14) and by the factorized amplitude in Eq. (23); no quantity is fitted to the target branching fractions. The glueball inputs fs and a2 are taken from Refs. [51] and [21], respectively, and the paper explicitly labels them as estimates: "the estimate of decay constant fs = 0.13GeV" and a2 = 0.2 "can be adopted as an estimate." Even though fs and a2 are not varied in the quoted error bars, that is a robustness or uncertainty-accounting limitation, not circularity: the prediction would change if those inputs changed, but it is not defined as the input. The paper's self-citations (e.g., Refs. [24], [25], and [56] by coauthor Zhang) are contextual references to prior PQCD applications rather than load-bearing proofs; no uniqueness theorem is imported, and no prior result is invoked in place of a calculation. The detectability claim is an external, falsifiable extrapolation from roughly 10^10 B hadrons and the computed branching fractions. The caveat "More uncertainties can be added but for the present estimate these two kinds of errors should be enough" acknowledges omitted model error; it does not conceal a fitted parameter. Verdict: score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central estimates ride on three hadronic inputs: the glueball decay constant and LCDA shape, plus the B-meson wave function parameter. The first two are not constrained by the target data and are varied only indirectly. The derivation relies on factorization for a gluonic final state and on the assumed glueball identity of X(2370).

free parameters (3)
  • Glueball shape parameter a2 = 0.2
    Adopted in Eq. (6) as an estimate of higher Gegenbauer moments, in the absence of theoretical studies of pseudoscalar glueball LCDAs; directly affects the form factors and branching fractions, but its uncertainty is not propagated.
  • Glueball decay constant fs = 0.13 GeV
    Normalization of the glueball LCDA in Eq. (5), taken from Ref. [51]; all form factors F1, F0 and FT are proportional to fs, so the branching fractions scale quadratically with it. No uncertainty is assigned or propagated.
  • B meson shape parameter omega_b = 0.40 +/- 0.05 GeV
    Shape parameter of the B-meson wave function in Eq. (3), taken from earlier PQCD fits; the paper varies it to estimate uncertainties. It is standard in the PQCD program but is a fitted hadronic input.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption PQCD (kT factorization) applies to B to glueball transitions in the large-recoil region, with power-suppressed diagrams neglected.
    Invoked in Section II and Fig. 1; the final state is gluonic, so this is a nontrivial extension that is not proven.
  • ad hoc to paper The pseudoscalar glueball LCDA can be parameterized by a Gegenbauer expansion with normalization referenced to the scalar glueball's LCDA.
    Eqs. (5)-(6); the paper explicitly states this is used in the absence of theoretical studies on the LCDAs of pseudoscalar glueballs.
  • domain assumption X(2370) is a pure 0^-+ glueball state with no significant quark-antiquark mixing.
    The paper states 'Assuming the identity of X(2370) as a pseudoscalar glueball' (Section I) based on BESIII Ref. [3]; if the state has a large qqbar component, the form factors and rates would be different.
  • standard math The form factors computed for 0 <= q^2 <= 10 GeV^2 can be extrapolated to the full kinematic range by dipole or BCL z-series parametrizations.
    Eqs. (11)-(13); standard phenomenological extrapolation, but the dipole fit parameters a and b are determined from a limited range of PQCD points and introduce model dependence.
  • domain assumption Leading-order PQCD is sufficient for an order-of-magnitude estimate of the branching fractions.
    The paper notes in Section IV that higher-order QCD corrections are not taken into account; this is valid for an estimate but leaves the uncertainty unquantified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Investigate the glueball-like particle $X(2370)$ in $B$ meson decays." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CJREMYT5

@misc{pith2026250115224,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Investigate the glueball-like particle $X(2370)$ in $B$ meson decays},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CJREMYT5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.15224}
}
abstract

Based on the collected data on $J/\psi\to \gamma K_S^0K_S^0\eta'$, the BESIII experiment has conducted an analysis of the mass and spin parity of the $X(2370)$ particle. The findings are consistent with the characteristics expected of the lightest pseudoscalar glueball. We point out that further exploration of this particle's nature can be pursued through investigations of heavy bottom meson decays. Assuming the identity of $X(2370)$ as a pseudoscalar glueball, we compute the form factors for $B\to X(2370)$ transitions in the factorization approach. With these results, the estimated branching fractions for semileptonic $B$ decays into $X(2370)$ can reach the order of $10^{-6}$ and those for nonleptonic decays can reach the order $10^{-8}$. These results suggest that decays of $B$ meson into $X(2370)$ are detectable at experimental facilities like Belle-II. Future experimental endeavors hold promise in expanding our understanding of glueball physics, contributing to the ongoing exploration surrounding this intriguing particle.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.15224 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Feynman diagrams of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The differential decay widths as functions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [51]

    X. G. He, H. Y. Jin and J. P. Ma, Phys. Rev. D 66, 074015 (2002) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.66.074015 [arXiv:hep-ph/0203191 [hep-ph]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2002

  2. [1]

    Klempt and A

    E. Klempt and A. Zaitsev, Phys. Rept. 454, 1-202 (2007) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2007.07.006 [arXiv:0708.4016 [hep- ph]]

    arXiv 2007

  3. [2]

    Crede and C

    V. Crede and C. A. Meyer, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 63, 74-116 (2009) doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2009.03.001 [arXiv:0812.0600 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2009

  4. [3]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII], Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, no.18, 181901 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.181901 [arXiv:2312.05324 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2024

  5. [4]

    J. F. Liu et al. [BES], Phys. Rev. D 82, 074026 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.074026 [arXiv:1008.0246 [hep- ph]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2010

  6. [5]

    L. C. Gui, J. M. Dong, Y. Chen and Y. B. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 100, no.5, 054511 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.054511 [arXiv:1906.03666 [hep-lat]]

    arXiv 2019

  7. [6]

    G. S. Bali et al. [UKQCD], Phys. Lett. B 309, 378-384 (1993) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(93)90948-H [arXiv:hep- lat/9304012 [hep-lat]]

    work page arXiv 1993

  8. [7]

    C. J. Morningstar and M. J. Peardon, Phys. Rev. D 60, 034509 (1999) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.60.034509 [arXiv:hep-lat/9901004 [hep-lat]]

    arXiv 1999

Show all 57 references
  1. [8]

    Y. Chen, A. Alexandru, S. J. Dong, T. Draper, I. Horvath, F. X. Lee, K. F. Liu, N. Mathur, C. Morningstar and M. Peardon, et al. Phys. Rev. D 73, 014516 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.014516 [arXiv:hep-lat/0510074 [hep-lat]]

    2006 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Gregory, A

    E. Gregory, A. Irving, B. Lucini, C. McNeile, A. Rago, C. Richards and E. Rinaldi, JHEP 10, 170 (2012) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2012)170 [arXiv:1208.1858 [hep- lat]]

    2012 arXiv

  3. [10]

    L. C. Gui et al. [CLQCD], Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, no.2, 021601 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.021601 [arXiv:1206.0125 [hep-lat]]

    2013 arXiv

  4. [11]

    J. Zou, L. C. Gui, Y. Chen, W. Qin, J. Liang, X. Jiang and Y. Yang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 67, no.11, 111012 (2024) doi:10.1007/s11433-024-2451-5 [arXiv:2404.01564 [hep-lat]]

    2024 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Y. B. Yang et al. [CLQCD], Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, no.9, 091601 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.091601 [arXiv:1304.3807 [hep-lat]]

    2013 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Jiang, W

    X. Jiang, W. Sun, F. Chen, Y. Chen, M. Gong, Z. Liu and R. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 107, no.9, 094510 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.094510 [arXiv:2205.12541 [hep-lat]]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [14]

    J. S. Yu, Z. F. Sun, X. Liu and Q. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 83, 114007 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.114007 [arXiv:1104.3064 [hep-ph]]

    2011 arXiv

  8. [15]

    C. Deng, J. Ping, Y. Yang and F. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 86, 014008 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.014008 [arXiv:1202.4167 [hep-ph]]

    2012 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Z. L. She, A. K. Lei, W. C. Zhang, Y. L. Yan, D. M. Zhou, H. Zheng and B. H. Sa, [arXiv:2407.07661 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  10. [17]

    J. Cao, Z. L. She, J. P. Zhang, J. H. Shi, Z. Y. Qin, W. C. Zhang, H. Zheng, A. K. Lei, D. M. Zhou and Y. L. Yan, et al. Phys. Rev. D 110, no.5, 054046 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.054046 [arXiv:2408.04130 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [18]

    H. n. Li, Chin. Phys. Lett. 41, no.10, 101101 (2024) doi:10.1088/0256-307X/41/10/101101 [arXiv:2408.06738 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [19]

    X. G. He and T. C. Yuan, [arXiv:hep-ph/0612108 [hep- ph]]

    arXiv

  13. [20]

    Y. Y. Charng, T. Kurimoto and H. n. Li, Phys. Rev. D 74, 074024 (2006) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 78, 059901 (2008)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.059901 [arXiv:hep-ph/0609165 [hep-ph]]

    2006 arXiv

  14. [21]

    W. Wang, Y. L. Shen and C. D. Lu, J. Phys. G 37, 085006 (2010) doi:10.1088/0954-3899/37/8/085006 [arXiv:0908.2216 [hep-ph]]

    2010 arXiv

  15. [22]

    C. D. L¨ u, U. G. Meissner, W. Wang and Q. Zhao, Eur. Phys. J. A 49, 58 (2013) doi:10.1140/epja/i2013-13058-y [arXiv:1301.0225 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Huang and Q

    F. Huang and Q. A. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, no.1, 11 (2022) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09779-1 [arXiv:2108.06110 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  17. [24]

    C. Wang, Q. A. Zhang, Y. Li and C. D. Lu, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, no.5, 333 (2017) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017- 4889-3 [arXiv:1701.01300 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  18. [25]

    S. H. Zhou, Q. A. Zhang, W. R. Lyu and C. D. L¨ u, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, no.2, 125 (2017) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052- 017-4685-0 [arXiv:1608.02819 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Y. Y. Keum, H. N. Li and A. I. Sanda, Phys. Rev. D 63, 054008 (2001) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.63.054008 [arXiv:hep-ph/0004173 [hep-ph]]

    2001 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Y. Y. Keum, H. n. Li and A. I. Sanda, Phys. Lett. B 504, 6-14 (2001) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(01)00247-7 [arXiv:hep-ph/0004004 [hep-ph]]

    2001 arXiv

  21. [28]

    C. D. Lu, K. Ukai and M. Z. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 63, 074009 (2001) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.63.074009 [arXiv:hep-ph/0004213 [hep-ph]]

    2001 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Kou et al

    E. Kou et al. [Belle-II], PTEP 2019, no.12, 123C01 (2019) [erratum: PTEP 2020, no.2, 029201 (2020)] doi:10.1093/ptep/ptz106 [arXiv:1808.10567 [hep-ex]]

    2019

  23. [30]

    A. G. Grozin and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. D 55, 272- 290 (1997) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.55.272 [arXiv:hep- ph/9607366 [hep-ph]]

    1997

  24. [31]

    Kawamura, J

    H. Kawamura, J. Kodaira, C. F. Qiao and K. Tanaka, Phys. Lett. B 523, 111 (2001) [erratum: Phys. Lett. B 536, 344-344 (2002)] doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(01)01299-0 8 [arXiv:hep-ph/0109181 [hep-ph]]

    2001 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Ball and R

    P. Ball and R. Zwicky, Phys. Rev. D 71, 014015 (2005) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.014015 [arXiv:hep- ph/0406232 [hep-ph]]

    2005

  26. [33]

    H. C. Hu and H. n. Li, Phys. Lett. B 718, 1351- 1357 (2013) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.12.006 [arXiv:1204.6708 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  27. [34]

    H. n. Li, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 111, 69-74 (2002) doi:10.1016/S0920-5632(02)01686-9

    2002 doi

  28. [35]

    Navas et al.[Particle Data Group], Phys

    S. Navas et al.[Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D 110, no.3, 030001 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001

    2024 doi

  29. [36]

    X. Y. Han, J. Hua, X. Ji, C. D. L¨ u, W. Wang, J. Xu, Q. A. Zhang and S. Zhao, [arXiv:2403.17492 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  30. [37]

    X. Y. Han, J. Hua, X. Ji, C. D. L¨ u, A. Sch¨ afer, Y. Su, W. Wang, J. Xu, Y. Yang and J. H. Zhang, et al. [arXiv:2410.18654 [hep-lat]]

    arXiv

  31. [38]

    W. Wang, J. Xu, Q. A. Zhang and S. Zhao, [arXiv:2411.07101 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  32. [39]

    Q. A. Zhang et al. [Lattice Parton], Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, no.19, 192001 (2020) doi:10.22323/1.396.0477 [arXiv:2005.14572 [hep-lat]]

    2020 arXiv

  33. [40]

    M. H. Chu et al. [Lattice Parton (LPC)], Phys. Rev. D 106, no.3, 034509 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.034509 [arXiv:2204.00200 [hep-lat]]

    2022 arXiv

  34. [41]

    M. H. Chu et al.[Lattice Parton], Phys. Rev. D109, no.9, L091503 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.L091503 [arXiv:2302.09961 [hep-lat]]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [42]

    M. H. Chu et al. [Lattice Parton (LPC)], JHEP 08, 172 (2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2023)172 [arXiv:2306.06488 [hep-lat]]

    2023 arXiv

  36. [43]

    M. H. Chu, H. Bai, J. Hua, J. Liang, X. Ji, A. Schafer, Y. Su, W. Wang, Y. B. Yang and J. Zeng, et al. [arXiv:2411.12554 [hep-lat]]

    arXiv

  37. [44]

    Hua et al

    J. Hua et al. [Lattice Parton], Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, no.13, 132001 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.132001 [arXiv:2201.09173 [hep-lat]]

    2022 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Y. S. Liu, W. Wang, J. Xu, Q. A. Zhang, S. Zhao and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 99, no.9, 094036 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.094036 [arXiv:1810.10879 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Y. S. Liu, W. Wang, J. Xu, Q. A. Zhang, J. H. Zhang, S. Zhao and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 100, no.3, 034006 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.034006 [arXiv:1902.00307 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Y. S. Liu et al. [Lattice Parton], Phys. Rev. D 101, no.3, 034020 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.034020 [arXiv:1807.06566 [hep-lat]]

    2020 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Hua et al.[Lattice Parton], Phys

    J. Hua et al.[Lattice Parton], Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, no.6, 062002 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.062002 [arXiv:2011.09788 [hep-lat]]

    2021 arXiv

  42. [49]

    J. Xu, Q. A. Zhang and S. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 97, no.11, 114026 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.114026 [arXiv:1804.01042 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  43. [50]

    J. C. He et al. [Lattice Parton Collaboration (LPC)], Phys. Rev. D 109, no.11, 114513 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.114513 [arXiv:2211.02340 [hep-lat]]

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Ali and A

    A. Ali and A. Y. Parkhomenko, Eur. Phys. J. C 30 (2003), 367-380 doi:10.1140/epjc/s2003-01302-6 [arXiv:hep-ph/0307092 [hep-ph]]

    2003 arXiv

  45. [53]

    H. n. Li, Phys. Rev. D 66, 094010 (2002) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.66.094010 [arXiv:hep- ph/0102013 [hep-ph]]

    2002

  46. [54]

    J. L. Lim and H. n. Li, Chin. J. Phys. 38, 801-813 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/9807437 [hep-ph]]

    2000 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Bourrely, I

    C. Bourrely, I. Caprini and L. Lellouch, Phys. Rev. D 79, 013008 (2009) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 82, 099902 (2010)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.099902 [arXiv:0807.2722 [hep- ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Q. A. Zhang, J. Hua, F. Huang, R. Li, Y. Li, C. L¨ u, C. D. Lu, P. Sun, W. Sun and W. Wang, et al. Chin. Phys. C 46, no.1, 011002 (2022) doi:10.1088/1674- 1137/ac2b12 [arXiv:2103.07064 [hep-lat]]

    2022 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Buchalla, A

    G. Buchalla, A. J. Buras and M. E. Lauten- bacher, Rev. Mod. Phys. 68, 1125-1144 (1996) doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.68.1125 [arXiv:hep- ph/9512380 [hep-ph]]

    1996

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.