Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 51 references

The paper argues that in the doubly charmed tetraquark Tcc, excitation inside the light antidiquark (the ρ-mode) costs less energy than excitation between the two diquarks (the λ-mode), reversing the harmonic-oscillator ordering, and that t

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 19:01 UTC pith:DMV2KTXS

load-bearing objection Inverted ρ–λ ordering in Tcc is a genuine but fragile model prediction—the authors are honest about the threshold, yet the text/table mismatch and a shaky radius argument need fixing before publication. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2603.03764 v2 pith:DMV2KTXS submitted 2026-03-04 hep-ph nucl-th

Inverse Excitation Hierarchy in Doubly-Heavy Tetraquarks within the Diquark Model

Maximilian Weber , Daiki Suenaga , Masayasu Harada This is my paper
classification hep-ph nucl-th
keywords Tcc tetraquarkdiquark modelexcitation hierarchycentrifugal energyGaussian expansion methodheavy quark symmetrychiral partnerhadron spectroscopy
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.

This paper studies the double-charm tetraquark Tcc as a bound state of a heavy charm-charm diquark and a light anti-up–anti-down diquark. It claims that the first excitation inside the light diquark (the ρ-mode) lies 0.313 GeV above the ground state, below the 0.395 GeV excitation between the two diquarks (the λ-mode), opposite to the ordering expected from a harmonic-oscillator picture. The inversion is traced to a centrifugal-energy comparison: even though the light diquark has the smaller reduced mass, its much larger root-mean-square radius (about 1.5 fm versus 0.74 fm) suppresses its centrifugal term. The same pattern appears in Tbb, Λc, and Λb, and the paper argues that identifying excited Tcc states by mass alone is unreliable; decay patterns (η versus ππ emission) should distinguish the modes.

Core claim

The central discovery is that the ρ-mode excitation energy of Tcc is not the highest of the three low-lying modes, as a harmonic-oscillator model with reduced masses would predict, but lies between the ρcc- and λ-modes. The authors compute diquark masses from the AL1 potential and then solve the two-body tetraquark Schrödinger equation with the Gaussian Expansion Method. They find excitation energies of 0.313 GeV for the ρ-mode, 0.395 GeV for the λ-mode, and 0.199 GeV for the ρcc-mode. They attribute the inversion to the centrifugal term ⟨l(l+1)/(2μr²)⟩: for the λ-mode this is 0.481 GeV, while for the ρ-mode it is only 0.368 GeV, because the light antidiquark's RMS radius is roughly twice as

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the light antidiquark (ūd) treated as a color-triplet substructure inside Tcc. Its excitation (the ρ-mode) is governed by the centrifugal energy L = ⟨l(l+1)/(2μ_ud r²)⟩ evaluated at l=1. The inversion mechanism is the competition between the small reduced mass μ_ud, which would raise L, and the mean inverse-square radius ⟨1/r²⟩ set by the nearly twofold larger RMS radius of the light diquark compared with the λ-mode configuration; the quadratic radius dependence wins. The Gaussian Expansion Method supplies the wave functions and radii, and the AL1 potential supplies the diquark masses (m_ud(0+)=0.666 GeV, m_ud(excited)=1.121 GeV) that enter the comparison.

Load-bearing premise

The inversion depends on the AL1 potential's prediction that the excited light antidiquark weighs about 1.12 GeV; if its true mass exceeds 1.225 GeV, the ρ-mode climbs above the λ-mode and the naive ordering returns.

What would settle it

Measure or compute the mass of the excited light (ūd) diquark: the paper's own threshold is 1.225 GeV, below which the inversion survives and above which it disappears. Alternatively, observe the decay pattern of the excited Tcc(1−): a dominant η signal supports the ρ-mode assignment, a dominant ππ signal supports the λ-mode; if the decay pattern contradicts the energy ordering, the mechanism is wrong.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • The ρ-mode of Tcc is the chiral partner of the ground state but cannot be identified from its energy alone, because it sits below the λ-mode; mass ordering is not a reliable quantum-number tag.
  • Decay selection rules give an experimental handle: dominant S-wave η emission indicates the ρ-mode, while dominant P-wave ππ emission indicates the λ-mode.
  • The same inverted hierarchy appears in the bottom counterparts Tbb and Λb, so the mechanism is not specific to the charm sector and should persist in heavy-quark systems.
  • The ordering is sensitive to the mass of the excited light diquark: above 1.225 GeV the naive hierarchy is restored, so the prediction is falsifiable by an independent determination of that mass.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • [Editorial inference] If the inversion survives a more realistic three-body treatment, it would imply that chiral-partner identification from tetraquark spectra is generally ambiguous, not just for Tcc, and that other exotic states with loosely bound light diquarks may show the same reversed ordering.
  • [Editorial inference] The radius-versus-reduced-mass competition is a general mechanism: any two-body Coulomb-plus-linear system in which the lighter composite has a larger spatial extent could invert excitation ordering. It would be worth testing the same ratio L_ρ / L_λ in other diquark models or on lattice data for diquark correlation lengths.
  • [Editorial inference] A direct lattice-QCD calculation of the excited light-diquark mass would settle the model dependence; the paper's threshold gives a concrete target (below 1.225 GeV for the inversion, above for the normal order).

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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the doubly-heavy tetraquark Tcc in a diquark model where the system is reduced to a heavy (cc) diquark and a light (ūd) antidiquark interacting via the Silvestre-Brac AL1 potential. The authors solve the two-body Schrödinger equation with the Gaussian Expansion Method, first for the isolated diquarks and then for the tetraquark. Their central numerical result is that the ρ-mode excitation, corresponding to orbital excitation inside the light antidiquark, lies at 0.313 GeV, below the λ-mode interdiquark excitation at 0.395 GeV. This is the opposite of the naive harmonic-oscillator ordering ω_ρ > ω_λ. They attribute the inversion to the smaller centrifugal energy of the ρ-mode compared with the λ-mode, trace it to the larger RMS radius of the light diquark, and extend the calculation to Tbb, Λc, and Λb with qualitatively the same ordering. The paper explicitly notes that adjusting the excited light-diquark mass above 1.225 GeV restores the naive hierarchy and that the chiral-EFT model of Ref. [19] predicts the normal ordering.

Significance. If the result is taken at face value, the paper provides a concrete counterexample to the common harmonic-oscillator intuition for Jacobi-coordinate excitations in hadrons, and it identifies the light-diquark excitation gap as the controlling quantity. The calculation has genuine strengths: GEM convergence is checked over the range-parameter space, the energy decomposition into kinetic, Coulomb, linear, and hyperfine contributions is tabulated, the threshold mass for reversal of the ordering is computed, and the same mechanism is illustrated in several systems. However, the physical significance is substantially limited by the fact that the inversion is not robust across reasonable models: the AL1 potential gives an excited light-diquark mass of 1.121 GeV, whereas the chiral-EFT model cited by the authors gives 1.484 GeV, which lies far above the inversion threshold and yields the normal ordering. The paper is therefore best read as a model study of one potential, not as a robust prediction for Tcc. The claimed 'robustness' applies within the AL1 framework, not across the model uncertainty of the diquark excitation gap.

major comments (4)
  1. [§IV and Table III] The central explanation quotes L_ρ = 0.368 GeV for the Tcc ρ-mode centrifugal energy, but Table III lists ⟨l(l+1)/(2μr²)⟩ = 0.404 GeV for the Tcc(1−;...)ρ state; the value 0.368 appears in the isolated mud(0−,1−,2−) row. The text compares L_λ = 0.481 with the isolated-diquark value rather than with the full tetraquark ρ-mode value. This discrepancy is load-bearing because the inversion is attributed to this centrifugal-energy comparison. Please clarify which quantity is meant, correct the inconsistency, and state explicitly that the ρ-mode centrifugal energy is taken from the isolated diquark wavefunction under the frozen-diquark approximation.
  2. [§IV, Table II, and Conclusion] The inversion depends on the AL1 prediction m_ud(0−,1−,2−)=1.121 GeV. The authors themselves find that the ordering reverses for m_ud>1.225 GeV, and the chiral-EFT model of Ref. [19] gives 1.484 GeV, which produces the normal hierarchy. The threshold is only 0.104 GeV above the AL1 value, so the result is highly sensitive to the diquark excitation gap. The abstract and conclusion should be tempered: the inversion is a property of the AL1 model, not a robust outcome of the diquark picture. The word 'robustness' should be qualified. No independent constraint on the excited light-diquark mass is provided.
  3. [§IV, paragraph following Eq. (9)] The statement that the centrifugal energy is 'the main source of the inversion' is supported only by the single comparison L_λ=0.481 > L_ρ=0.368. However, Table III shows that other terms also contribute comparably: for the ρ-mode ΔV_lin=0.267 and ΔV_Coul=0.047, while for the λ-mode ΔV_lin=0.210 and ΔV_Coul=0.137. The interplay of these terms is not discussed. A quantitative decomposition of the excitation energies is needed to justify the claim that the centrifugal term is dominant, rather than merely correlated with the ordering.
  4. [Footnote 1 in §IV] The footnote acknowledges that the threshold analysis cannot predict how L and r_rms change when m_ud(excited) is manually varied. This is an important limitation of the proposed mechanism, because it means the 'what-if' calculation does not demonstrate a dynamical mechanism. This statement should be moved into the main text and discussed, as it directly affects the strength of the conclusion.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table III] The notation for the Tcc ρ-mode state is cumbersome and the parenthetical values are explained only in the caption. It would help to separate the tetraquark excitation energy from the diquark-subsystem excitation energy in a clearer way.
  2. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption states that K is 'arbitrarily chosen'. Since the HO comparison is used as the benchmark for the naive hierarchy, the choice of K should be justified or at least shown not to affect the ordering ω_ρ > ω_λ.
  3. [Eq. (1)] The phrase 'the corresponding relative momentump=' has a missing subscript and should read p_ij. Please proofread the introductory Hamiltonian section.
  4. [Appendix B] Typo: 'spin-dependent fores' should be 'spin-dependent forces', and 'the true from' should be 'the true form'.
  5. [References] Reference [12] is a CERN news release; the primary LHCb publication is Ref. [13]. Consider citing the LHCb paper directly in the introduction, as the current citation style mixes news items with peer-reviewed works.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the ρ–λ ordering is a numerical output of the AL1/GEM calculation, not imposed by construction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the non-circular sense. The AL1 potential parameters (Table I) are taken from Silvestre-Brac [21], an external fit to meson/baryon spectra; the Gaussian Expansion Method is a standard numerical technique [22]; and no Tcc datum is used to tune any parameter. The diquark masses are obtained by solving Eq. (1), then inserted into the two-body Hamiltonian (2); the ρ- and λ-mode energies are separate eigenvalues of that Hamiltonian, so the inverted ordering (Tcc ρ = 4.054 GeV vs λ = 4.135 GeV, Table II) is a computed result rather than a restatement of an input. The threshold analysis in Sec. IV varies mud(0−,1−,2−) transparently as a what-if; the footnote explicitly says that the response of L- and rrms-values “cannot be predicted with our method,” which is a limitation, not a disguised fit. The comparison against the chiral-EFT model [19], which uses lattice-QCD input for mud(0+), is an external benchmark, and the paper reports that this alternative input reverses the ordering. Self-citations (e.g., [18], [28], [33]–[39], [47]) appear only in background or motivation and are not load-bearing for the central calculation. The numerical inconsistency cited by the skeptical reading (centrifugal energy 0.368 GeV in the text vs 0.404 GeV in Table III) is a consistency/correctness concern about the authors’ interpretive argument, not a circularity: the qualitative inversion is not built in by definition. Therefore no circular step is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The calculation relies on a phenomenological diquark ansatz and the AL1 potential, both taken from prior literature. The only hand-tuned parameters are the GEM basis settings (for convergence) and the manually varied excited-light-diquark mass in the threshold study. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • GEM range parameters (nmax=20, r1=0.1 fm, rmax=6 fm) = 20, 0.1 fm, 6 fm
    Chosen by trial-and-error scanning to stabilize energy eigenvalues; not physical, but affect numerical precision.
  • Threshold light-diquark mass mud(0−,1−,2−) = 1.225 GeV = 1.225 GeV
    Manually varied to locate the ρ–λ crossover; not a fit to data, but a scanned parameter in the what-if analysis.
  • HO spring constant K = arbitrary
    Used only for the illustrative HO comparison in Fig. 5; arbitrarily chosen.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Tcc can be described as a two-body bound state of a heavy (cc) diquark and a light (ūd) antidiquark; other configurations (e.g., D*D molecules) are neglected.
    Adopted in Sec. II; if wrong, the calculation does not apply to the physical Tcc.
  • domain assumption The Silvestre-Brac AL1 potential, with parameters fitted to meson/baryon spectra, accurately describes quark-quark interactions inside diquarks and diquark-antidiquark interactions.
    Used throughout Sec. III; the inverted hierarchy is sensitive to this potential's prediction for the light-diquark excitation gap.
  • domain assumption Spin-orbit and tensor forces are negligible for the states considered.
    Stated in Sec. III; the authors acknowledge in Sec. VI that L·S terms will split the degenerate multiplets.
  • standard math The GEM basis with nmax=20, r1=0.1 fm, rmax=6 fm yields convergent eigenvalues.
    Claimed in Sec. III and Fig. 2; standard Rayleigh-Ritz convergence check.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 16159 in / 21982 out tokens · 176053 ms · 2026-08-02T19:01:08.516611+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Inverse Excitation Hierarchy in Doubly-Heavy Tetraquarks within the Diquark Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DMV2KTXS

@misc{pith2026260303764,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Inverse Excitation Hierarchy in Doubly-Heavy Tetraquarks within the Diquark Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DMV2KTXS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.03764}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We investigate the $T_{cc}$ tetraquark, treating it as a bound state of a heavy diquark and a light antidiquark. Using the Silvestre-Brac potential and solving the Schr\"odinger equation via the Gaussian Expansion Method, we find that the excitation energy between the heavy diquark and light antidiquark is unexpectedly larger than that between the two light anti-quarks within the anti-diquark -- contrary to the naive expectation where the former is smaller than the latter. We trace this inversion of the mass hierarchy to the centrifugal force acting on the light degree of freedom. Applying the same framework to other systems ($T_{bb}, \Lambda_b, \Lambda_c$) yields qualitatively identical behavior, demonstrating the robustness of the mechanism. These results provide new insights into diquark dynamics and the mass structure of exotic hadrons.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.03764 by Daiki Suenaga, Masayasu Harada, Maximilian Weber.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic picture of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Energy landscape of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Radial wave function of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Comparison of the predicted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Heavy-quark mass ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Comparison of the predicted Λ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Illustration of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Same as in Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Same as in Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 12 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Brambilla, S

    N. Brambilla, S. Eidelman, C. Hanhart, A. Nefediev, C.-P. Shen, C. E. Thomas, A. Vairo, and C.-Z. Yuan, Physics Reports873, 1 (2020), the XYZ states: experimental and theoretical status and perspectives

    2020

  2. [2]

    H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, Y.-R. Liu, and S.-L. Zhu, Reports on Progress in Physics86, 026201 (2022)

    2022

  3. [3]

    Bicudo, Tetraquarks and pentaquarks in lattice qcd with light and heavy quarks (2022), arXiv:2212.07793 [hep-lat]

    P. Bicudo, Tetraquarks and pentaquarks in lattice qcd with light and heavy quarks (2022), arXiv:2212.07793 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Jaffe, Physics Reports409, 1 (2005)

    R. Jaffe, Physics Reports409, 1 (2005)

    2005

  5. [5]

    Wilczek, Diquarks as inspiration and as objects, in From Fields to Strings, Vol

    F. Wilczek, Diquarks as inspiration and as objects, in From Fields to Strings, Vol. 1 (World Scientific Publish- ing Co., 2005) pp. 77–93

    2005

  6. [6]

    R. L. Jaffe, Phys. Rev. D15, 267 (1977)

    1977

  7. [7]

    Jaffe and F

    R. Jaffe and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 232003 (2003)

    2003

  8. [8]

    Bicudo and M

    P. Bicudo and M. Wagner (European Twisted Mass Col- laboration), Phys. Rev. D87, 114511 (2013)

    2013

  9. [9]

    Leskovec, S

    L. Leskovec, S. Meinel, M. Pflaumer, and M. Wagner, Phys. Rev. D100, 014503 (2019)

    2019

  10. [10]

    Y. Lyu, S. Aoki, T. Doi, T. Hatsuda, Y. Ikeda, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 161901 (2023)

    2023

  11. [11]

    H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, Y.-R. Liu, and S.-L. Zhu, Rept. Prog. Phys.80, 076201 (2017)

    2017

  12. [12]

    Traczyk, Twice the charm: Long-lived exotic particle discovered (2021), CERN News, Accessed: 2025-09-23

    P. Traczyk, Twice the charm: Long-lived exotic particle discovered (2021), CERN News, Accessed: 2025-09-23

    2021

  13. [13]

    LHCb Collaboration, Nat.Phys.18, 751 (2022)

    2022

  14. [14]

    Y. Kim, M. Oka, and K. Suzuki, Phys. Rev. D105, 074021 (2022)

    2022

  15. [15]

    Lin, J.-Y

    Y.-Y. Lin, J.-Y. Wang, and A. Zhang, Mass spectra of doubly charmed tetraquarks tcc (2025), arXiv:2410.16902 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Ortega, J

    P. Ortega, J. Segovia, D. Entem, and F. Fern´ andez, Physics Letters B841, 137918 (2023)

    2023

  17. [17]

    M. N. Anwar and T. J. Burns, Physics Letters B847, 138248 (2023)

    2023

  18. [18]

    B.-R. He, M. Harada, and B.-S. Zou, Phys. Rev. D108, 054025 (2023), arXiv:2306.03526 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    Y. Kim, E. Hiyama, M. Oka, and K. Suzuki, Phys. Rev. D102, 014004 (2020)

    2020

  20. [20]

    Y. Bi, H. Cai, Y. Chen, M. Gong, Z. Liu, H.-X. Qiao, and Y.-B. Yang, Chin. Phys. C40, 073106 (2016), 13 arXiv:1510.07354 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  21. [21]

    Silvestre-Brac, Few-Body Systems20, 1 (1996)

    B. Silvestre-Brac, Few-Body Systems20, 1 (1996)

    1996

  22. [22]

    Hiyama, Y

    E. Hiyama, Y. Kino, and M. Kamimura, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics51, 223 (2003)

    2003

  23. [23]

    L. A. Copley, N. Isgur, and G. Karl, Phys. Rev. D20, 768 (1979), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 23, 817 (1981)]

    1979

  24. [24]

    Nagahiro, S

    H. Nagahiro, S. Yasui, A. Hosaka, M. Oka, and H. Noumi, Phys. Rev. D95, 014023 (2017), arXiv:1609.01085 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  25. [25]

    Glozman and D

    L. Glozman and D. Riska, Physics Reports268, 263 (1996)

    1996

  26. [26]

    Garc ´ ıa-Tecocoatzi, A

    H. Garc ´ ıa-Tecocoatzi, A. Giachino, J. Li, A. Ramirez- Morales, and E. Santopinto, Phys. Rev. D107, 034031 (2023)

    2023

  27. [27]

    Ebert, T

    D. Ebert, T. Feldmann, C. Kettner, and H. Reinhardt, Z. Phys. C71, 329 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9506298

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  28. [28]

    Harada, Y.-R

    M. Harada, Y.-R. Liu, M. Oka, and K. Suzuki, Phys. Rev. D101, 054038 (2020), arXiv:1912.09659 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  29. [29]

    Dmitraˇ sinovi´ c and H.-X

    V. Dmitraˇ sinovi´ c and H.-X. Chen, Phys. Rev. D101, 114016 (2020)

    2020

  30. [30]

    Santopinto, Phys

    E. Santopinto, Phys. Rev. C72, 022201 (2005), arXiv:hep- ph/0412319

    arXiv 2005

  31. [31]

    M. A. Nowak, M. Prasza lowicz, M. Sadzikowski, and J. Wasiluk, Phys. Rev. D70, 031503 (2004)

    2004

  32. [32]

    Liu and M

    Y.-R. Liu and M. Oka, Phys. Rev. D85, 014015 (2012)

    2012

  33. [33]

    Harada and Y.-L

    M. Harada and Y.-L. Ma, Phys. Rev. D87, 056007 (2013)

    2013

  34. [34]

    Kawakami and M

    Y. Kawakami and M. Harada, Phys. Rev. D97, 114024 (2018)

    2018

  35. [35]

    Kawakami and M

    Y. Kawakami and M. Harada, Phys. Rev. D99, 094016 (2019), arXiv:1902.06774 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  36. [36]

    Kawakami, M

    Y. Kawakami, M. Harada, M. Oka, and K. Suzuki, Phys. Rev. D102, 114004 (2020), arXiv:2009.06243 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  37. [37]

    Suenaga and M

    D. Suenaga and M. Oka, Phys. Rev. D108, 014030 (2023), arXiv:2305.09730 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  38. [38]

    Suenaga and M

    D. Suenaga and M. Oka, Phys. Rev. D111, 074032 (2025), arXiv:2411.12172 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Ma and M

    Y.-L. Ma and M. Harada, Physics Letters B748, 463 (2015)

    2015

  40. [40]

    Bhaduri, L

    R. Bhaduri, L. Cohler, and Y. Nogami, Nuov Cim A65, 376 (1981)

    1981

  41. [41]

    Hiyama, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics2012, 01A204 (2012)

    E. Hiyama, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics2012, 01A204 (2012)

    2012

  42. [42]

    Hiyama and M

    E. Hiyama and M. Kamimura, Front. Phys.13, 132016 (2018)

    2018

  43. [43]

    Hiyama and M

    E. Hiyama and M. Kamimura, Phys. Rev. A85, 022502 (2012)

    2012

  44. [44]

    Yoshida, E

    T. Yoshida, E. Hiyama, A. Hosaka, M. Oka, and K. Sadato, Phys. Rev. D92, 114029 (2015)

    2015

  45. [45]

    Georgi and M

    H. Georgi and M. B. Wise, Phys. Lett. B243, 279 (1990)

    1990

  46. [46]

    M. J. Savage and M. B. Wise, Phys. Lett. B248, 177 (1990)

    1990

  47. [47]

    Tanaka, Y

    M. Tanaka, Y. Yamaguchi, and M. Harada, Phys. Rev. D 110, 016024 (2024), arXiv:2403.03548 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    Manohar and M

    A. Manohar and M. Wise, Heavy Quark Physics, Cam- bridge Monographs on Particle Physics, Nuclear Physics and Cosmology (Cambridge University Press, 2000)

    2000

  49. [49]

    Barnes, S

    T. Barnes, S. Godfrey, and E. S. Swanson, Phys. Rev. D 72, 054026 (2005)

    2005

  50. [50]

    Kamimura, Phys

    M. Kamimura, Phys. Rev. A38, 621 (1988)

    1988

  51. [51]

    Buisseret and C

    F. Buisseret and C. Semay, Phys. Rev. D73, 114011 (2006)

    2006