Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 41 references

A hybrid nonet with $J^{PC}=1^{-+}$ or a tetraquark 81-plet

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper predicts a 2.22 GeV isoscalar tetraquark with exotic quantum numbers $J^{PC}=1^{-+}$, decaying mainly to $\phi\phi$ and $\eta f_1(1420)$, whose discovery would settle whether the $1^{-+}$ exotics are tetraquarks or hybrids.

desk verdict A falsifiable 2.22 GeV ss tetraquark prediction worth testing, but built on an unproven orthogonality assumption that the referee should confront. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.18606 v1 pith:EGIISUR3 submitted 2025-06-23 hep-ph hep-exhep-lat

Niu Su , Er-Liang Cui , Yi-Wei Jiang , Hua-Xing Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-exhep-lat
keywords exotichadrontetraquarkstatehybridQCDsumrules1^-+mesonss-bareta1(1855)pi1(1600)
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 break the experimental deadlock between two competing explanations of the exotic $J^{PC}=1^{-+}$ mesons $\pi_1(1600)$ and $\eta_1(1855)$: hybrid states (quark-antiquark-gluon) versus tightly bound tetraquarks. Working within QCD sum rules, the authors argue that both states fit naturally as tetraquarks in an $SU(3)$ flavor 81-plet, and they predict a third, purely strange isoscalar partner $ss\bar{s}\bar{s}$ with mass $2.22^{+0.18}_{-0.26}$ GeV. That state should decay predominantly into $\phi\phi$ and $\eta f_1(1420)$. Because the hybrid scheme predicts only two isoscalar states while the tetraquark scheme predicts three, finding or not finding this new resonance in those channels would decide between the two pictures.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by two independent diquark–antidiquark interpolating currents, $\eta_{1\mu}$ and $\eta_{2\mu}$, that create $ss\bar{s}\bar{s}$ states with $J^{PC}=1^{-+}$. In the QCD sum rule framework, the two-point correlator is evaluated at the quark–gluon level by an operator product expansion up to dimension 12, then equated to a single-pole hadronic spectral density through a Borel transform (a Laplace-like smoothing that suppresses excited-state contributions); requiring pole dominance above 40% and convergence of the operator product expansion fixes a Borel window $1.56 \le M_B^2 \le 1.72$ GeV$^2$ and a continuum threshold $s_0 = 8.5$ GeV$^2$. The vanishing off-diagonal correlator between $\eta_{1\mu}$ and $\eta_{2\mu}$ is used to justify treating them as coupling to two distinct states, $X_1$ and $X_2$; the mass extracted from $\eta_{1\mu}$ ($2.22$ GeV) is the paper's prediction, while the $\eta_{2\mu}$ result ($2.62$ GeV) is set aside. A Fierz rearrangement relates the diquark currents to mesonic–mesonic currents, which is what allows the decay amplitudes to $\phi\phi$, $\eta\eta'$, and $\eta f_1(1420)$ to be estimated in naive factorization.

What would settle it

A high-statistics search for an isoscalar exotic $J^{PC}=1^{-+}$ resonance in the $\phi\phi$ and $\eta f_1(1420)$ invariant mass spectra around 2.22 GeV is the cleanest test: non-observation of a narrow signal there would contradict the central prediction, while observation would support it. A second, complementary check would come from the $\eta_{2\mu}$ current: if a distinct state near 2.62 GeV also appears, the single-state assumption behind the 2.22 GeV extraction would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that the $\pi_1(1600)$ and the $\eta_1(1855)$ are not hybrids but tetraquarks, and that the tetraquark scheme forces the existence of a so-far unseen isoscalar partner with the same exotic quantum numbers $J^{PC}=1^{-+}$, built from two strange quarks and two strange antiquarks. The QCD sum rule analysis gives this state a mass of $2.22^{+0.18}_{-0.26}$ GeV, and a naive factorization estimate of its decays predicts the dominant final states to be $\phi\phi$ and $\eta f_1(1420)$, with branching fractions in the ratio $1 : 0.004 : 1.2$ relative to $\eta\eta'$. The authors conclude that a high-statistics search in the $\phi\phi$ and $\eta f_1(1420)$ invariant mass spectra around 2.2 GeV is the discriminating test: observation would complete the tetraquark 81-plet, while absence would support the hybrid nonet, which contains only two isoscalars.

Load-bearing premise

The result hinges on the assumption that the two independent tetraquark currents couple to two distinct physical states because their off-diagonal correlation function vanishes; if those currents actually mix, the $2.22$ GeV mass extracted from the first current alone would not be the mass of a physical state, and discarding the $2.62$ GeV result would be unjustified.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the 2.22 GeV $ss\bar{s}\bar{s}$ state exists, the tetraquark scheme gains its third isoscalar, completing the $SU(3)$ flavor 81-plet of $1^{-+}$ exotics.
  • Its predicted decay pattern (dominant $\phi\phi$ and $\eta f_1(1420)$, with $\eta\eta'$ suppressed by a factor of about 250) gives experimentalists specific channels and relative rates to check.
  • Because the predicted state and the $\eta_1(1855)$ are both tetraquarks, their total widths should be comparable, so the new state should be narrow enough to detect.
  • Interpreting the $\pi_1(1600)$ as the $qq\bar{q}\bar{q}$ isovector and the $\eta_1(1855)$ as the $qs\bar{q}\bar{s}$ isoscalar ties three known signals into one multiplet with a single mass scale.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The $\eta_{2\mu}$ current's 2.62 GeV result, though set aside, hints that the $1^{-+}$ tetraquark sector may contain a second physical state; a sum rule that allows $\eta_{1\mu}$–$\eta_{2\mu}$ mixing, or a lattice calculation of the $ss\bar{s}\bar{s}$ $1^{-+}$ spectrum, could test whether both masses are real.
  • The relative branching ratio $1 : 0.004 : 1.2$ was derived in naive factorization; a measurement of the $\phi\phi/\eta\eta'$ ratio would directly gauge how reliable that approximation is for four-quark decays.
  • If the 2.22 GeV state is found but its width turns out to be much larger than the $\eta_1(1855)$'s width, the expected width comparison would need refinement, possibly pointing to a hybrid component mixed into the tetraquark.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses QCD sum rules to explore tetraquark interpretations of the exotic J^PC = 1^-+ states pi1(1600) and eta1(1855). Two diquark-antidiquark currents for an ss-bar-s-bar state are constructed, the OPE is computed through dimension 12, and the off-diagonal correlator is reported to vanish. The authors assume that the two currents couple to two distinct states X1 and X2, extract M1 = 2.22^{+0.18}_{-0.26} GeV from the first current, and discard the second current's result M2 = 2.62^{+0.09}_{-0.11} GeV. By modifying the quark content they also quote masses for qq-bar-q-bar (1.56 GeV) and qs-bar-q-bar-s (1.89 GeV), identifying them with pi1(1600) and eta1(1855), and they use naive factorization to obtain relative branching fractions phi-phi : eta-eta' : eta-f1(1420) = 1 : 0.004 : 1.2. The central claim is that a missing isoscalar ss-bar-s-bar state near 2.22 GeV, decaying mainly into phi-phi and eta-f1(1420), would distinguish the tetraquark 81-plet from the hybrid nonet interpretation.

Significance. If the mass and decay predictions are correct, the predicted purely strange J^PC = 1^-+ state is a concrete, falsifiable observable that could discriminate between the tetraquark 81-plet and the hybrid nonet pictures for exotic mesons. The paper's strengths are its explicit OPE to dimension 12, its stated convergence and pole-dominance criteria, and the fact that the decay channels phi-phi and eta-f1(1420) are directly testable at BESIII, GlueX, and PANDA. The significance is conditional, however, because the mass extraction rests on an unproven distinct-state assumption, and the decay analysis is admittedly based on naive factorization.

major comments (4)
  1. [QCD sum rule analysis, after Eq. (6)] The conclusion that the two currents eta1_mu and eta2_mu couple to two distinct physical states is load-bearing but not justified. A vanishing off-diagonal correlator in a finite-order OPE does not prove that two operators with identical J^PC have zero physical overlap, as nonperturbative mixing can still occur. If both currents overlap the same resonance, the single-pole sum rule in Eqs. (11) and (12) returns an effective weighted mass rather than a physical mass, and the subsequent decision to drop M2 = 2.62 GeV (Eq. (18)) because it is 'significantly larger' is post hoc. The authors should provide a two-pole or mixing-angle analysis of the 2x2 correlator matrix, or otherwise demonstrate that M1 is stable with respect to mixing, before using M1 as a prediction.
  2. [Numerical analysis, Eqs. (14)-(17)] The Borel window for the central prediction is very narrow: with s0 = 8.5 GeV^2 it is M_B^2 in [1.56, 1.72] GeV^2, while the threshold is chosen only slightly above its lower bound of 7.7 GeV^2 set by the 40% pole-contribution criterion. The authors should justify this choice of s0 more fully and demonstrate that the extracted mass is stable over a wider range of Borel masses and thresholds, rather than only over the interval shown in Fig. 2. As it stands, the uncertainty estimate in Eq. (17) rests on a very small region of parameter space.
  3. [Numerical analysis, Eq. (19)] The masses quoted for the qq-bar-q-bar and qs-bar-q-bar-s tetraquarks are not derived in this manuscript. If these values are taken from Refs. [17,18,28-30], that should be stated explicitly in the text; if they are obtained by a modified version of the present OPE analysis, the relevant currents, OPE expressions, and numerical criteria should be given. As written, the identifications of pi1(1600) and eta1(1855), which are part of the paper's central interpretation, cannot be independently checked.
  4. [Decay properties, Eqs. (22)-(26)] The predicted branching fractions are obtained with naive factorization and include only three final states: phi-phi, eta-eta', and eta-f1(1420). Other potentially important channels such as K*-K* or K-K* are not estimated, and no absolute width is computed, so the statement that the state decays 'predominantly' into phi-phi and eta-f1(1420) is not established to the precision needed for a clean experimental discriminant. The additional claim that the total width of the predicted state should be comparable to that of eta1(1855) is not supported by any calculation in the text.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (12)] The sentence 'The mass M1 of the state X1 is be extracted' contains a grammatical error; it should read 'is extracted'.
  2. [Fig. 1] The multiplet diagram in Fig. 1 appears to be garbled in the submitted text, where it is rendered as the string '3 3 3 3'; the figure should be replaced so that the tetraquark and hybrid multiplets are legible.
  3. [Decay properties, first paragraph] The sentence 'As illustrated in Fig. 3, We again take the current...' has a capitalization error after the comma; 'We' should be lowercase.
  4. [Throughout] The notation uses 'eta1' both for the interpolating current and for the experimental state eta1(1855); although the meaning is usually clear from context, distinct notation would improve readability.
  5. [QCD sum rule analysis, after Eq. (6)] Reference [33] is cited to support the distinct-state assumption, but the text does not specify which result in that reference justifies the step; a brief explanation would help the reader evaluate the assumption.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the central 2.22 GeV ss tetraquark mass is obtained only after a self-cited orthogonality assumption is used to discard the 2.62 GeV result from the second valid current.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 2 (after Eq. (6)) and Numerical analysis (after Eq. (18))]
    "As discussed in Ref. [33], this result indicates that the two currents η1μ and η2μ are orthogonal and therefore do not significantly overlap with the same physical state. We thus assume that they couple to two distinct states, denoted X1 and X2, respectively. ... This value is significantly larger than M1, indicating a notable difference between the two currents. Given this disparity, we do not include the result obtained from η2μ in the subsequent discussions."

    The paper's headline prediction M1 = 2.22 GeV is extracted from η1 alone, while the second independent J^PC = 1^-+ current η2 gives M2 = 2.62 GeV and is discarded. The only support for the distinct-state premise that licenses this discard is the vanishing off-diagonal OPE of Eq. (6), interpreted through the authors' own Ref. [33] as 'orthogonal and therefore do not significantly overlap with the same physical state.' That inference is not a mathematical consequence of the truncated OPE: two operators with identical quantum numbers can both overlap one physical resonance, in which case a single-pole sum rule returns a weighted average rather than a physical mass. Ref. [33] (Chen, Shen, Zhu) shares an author with the present paper, so the load-bearing justification is a self-citation.

full rationale

The mass extraction itself is not circular: M1 = 2.22 GeV is obtained from an OPE spectral density with external condensate inputs, and no experimental mass of the target state is used to fix s0 or the Borel window. The standard convergence (CVG ≤ 5%), pole-dominance (PC ≥ 40%), and stability criteria determine the working region. The decay ratios are model estimates under naive factorization and are not fitted. The non-trivial circularity is limited to the selection step: the advertised ss-sbar-sbar state is the η1 sum-rule outcome, and the reason for preferring it over the η2 outcome is an orthogonality-to-distinctness inference supported by a same-author citation and acknowledged as an assumption. This is a load-bearing self-citation rather than a full reduction of the prediction to its input, so the score is 4 rather than higher.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central mass prediction rests on several standard QCD sum rule approximations (duality, single-pole dominance, OPE truncation) and on the naive factorization of the decay amplitude. The qq/qs masses used for the pi1 and eta1 assignments are not derived here; they are carried over from earlier works. No code or data files are shipped.

free parameters (2)
  • Continuum threshold s0 for the ss state = 8.5 GeV^2 (varied 8.0-9.0 GeV^2)
    Chosen so that the ground-state pole contribution is at least 40%. The extracted mass depends on s0, and the authors include a +/-0.5 GeV^2 variation in the quoted uncertainty.
  • Borel mass working window M_B^2 = 1.56-1.72 GeV^2
    Determined by requiring OPE convergence (dimension-12 term below 5%) and pole contribution above 40%. The window is narrow, and the mass is read off inside it.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Quark-hadron duality: the continuum above threshold s0 is represented by the OPE spectral density.
    Invoked in Eq. (11) when rewriting the hadronic sum rule as an integral of rho_OPE(s) up to s0.
  • domain assumption Single-pole dominance: the lowest lying state X1 saturates the hadronic spectral density.
    Eq. (8) keeps only the ground state pole and lumps all higher states into the continuum modeled by OPE.
  • domain assumption The two diquark-antidiquark currents eta1 and eta2 couple to two distinct physical states because their off-diagonal correlator vanishes.
    Stated explicitly after Eq. (6); this justifies computing only M1 and discarding M2.
  • domain assumption The OPE truncated at dimension 12 with the condensate values in Eq. (13) is accurate in the Borel window.
    The authors check that dimension-10 and dimension-12 terms are below their quoted thresholds, so this is a controlled but still unproved truncation.
  • domain assumption SU(3) flavor symmetry classifies the states into nonets or 81-plets.
    The hybrid versus tetraquark comparison in Fig. 1 and the assignment of isoscalars assumes an approximate flavor organization that QCD violates with the strange quark mass.
  • domain assumption Naive factorization and vacuum saturation for the decay matrix elements.
    Eqs. (23)-(25) factorize the four-quark current into independent meson currents; the paper itself notes this introduces substantial uncertainties.
invented entities (1)
  • The ss-sbar-sbar tetraquark state X1 with J^PC=1^-+ and mass near 2.22 GeV independent evidence
    purpose: Predicted third isoscalar member of the tetraquark 81-plet; its decay to phi phi and eta f1(1420) is the proposed experimental signal separating tetraquark from hybrid interpretations.
    The paper gives a specific mass and decay channels, so a search for a 0+ 1^-+ resonance in phi phi or eta f1(1420) around 2.2 GeV can confirm or exclude it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A hybrid nonet with $J^{PC}=1^{-+}$ or a tetraquark 81-plet." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EGIISUR3

@misc{pith2026250618606,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A hybrid nonet with $J^PC=1^-+$ or a tetraquark 81-plet},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EGIISUR3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.18606}
}
abstract

Confirming the existence of hybrid states remains challenging due to their experimental indistinguishability from tightly bound tetraquarks and loosely bound molecules. To address this issue, we employ QCD sum rules to systematically investigate the $\pi_1(1600)$ and $\eta_1(1855)$ as candidate tetraquark states with exotic quantum numbers $J^{PC} = 1^{-+}$. Within the hybrid framework, an $SU(3)$ flavor nonet is expected, featuring two isoscalar configurations, $q\bar{q}g$ and $s\bar{s}g$, where $q = u/d$. In contrast, the tetraquark scenario predicts an $SU(3)$ flavor 81-plet comprising three isoscalar states: $qq\bar{q}\bar{q}$, $qs\bar{q}\bar{s}$, and $ss\bar{s}\bar{s}$. Our analysis yields a mass of $2.22^{+0.18}_{-0.26}$ GeV for the $ss\bar{s}\bar{s}$ tetraquark state, which is expected to decay predominantly into the $\phi\phi$ and $\eta f_1(1420)$ final states. Therefore, experimental scrutiny of their invariant mass spectra is pivotal for distinguishing between hybrid and tetraquark interpretations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.18606 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Comparison of the tetraquark and hybrid spectra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Dependence of the mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Decay process of the tetraquark state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Navas, et al., Review of particle physics, Phys

    S. Navas, et al., Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D 110 (3) (2024) 030001. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110. 030001

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.110 2024

  2. [2]

    Amsler, N

    C. Amsler, N. A. Tornqvist, Mesons beyond the naive quark model, Phys. Rept. 389 (2004) 61–117. doi:10. 1016/j.physrep.2003.09.003

    work page 2004

  3. [3]

    Klempt, A

    E. Klempt, A. Zaitsev, Glueballs, hybrids, multiquarks: Experimental facts versus QCD inspired concepts, Phys. Rept. 454 (2007) 1–202. arXiv:0708.4016, doi:10. 1016/j.physrep.2007.07.006

    arXiv 2007

  4. [4]

    C. A. Meyer, E. S. Swanson, Hybrid mesons, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 82 (2015) 21–58. arXiv:1502.07276, doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2015.03.001

    arXiv 2015

  5. [5]

    H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, Y.-R. Liu, S.-L. Zhu, An updated review of the new hadron states, Rept. Prog. Phys. 86 (2) (2023) 026201. arXiv:2204.02649, doi: 10.1088/1361-6633/aca3b6

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Alde, et al., Evidence for a 1 −+ exotic meson, Phys

    D. Alde, et al., Evidence for a 1 −+ exotic meson, Phys. Lett. B 205 (1988) 397. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(88) 91686-3

    doi:10.1016/0370-2693(88 1988

  7. [7]

    G. S. Adams, et al., Observation of a New JPC = 1−+ Exotic State in the Reaction π−p → π+π−π−p at 18 GeV /c, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 5760–5763. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.5760

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.81.5760 1998

  8. [8]

    Kuhn, et al., Exotic meson production in the f1(1285)π− system observed in the reaction π−p → ηπ +π−π−p at 18 GeV/c, Phys

    J. Kuhn, et al., Exotic meson production in the f1(1285)π− system observed in the reaction π−p → ηπ +π−π−p at 18 GeV/c, Phys. Lett. B 595 (2004) 109–

    work page 2004

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Rodas, et al., Determination of the Pole Position of the Lightest Hybrid Meson Candidate, Phys

    A. Rodas, et al., Determination of the Pole Position of the Lightest Hybrid Meson Candidate, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (4) (2019) 042002. arXiv:1810.04171, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.122.042002

    2019 arXiv

  2. [10]

    G. D. Alexeev, et al., Exotic meson π1(1600) with JPC = 1−+ and its decay into ρ(770)π, Phys. Rev. D 105 (1) (2022) 012005. arXiv:2108.01744, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.105.012005

    2022 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Ablikim, et al., Observation of an Isoscalar Resonance with Exotic JPC = 1−+ Quantum Numbers in J/ψ → γηη′, Phys

    M. Ablikim, et al., Observation of an Isoscalar Resonance with Exotic JPC = 1−+ Quantum Numbers in J/ψ → γηη′, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129 (19) (2022) 192002. arXiv: 2202.00621, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.192002

    2022

  4. [12]

    F. Chen, X. Jiang, Y. Chen, M. Gong, Z. Liu, C. Shi, W. Sun, 1−+ hybrid meson inJ/ψ radiative decays from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 107 (5) (2023) 054511.arXiv: 2207.04694, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.054511

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    L. Qiu, Q. Zhao, Towards the establishment of the light JP (C) = 1−(+) hybrid nonet, Chin. Phys. C 46 (8) (2022) 051001. arXiv:2202.00904, doi:10.1088/1674-1137/ ac567e

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Shastry, C

    V. Shastry, C. S. Fischer, F. Giacosa, The phenomenol- ogy of the exotic hybrid nonet with π1(1600) and η1(1855), Phys. Lett. B 834 (2022) 137478. arXiv: 2203.04327, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137478

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Chen, S.-Q

    B. Chen, S.-Q. Luo, X. Liu, Constructing the JP (C) = 1−(+) light flavor hybrid nonet with the newly observed η1(1855), Phys. Rev. D 108 (5) (2023) 054034. arXiv: 6 2302.06785, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.054034

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    G. D. Esmer, K. Azizi, H. Sundu, S. T¨ urkmen, De- cays of the light hybrid meson 1 −+, Phys. Rev. D 111 (3) (2025) 034041. arXiv:2501.11331, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.111.034041

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    H.-X. Chen, A. Hosaka, S.-L. Zhu, IGJPC = 1−1−+ tetraquark states, Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 054017.arXiv: 0806.1998, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.054017

    2008 arXiv

  10. [18]

    H.-X. Chen, A. Hosaka, S.-L. Zhu, IGJPC = 0 +1−+ tetraquark states, Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 117502.arXiv: 0808.2344, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.117502

    2008 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Wan, S.-Q

    B.-D. Wan, S.-Q. Zhang, C.-F. Qiao, Possible structure of the newly found exotic state η1(1855), Phys. Rev. D 106 (7) (2022) 074003. arXiv:2203.14014, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.106.074003

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Dong, Y.-H

    X.-K. Dong, Y.-H. Lin, B.-S. Zou, Interpretation of the η1(1855) as a K ¯K1(1400)+ c.c. molecule, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 65 (6) (2022) 261011. arXiv: 2202.00863, doi:10.1007/s11433-022-1887-5

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    F. Yang, H. Q. Zhu, Y. Huang, Analysis of the η1(1855) as a K ¯K1(1400) molecular state, Nucl. Phys. A 1030 (2023) 122571. arXiv:2203.06934, doi:10.1016/j. nuclphysa.2022.122571

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Liu, X.-L

    Z.-S. Liu, X.-L. Chen, D.-K. Lian, N. Li, W. Chen, Mixing angle of K1(1270/1400) and the K ¯K1(1400) molecular interpretation of η1(1855), Phys. Rev. D 111 (1) (2025) 014014. arXiv:2411.01867, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.111.014014

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    M. S. Chanowitz, S. R. Sharpe, Hybrids: Mixed states of quarks and gluons, Nucl. Phys. B 222 (1983) 211– 244, [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 228, 588–588 (1983)]. doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(83)90635-1

    1983 doi

  16. [24]

    J. M. Frere, S. Titard, A new look at exotic decays: ˜ρ(1−+,I = 1) →η′π versusρπ, Phys. Lett. B 214 (1988) 463–466. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(88)91395-0

    1988 doi

  17. [25]

    P. R. Page, E. S. Swanson, A. P. Szczepaniak, Hy- brid meson decay phenomenology, Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999) 034016. arXiv:hep-ph/9808346, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.59.034016

    1999 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Iddir, L

    F. Iddir, L. Semlala, Hybrid states from constituent glue model, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 23 (2008) 5229–5250.arXiv: 0710.5352, doi:10.1142/S0217751X08042687

    2008 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Wang, Mass spectrum of the hidden-charm hybrid states via QCD sum rules, Phys

    Z.-G. Wang, Mass spectrum of the hidden-charm hybrid states via QCD sum rules, Phys. Rev. D 111 (11) (2025) 114009. arXiv:2412.11038, doi:10.1103/hv4x-dnmt

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Chen, Z.-X

    H.-X. Chen, Z.-X. Cai, P.-Z. Huang, S.-L. Zhu, De- cay properties of the 1 −+ hybrid state, Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 014006. arXiv:1010.3974, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.83.014006

    2011 arXiv

  21. [29]

    H.-X. Chen, N. Su, S.-L. Zhu, QCD axial anomaly en- hances the ηη′ decay of the hybrid candidate η1(1855), Chin. Phys. Lett. 39 (5) (2022) 051201. arXiv:2202. 04918, doi:10.1088/0256-307X/39/5/051201

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    W.-H. Tan, N. Su, H.-X. Chen, Light single-gluon hybrid states with various exotic quantum numbers, Phys. Rev. D 110 (3) (2024) 034031. arXiv:2404.09538, doi:10. 1103/PhysRevD.110.034031

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, V. I. Zakharov, QCD and resonance physics. theoretical foundations, Nucl. Phys. B 147 (1979) 385–447. doi:10.1016/ 0550-3213(79)90022-1

    1979

  24. [32]

    L. J. Reinders, H. Rubinstein, S. Yazaki, Hadron prop- erties from QCD sum rules, Phys. Rept. 127 (1985) 1. doi:10.1016/0370-1573(85)90065-1

    1985 doi

  25. [33]

    Chen, C.-P

    H.-X. Chen, C.-P. Shen, S.-L. Zhu, Possible partner state of the Y (2175), Phys. Rev. D 98 (1) (2018) 014011. arXiv:1805.06100, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.014011

    2018 arXiv

  26. [34]

    K.-C. Yang, W. Y. P. Hwang, E. M. Henley, L. S. Kisslinger, QCD sum rules and neutron-proton mass difference, Phys. Rev. D 47 (1993) 3001–3012. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.47.3001

    1993 doi

  27. [35]

    Gimenez, V

    V. Gimenez, V. Lubicz, F. Mescia, V. Porretti, J. Reyes, Operator product expansion and quark condensate from lattice QCD in coordinate space, Eur. Phys. J. C 41 (2005) 535–544. arXiv:hep-lat/0503001, doi:10.1140/ epjc/s2005-02250-9

    2005 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Narison, QCD parameter correlations from heavy quarkonia, Int

    S. Narison, QCD parameter correlations from heavy quarkonia, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 33 (10) (2018) 1850045, [Addendum: Int.J.Mod.Phys.A 33, 1892004 (2018)]. arXiv:1801.00592, doi:10.1142/S0217751X18500458

    2018 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Chen, Hadronic molecules in B decays, Phys

    H.-X. Chen, Hadronic molecules in B decays, Phys. Rev. D 105 (9) (2022) 094003. arXiv:2103.08586, doi:10. 1103/PhysRevD.105.094003

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Beneke, G

    M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert, C. T. Sachra- jda, QCD factorization in B → πK,ππ decays and ex- traction of Wolfenstein parameters, Nucl. Phys. B 606 (2001) 245–321. arXiv:hep-ph/0104110, doi:10.1016/ S0550-3213(01)00251-6

    2001 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Becirevic, V

    D. Becirevic, V. Lubicz, F. Mescia, C. Tarantino, Cou- pling of the light vector meson to the vector and to the tensor current, JHEP 05 (2003) 007. arXiv:hep-lat/ 0301020, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2003/05/007

    2003 doi

  32. [40]

    Allton, et al., Physical Results from 2+1 Flavor Do- main Wall QCD and SU(2) Chiral Perturbation The- ory, Phys

    C. Allton, et al., Physical Results from 2+1 Flavor Do- main Wall QCD and SU(2) Chiral Perturbation The- ory, Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 114509. arXiv:0804.0473, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.114509

    2008 arXiv

  33. [117]

    2004.05.032

    arXiv:hep-ex/0401004, doi:10.1016/j.physletb. 2004.05.032

    2004 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.