Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 52 references

Spectroscopic and Structural Properties of $B$, $B_s$, and $B_c$ Mesons within a Non-Relativistic Potential Model: A Comparative Analysis via Matrix Numerov and Variational Methods

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

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

Pith's one-line read By fitting the Killingbeck potential to the Cornell potential and solving the Schrödinger equation with two independent methods, this paper reproduces the ground-state masses of B, B_s, and B_c mesons to within 0.5% of the experimental…

desk verdict A workmanlike potential-model scan with honest limitations: the <0.5% mass claim is true only for selected parameter rows, not the scan average, and the B-meson decay constant is off by 58–84%. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08515 v1 pith:H3RYJ2VM submitted 2026-08-09 hep-ph

Pritom Kumar Nath , Rishan Dev Choudhury , Jugal Lahkar This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph PACS 12.39.Pn14.40.Nd
keywords heavymesonspectroscopyKillingbeckpotentialCornellmatrixNumerovmethodvariationaldecayconstantsIsgur-Wisefunctionquarkonium
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 asks whether a single, simple interaction—the three-parameter Killingbeck potential—can describe the ground state of the heavy mesons $B$, $B_s$, and $B_c$ when solved non-relativistically. The parameters are fixed once by an ordinary least-squares fit to the Cornell potential over the window $r\in[0,2]\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}$, and the Schrödinger equation is then solved independently by the matrix Numerov method and by a variational Gaussian trial wavefunction. The headline finding is that the closest obtained masses sit within 0.5% of the experimental averages, and the two methods agree with each other across all computed observables. The paper also reports that decay constants, oscillation frequencies, and Isgur–Wise slope and curvature parameters follow, and that the model's accuracy improves as the lighter quark gets heavier: $B_s$ and $B_c$ decay constants land near experiment or theory, while the $B$ decay constant overshoots by 58% to 84%. A reader should care because, if the mass claim holds, this provides a nearly parameter-free, analytic cross-check for lattice QCD and sum-rule calculations.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a two-step pipeline. First, the three-knob Killingbeck potential $V(r)=a'r^2+b'r+c'/r$ is fitted to the Cornell potential $V(r)=-\frac{4\alpha_s}{3r}+br+C$ by ordinary least squares over $[0,2]\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}$, so the potential parameters come from a regression rather than from spectroscopy. Second, the radial Schrödinger equation is solved with two independent methods: the matrix Numerov method, which discretizes the kinetic and potential operators into $N\times N$ matrices and solves a generalized eigenvalue problem with $O(\Delta r^4)$ accuracy, and a variational method using a Gaussian trial wavefunction, chosen because the $a'r^2$ term makes a Gaussian the natural ground-state ansatz. All observables then follow from standard formulas: the pseudoscalar mass is $M_P=M_Q+M_{\bar Q}+\langle E\rangle+\langle H_{SS}\rangle$ with $\langle H_{SS}\rangle\propto \alpha_s|\psi(0)|^2/(M_Q M_{\bar Q})$; the decay constant is $f_P=\sqrt{12|\psi(0)|^2/M_P}\,\bar C$ with a QCD correction; the oscillation frequency $\Delta m_B$ is proportional to $f_{B_q}^2$; and the Isgur–Wise slope $\rho^2$ and curvature $C$ are the first two moments of the ground-state density. The quantity that carries the argument is the wavefunction at the origin $|\psi(0)|^2$: it sets the hyperfine splitting and the decay constant, and the paper identifies its short-distance behavior as the main source of error.

What would settle it

Recompute the $B$ meson decay constant after replacing the OLS-fitted Killingbeck potential with one that matches the Cornell potential more faithfully at small $r$—for instance by extending the fit window, adding a logarithmic short-distance term, or sampling $r$ densely near zero—and check whether $f_B$ moves from the paper's 0.31–0.37 GeV toward the experimental and lattice values around 0.19–0.22 GeV. In parallel, a direct measurement of the $B$-meson Isgur–Wise slope exceeding 0.75 would contradict the paper's non-relativistic prediction of $\rho^2\approx0.34$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the Killingbeck potential $V_{\rm kill}(r)=a'r^2+b'r+c'/r$, calibrated by ordinary least squares to the Cornell potential $V_{\rm Cornell}(r)=-\frac{4\alpha_s}{3r}+br+C$ on $0\le r\le 2\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}$, reproduces the experimental ground-state masses of $B$, $B_s$, and $B_c$ to better than 0.5% for the best-fitting parameter sets, with the matrix Numerov and variational Gaussian methods giving statistically consistent results (mass standard deviations near 0.03 GeV). The same wavefunctions yield decay constants, mixing frequencies, and Isgur–Wise parameters. The paper's own comparison shows the method's limits: the $B$-meson decay constant is overestimated by roughly 58% (variational) and 84% (Numerov) because the fitted potential is too rigid at short distances and inflates $|\psi(0)|^2$, while the $B_s$ and $B_c$ values are much closer to experiment and to other theoretical frameworks. The Isgur–Wise slope for $B$ comes out at $\rho^2\approx0.34$, above the model-independent lower bound of $1/4$ but below the stronger heavy-quark-limit bound of $3/4$, which the authors interpret as the expected signature of a purely non-relativistic treatment.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Killingbeck potential obtained by an ordinary least-squares fit to the Cornell potential on the single interval $0\le r\le 2\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}$ is accurate enough at short distances to give the wavefunction at the origin, $|\psi(0)|^2$; the paper's own $B$-meson decay-constant excess (58–84%) is evidence that this premise is the weakest point.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the sub-0.5% mass agreement holds, the Killingbeck-plus-OLS recipe becomes a cheap, parameter-light estimator for ground-state masses of heavy-heavy mesons, requiring only quark masses, $\alpha_s$, $b$, and $C$ as inputs.
  • The close agreement between the matrix Numerov and variational Gaussian methods (mass spreads of about 0.03 GeV) supports the use of a simple Gaussian ansatz for these ground states in other heavy-heavy systems.
  • Because $\Delta m_B$ grows with $f_{B_q}^2$, the model's overestimated $B$ decay constant forces an overestimated oscillation frequency: the paper obtains $0.89$–$0.98\,\mathrm{ps}^{-1}$ against the experimental $0.507\,\mathrm{ps}^{-1}$, so mixing observables are not reliable for $B$ mesons.
  • For $B_s$, the Numerov and variational decay constants bracket the experimental value, suggesting the framework can be useful for $B_s$ mixing phenomenology once the short-distance part is improved.
  • The Isgur–Wise slopes place the model in the non-relativistic regime; improving $\rho^2$ to satisfy the heavy-quark-limit bound would require adding relativistic corrections, not changing the confining potential.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The fitted potential's short-distance failure is arguably baked into the ordinary least-squares procedure: over the window $[0,2]\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}$ the fit is dominated by the linear and quadratic terms, so the singular $c'/r$ term is under-constrained near $r=0$; a weighted regression that emphasizes small $r$ would probably fix $f_B$ at the cost of some mass accuracy.
  • Because the Gaussian trial state is exact for a pure $a'r^2$ potential, the close variational–Numerov mass agreement indirectly measures how harmonic the fitted potential is in the energy-dominating region; computing $\langle b'r\rangle$ would quantify that directly.
  • The paper's remark that a temperature-dependent quadratic term connects the Killingbeck form to screened potentials in quark–gluon plasma implies a concrete extension: recomputing ground-state masses and decay constants as $a'(T)$ grows would yield meson dissociation temperatures, which the authors mention but do not calculate.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript computes ground-state masses, leptonic decay constants, B-meson oscillation frequencies, and Isgur-Wise slope/curvature parameters for B, B_s, and B_c mesons in a non-relativistic potential model. The interaction is the Killingbeck potential, whose three parameters are obtained by an ordinary-least-squares fit to the Cornell potential over r in [0, 2.0] GeV^{-1}. The Schrödinger equation is solved with both the matrix Numerov method and a variational Gaussian trial wave function. The paper's central quantitative claim is that the ground-state masses deviate by less than 0.5% from PDG values, and the results are compared extensively with lattice QCD, QCD sum rules, and other potential-model calculations.

Significance. If the <0.5% mass claim were supported by the paper's own tables, the manuscript would be a useful cross-check of two independent numerical methods in a standard phenomenological framework, and the extensive comparison tables would make it a convenient reference for this class of models. The authors are also candid in the conclusion about the decay-constant overestimation and about the need for relativistic corrections. However, the headline accuracy claim is not supported by the reported averages, and the parameter-selection procedure is not sufficiently specified. The contribution is therefore incremental and needs revision before the central claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Section IV] The claim that the ground-state masses of B, B_s, and B_c deviate by less than 0.5% from PDG values is contradicted by the paper's own Table VIII. For B_s, the PDG mass is 5.366 GeV; the Numerov average is 5.300 +/- 0.057 GeV, a deviation of about 1.2%, and the variational average is 5.287 +/- 0.057 GeV, a deviation of about 1.5%. Many individual rows in Tables II-VII also fall outside the 0.5% band. Since mass accuracy is the headline result, the claim must be restricted to the explicitly selected 'closest obtained' rows, the selection rule must be stated, and the averages must be reported as the model's typical predictive output.
  2. [Section II.A] The OLS fit of the Killingbeck potential to the Cornell potential is performed over r in [0, 2.0] GeV^{-1}, but the Cornell potential contains a 1/r term and diverges at r = 0. The manuscript does not state whether r_min = 0 is actually used in Eq. (3), nor how the singular point is handled in the configuration matrix X of Eq. (6). This is not a purely technical detail: the fitted c' coefficient controls the short-distance behaviour, and |psi(0)|^2 enters both the spin-spin mass term in Eq. (28) and the decay constant in Eqs. (29)-(31). The short-distance sensitivity is visible in the large decay-constant overestimates, so the fit grid and the quality of the fit should be documented explicitly.
  3. [Section III.A and Tables II-VII] The selection of parameter sets is not described in a way that supports the stated accuracy claim. Section III.A says the tables list parameter sets 'that yield mass estimates in closest agreement with experimental results', but no algorithm or a priori criterion is given for choosing these sets among the allowed ranges of alpha_s and C, and b is fixed at 0.195 without justification in this paper. Because rows outside the 0.5% band appear throughout Tables II-VII, the headline claim could reflect selection bias unless the selection procedure is predefined and transparent. The authors should specify how the reported sets were chosen and present the full scan statistics as the model's predictive range.
minor comments (5)
  1. [References] Reference [2] contains an editorial placeholder ('check for published proceedings version and DOI') and should be completed.
  2. [Sections II.D-F and III.D] The section ordering is inconsistent: the oscillation-frequency subsection is labeled F but appears before the Isgur-Wise subsection labeled E, and the text refers to 'Equations (16) and (17)' for the oscillation frequency, although that quantity is defined in Eqs. (32) and (34).
  3. [Tables IV-VII] The column headers and signs in Tables IV-VII are inconsistent: Table IV labels Cpot in GeV^2 while Table II labels it in GeV, and several Cpot entries in Tables V-VII switch sign (e.g., positive 0.998, 0.978, 0.958) without explanation. Please check whether these entries are the Cornell constant C or another quantity.
  4. [Section III.B] The text says the variational results are listed in 'tables 6, 7 and 8', but the actual variational tables are numbered V, VI, and VII; renumber or re-reference consistently.
  5. [Figure 1] The caption says solid and dashed lines represent fitted curves from Table II and Table V, but only two curves per panel are described; please clarify which datasets correspond to which line style.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No construction-level circularity; the <0.5% mass claim is a best-case selection overstatement, and the only self-citation is minor.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular: the Killingbeck parameters a', b', and c' are obtained by ordinary least-squares fitting to the Cornell potential (Eqs. 1-12), which is a model input rather than the target observables, and the meson masses are then computed from the Schrodinger-equation solution via Eq. (28). The mass output is therefore a genuine calculation, not a restatement of the fitted potential parameters. The allowed alpha_s and C ranges are imported from Table I [9], and the string tension b = 0.195 is fixed by the authors' own earlier work [6]; this is a self-citation, but it enters only as a standard potential parameter and the mass prediction still requires solving the bound-state problem, so the citation is not load-bearing in a way that makes the result equivalent to its inputs by construction. The 'closest obtained' rows in Tables II-VIII are selected for best agreement with PDG masses, so the abstract and conclusion claim of '<0.5% deviations' is an overstatement relative to the full scan (for example, Table VIII gives B_s averages of 5.300 +/- 0.057 GeV by Numerov and 5.287 +/- 0.057 GeV by variational method versus the PDG value 5.366 GeV). That is a reporting and selection concern rather than circularity, because the model's parameter scan and wavefunction calculation are independent of the experimental masses.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calculation depends on the choice of the Killingbeck potential form, the OLS fit to the Cornell potential over the range [0, 2.0] GeV^{-1}, the scanned ranges of alpha_s and C, and the standard non-relativistic formulas for masses, decay constants, and Isgur-Wise parameters. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • alpha_s (strong coupling) = B: 0.580-0.620; B_s: 0.450-0.570; B_c: 0.200-0.400
    Scanned over allowed ranges from Ref. [9]; not fitted to observables in this paper, but the range itself is an input that affects all results.
  • C (Cornell constant term) = B: -0.998 to -0.918; B_s: -0.847 to -0.697; B_c: -0.694 to -0.394
    Scanned over the allowed range from Table I; varies the potential and hence the OLS-fitted Killingbeck parameters.
  • b (string tension) = 0.195 GeV^2
    Fixed following the authors' earlier work (Ref. [6]); enters the Cornell potential that is the fitting target.
  • a' (Killingbeck r^2 coefficient) = Values in Tables II-VII, e.g., 0.543 GeV^3 for B (alpha_s=0.580, C=-0.998)
    Produced by OLS fit to the Cornell potential; a model parameter that determines the wavefunction.
  • b' (Killingbeck linear coefficient) = Values in Tables II-VII, e.g., -1.282 GeV^2 for B
    Produced by OLS fit to the Cornell potential.
  • c' (Killingbeck 1/r coefficient) = Values in Tables II-VII, e.g., -0.894 GeV for B
    Produced by OLS fit to the Cornell potential.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The non-relativistic Schrodinger equation with a static potential describes heavy meson bound states.
    Used throughout Sections II.B and II.C; the paper tests this assumption in the discussion of limitations.
  • domain assumption The Cornell potential is an accurate reference for the quark-antiquark interaction.
    Taken as the target function for the OLS fit (Section II.A); if the Cornell potential is wrong, the fitted Killingbeck parameters inherit the error.
  • ad hoc to paper The Killingbeck potential can faithfully represent the Cornell potential over the fitting range [0, 2.0] GeV^{-1}.
    This is the central modeling choice of the paper; the limited range may not capture short-distance behavior needed for |psi(0)|^2.
  • domain assumption The Van Royen-Weisskopf formula with QCD correction gives the leptonic decay constant.
    Used in Eqs. (29)-(31) to compute f_P; a standard result but with known limitations for heavy-light systems.
  • domain assumption The Isgur-Wise function formalism applies to B, B_s, and B_c mesons in the heavy-quark limit.
    Used in Section II.E; for B_c, where both quarks are heavy, the heavy-quark limit is questionable.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spectroscopic and Structural Properties of $B$, $B_s$, and $B_c$ Mesons within a Non-Relativistic Potential Model: A Comparative Analysis via Matrix Numerov and Variational Methods." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H3RYJ2VM

@misc{pith2026260808515,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spectroscopic and Structural Properties of $B$, $B_s$, and $B_c$ Mesons within a Non-Relativistic Potential Model: A Comparative Analysis via Matrix Numerov and Variational Methods},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H3RYJ2VM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08515}
}
abstract

In this work, we studied the spectroscopic masses, decay constants, oscillation frequencies, and Isgur-Wise function parameters of $B$, $B_s$, and $B_c$ mesons within the framework of a non-relativistic potential model. The interaction is modelled using the Killingbeck potential, with calculations performed using two complementary approaches: the matrix Numerov method for solving the Schr\"odinger equation and the quantum mechanical variational method employing the Gaussian wave function. We determined the unknown parameters of the Killingbeck potential by fitting it to the Cornell potential using the ordinary least squares (OLS) method. These calibrated parameters are then used to compute the aforementioned physical observables.We obtained the masses of the heavy mesons with deviations of less than 0.5\% from the highly precise experimental data. We also discussed the drawbacks and limitations of the non-relativistic model and highlighted its domain of applicability. At the end, we compare our results obtained from both methods with those from other theoretical frameworks, including QCD sum rules, lattice QCD, and alternative potential model studies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.08515 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Least-squares fitting of the Killingbeck and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Variation of the IWF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M. E. Peskin and D. V. Schroeder,An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory(Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mas- sachusetts, USA, 1995) p. 842

    work page 1995

  2. [2]

    Neubert, arXiv preprint (2005), tASI lecture notes; check for published proceedings version and DOI, arXiv:hep-ph/0512222

    M. Neubert, arXiv preprint (2005), tASI lecture notes; check for published proceedings version and DOI, arXiv:hep-ph/0512222

    arXiv 2005

  3. [3]

    Killingbeck, Phys

    J. Killingbeck, Phys. Lett. A65, 87 (1978)

    work page 1978

  4. [4]

    Barnea, arXiv preprint 10.48550/arXiv.2603.09350 (2026), 6 pages, 4 figures, arXiv:2603.09350 [physics.atom-ph]

    N. Barnea, arXiv preprint 10.48550/arXiv.2603.09350 (2026), 6 pages, 4 figures, arXiv:2603.09350 [physics.atom-ph]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.09350 2026

  5. [5]

    Pillai, J

    M. Pillai, J. Goglio, and T. G. Walker, American Journal of Physics80, 1017 (2012)

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    R. D. Choudhury, P. K. Nath, and J. Lahkar, The Euro- pean Physical Journal C 10.1140/epjc/s10052-026-15862- 2 (2026)

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-026-15862- 2026

  7. [7]

    S. M and A. Ranjan, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics50, 073001 (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Eichten, K

    E. Eichten, K. Gottfried, T. Kinoshita, K. D. Lane, and T. M. Yan, Phys. Rev. D21, 203 (1980)

    work page 1980

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Kingkar, S

    K. Kingkar, S. Bhattacharya, and T. Das, European Physical Journal C82, 1081 (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    W. H. Press, B. P. Flannery, S. A. Teukolsky, and W. T. Vetterling,Numerical Recipes: The Art of Sci- entific Computing, 1st ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, 1989) p. 702, fortran version

    1989

  3. [11]

    Goldberger, W

    A. Goldberger, W. Shenhart, and S. Wilks,Economet- ric Theory, WILEY SERIES in PROBABILITY and STATISTICS: APPLIED PROBABILITY and STATIST ICS SECTION Series (J. Wiley, 1964)

    1964

  4. [12]

    Lucha and F

    W. Lucha and F. F. Sch¨ oberl,Phenomenological As- pects of Non-Relativistic Potential Models, Tech. Rep. UWThPh-1989-71 (University of Vienna, 1989) 60 ref- erences, 8 figures, 17 tables

    1989

  5. [13]

    Hoque, B

    R. Hoque, B. J. Hazarika, and D. K. Choudhury, The European Physical Journal C80, 1213 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    Roy and D

    S. Roy and D. K. Choudhury, Quant. Matt.5, 1 (2016), arXiv:1611.08795 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  7. [15]

    D. J. Griffiths,Introduction to Elementary Particles (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1987)

    1987

  8. [16]

    K. K. Pathak and D. K. Choudhury, Chinese Physics Letters28, 101201 (2011)

    2011

  9. [17]

    Lahkar, D

    J. Lahkar, D. K. Choudhury, and B. J. Hazarika, Com- munications in Theoretical Physics71, 49 (2019)

    2019

  10. [18]

    K. Dash, P. C. Dash, R. N. Panda, S. Kar, and N. Barik, Physical Review D110, 053004 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Zhang, X.-W

    L. Zhang, X.-W. Kang, X.-H. Guo, L.-Y. Dai, T. Luo, and C. Wang, Journal of High Energy Physics2021, 179 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    Pathak and J

    R. Pathak and J. Lahkar, International Journal of Mod- ern Physics A41, 2650084 (2026)

    2026

  13. [21]

    R. V. Royen and V. F. Weisskopf, Il Nuovo Cimento A (1965-1970)50, 617 (1967)

    1967

  14. [22]

    Lahkar, D

    J. Lahkar, D. K. Choudhury, and B. J. Hazarika, Few- Body Systems64(2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    A. K. Rai, B. Patel, and P. C. Vinodkumar, Physical Review C78, 055202 (2008)

    2008

  16. [24]

    Hulsbergen, Modern Physics Letters A28, 1330023 (2013)

    W. Hulsbergen, Modern Physics Letters A28, 1330023 (2013)

    2013

  17. [25]

    Ebert, R

    D. Ebert, R. N. Faustov, and V. O. Galkin, Physical Review D67, 014027 (2003)

    2003

  18. [26]

    A. J. Buras, Physics Letters B566, 115 (2003)

    2003

  19. [27]

    B. J. Hazarika and D. K. Choudhury, arXiv preprint arXiv:1112.2800 10.48550/arXiv.1112.2800 (2011), arXiv:1112.2800 [hep-ph]

    2011 doi arXiv

  20. [28]

    T. Das, D. K. Choudhury, and K. K. Pathak, Interna- tional Journal of Modern Physics A31, 1650189 (2016)

    2016

  21. [29]

    Mutuk, Advances in High Energy Physics2018, 8095653 (2018)

    H. Mutuk, Advances in High Energy Physics2018, 8095653 (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys

    S. Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), JHEP07, 123, arXiv:2004.08163 [hep-ex]

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), JHEP07, 123, arXiv:2004.08163 [hep-ex]

    2004

  24. [32]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), JHEP06, 130, arXiv:2004.02795 [hep-ex]

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), JHEP06, 130, arXiv:2004.02795 [hep-ex]

    2004 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), Phys

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 191804 (2019), arXiv:1902.02092 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Abeet al.(CDF), Phys

    F. Abeet al.(CDF), Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 2432 (1998), arXiv:hep-ex/9805034 [hep-ex]

    1998 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Hoque, B

    R. Hoque, B. J. Hazarika, D. K. Choudhury, and J. Lahkar, Few-Body Systems64, 26 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    B. I. Eisenstein, I. Karliner, S. Mehrabyan, N. Lowrey, et al.(CLEO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D78, 052003 (2008)

    2008

  29. [37]

    Chen and T.-W

    Y.-C. Chen and T.-W. Chiu, Physics Letters B738, 55 (2014)

    2014

  30. [38]

    R. J. Dowdall, C. T. H. Davies, T. C. Hammant, and R. R. Horgan, Physical Review D86, 10.1103/phys- revd.86.094510 (2012)

    2012 doi

  31. [39]

    H. Na, C. J. Monahan, C. T. H. Davies, R. Horgan, G. P. Lepage, and J. Shigemitsu (HPQCD Collabora- tion), Phys. Rev. D86, 034506 (2012)

    2012

  32. [40]

    Chen, Y.-C

    W.-P. Chen, Y.-C. Chen, T.-W. Chiu, H.-Y. Chou, T.-S. Guu, and T.-H. Hsieh, Physics Letters B736, 231 (2014)

    2014

  33. [41]

    Wang, The European Physical Journal C75, 427 (2015)

    Z.-G. Wang, The European Physical Journal C75, 427 (2015)

    2015

  34. [42]

    Lucha, D

    W. Lucha, D. Melikhov, and S. Simula, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics38, 105002 (2011)

    2011

  35. [43]

    Aokiet al.(Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG)), Physical Review D113, 014508 (2026), report No: CERN-TH-2024-192, FERMILAB-PUB-24-0785-T, arXiv:2411.04268 [hep-lat]

    Y. Aokiet al.(Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG)), Physical Review D113, 014508 (2026), report No: CERN-TH-2024-192, FERMILAB-PUB-24-0785-T, arXiv:2411.04268 [hep-lat]

    2026 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), New J

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), New J. Phys.15, 053021 (2013), arXiv:1304.4741 [hep-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), Eur

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), Eur. Phys. J. C76, 412 (2016), arXiv:1604.03475 [hep-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Gay, Ann

    C. Gay, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.50, 577 (2000)

    2000

  39. [47]

    Bazavov, C

    A. Bazavov, C. Bernard, C. M. Bouchard, C. C. Chang, et al.(Fermilab Lattice and MILC), Phys. Rev. D93, 113016 (2016), arXiv:1602.03560 [hep-lat]

    2016 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Oliver and J.-C

    L. Oliver and J.-C. Raynal, arXiv preprint arXiv:1402.0798 10.1142/S0217751X15430083 (2014)

    2014 arXiv

  41. [49]

    A. L. Yaouanc, L. Oliver, and J.-C. Raynal, Phys.Rev. D69 (2004) 094022 10.1103/PhysRevD.69.094022 (2003)

    2004 doi

  42. [50]

    Buisseret, Physical Review C76, 025206 (2007)

    F. Buisseret, Physical Review C76, 025206 (2007)

    2007

  43. [51]

    T.-C. Ding, J. Huang, and M. Chen, Phys. Rev. D111, 094042 (2025)

    2025

  44. [52]

    Uraltsev, Physics Letters B501, 86 (2001), arXiv:hep- ph/0011124

    N. Uraltsev, Physics Letters B501, 86 (2001), arXiv:hep- ph/0011124

    2001

Pith tools

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