Chiral Doubling of Heavy-Light Hadrons and the New Beauty--Strange $B_{s0}^*(5700)^0$ Candidate

Ismail Zahed; Maciej A. Nowak

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 25 references

Chiral Doubling of Heavy-Light Hadrons and the New Beauty--Strange $B_{s0}^*(5700)^0$ Candidate

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read If the new beauty-strange state is confirmed as $J^P=0^+$, the paper argues it is the chiral partner of the ground-state $B_s^0$, with a parity gap of 332 MeV that matches charm and implies a narrow $1^+$ partner at 5747 MeV.

desk verdict A timely chiral-doubling interpretation of the new B_s0 state, with a concrete and testable 1+ prediction — but the numerical match is an interpolation and everything hinges on the unconfirmed J^P=0+ assignment. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07268 v1 pith:HYEKI443 submitted 2026-08-07 hep-ph hep-exhep-thnucl-th

Maciej A. Nowak , Ismail Zahed This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phhep-exhep-thnucl-th

keywords heavy-lightmesonschiraldoublingparitypartnerheavy-quarkspinsymmetryspontaneousbreakingB_s0*(5700)beauty-strangemesonGoldberger-Treimanrelation

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 a newly reported beauty-strange meson at about 5700 MeV, if its spin-parity is confirmed as $0^+$, is not an ordinary orbital excitation but the chiral partner of the ground-state $B_s^0$. The argument combines heavy-quark spin symmetry with spontaneously broken chiral symmetry, which together predict that every heavy-light spin multiplet has an opposite-parity twin separated by a gap set by the light quark rather than by the heavy quark. Using the strange-charm gap of about 349 MeV and a small $1/m_Q$ correction, the paper predicts a beauty-strange gap of about 332 MeV, matching the observed 331.98 MeV. It then concludes that a very narrow $1^+$ beauty-strange meson must exist at $5747 \pm 2$ MeV. If the framework is right, spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking remains the organizing principle of heavy-light spectroscopy across charm and beauty.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a heavy-hadron chiral effective theory with two superfields: $H$ for the negative-parity doublet $(0^-,1^-)$ and $G$ for the positive-parity $(0^+,1^+)$. Combining them into left- and right-handed fields $H_L,H_R$ introduces a mass-mixing term $-\Delta \mathrm{Tr}(\bar H_L \Sigma^\dagger H_R + \bar H_R \Sigma H_L)$; after $\langle\Sigma\rangle = 1$, the parity gap becomes $M_G - M_H = 2\Delta$, independent of the heavy-quark mass at leading order. A generalized Goldberger\textendash{}Treiman relation connects this gap to the pion coupling, with an overlap-suppression factor of one half relating the heavy-light and quark-level couplings. A one-parameter $1/m_Q$ correction, with the same coefficient $c_s$ for charm and beauty, turns the measured $D_s$ gap into the predicted $B_s$ gap via $m_c/m_b = 1/3$.

What would settle it

Confirm the spin-parity of the state near 5699 MeV and measure whether the parity gap is $331.98 \pm 1.6$ MeV; then search for the predicted narrow $1^+$ meson at $5747 \pm 2$ MeV. If the $0^+$ assignment fails, or the gap deviates from the predicted 332 MeV by more than the combined uncertainties, or no narrow $1^+$ state appears below the $B^*K$ threshold, the chiral-doubling interpretation is ruled out.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the observed state $B_{s0}^*(5700)^0$, under the conditional assignment $J^P=0^+$, fits the chiral-doubling prediction for the positive-parity partner of the ground-state doublet $(0^-,1^-)$ in the beauty-strange sector. The measured mass difference $M(B_s^{0+}) - M(B_s^{0-}) = 331.98 \pm 1.62$ MeV agrees with the value 331.8 MeV obtained from the strange-charm gap 349.4 MeV rescaled by the charm-to-bottom mass ratio, with a common leading $1/m_Q$ correction. The paper therefore asserts that confirming the spin-parity would establish chiral doubling in beauty and would impose the existence of a narrow $1^+$ partner at $5747 \pm 2$ MeV, below the $B^*K$ threshold, decaying only through isospin-violating and electromagnetic channels.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes both that the same coefficient governs the leading heavy-quark correction in charm and beauty and that the pion coupling between parity partners is naturally half the quark-level coupling; if either is wrong, the predicted gap moves.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the $0^+$ assignment holds, the 5700 MeV state is the chiral partner of the ground-state $B_s^0$, and the parity gap in beauty-strange hadrons is $331.98 \pm 1.62$ MeV.
A narrow $1^+$ beauty-strange meson must exist at $5747 \pm 2$ MeV; because it lies 71 MeV below $B^*K$, its hadronic width is suppressed and it should decay via $B_s^*\pi^0$, $B_s\gamma$, or $B_s^*\gamma$.
The parity gaps in the strange-charm and strange-beauty sectors should be nearly equal, with deviations controlled by $1/m_Q$; this can be checked by improving both the experimental masses and lattice QCD calculations.
Chiral doubling extends beyond the lowest multiplet: orbitally excited $j_\ell = 3/2$ states should show a smaller gap, around 170 MeV, and non-strange beauty states should appear but be broad.
The prediction provides a target for experimental searches: the missing $1^+$ state can be looked for directly, and its narrow width would distinguish it from quark-model or molecular alternatives.

Reading between the lines

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

The same interpolation formula could be applied to the non-strange $B$ sector, where chiral doubling predicts a positive-parity doublet separated by roughly the same gap; those states should be broad, but measuring their masses would test whether the gap is truly flavor-universal.
The paper's matching factor $g_{\pi HG} = \tfrac{1}{2} g_{\pi q q}$ is the least constrained input; a lattice calculation of the transition form factor between the parity partners would either justify or revise the 331.8 MeV prediction.
If the $0^+$ state is confirmed, the radiative and isospin-violating decays of the predicted $1^+$ partner offer a way to distinguish a compact chiral doubler from a molecular state, since the electromagnetic couplings differ for beauty and charm constituents.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a clear, honest paper that does what it says. It plugs the new LHCb B_s0*(5700)^0 candidate into the 1993/2003 chiral-doubling framework and extracts two concrete numbers: a parity gap of 331.8 MeV and a predicted narrow 1+ partner at 5747±2 MeV. The application to beauty is new, and the 1+ prediction is a genuinely falsifiable target for LHCb. If the J^P=0+ assignment is confirmed, the gap agreement is a real, non-trivial consistency check for the chiral-doubling picture.

What is actually new: Eq. (37), the one-parameter interpolation that eliminates c_s from the leading 1/m_Q correction, and the explicit identification of the observed state as the chiral partner. The 2003 paper approximated the B_s gap by Delta_M_inf = 323 MeV; this paper refines that to 331.8 MeV using the measured D_s gap and the illustrative m_c/m_b = 1/3. The 5747 MeV state follows from adding the measured ground-doublet hyperfine splitting to the scalar mass.

The soft spots are real but not fatal to the paper as an interpretive note. The load-bearing experimental premise is the conditional assignment J^P=0+; the authors state this clearly, but they then use M(B_s0) = 5698.9 MeV as if it were the scalar mass throughout Table I and Eq. (37). If that assignment changes, the gap comparison and the 1+ prediction lose their basis. Second, the 'prediction' of 331.8 MeV is an interpolation between a model value (Delta_M_inf = 323 MeV, with no uncertainty) and an experimental gap, using m_c/m_b = 1/3 as 'illustrative'; no error is propagated, so the close agreement should be read as consistency within a one-parameter model, not as a parameter-free test. Third, the overlap factor g_piHG = (1/2) g_piqq is justified only as 'natural'; it sets the scale of the gap, so the derivation would be stronger if that factor had external support. Finally, the LHCb result is cited as a conference talk, not a public paper; the central numbers may shift before publication.

Who should read it: anyone working on heavy-light spectroscopy, especially LHCb experimentalists looking for the 1+ partner. The paper deserves a serious referee: it is short, honest, and makes a concrete prediction. I would send it to review, with a request that the referee push on error propagation, the equal-c_s assumption, and replacement of the talk citation with a public measurement. If the spin-parity is confirmed, this will be a useful reference for the chiral-doubling interpretation.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that the recently reported LHCb candidate B_s0^*(5700)^0, under the conditional assignment J^P=0^+, can be interpreted as the chiral partner of the ground-state B_s^0. It reviews the chiral-doubling framework based on heavy-quark spin symmetry and spontaneously broken chiral symmetry, writes an effective Lagrangian for the negative- and positive-parity superfields H and G, and derives the parity gap Delta M = 2Delta + O(c_s/m_Q). It then uses the measured strange-charm gap, an instanton-model value Delta_M_inf=323 MeV, and an illustrative m_c/m_b=1/3 in Eq. (37) to interpolate a beauty-strange gap of 331.8 MeV, comparing it with the LHCb-derived gap 331.98±1.62 MeV. Based on this agreement, the paper predicts a narrow 1^+ beauty-strange partner at 5747±2 MeV and discusses implications for the spectroscopy of heavy-light hadrons.

Significance. If the J^P=0^+ assignment of B_s0^*(5700)^0 is confirmed, the near equality of the strange-charm and strange-beauty parity gaps would be an important success for the chiral-doubling framework and a useful bridge between the charm and beauty sectors. The paper's most valuable concrete output is the falsifiable prediction of a very narrow 1^+ state near 5747 MeV, which gives LHCb a specific target. The paper also provides a compact and readable review of the symmetry structure of chiral doubling. The quantitative comparison, however, is not a parameter-free derivation: it depends on an instanton-model input Delta_M_inf, an assumed common 1/m_Q coefficient c_s, an illustrative quark-mass ratio, and an unquantified overlap factor of 1/2. Its significance is therefore best characterized as a conditional consistency check with a sharp experimental prediction, rather than an ab initio determination of the mass gap.

major comments (5)

[Section 4, Eq. (37), Table I] The central quantitative comparison is an interpolation, not a prediction, and it is quoted without uncertainty. Eq. (37) uses Delta M_Ds = 349.4 MeV (experimental), Delta M_inf = 323 MeV (model input), and m_c/m_b = 1/3 labeled 'illustrative', yet the result 331.8 MeV is stated to one decimal and compared with 331.98 ± 1.62 MeV as 'remarkable agreement'. The authors should propagate the experimental uncertainty on Delta M_Ds, assign an uncertainty to Delta M_inf from the instanton model, vary m_c/m_b over a physically motivated range (the PDG ratio is closer to 0.30 than to 1/3), and report the resulting uncertainty on the interpolated gap. Without this, the agreement cannot be assessed quantitatively.
[Section 3, Eqs. (34)-(36)] The assumption that the leading 1/m_Q correction is governed by the same coefficient c_s for charm and beauty is not derived or tested. Eq. (36) follows from that assumption, but nothing in the effective theory presented in Eq. (22) shows that c_s is flavor-independent, nor that O(1/m_Q^2) corrections are negligible at m_c ~ 1.3 GeV. The paper should either derive c_s within the framework, fit it with an uncertainty, or demonstrate that the final value is stable when c_s is allowed to differ between charm and beauty. As written, Eq. (37) is a one-parameter interpolation, not a derivation of the universal gap.
[Section 'The Missing Doubler', Table I] The predicted 1^+ mass 5747.4 ± 2.1 MeV is labeled 'by construction' in Table I, because it is obtained by adding the measured ground-state hyperfine splitting M(B_s^*) - M(B_s) = 48.5 MeV to the scalar candidate mass. The claim that chiral doubling 'imposes' a narrow 1^+ state at this mass therefore assumes that the hyperfine splitting in the positive-parity doublet equals that of the ground-state doublet. This assumption needs a justification from the effective theory rather than being built into the prediction; otherwise the 5747 MeV number is an identity based on the input masses, and the statement that it is 'very narrow' should be supported by a width estimate.
[Section 3, Eq. (29) and following text] The generalized Goldberger-Treiman relation is made quantitative by the matching g_piHG = (1/2) g_piqq, which is introduced as 'naturally of order one half' with a qualitative overlap argument. This factor is a free input, not a consequence of the Lagrangian in Eq. (22), and no uncertainty is assigned to it. Because this matching is what connects the pion coupling to the mass gap and hence to the claimed universality, the dynamical explanation of the gap should be presented as a model assumption unless the factor is derived or constrained by data.
[Abstract, Section 'The New Beauty–Strange State', Discussion] All quantitative conclusions depend on the unconfirmed J^P = 0^+ assignment of B_s0^*(5700)^0. The paper correctly uses conditional language in places, but the abstract and Section 'The Missing Doubler' present the 331.8 MeV agreement and the 5747 MeV state as evidence for chiral doubling. If the LHCb spin-parity analysis eventually assigns a different J^P, the measured mass is not a parity gap relative to B_s(0^-), and the entire comparison in Table I loses meaning. The authors should either restrict all forward-looking claims to the conditional statement 'if the state is confirmed as 0^+', or present the work explicitly as a consistency check to be applied once the spin-parity is fixed.

minor comments (5)

[Throughout] There are several typographical errors that should be corrected, including 'assignement' in the Introduction, 'expians' in Section 4, 'The before-last column' in the Table I caption, and 'quadratic brackets' where 'square brackets' is meant.
[Reference [1]] The LHCb observation is cited as a conference talk and an outreach announcement. A peer-reviewed or public LHCb paper should be cited when available, with details of the fit, the mass resolution, and the spin-parity analysis.
[Section 3, Eq. (30)] The quark axial coupling g_A^(q) is not defined; define it explicitly so that the matching condition g_GH = g_A^(q) is unambiguous.
[Section 4, text before Eq. (34)] The instanton-model inputs d = 198 MeV and Sigma(0) = 345 MeV are stated without a formula or uncertainty; since Delta_M_inf = 323 MeV is used in the central comparison, a short derivation or a reference to the specific equations in Refs. [19,20] should be included.
[Figure 1 caption] The caption says 'within experimental error of 2MeV'; this should be 'within 2 MeV' and should state which experimental uncertainties enter the estimate of 5747 MeV.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction: the central comparisons use external measurements and do not feed the target mass back into the model, though the numerical 'prediction' is a weighted interpolation and rests partly on the authors' own 2003 value.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular in the strict sense. The central quantitative statement, Eq. (37), computes ΔM_Bs from the measured charm gap ΔM_Ds = 349.4 MeV, the model value ΔM∞ = 323 MeV from the authors' 2003 paper, and an explicitly 'illustrative' ratio m_c/m_b = 1/3. The LHCb B_s0 mass is used only on the comparison side; it does not enter the right-hand side of Eq. (37), so the 331.8 MeV number is not fitted to the quantity it claims to predict. The 'remarkable agreement' is therefore an independent consistency check, albeit a weak one because 331.8 is a weighted average of two nearby inputs and the ratio 1/3 is not derived. The missing 1+ doubler at 5747 MeV is, as the paper itself labels in Table I, 'by construction': it is obtained by adding the measured ground-state hyperfine splitting (48.5 MeV) to the measured scalar mass (5698.9 MeV). That is an arithmetic prediction for an unobserved state and is not a backward fit to that state. The conditionality on the unconfirmed J^P=0+ assignment is an experimental premise, not a circularity. The self-citations to the authors' chiral-doubling papers [2,3,14,15] define the framework, but the numerical anchor ΔM∞ is grounded in an external instanton-liquid calculation (refs [19,20]) with the constituent-mass input stated explicitly; the authors even recall how the 323 MeV value was obtained. The Discussion also candidly lists molecular/coupled-channel alternatives and the need for further data, which further reduces any impression that the conclusion is forced by definition. Overall: no step reduces to its target by construction; the main weakness is that the headline 331.8 MeV is an interpolation with an illustrative parameter, so the claim should be read as consistency rather than a sharp parameter-free prediction. Score 2 reflects the minor but non-circular reliance on the authors' own prior value for ΔM∞ and the ad hoc heavy-quark mass ratio.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper's predictions are grounded in effective field theory and prior chiral models, but several numbers are inputs rather than outputs: Delta is fixed by D_s data and instanton parameters, c_s is assumed common, m_c/m_b is illustrative, and an overlap factor of 1/2 is imposed qualitatively. The new experimental state enters as a conditional input.

free parameters (5)

Chiral mixing parameter Delta = 2Delta approx 349.4 MeV from D_s gap; Delta_M_inf=323 MeV from instanton model
Introduced in Eq (22) as the coefficient of the left-right mixing term; the mass gap Delta_M=2Delta is not derived before the parameter is fixed by data or model.
1/m_Q coefficient c_s = Not stated; eliminated by assuming equality
Assumed identical for charm and beauty in Eqs (35)-(37) to eliminate it; this equality is the load-bearing interpolation step.
Quark mass ratio m_c/m_b = 1/3 (illustrative)
Used in Eq (37) to compute 331.8 MeV; no uncertainty is given for this ratio.
Overlap suppression factor for pi-HG vs pi-qq vertex = 1/2
Phenomenological matching g_piHG = 1/2 g_piqq in Eq (29); called 'naturally of order one half', not computed from the wavefunctions.
Instanton model inputs (d, Sigma(0)) = d=198 MeV, Sigma(0)=345 MeV
Used via Ref [14] to set Delta_M_inf=323 MeV; these are fitted to instanton-liquid parameters from prior literature.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Heavy-quark spin-flavor symmetry in the m_Q to infinity limit
Used throughout Section II to classify states into j_l multiples; exact only at infinite heavy-quark mass.
domain assumption Spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking SU(3)_L x SU(3)_R to SU(3)_V
The physical basis for the chiral order parameter; the paper assumes this pattern for light quarks.
ad hoc to paper The leading effective Lagrangian has only the terms shown in Eq (22)
No systematic power counting or proof that higher-order terms, including 1/m_Q corrections, are negligible at the quoted precision.
domain assumption The new LHCb state truly has J^P=0+
The paper's conclusion is explicitly conditional on this assignment, which is not yet confirmed.
ad hoc to paper Overlap suppression factor 1/2 for pi-HG versus pi-qq vertices
Phenomenological input used to connect the Goldberger-Treiman relation to the mass gap; not derived in this paper.

invented entities (1)

Missing 1+ beauty-strange meson B_s1' near 5747 MeV independent evidence
purpose: Completes the j_l=1/2 chiral rectangle and gives a falsifiable search target
Predicted mass built from measured splittings, with decay modes (isospin-violating B_s* pi0, radiative B_s gamma and B_s* gamma) that make it observable; if found with these properties it would confirm the scheme.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Chiral Doubling of Heavy-Light Hadrons and the New Beauty--Strange $B_{s0}^*(5700)^0$ Candidate." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HYEKI443

@misc{pith2026260807268,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Chiral Doubling of Heavy-Light Hadrons and the New Beauty--Strange $B_s0^*(5700)^0$ Candidate},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HYEKI443}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07268}
}

abstract

The recent observation by the LHCb Collaboration of a new beauty--strange meson $B_{s0}^*(5700)^0$~\cite{LHCb:2026Bs0star}, under the conditional assignment $J^P=0^+$ provides an important new test of the chiral organization of heavy-light hadrons. More than three decades ago it was proposed that the coexistence of heavy-quark spin symmetry and spontaneously broken chiral symmetry implies that every heavy-light spin multiplet should possess an opposite-parity partner separated by a nearly universal mass gap determined primarily by the dynamics of the light degrees of freedom~\cite{Nowak:1993vc,Bardeen:1993ae}. This chiral doubling scenario was later developed into a quantitative heavy-hadron effective theory and extended to the complete charm and beauty spectra. In particular, the strange beauty sector was predicted to exhibit a parity splitting closely related to that of the strange charm sector, with only small $1/m_Q$ corrections. We briefly review the symmetry origin of chiral doubling, derive the universal parity splitting through the heavy-hadron chiral effective theory, and discuss the new LHCb observation in the context of the original theoretical predictions. Taken together with the established charm spectrum, if the new beauty-strange state is confirmed to have $J^P=0^+$, its mass is consistent with its interpretation as the chiral partner of the ground state $B_s^0$. Finally, we stress that the above confirmation of the spin and parity imposes in the chiral doubling scenario an existence of yet unobserved, very narrow beauty-strange meson with assignment $1^+$ at 5747 $\pm$ 2 MeV. This work is dedicated to the memory of our friend and collaborator Mannque Rho (1936--2026).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07268 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

[1]

Discovery of a Beauty-Strange Particle with Unexpected Properties,

LHCb Collaboration, talk by L. Capriotti at ICHEP2026, “Discovery of a Beauty-Strange Particle with Unexpected Properties,” (2026), lHCb Outreach announcement

work page 2026
[2]

Chiral effective action with heavy quark symme- try,

Maciej A. Nowak, Mannque Rho, and Ismail Za- hed, “Chiral effective action with heavy quark symme- try,” Phys. Rev. D48, 4370–4375 (1993), arXiv:hep- ph/9209272

work page arXiv 1993
[3]

Chiral dynamics and heavy quark symmetry in a solvable toy field theoretic model,

William A. Bardeen and Christopher T. Hill, “Chiral dynamics and heavy quark symmetry in a solvable toy field theoretic model,” Phys. Rev. D49, 409–425 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9304265

arXiv 1994
[4]

The Structure of Hadrons Contain- ing a Heavy Quark,

Edward V. Shuryak, “The Structure of Hadrons Contain- ing a Heavy Quark,” Phys. Lett. B93, 134–136 (1980)

work page 1980
[5]

Hadrons Containing a Heavy Quark and QCD Sum Rules,

Edward V. Shuryak, “Hadrons Containing a Heavy Quark and QCD Sum Rules,” Nucl. Phys. B198, 83– 101 (1982)

work page 1982
[6]

Weak Decays of Heavy Mesons in the Static Quark Approximation,

Nathan Isgur and Mark B. Wise, “Weak Decays of Heavy Mesons in the Static Quark Approximation,” Phys. Lett. B232, 113–117 (1989). 7

work page 1989
[7]

Weak Transition Form-factors Between Heavy Mesons,

Nathan Isgur and Mark B. Wise, “Weak Transition Form-factors Between Heavy Mesons,” Phys. Lett. B 237, 527–530 (1990)

work page 1990
[8]

An effective field theory for heavy quarks at low energies,

Howard Georgi, “An effective field theory for heavy quarks at low energies,” Phys. Lett. B240, 447–450 (1990)

work page 1990

Show all 25 references

[9]

Heavy Quark Symmetry,

Matthias Neubert, “Heavy Quark Symmetry,” Phys. Rept.245, 259–396 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9306320

1994 arXiv
[10]

Chiral Perturbation Theory for Hadrons Containing a Heavy Quark,

Mark B. Wise, “Chiral Perturbation Theory for Hadrons Containing a Heavy Quark,” Phys. Rev. D45, R2188– R2191 (1992)

1992
[11]

Union of Chi- ral and Heavy Quark Symmetries,

Gustavo Burdman and John F. Donoghue, “Union of Chi- ral and Heavy Quark Symmetries,” Phys. Lett. B280, 287–291 (1992)

1992
[12]

Heavy Quark Symmetry and Chiral Dynamics,

T. M. Yan, Hai-Yang Cheng, C. Y. Cheung, G. L. Lin, Yong C. Lin, and H. L. Yu, “Heavy Quark Symmetry and Chiral Dynamics,” Phys. Rev. D46, 1148–1164 (1992), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 55, 5851 (1997)]

1992
[13]

Phenomenology of Heavy Meson Chiral La- grangians,

Roberto Casalbuoni, Aldo Deandrea, Nicola Di Bar- tolomeo, Ferruccio Feruglio, Raoul Gatto, and Giuseppe Nardulli, “Phenomenology of Heavy Meson Chiral La- grangians,” Phys. Rept.281, 145–238 (1997), arXiv:hep- ph/9605342

1997
[14]

Chiral doubling of heavy light hadrons: BABAR 2317-MeV/c**2 and CLEO 2463-MeV/c**2 discoveries,

Maciej A. Nowak, Mannque Rho, and Ismail Za- hed, “Chiral doubling of heavy light hadrons: BABAR 2317-MeV/c**2 and CLEO 2463-MeV/c**2 discoveries,” Acta Phys. Polon. B35, 2377–2392 (2004), arXiv:hep- ph/0307102

2004
[15]

Chiral multiplets of heavy-light mesons,

William A. Bardeen, Estia J. Eichten, and Christo- pher T. Hill, “Chiral multiplets of heavy-light mesons,” Phys. Rev. D68, 054024 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0305049

2003 arXiv
[16]

Observation of a narrow meson decaying toD + s π0 at a mass of 2.32 GeV/c2,

B. Aubert and et al. (BaBar), “Observation of a narrow meson decaying toD + s π0 at a mass of 2.32 GeV/c2,” Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 242001 (2003), arXiv:hep- ex/0304021

2003
[17]

Observation of a narrow resonance of mass 2.46 GeV/c 2 decaying toD ∗+ s π0 and confirmation of theD ∗ sJ (2317) state,

D. Besson and et al. (CLEO), “Observation of a narrow resonance of mass 2.46 GeV/c 2 decaying toD ∗+ s π0 and confirmation of theD ∗ sJ (2317) state,” Phys. Rev. D68, 032002 (2003), arXiv:hep-ex/0305100

2003 arXiv
[18]

A relativistic Chiral Quark Model for Pseudoscalar Emission from Heavy Meson- sWeak Decays of Heavy Mesons,

J.L. Goity and W. Roberts, “A relativistic Chiral Quark Model for Pseudoscalar Emission from Heavy Meson- sWeak Decays of Heavy Mesons,” Phys. Rev. D60, 034001 (1999)

1999
[19]

The Quark Propagator and Correlation Functions in the Instanton Vacuum,

P. V. Pobylitsa, “The Quark Propagator and Correlation Functions in the Instanton Vacuum,” Phys. Lett. B226, 387–392 (1989)

1989
[20]

Current mass dependence of the quark condensate and the constituent quark mass,

M. Musakhanov, “Current mass dependence of the quark condensate and the constituent quark mass,” AIP Conf. Proc.594, 357–365 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0104163 [hep- ph]

2001 arXiv
[21]

Masses and decay constants of theD ∗ s0(2317) andD s1(2460) fromN f = 2 lattice QCD close to the physical point,

Gunnar S. Bali, Sara Collins, Antonio Cox, and Andreas Sch¨ afer, “Masses and decay constants of theD ∗ s0(2317) andD s1(2460) fromN f = 2 lattice QCD close to the physical point,” Phys. Rev. D96, 074501 (2017), arXiv:1706.01247 [hep-lat]

2017 arXiv
[22]

Predicting positive parityB s mesons from lattice QCD,

C. B. Lang, Daniel Mohler, Saˇ sa Prelovˇ sek, and R. M. Woloshyn, “Predicting positive parityB s mesons from lattice QCD,” Phys. Lett. B750, 17–21 (2015), arXiv:1501.01646 [hep-lat]

2015 arXiv
[23]

Excited Heavy Mesons,

Maciej A. Nowak and Ismail Zahed, “Excited Heavy Mesons,” Phys. Rev. D48, 356–360 (1993)

1993
[24]

Nowak, Mannque Rho, and Ismail Zahed,Chi- ral Nuclear Dynamics(World Scientific Publishing, Sin- gapore, 1996) p

Maciej A. Nowak, Mannque Rho, and Ismail Zahed,Chi- ral Nuclear Dynamics(World Scientific Publishing, Sin- gapore, 1996) p. 552, electronic ISBN: 978-981-283-219-1

1996
[25]

Observation of the radiative decayD ∗ s0(2317)+ →D ∗+ s γ,

M. Abumusabhet al.(Belle and Belle II), “Observation of the radiative decayD ∗ s0(2317)+ →D ∗+ s γ,” Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 241901 (2026), arXiv:2510.27174 [hep-ex]

2026 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Discovery of a Beauty-Strange Particle with Unexpected Properties,

LHCb Collaboration, talk by L. Capriotti at ICHEP2026, “Discovery of a Beauty-Strange Particle with Unexpected Properties,” (2026), lHCb Outreach announcement

work page 2026

[2] [2]

Chiral effective action with heavy quark symme- try,

Maciej A. Nowak, Mannque Rho, and Ismail Za- hed, “Chiral effective action with heavy quark symme- try,” Phys. Rev. D48, 4370–4375 (1993), arXiv:hep- ph/9209272

work page arXiv 1993

[3] [3]

Chiral dynamics and heavy quark symmetry in a solvable toy field theoretic model,

William A. Bardeen and Christopher T. Hill, “Chiral dynamics and heavy quark symmetry in a solvable toy field theoretic model,” Phys. Rev. D49, 409–425 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9304265

arXiv 1994

[4] [4]

The Structure of Hadrons Contain- ing a Heavy Quark,

Edward V. Shuryak, “The Structure of Hadrons Contain- ing a Heavy Quark,” Phys. Lett. B93, 134–136 (1980)

work page 1980

[5] [5]

Hadrons Containing a Heavy Quark and QCD Sum Rules,

Edward V. Shuryak, “Hadrons Containing a Heavy Quark and QCD Sum Rules,” Nucl. Phys. B198, 83– 101 (1982)

work page 1982

[6] [6]

Weak Decays of Heavy Mesons in the Static Quark Approximation,

Nathan Isgur and Mark B. Wise, “Weak Decays of Heavy Mesons in the Static Quark Approximation,” Phys. Lett. B232, 113–117 (1989). 7

work page 1989

[7] [7]

Weak Transition Form-factors Between Heavy Mesons,

Nathan Isgur and Mark B. Wise, “Weak Transition Form-factors Between Heavy Mesons,” Phys. Lett. B 237, 527–530 (1990)

work page 1990

[8] [8]

An effective field theory for heavy quarks at low energies,

Howard Georgi, “An effective field theory for heavy quarks at low energies,” Phys. Lett. B240, 447–450 (1990)

work page 1990