A novel configuration of gluonic tetraquark state

Chun-Gui Duan; Chun-Meng Tang; Cong-Feng Qiao; Liang Tang

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

A novel configuration of gluonic tetraquark state

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A valence gluon plus two heavy quark pairs could explain the X(6900) and X(7200) masses.

desk verdict A competent, standard QCD sum rule paper with a genuinely new interpolating current, but the mass predictions are tuned by the continuum-threshold choice and the claimed overlap with X(6900)/X(7200) is not robust. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11433 v2 pith:JBJ66G5W submitted 2024-11-18 hep-ph hep-ex

Chun-Meng Tang , Chun-Gui Duan , Liang Tang , Cong-Feng Qiao This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phhep-ex

keywords tetraquarkhybridQCDsumrulesvalencegluonX(6900)X(7200)fullycharmedtetrabottomexotichadron

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 predicts that the observed charmonium-like structures X(6900) and the structure near 7.2–7.3 GeV are tetraquark hybrids: bound systems of two heavy quark-antiquark pairs plus an explicit valence gluon, all in the color-octet representation. Using QCD sum rules with operator contributions through dimension six, it obtains $0^{++}$ and $0^{-+}$ masses of about 6.98 GeV and 7.26 GeV, which overlap the experimental peaks. If correct, this gives a concrete microscopic assignment for states that have resisted a unique interpretation, and it predicts bottom analogues at 19.30 and 19.50 GeV for future experiments to search for.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the interpolating current built from two color-octet quark bilinears and one gluon field strength, $j = g_s f^{abc} [\bar Q\gamma^\mu t^a Q] G^b_{\mu\nu} [\bar Q\gamma^\nu t^c Q]$, with a $\gamma_5$ variant for the $0^{-+}$ state. This current defines a two-point correlator that is evaluated by the operator product expansion through dimension-six operators (two- and three-gluon condensates) and matched, after a Borel transform, to a single-pole-plus-continuum spectral representation. The mass is extracted from the ratio $M_X^2 = -L_1(s_0,M_B^2)/L_0(s_0,M_B^2)$, with the continuum threshold fixed by $\sqrt{s_0}\approx M_X+\delta$, $\delta\in[0.4,0.8]$ GeV.

What would settle it

Measure the quantum numbers of the 7.2–7.3 GeV structure: the interpretation requires $J^{PC}=0^{-+}$ for it and $0^{++}$ for X(6900), so finding $0^{++}$ for the higher peak would exclude the assignment. A lattice computation of the $cc\bar c\bar c G$ spectrum that finds no states near 6.98 and 7.26 GeV would likewise falsify the prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the central claim is that a tetracharm hybrid configuration of two color-octet $Q\bar Q$ pairs plus one color-octet gluon, written $[8_c]_{Q\bar Q}\otimes[8_c]_G\otimes[8_c]_{Q\bar Q}$, supports two bound states whose masses match the observed di-$J/\psi$ structures. The $0^{++}$ current gives $M_X = 6.98^{+0.16}_{-0.14}$ GeV, which the paper identifies with X(6900); the $0^{-+}$ current gives $7.26^{+0.16}_{-0.15}$ GeV, identified with the structure near 7.2–7.3 GeV. The same calculation in the bottom sector yields $19.30^{+0.16}_{-0.17}$ GeV and $19.50^{+0.17}_{-0.17}$ GeV. The two other candidate currents of the same quantum numbers are discarded because their spectral densities come out negative.

Load-bearing premise

The result rests on assuming the continuum threshold sits 0.4–0.8 GeV above the ground state, since that gap sets the threshold that largely determines the extracted mass, and on assuming that cutting the operator expansion at dimension-six terms leaves no significant error.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

X(6900) and the 7.2–7.3 GeV structure would no longer need to be purely tetraquark or molecular states; a valence gluon could be an essential part of their structure.
The $0^{-+}$ assignment to the 7.2–7.3 GeV structure gives a concrete quantum-number prediction that angular analyses can confirm or exclude.
Tetrabottom hybrid states near 19.30 and 19.50 GeV are predicted, giving targets for future searches in bottomonium-pair channels.
Only two of the four considered current structures have positive spectral densities; the sum-rule calculation itself rules out the other two.
Decay-pattern anomalies relative to ordinary tetraquark expectations would be direct evidence for the gluonic component.

Reading between the lines

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

An implication the authors leave implicit is that the about 0.28 GeV gap between the $0^{++}$ and $0^{-+}$ states is a sharp discriminator: a precise $J^{PC}$ measurement of the 7.2–7.3 GeV peak would test the assignment directly.
The same octet-octet-octet current construction could be applied beyond the all-heavy sector, predicting a family of valence-gluon tetraquarks with one heavy and one light quark pair, whose masses have not been computed here.
Because the threshold is set by an assumed 0.4–0.8 GeV gap, an independent extraction of $s_0$ from Regge trajectories or excited-state sum rules would show whether the quoted errors cover the true systematic uncertainty.
A lattice calculation of the $cc\bar c\bar c G$ spectrum with explicit gluonic operators would provide a direct cross-check; the paper notes that no such calculation currently exists.

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

First, what's new: the interpolating currents for a genuinely new color configuration – two color-octet QQbar pairs plus a valence gluon, in [8c]⊗[8c]⊗[8c] – and the first QCD sum rule mass table for them. The spectral densities are in the appendix, the OPE convergence is checked at the 10% level, and the Borel windows look reasonable. As a sum rule exercise, it's a competent, standard job.

Now the problem. The authors fix s0 via sqrt(s0) ≈ M_X + δ, with δ swept over 0.4–0.8 GeV, then choose central values that land at δ ≈ 0.72 and 0.74 GeV, near the top of the allowed range. Since M_X is the output of the same sum rule, this is circular in practice. They vary sqrt(s0) by only ±0.2 GeV around the central value, so the quoted ±0.14–0.17 GeV errors do not include the uncertainty in the chosen δ interval. If δ were 0.4 GeV instead, sqrt(s0) would be about 7.4 GeV for the 0++ channel, and the paper doesn't show that the Borel window and pole condition still hold at that lower threshold. So the overlap with X(6900) and X(7200) is to a significant degree built into the input. That doesn't make the calculation worthless, but it makes the headline claim considerably weaker than it looks.

Other soft spots: two of four currents are dropped because their spectral densities come out negative, with no discussion of what that means or whether higher-dimensional condensates would change it. The bottom-sector results are presented in one sentence, without the same window/threshold analysis. And despite the introduction mentioning distinct decay dynamics for hybrids, no width, production, or decay observable is computed; the identification with X(6900)/X(7200) rests entirely on mass. On citation practice, they correctly acknowledge that the hybrid interpretation of X(6900) and a 7.2 GeV partner already appeared in their own Ref. [56]; the novelty here is the color configuration, not the phenomenon, and they say so.

Verdict: the paper deserves a serious referee. The current construction is new, the methodology is standard, and the spectral densities are available for independent checking. A referee should push on threshold dependence: ask for the full δ sweep, the Borel-window validity at lower δ, and the sensitivity to the discarded currents. As it stands, treat the masses as plausible but the X(6900)/X(7200) identification as speculative. I'd bring it to reading group as a useful example of how a standard sum rule can quietly absorb the answer you want.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper uses QCD sum rules to compute masses of a new class of tetraquark hybrid states with the color configuration [8_c]_{Q\bar Q} \otimes [8_c]_G \otimes [8_c]_{Q\bar Q}. Four interpolating currents are constructed for J^{PC}=0^{++} and 0^{-+}; two of them are retained because their spectral densities are positive. The OPE is truncated at dimension six, and a Borel window is selected by requiring pole contribution at least 40% and the three-gluon condensate contribution below 10%. The central results are M(0^{++})=6.98^{+0.16}_{-0.14} GeV and M(0^{-+})=7.26^{+0.16}_{-0.15} GeV in the charm sector, with analogous bottom-sector masses 19.30 and 19.50 GeV. The authors associate the charm states with X(6900) and X(7200).

Significance. The paper addresses a genuine gap in exotic-hadron spectroscopy: no prior QCD sum rule study has treated the octet-octet-octet QQbar-gluon-QQbar configuration explicitly. The calculation follows the standard machinery, and the appendix provides explicit spectral-density expressions for the two retained currents, which strengthens reproducibility. The OPE convergence is monitored by the 10% criterion on the highest-dimension condensate, and the pole dominance is checked. If the threshold-systematics issue identified below is resolved, the mass predictions would be a useful first estimate for a new hybrid configuration and would motivate searches in the bottom sector.

major comments (3)

[Section III, Table I] The determination of the continuum threshold s0 is load-bearing for the central claim. The text adopts sqrt(s0) approximately M_X + delta with delta in [0.40, 0.80] GeV, but the central values in Table I correspond to delta = 0.72 GeV (0++: 7.70 - 6.98) and delta = 0.74 GeV (0-+: 8.00 - 7.26), i.e. near the upper end of the stated range. The error is then assigned by varying sqrt(s0) by only +/- 0.2 GeV, which does not cover the lower part of the delta range. Since M_X is itself the output of the sum rule, this is a self-consistency condition rather than an independent constraint. The paper should demonstrate explicitly that acceptable Borel windows (with PC >= 40% and OPE convergence) exist for sqrt(s0) values corresponding to delta = 0.4-0.5 GeV, and either include the full delta range in the systematic error or justify why delta > 0.6 GeV is the only viable region. Without such an analysis, the quoted error underestimates the dominant systematic uncertainty, and the claimed overlap with X(6900) and X(7200) may be an artifact of the threshold choice.
[Section III] Two of the four constructed currents, j_B^{0++} and j_A^{0-+}, are dismissed because their spectral densities are negative. This is a strong selection step: half of the candidate interpolating fields are excluded, and the final mass predictions depend on this exclusion. The paper should specify over which s-range and Borel window the spectral densities are negative, and should justify why a negative spectral density implies the absence of a physical state rather than, for example, a sign convention of the current or a need for mixing with the other current of the same J^{PC}. At a minimum, a plot or quantitative statement of rho(s) for the discarded currents would allow the reader to assess the criterion.
[Section IV] The bottom-sector masses 19.30 and 19.50 GeV are quoted without any numerical details. Unlike the charm sector (Table I and Figs. 2-3), there is no information on the chosen s0, Borel window, pole contribution, or OPE convergence for the tetrabottom case. Since the conclusion makes a quantitative prediction for these states, the analysis should be documented to the same standard as the charm sector.

minor comments (6)

[Section II, Eq. (10)] The sentence 'the mass of the the tetracharm hybrid state' contains a duplicated article; please correct it.
[Author affiliations] In the affiliations, 'Chi na' should read 'China'.
[Figures 2 and 3] The captions say 'Figures of the current j...' but each figure shows two panels; rephrase as 'The same as Fig. 2, but for the current j_B^{0-+}' or a similar description.
[Section III] The sentence 'we could not obtain a positive spectral density function' would benefit from a precise definition of positivity (pointwise, or after integration over the Borel exponential?) and the relevant s range.
[Section III] The OPE convergence criterion states that the highest-order condensate <G^3> should not exceed 10% of the total; please clarify whether this ratio is evaluated at the lower Borel boundary only or throughout the entire Borel window.
[References] Ref. [81] is cited as an arXiv preprint (arXiv:2412.11038); if a journal version exists, please cite it instead.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The mass predictions inherit the input gap assumption via √s0 ≈ M_X + δ: the quoted 6.98/7.26 GeV masses are self-consistent threshold choices, so the X(6900)/X(7200) overlap is at least partly imposed by the adopted δ range.

self definitional [Section III (Numerical Analysis), s0-determination paragraph and Eq. (13)]
"the relationship between s0 and the ground state mass is given by √s0 ≈ (M_X + δ) GeV, where δ ranges from 0.40 to 0.80 GeV. Therefore, in numerical evaluations, exploring different values of √s0 is crucial to meeting this criterion. Among these values, we need to select the one that produces the optimal window for the Borel parameter M_B^2. Thus, the value of √s0 corresponding to the optimal mass curve will be taken as the central value."

Eq. (13) defines M_X(s0,M_B²)=√(−L1/L0), so M_X is the sum-rule output. The paper fixes the input s0 by requiring √s0≈M_X+δ, with δ a free assumed gap. Thus the output mass enters the condition that selects its own input. The central masses 6.98 and 7.26 GeV correspond to δ≈0.72 and 0.74 GeV, taken from the wide interval [0.4,0.8] GeV, while the error budget scans √s0 by only ±0.2 GeV and does not cover the lower part of the allowed δ range. The claimed overlap with X(6900)/X(7200) is therefore substantially a consequence of the assumed gap rather than an independent prediction, although Borel-window stability and OPE convergence give the procedure some non-trivial content.

full rationale

The OPE computation, the interpolating-current construction, and the standard Borel-window criteria are not themselves circular: the spectral densities in the Appendix are explicit, and the pole/OPE-convergence checks provide independent constraints on M_B^2. No load-bearing self-citation is used: Refs. [108–110] (two of which are by Qiao and Tang) are cited only for the standard s0-determination method, and the relation √s0≈M_X+δ is stated in the text. The circular element is the threshold selection: the mass that Eq. (13) is supposed to predict is fed back into the condition that fixes s0. Because δ is allowed to range over 0.4–0.8 GeV and the chosen central values sit near the upper edge (δ≈0.72 and 0.74 GeV), the quoted masses and their claimed agreement with X(6900)/X(7200) are largely a self-consistent restatement of the assumed ground-state-to-continuum gap. This is a partial circularity (score 6), not a full one: the sum-rule ratio and Borel-stability requirement still contribute non-trivial dynamical content, and the paper is not simply renaming the experimental masses.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The calculation rests on the standard QCD sum rule framework (dispersion relation, quark-hadron duality, Borel transform), on the chosen truncation of the OPE at dimension six, and on a threshold selection rule that ties s0 to the output mass. The main free parameters are the continuum threshold and the Borel scale; the offset delta in the threshold relation is an additional hand-chosen input. No new fundamental particle or force is proposed beyond the hadron configuration itself, and the only external testable handle is the set of mass numbers.

free parameters (3)

Continuum threshold s0 = sqrt(s0) = 7.70 +/- 0.20 GeV (0++); 8.00 +/- 0.20 GeV (0-+)
Fixed via the assumed relation sqrt(s0) approximately M_X + delta with delta = 0.4 to 0.8 GeV; central values correspond to delta around 0.72 to 0.74 GeV, so choosing s0 partially sets M_X.
Borel parameter M_B^2 = 5.40-6.00 GeV^2 (0++); 5.60-6.20 GeV^2 (0-+)
Chosen by hand within the window that keeps the pole contribution at 50-40% and the three-gluon condensate below 10%; the mass is read from the plateau in this window.
Threshold offset delta = 0.4-0.8 GeV
Assumed range for the gap between the ground state mass and sqrt(s0); it is not derived from data and directly influences the selected s0 values.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Quark-hadron duality: the spectral density computed in QCD equals the hadronic spectral density after a Borel transform, with the continuum modeled by a step at s0.
This is the fundamental assumption of the QCD sum rule method, invoked in Section II via Eqs. (10)-(13).
domain assumption The OPE can be truncated at dimension six; contributions of dimension-four and dimension-six gluon condensates dominate the nonperturbative part.
Section II and III; verified by the statement that the three-gluon condensate stays below 10% within the Borel window, but no estimate of higher-dimension condensates is given.
domain assumption The interpolating currents in Eqs. (2)-(5) have the stated J^PC and couple to the lowest-lying tetracharm hybrid state through lambda_X.
The quantum number assignment is asserted rather than derived; the coupling definition is in Eq. (11).
ad hoc to paper The relation sqrt(s0) approximately M_X + delta (delta = 0.4 to 0.8 GeV) can be used to fix the continuum threshold.
Section III; this self-consistency relation connects a free parameter to the output mass.
standard math The heavy quark propagator in Eq. (6), including perturbative and gluon-condensate terms, is the correct full propagator for this calculation.
Taken from Refs. [83,84,86] and used to derive the spectral densities in the Appendix.
ad hoc to paper Currents that give negative spectral densities (Eqs. (3) and (4)) do not correspond to physical hybrid states and can be discarded.
Section III: 'we could not obtain a positive spectral density function... indicating that the current structures ... do not support the respective tetracharm hybrid states.'

invented entities (1)

Tetracharm and tetrabottom hybrid hadrons in the [8c]_QQbar x [8c]_G x [8c]_QQbar color configuration independent evidence
purpose: Proposed as the underlying state for X(6900) and X(7200), and as new bottom-sector states at 19.3 and 19.5 GeV.
The bottom masses at 19.30 and 19.50 GeV are a falsifiable prediction not used to fit bottom-sector data, but the sigma-selection circularity weakens the prediction; no width, production rate, or decay pattern is given that would distinguish this configuration from ordinary tetraquarks or molecules.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A novel configuration of gluonic tetraquark state." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JBJ66G5W

@misc{pith2026241111433,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A novel configuration of gluonic tetraquark state},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JBJ66G5W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11433}
}

abstract

Inspired by the experimental measurement of the charmed hadronic state X(6900), we calculate the mass spectra of tetraquark hybrid states with configuration of $[8_{c}]_{Q\bar{Q}} \otimes [8_{c}]_{G} \otimes [8_{c}]_{Q\bar{Q}}$ in color, by virtue of QCD sum rules. The two feasible types of currents with quantum numbers $J^{PC} = 0^{++}$ and $0^{-+}$ are investigated, in which the contributions from operators up to dimension six are taken into account in operator product expansion (OPE). In the end, we find that, in charm sector, the tetracharm hybrid states with quantum number $0^{++}$ has a mass of about $6.98^{+0.16}_{-0.14} \, \text{GeV}$, while $0^{-+}$ state mass is about $7.26^{+0.16}_{-0.15} \, \text{GeV}$. The results overlap with the experimental observations, suggesting potential tetracharm hybrid interpretations. In bottom sector, calculation shows that the masses of tetrabottom hybrid states with quantum numbers $0^{++}$ and $0^{-+}$ are $19.30^{+0.16}_{-0.17} \, \text{GeV}$ and $19.50^{+0.17}_{-0.17} \, \text{GeV}$, respectively, which are left for future experimental confirmation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11433 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** (b), we depict the mass relationship with M2 B for different s0 values, also including two lines indicating the upper and lower limits of the effective Borel window under the central s0 value. The selection of M2 B and s0 complies with the three criteria elaborated earlier. For case j 0 −+ B (x), a similar numerical analysis is conducted, and specific results are presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p00… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Notably, the three-gluon condensate contributions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3: The same caption as in Fig. 2, but for the current [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Next-to-leading order QCD corrections to electromagnetic production and decay of fully charm tetraquarks
hep-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The first NLO QCD corrections to fully charm tetraquark → γγ decay are given, with photon-fusion production cross sections predicted.
Investigating triply heavy tetraquark states through QCD sum rules
hep-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

QCD sum rules with condensates up to dimension 9 predict triply heavy tetraquark masses of 5.4 to 6.2 GeV for charm systems and 14.9 to 15.7 GeV for bottom systems.
Mass spectrum of the hidden-charm hybrid states via the QCD sum rules
hep-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Using QCD sum rules with an energy-scale formula carried over from tetraquark analyses, the author predicts hidden-charm hybrid masses between 4.0 and 5.8 GeV across nine J^PC channels.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

110 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

[56]

B. D. Wan and C. F. Qiao, Phys. Lett. B 817, 136339 (2021) [arXiv:2012.00454 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2021
[1]

Gell-Mann, Phys

M. Gell-Mann, Phys. Lett. 8, 214-215 (1964)

1964
[2]

Zweig, V ersion 1

G. Zweig, V ersion 1. CERN-TH-401, CERN, Geneva, 1964

1964
[3]

D. J. Gross and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 30, 1343-1346 (1973)

1973
[4]

H. D. Politzer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 30, 1346-1349 (1973)

1973
[5]

K. G. Wilson, Phys. Rev. D 10, 2445-2459 (1974)

1974
[6]

S. K. Choi et al. [Belle], Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 262001 (2003)

2003
[7]

Aubert et al

B. Aubert et al. [BaBar], Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 142001 (2005)

2005

Show all 110 references

[8]

Bondar et al

A. Bondar et al. [Belle], Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 122001 (2012)

2012
[9]

Ablikim et al

M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII], Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 252001 (2013)

2013
[10]

Z. Q. Liu et al. [Belle], Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 252002 (2013) [erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 019901 (2013)]

2013
[11]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 072001 (2015)

2015
[12]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 222001 (2019)

2019
[13]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Sci. Bull. 65, 1983-1993 (2020) [arXiv:2006.16957 [hep-ex]]

2020
[14]

Hayrapetyan et al

A. Hayrapetyan et al. [CMS], Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 111901 (2024)

2024
[15]

Aad et al

G. Aad et al. [A TLAS], Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 151902 (2023)

2023
[16]

M. N. Anwar, J. Ferretti, F. K. Guo, E. Santopinto and B. S. Zou, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 647 (2018) [arXiv:1710.02540 [hep-ph]]

2018 arXiv
[17]

M. A. Bedolla, J. Ferretti, C. D. Roberts and E. Santopin to, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 1004 (2020) [arXiv:1911.00960 [hep-ph]]

2020 arXiv
[18]

R. J. Lloyd and J. P . V ary, Phys. Rev. D 70, 014009 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0311179 [hep-ph]]

2004 arXiv
[19]

Barnea, J

N. Barnea, J. Vijande and A. V alcarce, Phys. Rev. D 73, 054004 (2006) [arXiv:hep-ph/0604010 [hep-ph]]

2006 arXiv
[20]

V . R. Debastiani and F. S. Navarra, Chin. Phys. C 43, 013105 (2019) [arXiv:1706.07553 [hep-ph]]

2019 arXiv
[21]

J. Wu, Y . R. Liu, K. Chen, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 97, 094015 (2018) [arXiv:1605.01134 [hep-ph]]

2018 arXiv
[22]

G. J. Wang, L. Meng and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 100, 096013 (2019) [arXiv:1907.05177 [hep-ph]]

2019 arXiv
[23]

M. S. Liu, Q. F. L¨ u, X. H. Zhong and Q. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 100, 016006 (2019) [arXiv:1901.02564 [hep-ph]]

2019 arXiv
[24]

R. N. Faustov, V . O. Galkin and E. M. Savchenko, Phys. Rev . D 102, 114030 (2020) [arXiv:2009.13237 [hep-ph]]

2020 arXiv
[25]

Q. F. L¨ u, D. Y . Chen and Y . B. Dong, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 871 (2020) [arXiv:2006.14445 [hep-ph]]

2020 arXiv
[26]

Heupel, G

W. Heupel, G. Eichmann and C. S. Fischer, Phys. Lett. B 718, 545-549 (2012) [arXiv:1206.5129 [hep-ph]]

2012 arXiv
[27]

X. Z. Weng, X. L. Chen, W. Z. Deng and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 103, 034001 (2021) [arXiv:2010.05163 [hep-ph]]

2021 arXiv
[28]

A. V . Berezhnoy, A. V . Luchinsky and A. A. Novoselov, Phys. Rev. D 86, 034004 (2012) [arXiv:1111.1867 [hep-ph]]

2012 arXiv
[29]

Karliner, S

M. Karliner, S. Nussinov and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. D 95, 034011 (2017) [arXiv:1611.00348 [hep-ph]]

2017 arXiv
[30]

A. V . Berezhnoy, A. K. Likhoded, A. V . Luchinsky and A. A. Novoselov, Phys. Rev. D 84, 094023 (2011) [arXiv:1101.5881 [hep-ph]]

2011 arXiv
[31]

F. Feng, Y . Huang, Y . Jia, W. L. Sang, X. Xiong and J. Y . Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 106, 114029 (2022) [arXiv:2009.08450 [hep-ph]]

2022 arXiv
[32]

H. F. Zhang and Y . Q. Ma, [arXiv:2009.08376 [hep-ph]]

2009 arXiv
[33]

Karliner and J

M. Karliner and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. D 102, 114039 (2020) [arXiv:2009.04429 [hep-ph]]

2020 arXiv
[34]

J. Z. Wang, D. Y . Chen, X. Liu and T. Matsuki, Phys. Rev. D 103, 071503 (2021) [arXiv:2008.07430 [hep-ph]]

2021 arXiv
[35]

J. F. Giron and R. F. Lebed, Phys. Rev. D 102, 074003 (2020) [arXiv:2008.01631 [hep-ph]]

2020 arXiv
[36]

K. T. Chao and S. L. Zhu, Sci. Bull. 65, 1952-1953 (2020) [arXiv:2008.07670 [hep-ph]]

2020 arXiv
[37]

Maiani, Sci

L. Maiani, Sci. Bull. 65, 1949-1951 (2020) [arXiv:2008.01637 [hep-ph]]

2020 arXiv
[38]

J. M. Richard, Sci. Bull. 65, 1954-1955 (2020) [arXiv:2008.01962 [hep-ph]]

2020 arXiv
[39]

Zhu, Nucl

R. Zhu, Nucl. Phys. B 966, 115393 (2021) [arXiv:2010.09082 [hep-ph]]

2021 arXiv
[40]

Z. H. Guo and J. A. Oller, Phys. Rev. D 103, 034024 (2021) [arXiv:2011.00978 [hep-ph]]

2021 arXiv
[41]

Maciuła, W

R. Maciuła, W. Sch¨ afer and A. Szczurek, Phys. Lett. B 812, 136010 (2021) [arXiv:2009.02100 [hep-ph]]

2021 arXiv
[42]

J. W. Zhu, X. D. Guo, R. Y . Zhang, W. G. Ma and X. Q. Li, [arXiv:2011.07799 [hep-ph]]

2011 arXiv
[43]

Eichmann, C

G. Eichmann, C. S. Fischer, W. Heupel, N. Santowsky and P . C. Wallbott, Few Body Syst. 61, 38 (2020) [arXiv:2008.10240 [hep-ph]]

2020 arXiv
[44]

C. Gong, M. C. Du, Q. Zhao, X. H. Zhong and B. Zhou, Phys. Lett. B 824, 136794 (2022) [arXiv:2011.11374 [hep-ph]]

2022 arXiv
[45]

Becchi, J

C. Becchi, J. Ferretti, A. Giachino, L. Maiani and E. San - topinto, Phys. Lett. B 811, 135952 (2020)

2020
[46]

X. K. Dong, V . Baru, F. K. Guo, C. Hanhart and A. Nefediev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 132001 (2021) [erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 119901 (2021)] [arXiv:2009.07795 [hep-ph]]

2021 arXiv
[47]

W. Chen, H. X. Chen, X. Liu, T. G. Steele and S. L. Zhu, Phys . Lett. B 773, 247-251 (2017) [arXiv:1605.01647 [hep-ph]]

2017 arXiv
[48]

Z. G. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 432 (2017) [arXiv:1701.04285 [hep-ph]]

2017 arXiv
[49]

W. Chen, H. X. Chen, X. Liu, T. G. Steele and S. L. Zhu, EPJ Web Conf. 182, 02028 (2018) [arXiv:1803.02522 [hep-ph]]

2018 arXiv
[50]

Z. G. Wang and Z. Y . Di, Acta Phys. Polon. B 50, 1335 (2019) [arXiv:1807.08520 [hep-ph]]

2019 arXiv
[51]

J. R. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 103, 014018 (2021)

2021
[52]

Z. G. Wang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 36, 2150014 (2021)

2021
[53]

R. M. Albuquerque, S. Narison, A. Rabemananjara, D. Ra- betiarivony and G. Randriamanatrika, Phys. Rev. D 102, 094001 (2020) [arXiv:2008.01569 [hep-ph]]

2020 arXiv
[54]

H. X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, Sci. Bull. 65, 1994-2000 (2020) [arXiv:2006.16027 [hep-ph]]

2020 arXiv
[55]

Q. N. Wang, Z. Y . Yang and W. Chen, Phys. Rev. D 104, 114037 (2021) [arXiv:2109.08091 [hep-ph]]

2021 arXiv
[57]

S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi, B. Barsbay and H. Sundu, Phys. Lett . B 844, 138089 (2023) [arXiv:2304.03244 [hep-ph]]

2023 arXiv
[58]

S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi, B. Barsbay and H. Sundu, Nucl. Phys . A 1041, 122768 (2024) [arXiv:2304.09943 [hep-ph]]

2024 arXiv
[59]

S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi, B. Barsbay and H. Sundu, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 138, 935 (2023) [arXiv:2305.03696 [hep-ph]]

2023 arXiv
[60]

S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi, B. Barsbay and H. Sundu, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 994 (2023) [arXiv:2307.01857 [hep-ph]]

2023 arXiv
[61]

S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi, B. Barsbay and H. Sundu, Phys. Rev. D 109, 014006 (2024) [arXiv:2310.10384 [hep-ph]]

2024 arXiv
[62]

X. Jin, Y . Xue, H. Huang and J. Ping, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 1083 (2020) [arXiv:2006.13745 [hep-ph]]

2020 arXiv
[63]

J. Zhao, S. Shi and P . Zhuang, Phys. Rev. D 102, 114001 (2020) [arXiv:2009.10319 [hep-ph]]

2020 arXiv
[64]

Z. G. Wang, Chin. Phys. C 44, 113106 (2020) [arXiv:2006.13028 [hep-ph]]

2020 arXiv
[65]

G. J. Wang, L. Meng, M. Oka and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 7 104, 036016 (2021) [arXiv:2105.13109 [hep-ph]]

2021 arXiv
[66]

F. X. Liu, M. S. Liu, X. H. Zhong and Q. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 104, 116029 (2021) [arXiv:2110.09052 [hep-ph]]

2021 arXiv
[67]

Mutuk, Eur

H. Mutuk, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 367 (2021) [arXiv:2104.11823 [hep-ph]]

2021 arXiv
[68]

X. K. Dong, V . Baru, F. K. Guo, C. Hanhart, A. Nefediev and B. S. Zou, Sci. Bull. 66, 2462-2470 (2021)

2021
[69]

Z. G. Wang, Nucl. Phys. B 985, 115983 (2022) [arXiv:2207.08059 [hep-ph]]

2022 arXiv
[70]

J. Z. Wang and X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 106, 054015 (2022)

2022
[71]

C. Gong, M. C. Du and Q. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 106, 054011 (2022) [arXiv:2206.13867 [hep-ph]]

2022 arXiv
[72]

G. L. Y u, Z. Y . Li, Z. G. Wang, J. Lu and M. Yan, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 416 (2023) [arXiv:2212.14339 [hep-ph]]

2023 arXiv
[73]

Z. G. Wang, Phys. Lett. B 819, 136464 (2021) [arXiv:2104.03103 [hep-ph]]

2021 arXiv
[74]

M. Z. Liu and L. S. Geng, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 179 (2021) [arXiv:2012.05096 [hep-ph]]

2021 arXiv
[75]

G. Yang, J. Ping and J. Segovia, Phys. Rev. D 104, 014006 (2021) [arXiv:2104.08814 [hep-ph]]

2021 arXiv
[76]

B. C. Yang, L. Tang and C. F. Qiao, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 324 (2021)

2021
[77]

C. M. Tang, C. G. Duan and L. Tang, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 743 (2024) [arXiv:2405.05042 [hep-ph]]

2024 arXiv
[78]

C. F. Qiao, L. Tang, G. Hao and X. Q. Li, J. Phys. G 39, 015005 (2012) [arXiv:1012.2614 [hep-ph]]

2012 arXiv
[79]

W. Chen, R. T. Kleiv, T. G. Steele, B. Bulthuis, D. Har- nett, J. Ho, T. Richards and S. L. Zhu, JHEP 09, 019 (2013) [arXiv:1304.4522 [hep-ph]]

2013 arXiv
[80]

W. Chen, T. G. Steele and S. L. Zhu, J. Phys. G 41, 025003 (2014) [arXiv:1306.3486 [hep-ph]]

2014 arXiv
[81]

Z. G. Wang, [arXiv:2412.11038 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[82]

M. A. Shifman, A. I. V ainshtein and V . I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B 147, 385-447 (1979)

1979
[83]

R. M. Albuquerque, arXiv:1306.4671 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[84]

Z. G. Wang and T. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 89, 054019 (2014)

2014
[85]

Govaerts, L

J. Govaerts, L. J. Reinders, H. R. Rubinstein and J. Weye rs, Nucl. Phys. B 258, 215-229 (1985)

1985
[86]

L. J. Reinders, H. Rubinstein and S. Yazaki, Phys. Rept. 127, 1 (1985)

1985
[87]

Colangelo and A

P . Colangelo and A. Khodjamirian, in At the frontier of parti- cle physics / Handbook of QCD, edited by M. Shifman (World Scientiﬁc, Singapore, 2001), arXiv:hep-ph /0010175

2001
[88]

Narison, World Sci

S. Narison, World Sci. Lect. Notes Phys. 26 1 (1989)

1989
[89]

C. M. Tang, Y . C. Zhao and L. Tang, Phys. Rev. D105, 114004 (2022)

2022
[90]

C. F. Qiao and L. Tang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 221601 (2014)

2014
[91]

Tang and C

L. Tang and C. F. Qiao, Nucl. Phys. B 904, 282 (2016)

2016
[92]

L. Tang, B. D. Wan, K. Maltman and C. F. Qiao, Phys. Rev. D 101, 094032 (2020)

2020
[93]

B. D. Wan, L. Tang and C. F. Qiao, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 121 (2020)

2020
[94]

B. D. Wan and C. F. Qiao, Nucl. Phys. B 968, 115450 (2021)

2021
[95]

S. N. Li and L. Tang, [arXiv:2404.11145 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[96]

B. D. Wan, S. Q. Zhang and C. F. Qiao, Phys. Rev. D 105, 014016 (2022)

2022
[97]

Y . C. Zhao, C. M. Tang and L. Tang, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 654 (2023)

2023
[98]

B. D. Wan, S. Q. Zhang and C. F. Qiao, Phys. Rev. D 106, 074003 (2022)

2022
[99]

S. Q. Zhang, B. D. Wan, L. Tang and C. F. Qiao, Phys. Rev. D 106, 074010 (2022)

2022
[100]

B. D. Wan and C. F. Qiao, [arXiv:2208.14042 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[101]

F. H. Yin, W. Y . Tian, L. Tang and Z. H. Guo, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 818 (2021)

2021
[102]

B. D. Wan, [arXiv:2311.13161 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[103]

B. D. Wan, Nucl. Phys. B 1004, 116538 (2024)

2024
[104]

B. D. Wan and H. T. Xu, Chin. Phys. C 44, 093105 (2024)

2024
[105]

M. A. Shifman, A. I. V ainshtein and V . I. Zakharov, Nucl . Phys. B 147, 448-518 (1979)

1979
[106]

Colangelo and A

P . Colangelo and A. Khodjamirian, [arXiv:hep-ph /0010175 [hep-ph]]
[107]

R. D. Matheus, S. Narison, M. Nielsen and J. M. Richard, Phys. Rev. D 75, 014005 (2007) [arXiv:hep-ph/0608297 [hep- ph]]

2007 arXiv
[108]

S. I. Finazzo, M. Nielsen and X. Liu, Phys. Lett. B 701, 101- 106 (2011) [arXiv:1102.2347 [hep-ph]]

2011 arXiv
[109]

C. F. Qiao and L. Tang, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 3122 (2014) [arXiv:1307.6654 [hep-ph]]

2014 arXiv
[110]

C. F. Qiao and L. Tang, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2810 (2014) [arXiv:1308.3439 [hep-ph]]. 8 Appendix The currents j0++ A and j0−+ B are represented in the spectral density ρOPE(s) as follows: ρpert 0++, A(s) = g2 s 212 × 5π8 ∫ x f xi dx ∫ y f yi dy ∫ z f zi dz { F6 xyz(1 − x − y − z...

2014 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [56]

B. D. Wan and C. F. Qiao, Phys. Lett. B 817, 136339 (2021) [arXiv:2012.00454 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2021

[2] [1]

Gell-Mann, Phys

M. Gell-Mann, Phys. Lett. 8, 214-215 (1964)

1964

[3] [2]

Zweig, V ersion 1

G. Zweig, V ersion 1. CERN-TH-401, CERN, Geneva, 1964

1964

[4] [3]

D. J. Gross and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 30, 1343-1346 (1973)

1973

[5] [4]

H. D. Politzer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 30, 1346-1349 (1973)

1973

[6] [5]

K. G. Wilson, Phys. Rev. D 10, 2445-2459 (1974)

1974

[7] [6]

S. K. Choi et al. [Belle], Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 262001 (2003)

2003

[8] [7]

Aubert et al

B. Aubert et al. [BaBar], Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 142001 (2005)

2005