Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 59 references

Fully-beauty tensor tetraquark

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-13 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read A fully-beauty tensor tetraquark is predicted at 18530 MeV with a 48 MeV width from light-quark annihilation decays.

desk verdict Solid, usable numbers for the 2++ all-beauty tetraquark; standard QCD-SR work with the usual hand-tuned windows, nothing broken. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.09354 v1 pith:NSCCWW6U submitted 2026-07-10 hep-ph hep-exhep-lat

S. S. Agaev , K. Azizi , H. Sundu This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-exhep-lat
keywords fully-beautytetraquarktensorQCDsumrulesmassandwidthB-mesondecaysdiquark-antidiquarkall-heavyresonances
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

This paper calculates the mass and decay width of a fully-beauty tetraquark made of two beauty quarks and two beauty antiquarks arranged as a tensor state. Using QCD sum rules, the authors find a mass of about 18530 MeV, which lies below the thresholds for falling apart into two bottomonium mesons, so those channels are closed. The state can still decay by annihilating a beauty quark-antiquark pair into light quarks that reassemble into pairs of B and B-star mesons (including strange ones). The resulting total width is predicted to be about 48 MeV. The numbers supply concrete targets for experimental searches of all-heavy resonances in B-meson pair mass distributions.

What carries the argument

Two-point QCD sum rules for the mass and coupling of the interpolating current Iμν, together with three-point sum rules that extract the strong form factors at the tetraquark-meson-meson vertices; the Euclidean form factors are continued to the on-shell points by three-parameter exponential extrapolations Zi(Q2).

What would settle it

Observation (or non-observation) of a resonance near 18.53 GeV with width of order 50 MeV in the invariant-mass spectra of B+B−, B0¯B0 or Bs¯Bs pairs at the LHC or a future Tera-Z factory.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the diquark-antidiquark picture the fully-beauty tensor tetraquark T=bb¯b¯b has mass m=(18530±86) MeV and current coupling Λ=(14.11±1.44) GeV^5, placing it below both the ηbηb and ΥΥ thresholds. Its full width is Γ=(48±6) MeV, generated entirely by the six annihilation channels T→B(*)+B(*)−, B(*)0¯B(*)0 and Bs(*)0¯Bs(*)0 whose partial widths are obtained from three-point sum-rule form factors extrapolated to the physical mass shells.

Load-bearing premise

The Borel windows, continuum thresholds and the three-parameter exponential fits that convert Euclidean form factors into on-shell couplings are chosen by hand to keep the pole contribution above roughly half and the operator expansion convergent; those choices directly set both the mass and every partial width.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • T cannot appear as a peak in ηbηb or ΥΥ mass distributions.
  • The six B-meson pair channels together account for a moderate total width of about 48 MeV.
  • The predicted mass and width supply concrete search windows for all-beauty resonances in B-meson pair spectra.
  • Backgrounds from other tetraquarks and molecular B¯B states must be estimated before a clean experimental identification is possible.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A confirmed signal at this mass and width would establish that annihilation into light quarks is the dominant strong-decay mechanism for fully-heavy states lying below bottomonium thresholds.
  • The same sum-rule pipeline can be reapplied to the remaining fully-beauty spin-parity multiplet to map the entire 4b spectrum.
  • If the measured width is substantially larger than 50 MeV, additional open channels or a molecular admixture would be required.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript computes the mass, current coupling, and total width of the fully-beauty tensor tetraquark T=bb¯b¯b (JPC=2++) in the diquark-antidiquark picture using QCD sum rules. A two-point correlator with the axial-vector current Iμν yields m=(18530±86) MeV and Λ=(14.11±1.44) GeV5, placing T below the ηbηb and ΥΥ thresholds. The width is obtained from six annihilation-driven channels T→B(∗)+B(∗)−, B(∗)0¯B(∗)0 and Bs(∗)0¯Bs(∗)0 via three-point sum rules that extract the on-shell strong couplings g1–g4 after exponential extrapolation of the Euclidean form factors; the resulting total width is Γ=(48±6) MeV.

Significance. If the mass and width predictions hold, the paper supplies a concrete, experimentally usable signature for an all-beauty tensor state that cannot appear as a peak in di-ηb or di-Υ spectra but may be visible in B(∗)B(∗) and Bs(∗)¯Bs(∗) mass distributions. The calculation is fully within the standard QCD-sum-rule toolkit, monitors pole contribution and OPE convergence, and produces falsifiable numbers that can be confronted with LHC or future Tera-Z data. The explicit treatment of the annihilation mechanism (rather than fall-apart decays) is a useful addition to the existing literature on fully-heavy tetraquarks.

major comments (2)
  1. Section II, Eqs. (10)–(15) and Fig. 1: the Borel window M2∈[16,19] GeV2 and continuum threshold s0∈[380,385] GeV2 are fixed by hand so that PC≈0.5 and the dim-4 term is ≲1 %. Because the spectral density is not supplied, it is impossible to verify that a modest shift of these windows (still satisfying the same formal criteria) leaves m inside the quoted ±86 MeV. A short stability table or an explicit statement of the variation of m under a 5–10 % enlargement of the windows would make the central mass claim more robust.
  2. Sections III–IV, Eqs. (28)–(29), (42), (50), (54) and Figs. 4–5: each of the four form factors is converted to an on-shell coupling by a three-parameter exponential fit Zi(Q2) whose coefficients are chosen to match the Euclidean SR data. The quoted uncertainties on g_i (and therefore on every partial width) do not include a systematic component from the functional form of the extrapolant. Replacing the exponential by a rational or polynomial ansatz, or quoting the spread among several acceptable fits, is needed before the total width Γ=(48±6) MeV can be regarded as fully controlled.
minor comments (5)
  1. Abstract and Sec. I: the notation T=bb¯b¯b is used interchangeably with T=bbbb; a uniform four-quark notation would avoid confusion with ordinary b¯b mesons.
  2. Eq. (15) and the caption of Fig. 1: the continuum threshold is written both as s0∈[380,385] GeV2 and (in the figure caption) as 182.5 GeV2; the latter is clearly a typographical error and should be corrected.
  3. Eq. (40): the factor (q2−m2D∗) appears instead of (q2−m2B∗); this is an obvious transcription slip that does not affect the subsequent numerical result but should be fixed.
  4. Sec. II, after Eq. (12): the analytic expressions for ρOPE(s) and Π(M2) are omitted as “cumbersome.” Depositing them in an appendix or ancillary file would improve reproducibility.
  5. References [44,45] are cited as arXiv preprints with future dates; once published they should be updated, or the arXiv numbers should be given explicitly.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

Standard two- and three-point QCD sum-rule calculation; mass and partial widths are independent outputs of the correlators, not forced by construction from inputs or self-citations.

  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. I (paragraphs discussing prior 4b work) and Sec. V]
    "The scalar bb bb tetraquarks X4b and T4b were also considered in our articles [38, 40, 46]. … This alternative mechanism for strong decays was employed to estimate the width of X4b in Ref. [46]."

    The annihilation-to-light-quarks decay mechanism and the overall SR strategy are taken from the authors’ own prior papers. The citations are not strictly load-bearing for the new mass or the six new partial widths (which are recomputed here), but they supply the only justification offered for treating those channels as the dominant strong decays; a minor self-citation dependence therefore exists.

full rationale

The mass m and coupling Λ follow from the two-point correlator Πμναβ after Borel transform and continuum subtraction (Eqs. 10–12), with windows fixed only by the usual PC ≳ 0.5 and OPE-convergence criteria; the numerical value is an output, not an input. The six partial widths are obtained from independent three-point correlators that yield Euclidean form factors g_i(q^{2}), which are then extrapolated by a three-parameter exponential ansatz Zi(Q^{2}) to the physical mass shells; the ansatz is a conventional approximation, not a definition that makes the on-shell couplings identical to any fitted input. External anchors (PDG B-meson masses, fB, mb, gluon condensate) and the classic Shifman–Vainshtein–Zakharov framework supply the non-circular foundation. Self-citations to the authors’ earlier SR papers on related 4b states supply methodological precedent and comparison numbers but are not load-bearing for the present numerical results. No equation reduces a claimed prediction to an input by construction, so circularity is negligible.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central mass and width rest on standard QCD-sum-rule machinery plus several hand-chosen windows and fit parameters that are not fixed by first principles. The tetraquark itself is an invented entity whose existence is assumed rather than derived. No free parameters are fitted to experimental tetraquark data (none exist), but the Borel/continuum windows and the three-parameter extrapolations function as free parameters that control the quoted results.

free parameters (4)
  • Borel window M^{2} (two-point) = 16–19 GeV^{2}
    Chosen by hand in [16,19] GeV^{2} to keep PC≳0.5 and dim-4 contribution ≲5 %; the central mass is evaluated at the midpoint 17.5 GeV^{2}.
  • continuum threshold s0 (two-point) = 380–385 GeV^{2}
    Hand-selected interval [380,385] GeV^{2} that keeps the continuum contribution under control; directly enters the mass formula.
  • three-parameter exponential fit coefficients Z0i,z1i,z2i for each of four form factors = e.g. Z01=0.229 GeV−1, z11=5.423, z21=−9.429 (and three analogous sets)
    Tuned so that Zi(Q^{2}) reproduces the Euclidean sum-rule points for Q^{2}=2–30 GeV^{2}; the physical couplings are then read off at Q^{2}=−m^{2}_meson. Four independent triplets control all partial widths.
  • Borel and continuum windows for each three-point channel = e.g. M2^{2}∈[5.5,6.5] GeV^{2}, s′0∈[33.5,34.5] GeV^{2} for B
    Separate (M2^{2},s′0) intervals for B, B*, Bs, B*s channels, again chosen to satisfy stability criteria; they affect every partial width.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Quark-hadron duality: the continuum above s0 can be replaced by the perturbative spectral density.
    Invoked after Borel transform to subtract higher states (Sec. II and III).
  • domain assumption Operator-product expansion truncated at dimension-4 gluon condensate is sufficient.
    Only ⟨αsG^{2}/π⟩ is retained; higher condensates are neglected (Eq. (12) and text).
  • ad hoc to paper The interpolating current Iμν built from axial-vector diquark-antidiquark pairs couples dominantly to a single JPC=2++ ground state.
    Choice of current (Eq. (2)) defines the state under study; no proof that other structures are negligible.
  • domain assumption bb annihilation into light qq¯ or ss¯ followed by meson formation is the dominant strong-decay mechanism once fall-apart channels are closed.
    Adopted from Refs. [47,48] and used to select the six B-meson channels (Sec. III–IV).
invented entities (1)
  • tensor tetraquark T=bb¯b¯b with JPC=2++
    purpose: The object whose mass and width are computed; assumed to exist as a compact diquark-antidiquark state.
    No experimental observation yet; the paper postulates its existence and quantum numbers in order to extract numerical parameters.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fully-beauty tensor tetraquark." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NSCCWW6U

@misc{pith2026260709354,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fully-beauty tensor tetraquark},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NSCCWW6U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.09354}
}
abstract

Parameters of the fully-beauty tensor tetraquark $ T=bb\overline{b}\overline{b}$ are computed using QCD sum rule method. The mass $m$ and coupling $\Lambda$ of this state are evaluated by means of two-point sum rule approach. Prediction $m=(18530 \pm 86)~\mathrm{MeV}$ for the mass demonstrates that $T$ is stable against decays to pairs of $\eta_b \eta_b$ and $\Upsilon \Upsilon$ mesons. But it transforms to conventional particles due to $\overline{b}b$ annihilations to light quarks $\overline{q} q $ and $\overline{s}s$ followed by creation of mesons $B^{(\ast)+}B^{( \ast)-}$, $B^{(\ast)0}\overline{B}^{(\ast)0}$ and $B_s^{(\ast)0}\overline{B} _s^{(\ast)0}$. Partial width of these decay channels are calculated by invoking technical tools of three-point sum rule method. The latter allows us to estimate strong couplings at relevant tetraquark-meson-meson vertices and, hence, a width of the process under consideration. Our prediction $ \Gamma=(48 \pm 6)~\mathrm{MeV}$ along with the mass of this state can be valuable for experimental studies of all-heavy resonances.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.09354 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: PC as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: SR data and fit functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: QCD data and extrapolating functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Measured parameters of these resonances provide valu- ∗ Corresponding author: kazem.azizi@ut.ac.ir able information on fully-heavy exotic mesons [15–19]

    2 GeV in the di- J/ψ and J/ψψ ′ mass distributions. Measured parameters of these resonances provide valu- ∗ Corresponding author: kazem.azizi@ut.ac.ir able information on fully-heavy exotic mesons [15–19]. This is connected with the fact that X structures are supposedly tetraquarks cc cc and their studies can shed light on features of fully-heavy systems....

    arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    The couple of parameters ( M 2 1,s 0) corresponds to the chan- nel of initial particle T, whereas ( M 2 2,s ′

    are the Borel and continuum threshold parameters, respectively. The couple of parameters ( M 2 1,s 0) corresponds to the chan- nel of initial particle T, whereas ( M 2 2,s ′

  3. [3]

    6 In computations for the T channel we employ parame- ters (M 2 1,s 0) given by Eq

    describes the channel of B+ meson. 6 In computations for the T channel we employ parame- ters (M 2 1,s 0) given by Eq. (15). The parameters ( M 2 2,s ′ 0) are varied within limits M 2 2 ∈ [5. 5, 6. 5] GeV 2, s ′ 0 ∈ [33. 5, 34. 5] GeV 2. (27) It is known that the sum rule method results in cred- ible predictions for the form factor g1(q2) in the deep Eucl...

  4. [4]

    To solve this problem we include into consideration the extrapolating function Zi(Q2) = Z 0 i exp [ z1 i Q2 m2 +z2 i (Q2 m2 )2] , (28) where Q2 = −q2

    But the coupling g1 has to be extracted at the mass shell q2 = m2 B. To solve this problem we include into consideration the extrapolating function Zi(Q2) = Z 0 i exp [ z1 i Q2 m2 +z2 i (Q2 m2 )2] , (28) where Q2 = −q2. Here, Z 0 i , z1 i and z2 i are parameters which are chosen in such a way that Zi(Q2) for Q2 = 2 − 30 GeV 2 coincides with outcomes of th...

  5. [5]

    (47) The SR data for the form factor g3(q2) are calculated 8 using the working regions M 2 2 ∈ [5. 5, 6. 5] GeV 2, s ′ 0 ∈ [34, 35] GeV 2. (48) The function Z3(Q2) is evaluated by the fitted parame- ters Z 0 3 = 0 . 185 GeV − 1, z 1 3 = 5. 259, z 2 3 = − 9. 138. (49) Then for the strong coupling g3 we obtain the following prediction g3 ≡ Z 3(−m2 Bs) = (1. ...

  6. [6]

    (53) To estimate g4, we have employed the extrapolation function Z4(Q2) with parameters Z 0 4 = 0

    in the B∗0 s channel are changed within the bor- ders M 2 2 ∈ [6, 7] GeV 2, s ′ 0 ∈ [35, 36] GeV 2. (53) To estimate g4, we have employed the extrapolation function Z4(Q2) with parameters Z 0 4 = 0. 056 GeV − 1, z1 4 = 5. 983, and z2 4 = − 9. 403. The coupling g4 amounts to g4 ≡ Z 4(−m2 B∗ s ) = (3. 12 ± 0. 59) × 10− 2 GeV− 1. (54) The width of this mode ...

  7. [7]

    R. L. Jaffe, Phys. Rev. D 15, 267 (1977)

    1977

  8. [8]

    R. L. Jaffe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 195 (1977); 38, 617(E) (1977)

    1977

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    J. P. Ader, J. M. Richard, and P. Taxil, Phys. Rev. D 25, 2370 (1982)

    1982

  2. [10]

    H. J. Lipkin, Phys. Lett. B 172, 242 (1986). 9

    1986

  3. [11]

    Zouzou, B

    S. Zouzou, B. Silvestre-Brac, C. Gignoux, and J. M. Richard, Z. Phys. C 30, 457 (1986)

    1986

  4. [12]

    Karliner and J

    M. Karliner and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 202001 (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    E. J. Eichten and C. Quigg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 202002 (2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi, B. Barsbay, and H. Sundu, Phys. Rev. D 99, 033002 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi, B. Barsbay, and H. Sundu, Eur. Phys. J. A 57, 106 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi, B. Barsbay, and H. Sundu, Eur. Phys. J. A 56, 177 (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi, and H. Sundu, Nucl. Phys. B 951, 114890 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    Sundu, S

    H. Sundu, S. S. Agaev, and K. Azizi, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 753 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi, B. Barsbay, and H. Sundu, Phys. Rev. D 101, 094026 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi, B. Barsbay, and H. Sundu, Chin. Phys. C 45, 013105 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Sci. Bull. 65, 1983 (2020)

    1983

  14. [22]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 151902 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    Hayrapetyan et al

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

    2024

  16. [24]

    Hayrapetyan et al

    A. Hayrapetyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Nature 648, 58 (2025)

    2025

  17. [25]

    Hayrapetyan et al

    A. Hayrapetyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), arXiv:2602.02252 [hep-ex]

  18. [26]

    V. M. Abazov et al. (D0 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 082002 (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    Khachatryan et al

    V. Khachatryan et al. (CMS Collaboration), JHEP 05, 013 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    A. V. Berezhnoy, A. V. Luchinsky, and A. A. Novoselov, Phys. Rev. D 86, 034004 (2012)

    2012

  21. [29]

    Karliner, S

    M. Karliner, S. Nussinov, and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. D 95, 034011 (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    J. Wu, Y. R. Liu, K. Chen, X. Liu, and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 97, 094015 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    W. Chen, H. X. Chen, X. Liu, T. G. Steele, and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Lett. B 773, 247 (2017)

    2017

  24. [32]

    Z. G. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 432 (2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    J. M. Richard, A. Valcarce, and J. Vijande, Phys. Rev. D 95, 054019 (2017)

    2017

  26. [34]

    Esposito and A

    A. Esposito and A. D. Polosa, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 782 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    Z. G. Wang, Nucl. Phys. B 985, 115983 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    R. N. Faustov, V. O. Galkin, and E. M. Savchenko, Sym- metry 14, 2504 (2022)

    2022

  29. [37]

    P. Niu, Z. Zhang, Q. Wang, and M. L. Du, Sci. Bull. 68, 800 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    W. C. Dong and Z. G. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 107, 074010 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    G. L. Yu, Z. Y. Li, Z. G. Wang, J. Lu, and M. Yan, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 416 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    H. T. An, S. Q. Luo, Z. W. Liu, and X. Liu, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 740 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    S. Q. Kuang, Q. Zhou, D. Guo, Q. H. Yang, and L. Y. Dai, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 383 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    M. S. Liu, F. X. Liu, X. H. Zhong and Q. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 109, 076017 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    Malekhosseini, S

    M. Malekhosseini, S. Rostami, A. R. Olamaei and K. Az- izi, Nucl. Phys. B 1018, 116977 (2025)

    2025

  36. [44]

    S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi, B. Barsbay, and H. Sundu, Phys. Lett. B 844, 138089 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi, B. Barsbay and H. Sundu, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 138, 935 (2023)

    2023

  38. [46]

    S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi, B. Barsbay and H. Sundu, Nucl. Phys. A 1041, 122768 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi, B. Barsbay and H. Sundu, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 994 (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

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

    1979

  41. [49]

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

    1979

  42. [50]

    S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi, and H. Sundu, arXiv:2604.10626 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  43. [51]

    S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi, and H. Sundu, arXiv:2605.20015 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  44. [52]

    S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi, B. Barsbay, and H. Sundu, Phys. Rev. D 109, 014006 (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    Becchi, A

    C. Becchi, A. Giachino, L. Maiani, and E. Santopinto, Phys. Lett. B 806, 135495 (2020)

    2020

  46. [54]

    Becchi, A

    C. Becchi, A. Giachino, L. Maiani, and E. Santopinto, Phys. Lett. B 811, 135952 (2020)

    2020

  47. [55]

    S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi, and H. Sundu, Turk. J. Phys. 44, 95 (2020)

    2020

  48. [56]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. [Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  49. [57]

    Narison, Nucl

    S. Narison, Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc. 270-272, 143 (2016)

    2016

  50. [58]

    A. Ali, Q. Qin and W. Wang, Phys. Lett. B 785, 605 (2018)

    2018

  51. [59]

    A. Ali, A. Y. Parkhomenko, Q. Qin and W. Wang, Phys. Lett. B 782, 412 (2018)

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed July 13, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.