Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 49 references

Recent Results on Charmonia- and Bottomonia-like Particles at Belle

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 Belle data show a 6.7-sigma bump at 10.75 GeV in the Upsilon(nS) pi+ pi- cross sections.

desk verdict A solid Belle conference review whose only genuinely new item, the 10.75 GeV structure, is a placeholder for the primary analysis that does not define its claimed 'global significance.' read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05870 v1 pith:OR3T6KFU submitted 2019-08-16 hep-ex

Pin-Chun Chou (for the Belle Collaboration) This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ex
keywords charmoniumbottomoniumexotichadronsUpsilon(nS)crosssectionse+e-annihilationhadronspectroscopyBelle
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 review of recent results from the Belle experiment centers on a new measurement of the e+e- -> Upsilon(nS) pi+ pi- (n=1,2,3) cross sections from 10.52 to 11.02 GeV that finds a clear enhancement at 10752.7 MeV/$c^{2}$ with a global significance of 6.7 $\sigma$ including systematic uncertainties. If the enhancement is real, it is a candidate for a new bottomonium-like state, possibly an unobserved Upsilon(3D) state enhanced by S-D mixing, a compact tetraquark, or a hadrobottomonium. The same study also improves the measured masses and widths of Upsilon(10860) and Upsilon(11020) and finds evidence for e+e- -> Upsilon(1S) pi+ pi- at 10.52 GeV. The review also reports first evidence for B+ -> h_c K+, first observation of eta_c(2S) -> p pbar pi+ pi-, observation of e+e- -> gamma chi_c1 at 10.58 GeV, and several new upper limits.

What carries the argument

The central object is the recoil mass of the pion pair, M_recoil(pi+ pi-), reconstructed in events where the Upsilon(nS) decays to a lepton pair; events are selected with the requirement |M_recoil(pi+ pi-) - M(l+ l-)| < 150 MeV. Signal yields are extracted by unbinned maximum-likelihood fits to the recoil-mass distribution rather than by simple counting, and the energy dependence is scanned in about 1 $fb^{-1}$ steps from 10.63 to 11.02 GeV, supplemented by the 121 $fb^{-1}$ on-resonance Upsilon(10860) sample and by initial-state-radiation events. This fit-based recoil-mass technique is what allows the new structure in the cross-section energy dependence to be isolated from the underlying continuum.

What would settle it

Repeat the e+e- -> Upsilon(nS) pi+ pi- energy scan with roughly 40 times the integrated luminosity, fitting the recoil-mass spectra with a background model that includes smooth non-resonant contributions plus the full point-to-point systematic covariance; if the enhancement at about 10.75 GeV disappears or drops below 5 sigma in the Upsilon(2S) pi+ pi- channel, the new-structure claim would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the energy dependence of e+e- -> Upsilon(nS) pi+ pi- contains a previously unseen structure at M = 10752.7 +/- 5.9 (stat.) MeV/$c^{2}$ with width Gamma = 35.5 +17.6 -11.3 MeV and a global significance of 6.7 $\sigma$ including systematics. The structure is observed in the cross sections for production of Upsilon(1S), Upsilon(2S), and Upsilon(3S) with a pion pair, with ranges of Gamma_ee x B of 0.12-0.47, 0.53-1.22, and 0.21-0.26 eV respectively. The paper interprets it as a possible new bottomonium-like resonance, while cautioning that it may also be a non-resonant effect from complicated rescattering. Alongside this, the paper claims improved measurements of the Upsilon(10860) and Upsilon(11020) parameters, with masses of 10885.3 +/- 1.5 MeV and 11000.0 +4.0 -4.5 MeV respectively, and evidence for e+e- -> Upsilon(1S) pi+ pi- at 10.52 GeV with a cross section of 42 +17 -15 fb.

Load-bearing premise

The new-structure claim stands on the assumption that the recoil-mass fitting model, the signal efficiency shapes, and the background parameterization used for e+e- -> Upsilon(nS) pi+ pi- correctly describe the data, with no correlated point-to-point systematic uncertainty that mimics a resonance.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the new structure is a genuine resonance, it would become a new bottomonium-like state in the 10.75 GeV region, and its mass, width, and Gamma_ee x B values would constrain models of vector bottomonia.
  • The improved Upsilon(10860) mass and width, 10885.3 +/- 1.5 MeV and 36.6 +4.5 -3.9 MeV, update the empirical parameters of this high-lying vector state.
  • The measured energy dependence of the e+e- -> Upsilon(nS) pi+ pi- cross sections provides a direct target for hadron-loop and nonrelativistic QCD calculations of dipion transitions.
  • The observation of the e+e- -> Upsilon(1S) pi+ pi- process at 10.52 GeV establishes this channel in the continuum and allows cross-section comparisons below and above the open-flavor threshold.
  • The first observation of eta_c(2S) -> p pbar pi+ pi- gives a new decay mode for studying eta_c(2S) production and properties.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The published ranges of Gamma_ee x B in the three Upsilon(nS) pi+ pi- channels can be used as a discriminating test: tetraquark, hadrobottomonium, and Upsilon(3D) interpretations predict different ratios of these couplings, so a dedicated fit to the ratios could separate the options.
  • Since the new structure sits about 130 MeV below Upsilon(10860), a natural extension is to search for the same enhancement in related final states such as Upsilon(nS) K+ K- or in radiative transitions, where a 3D bottomonium would be expected to appear with different relative strengths.
  • The claim of a 6.7-sigma global significance depends on how the trials factor for the energy scan was handled; showing fit projections and the full background model would make the evidence independently checkable.
  • If the bump is non-resonant rescattering rather than a new state, its line shape may not match a simple Breit-Wigner; comparing a Breit-Wigner fit against a coupled-channel rescattering model over the full scanned energy range could settle its nature.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper is a proceedings-style review of recent Belle results on charmonium- and bottomonium-like states. It reports searches for B -> Y(4260)K, B -> h_c K, X(3872/3915) -> chi_c1 pi0, and B0 -> X(3872)gamma; evidence for B+ -> h_c K+; the first observation of eta_c(2S) -> p pbar pi+ pi-; observation of e+e- -> gamma chi_c1 at sqrt(s)=10.58 GeV; and a new measurement of the e+e- -> Upsilon(nS) pi+ pi- (n=1,2,3) cross sections from 10.52 to 11.02 GeV. The central new claim is a structure at 10752.7 +/- 5.9 MeV/c2 in the energy dependence of e+e- -> Upsilon(nS) pi+ pi-, reported with a 'global significance of 6.7 sigma including the systematic uncertainties.' The paper also quotes improved parameters for Upsilon(10860) and Upsilon(11020) and several new or updated upper limits.

Significance. If the 6.7-sigma structure claim holds, this is a significant addition to bottomonium-like spectroscopy, potentially the first evidence for a Upsilon(3D) state or an exotic hadro-bottomonium/tetraquark candidate. The paper likewise contains the first observation of eta_c(2S) -> p pbar pi+ pi- and an observation of e+e- -> gamma chi_c1, plus updated cross-section measurements. The manuscript is a useful, concise summary with internally consistent tables, explicit statistical and systematic uncertainties, and clear references to the primary Belle papers. Its main weakness is that the central observation claim is not self-contained: the statistical definition of 'global significance' and the fit model behind Table VI are not given, and one derived energy-dependence result appears to rest on an input assumption without acknowledging the potential circularity.

major comments (3)
  1. [MEASUREMENT OF THE e+e− → ϒ(nS)π+π− CROSS SECTIONS, Table VI] The phrase 'global significance of 6.7 σ including the systematic uncertainties' is the sole quantitative support for the central claim that a new structure is observed at 10752.7 MeV/c2. The text does not define what 'global' means (combined over the three ϒ(nS) channels, or a trials-corrected p-value over the scanned mass range), does not state how many energy points were scanned between 10.63 and 11.02 GeV, does not describe the resonance-plus-background parameterization used in the fit, and does not explain how point-to-point correlated systematic uncertainties enter the significance. Since the look-elsewhere effect over a scan of this extent can be large, the observation claim cannot be checked from the material presented. Please add a compact definition of 'global' and the trials treatment, or explicitly state that these are defined in Ref. [38] and summarize the essential result.
  2. [MEASUREMENT OF THE e+e− → ϒ(nS)π+π− CROSS SECTIONS, Table VI] Table VI quotes masses, widths, and Γee×B ranges for ϒ(10860), ϒ(11020), and the new structure, but no fit projections or model description are shown. The text says improved measurements of the ϒ(10860) and ϒ(11020) parameters are reported, and the ranges 'from the lowest to the highest solution' imply multiple fit solutions, yet the reader cannot see how the new structure is separated from the tails of the two established resonances or from a non-resonant contribution. Please include a figure of the fitted cross-section energy dependence, or at minimum state the functional form (e.g., coherent Breit-Wigners plus a non-resonant term) and the number of free parameters and fit solutions.
  3. [OBSERVATION OF e+e− → γχ_c1 AND SEARCH FOR e+e− → γχ_c0, γχ_c2 AND γη_c] The ISR correction is applied by assuming σ(e+e− → γχ_cJ/η_c) ∼ 1/s^n with n = 2.1 for χ_c1, and later the paper states that the s-dependence of the Born cross section for e+e− → γχ_c1 'is obtained to be 1/s^{2.1+0.3−0.4±0.3}.' As written, the derived exponent reproduces the input n = 2.1, so it is unclear whether this result is a fit output from the combined BESIII+Belle data or a restatement of the modeling assumption. Please state explicitly whether the quoted exponent is an independent fit result, and quantify the systematic effect of the assumed n on the quoted Born cross sections and on the combined s-dependence.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Title and abstract] There are typographical issues in the title and abstract: 'Particle s' should be 'Particles', and 'charm ium-like' should be 'charmonium-like'.
  2. [EVIDENCE FOR B → h_c K AND OBSERVATION OF η_c(2S) → p pbar π+π−] The text quotes a 12.1σ significance for the observation of η_c(2S) → p pbar π+π−, while Table II lists 12.3σ for the B+ channel and 5.9σ for the B0 channel; please clarify which value corresponds to the decay observation and reconcile the numbers.
  3. [OBSERVATION OF e+e− → γχ_c1 AND SEARCH FOR e+e− → γχ_c0, γχ_c2 AND γη_c, Table V] For the √s = 10.58 GeV γχ_c1 row, the table lists a significance of 5.2 while the text quotes 5.1σ including systematic uncertainties; state whether the table entry includes or excludes the systematic contribution.
  4. [MEASUREMENT OF THE e+e− → ϒ(nS)π+π− CROSS SECTIONS] The text says the energy scan used approximately 1 fb−1 per point but does not give the number of scan points; this information is relevant to the look-elsewhere discussion and should be stated or explicitly deferred to Ref. [38].

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: this is a results review whose measured quantities are fitted outputs from the cited original Belle analyses, not inputs to the claims.

full rationale

This paper is a Belle collaboration review that compiles completed measurements rather than deriving new predictions from its own inputs. The central new result, the 6.7 sigma structure in e+e- -> Upsilon(nS) pi+pi-, is quoted from the dedicated analysis [38] and is not re-derived here; Table VI reports fitted masses and widths that are outputs of an energy-dependent fit, not fitted parameters renamed as predictions. The ISR corrections for e+e- -> gamma chi_cJ use an assumed power-law form sigma ~ 1/s^n with theory-derived exponents from refs. [36,37], and the later quoted energy dependence 1/s^(2.1...) is presented as a measured fit; the assumed exponent is an external theoretical input, and the BESIII data points in the combined fit provide independent constraint, so this is not a case of a fitted input being called a prediction. The searches and upper limits are based on standard unbinned maximum-likelihood fits and sPlot yields, with control samples and validation procedures described; no equation in the review makes a prediction equal to its own input by construction. Self-citations to previous Belle publications are normal for a collaboration review and are not load-bearing in a circular sense, because the cited papers are independent measurements rather than unverified assumptions. A concern that the 6.7 sigma significance is not fully defined in this review is a reporting and verifiability issue, not a circularity issue.

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

The experimental claims depend on standard statistical fitting assumptions plus Belle-specific modeling of efficiencies, backgrounds, and radiative corrections. The fitted resonance parameters are outputs, not ad hoc inputs. No new theoretical entity is required by the paper; the 10.75 GeV enhancement is an observed structure whose interpretation is left open.

free parameters (5)
  • Mass of the new structure near 10.75 GeV = 10752.7 +/- 5.9 (stat) +0.7/-1.1 (syst) MeV/c2
    Fitted from the e+e- to Upsilon(nS) pi+ pi- cross-section energy dependence in Table VI.
  • Width of the new structure near 10.75 GeV = 35.5 +17.6/-11.3 (stat) +3.9/-3.3 (syst) MeV
    Fitted width from the same analysis; the large uncertainty shows sensitivity to the fit model.
  • Mass and width of Upsilon(10860) = M = 10885.3 +/- 1.5 +2.2/-0.9 MeV/c2; Gamma = 36.6 +4.5+0.5/-3.9-1.1 MeV
    Reported parameters from the same energy-dependent fit to the e+e- to Upsilon(nS) pi+ pi- cross sections.
  • Mass and width of Upsilon(11020) = M = 11000.0 +4.0+1.0/-4.5-1.3 MeV/c2; Gamma = 23.8 +8.0+0.7/-6.8-1.8 MeV
    Reported parameters from the same energy-dependent fit.
  • Energy-dependence exponent for e+e- to gamma chi_c1 = 2.1, with statistical uncertainty +0.3/-0.4 and systematic uncertainty +/- 0.3
    Obtained by fitting the s-dependence of the gamma chi_c1 Born cross section together with BESIII points; this is a measured output, not an ad hoc input.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Signal MC efficiencies and background shapes accurately describe data after calibration with control samples.
    Every branching fraction, cross section, and upper limit in Tables I to V uses simulated signal shapes and background probability density functions; control samples validate but do not fully certify the modeling. This enters in all four analysis sections.
  • domain assumption The ISR correction for e+e- to gamma chi_cJ and gamma eta_c assumes sigma ~ 1/s^n with n = 1.4, 2.1, 2.4, and 1.3 taken from refs [36,37].
    Used in the e+e- to gamma chi_cJ section to convert observed yields to Born cross sections; a wrong power-law index would shift the cross sections and the quoted 1/s^2.1 energy dependence.
  • domain assumption The recoil-mass selection |Mrecoil(pi+ pi-) - M(l+l-)| < 150 MeV isolates e+e- to Upsilon(nS) pi+ pi- events without peaking background.
    Central to extracting the new 10.75 GeV structure; peaking background or a distorted recoil-mass shape could create a false enhancement.
  • standard math Feldman-Cousins and unbinned maximum likelihood procedures produce valid uncertainties and upper limits in the low-count regime.
    Used for B0 to X(3872)gamma and other low-significance searches; these are standard statistical methods, but their validity depends on unbiased background estimates.
  • domain assumption The theoretical predictions cited for B decay branching fractions and NRQCD cross sections are adequate for comparison.
    Used to interpret branching-fraction measurements, such as the expected h_cK rate from QCD factorization and the new-physics interest in B0 to X(3872)gamma; not central to the measured values themselves.
invented entities (1)
  • New structure at 10752.7 MeV/c2 in e+e- to Upsilon(nS) pi+ pi-
    purpose: Accounts for a 6.7 sigma enhancement in the energy dependence of the cross sections.
    The paper reports the enhancement as a measured structure and lists possible interpretations such as Upsilon(3D), tetraquark, or hadrobottomonium without claiming a new particle. No independent experiment has confirmed it, so independent_evidence is false.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Recent Results on Charmonia- and Bottomonia-like Particles at Belle." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OR3T6KFU

@misc{pith2026190805870,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Recent Results on Charmonia- and Bottomonia-like Particles at Belle},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OR3T6KFU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05870}
}
abstract

The large data sample accumulated by the Belle experiment at KEKB asymmetric energy $e^+ e^-$ collider provides opportunities to study charmonia (bottomonia) and charmonium-like (bottomonium-like) exotic particles. In this review, we report recent results on these topics from Belle, including searches for $B\to h_c K$, $B\to Y(4260)K$, $B\to X(3872/3915) (\to \chi_{c1} \pi^0 ) K$, $B^0 \to X(3872) \gamma$, $e^+e^- \to \gamma \chi_{cJ}$ and a new measurement of the $e^+ e^-\to \Upsilon(nS) \pi^+ \pi^- (n=1,2,3)$ cross sections at energies from 10.52 to 11.02 GeV.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [38]

    Mizuk et al

    R. Mizuk et al. (Belle Collaboration) (2019) arXiv:1905.05521 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2019

  2. [1]

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

    work page 2003

  3. [2]

    Garg et al

    R. Garg et al. (Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 99, 071102(R) (2019)

    work page 2019

  4. [3]

    R. M. Albuquerque, M. Nielsen, and C. M. Zanetti, Phys. Let t. B 747, 83 (2015)

    work page 2015

  5. [4]

    Aubert et al

    B. Aubert et al. (BaBar Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 73, 011101(R) (2006)

    work page 2006

  6. [5]

    Pivk and F

    M. Pivk and F. R. Le Diberder, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. Sect. A 555, 356 (2005)

    work page 2005

  7. [6]

    Chilikin et al

    K. Chilikin et al. (Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 100, 012001 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [7]

    Bauer, B

    M. Bauer, B. Stech and M. Wirbel, Z. Phys. C 34, 103 (1987)

    work page 1987

Show all 49 references
  1. [8]

    Suzuki, Phys

    M. Suzuki, Phys. Rev. D 66, 037503 (2002)

    2002

  2. [9]

    Tanabashi et al

    M. Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 98, 030001 (2018)

    2018

  3. [10]

    Fang et al

    F. Fang et al. (Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 74, 012007 (2006)

    2006

  4. [11]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2462 (2013)

    2013

  5. [12]

    C. Meng, Y . J. Gao and K. T. Chao (2006) arXiv:hep-ph/0607 221 [hep-ph]

    2006

  6. [13]

    X. Q. Li, X. Liu and Y . M. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 74, 114029 (2006)

    2006

  7. [14]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 99, 072008 (2019)

    2019

  8. [15]

    V oss, A

    H. V oss, A. Hocker, J. Stelzer and F. Tegenfeldt, PoS ACAT, 040 (2007)

    2007

  9. [16]

    Bhardwaj et al

    V . Bhardwaj et al. (Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 99, 111101(R) (2019)

    2019

  10. [17]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 202001 (2019)

    2019

  11. [18]

    Dubynskiy and M

    S. Dubynskiy and M. B. V oloshin, Phys. Rev. D 77, 014013 (2008)

    2008

  12. [19]

    Choi et al

    S.-K. Choi et al. (Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 182002 (2005)

    2005

  13. [20]

    F. K. Guo and Ulf-G. Meissner, Phys. Rev. D 86, 091501(R) (2012)

    2012

  14. [21]

    S. L. Olsen, Phys. Rev. D 91, 057501 (2015)

    2015

  15. [22]

    P . -C. Chou et al. (Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 100, 012002 (2019)

    2019

  16. [23]

    Y . D. Y ang, G. Lu, and R. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C 34, 291 (2004)

    2004

  17. [24]

    Li and C.-D

    Y . Li and C.-D. Lü, Phys. Rev. D 74, 097502 (2006)

    2006

  18. [25]

    S. J. Brodsky and S. Gardner, Phys. Rev. D 65, 054016 (2002)

    2002

  19. [26]

    Feindt and U

    M. Feindt and U. Kerzel, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res ., Sect. A 559, 190 (2006)

    2006

  20. [27]

    G. J. Feldman and R. D. Cousins, Phys. Rev. D 57, 3873 (1998)

    1998

  21. [28]

    Lundberg, J

    J. Lundberg, J. Conrad, W. Rolke, and A. Lopez, Comput. Ph ys. Commun. 181, 683 (2010)

    2010

  22. [29]

    Jia et al

    S. Jia et al. (Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 98, 092015 (2018)

    2018

  23. [30]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), Chin. Phys. C 39, 041001 (2015)

    2015

  24. [31]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 96, 051101(R) (2017)

    2017

  25. [32]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 092001 (2014)

    2014

  26. [33]

    L. Ma, Z.F. Sun, X.H. Liu, W.Z. Deng, X. Liu, and S.L. Zhu, P hys. Rev. D 90, 034020 (2014)

    2014

  27. [34]

    K. T. Chao, Z. G. He, D. Li, and C. Meng (2013) arXiv:1310.8 597 [hep-ph]

    2013

  28. [35]

    J. J. Dudek, R. G. Edwards, and C. E. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D 79, 094504 (2009)

    2009

  29. [36]

    Brambilla, W

    N. Brambilla, W. Chen, Y . Jia, V . Shtabovenko, and A. V airo, Phys. Rev. D 97, 096001 (2018)

    2018

  30. [37]

    L. B. Chen, Y . Liang, and C. F. Qiao, J. High Energy Phys. , 0 1 (2018) 091

    2018

  31. [39]

    A. E. Bondar, R. V . Mizuk and M. B. V oloshin, Mod. Phys. Let t. A 32, 1750025 (2017)

    2017

  32. [40]

    Meng and K

    C. Meng and K. T. Chao, Phys. Rev. D 77, 074003 (2008)

    2008

  33. [41]

    Y . A. Simonov and A. I. V eselov, Phys. Lett. B 671, 55 (2009)

    2009

  34. [42]

    M. B. V oloshin, Phys. Rev. D 85, 034024 (2012)

    2012

  35. [43]

    A. Ali, C. Hambrock and M. J. Aslam, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 162001 (2010)

    2010

  36. [44]

    Dubynskiy and M

    S. Dubynskiy and M. B. V oloshin, Phys. Lett. B 666, 344 (2008)

    2008

  37. [45]

    Ebert, R

    D. Ebert, R. N. Faustov and V . O. Galkin, Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1825 (2011)

    2011

  38. [46]

    Godfrey and K

    S. Godfrey and K. Moats, Phys. Rev. D 92, 054034 (2015)

    2015

  39. [47]

    Moxie and J

    P . Moxie and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. D 28, 1132 (1983)

    1983

  40. [48]

    A. M. Badalian, B. L. G. Bakker and I. V . Danilkin, Phys. At om. Nucl. 73, 138 (2010)

    2010

  41. [49]

    Santel et al

    D. Santel et al. (Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 93, 011101 (2016)

    2016

Pith tools

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