Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 56 references

Heavy meson chiral perturbation theory constraints on a charm-coupled GeV-scale QCD axion

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A charm-coupled GeV-scale QCD axion produces no fatal structural constraint in heavy-meson chiral perturbation theory, with the strongest bound coming from σ-mediated B_s mixing once the hadronic matrix element B_S is fixed.

desk verdict A clean, readable HMChPT application, but the 'no fatal constraint' verdict is conditional: the strongest bound (B_s mixing) rests on an imported operator and an unknown bag parameter B_S. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.17277 v1 pith:PTS325JT submitted 2026-07-19 hep-ph gr-qchep-exhep-th

Bo-Qiang Lu This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phgr-qchep-exhep-th
keywords QCDaxioncharmquarkheavymesonchiralperturbationtheoryaxion-pionmixingB_scharmoniumraredecaysstrongCPproblem
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 asks whether a QCD axion whose Peccei-Quinn field couples only to the charm quark can satisfy low-energy strong-interaction constraints, a question that cannot be answered with standard chiral perturbation theory because the charm quark is heavier than the QCD scale. Using heavy-meson chiral perturbation theory (HMChPT), it treats the two physical fields of the PQ scalar separately: the CP-even radial mode $\sigma$ couples to heavy mesons at leading order with strength $\sim 0.3$–$0.4$, while the CP-odd axion a couples only at order $1/m_c$ and enters through axion–pion mixing with angle $\theta_{a\pi} \approx f_\pi/f_a \approx 0.04$. The author checks D-meson masses, $D$–$D^*$ splitting, charmonium, $D$–$D$ scattering, $B_s$ mixing, rare D decays, and the channels $K^+ \to \pi^+ a$ and $B \to K a$, and finds that neither $\sigma$ nor $a$ violates any symmetry at leading order, in contrast to the isospin problem that rules out light-quark-coupled axions. The nearest constraint is $\sigma$-mediated $B_s$–$\bar{B}_s$ mixing, which shifts the mass difference by about $0.5 B_S$ relative to the Standard Model, where $B_S$ is an uncomputed hadronic bag parameter. If the paper is right, the model is self-consistent in the effective theory, and the decisive tests are a lattice determination of $B_S$ and searches for $D^* \to D a$ and $K^+ \to \pi^+ a$.

What carries the argument

The central object is the heavy-meson superfield $H_a(v)$, which packages each pseudoscalar–vector doublet $(D, D^*)$ into a single $4\times 4$ field that transforms covariantly under heavy-quark spin symmetry. The matching uses the Feynman–Hellmann theorem to equate the charm scalar density with $-\mathrm{tr}[\bar{H}_a H_a]$, which makes the $\sigma$ coupling leading-order and spin-symmetric; the pseudoscalar density $\bar{c} \gamma_5 c$ vanishes between ground-state states in the static limit, forcing the axion to enter through the $1/m_c$-suppressed operator $\partial_\mu a J_A^\mu$ and through axion–pion mixing. The power counting is reorganized because $m_\sigma \approx 5 \ \text{MeV} \ll m_\pi \approx 140 \ \text{MeV}$, which suppresses all $\sigma$ loops by $(m_\sigma/\Lambda_\chi)^2 \sim 10^{-5}$ while lea

What would settle it

Compute the scalar bag parameter $B_S$ for the $(\bar{s}_L b_R)(\bar{s}_L b_R)$ operator on the lattice: $B_S \approx 1$ gives $\Delta M_{\text{NP}}/\Delta M_{\text{SM}} \approx 0.5$, excluded by the measured $\sim 20\%$ allowance; $B_S \lesssim 0.4$ keeps the model alive. Independently, observing $D^{*0} \to D^0 + \text{invisible}$ at $\sim 10^{-3}$ would confirm axion–pion mixing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the charm-coupled PQ sector maps into HMChPT without creating a leading-order symmetry-breaking spurion. The scalar $\sigma$ matches to the spin-symmetric operator $\mathrm{tr}[\bar{H}_a H_a]$, so it preserves heavy-quark spin symmetry and is not excluded by any heavy-meson mass or splitting measurement; its strongest effect is a $\sim 0.5 B_S$ enhancement of $B_s$ mixing. The pseudoscalar a, by contrast, vanishes between ground-state heavy mesons in the static limit, so its direct coupling is suppressed by $1/m_c$ and its observable footprint is dominated by axion–pion mixing; that mixing produces rare decay rates ($D^{*0} \to D^0 a$ at $\sim 9\times10^{-4}$, $K^+ \to \pi^+ a$ at $\sim 4\times10^{-4}$, $B^+ \to K^+ a$ at $\sim 2\times10^{-8}$) that are ei

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that no fatal constraint emerges depends on the uncomputed scalar bag parameter $B_S$ in the $\sigma$-mediated $\Delta B = 2$ operator: if $B_S \approx 1$, the predicted $B_s$ mixing exceeds experiment by more than $2\sigma$ and the model is excluded even though every HMChPT symmetry check passes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • σ-mediated B_s–Bbar_s mixing shifts the mass difference by ≈0.5 B_S relative to the Standard Model; a lattice value B_S ≈ 1 would exceed the measured ~20% allowance, while B_S ≲ 0.4 would keep the model viable.
  • D*^0 → D^0 a is predicted at ~9×10^-4, a rate that BESIII could probe with existing ψ(3770) data.
  • K+→π+a is predicted at ~4×10^-4, but the axion’s hadronic-scattering mean free path is so short that the signature is not standard missing energy; a dedicated simulation is needed before experimental limits apply.
  • B+→K+a at ~2×10^-8 sits below current Belle II bounds but may become visible with the full 50 ab^-1 dataset.
  • Charmonium mass shifts from σ exchange are estimated at 5–15 MeV, at the edge of potential-model uncertainties and testable with improved lattice calculations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If lattice QCD returns B_S near 1, the model would be excluded by B_s mixing even though all HMChPT symmetry checks pass; the 'no fatal constraint' conclusion would then collapse on a hadronic matrix element, not on a symmetry argument.
  • The scalar/pseudoscalar dichotomy—σ at leading order and spin-symmetric, a suppressed and pion-mixed—should be generic for axion models with heavy-flavor PQ couplings, so the HMChPT machinery likely transfers to bottom-coupled or top-coupled variants.
  • The short axion mean free path in dense matter suggests SN 1987A constrains the model through axion-sphere transport rather than free-streaming cooling; a Boltzmann transport calculation could turn the supernova into a decisive probe.
  • A dedicated BESIII search for D*0 → D0 + invisible with hadronic-scatter tagging could either discover the axion or push θ_aπ below the model’s prediction; the predicted event count (~5×10^4) makes this a comparatively inexpensive test.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops an HMChPT treatment of a QCD axion model in which the PQ scalar couples only to the charm quark. It claims that the CP-even radial mode σ enters the heavy-meson Lagrangian at leading order with O(1) coupling, while the axion a enters only at O(1/m_c) and is phenomenologically controlled by axion–pion mixing with θ_aπ ≈ f_π/f_a ≈ 0.04. Using this framework, it estimates constraints from D-meson masses, D–D* splitting, charmonium, D–D scattering, B_s mixing, rare D decays, K^+→π^+a, B→Ka, and SN 1987A cooling, and concludes that no fatal HMChPT constraint emerges. The strongest constraint is reported to be σ-mediated B_s mixing, with the caveat that the scalar bag parameter B_S is unknown.

Significance. If the EFT matching were fully established, the paper would be a useful systematic statement that a charm-selective PQ coupling avoids the χPT isospin problem without introducing new leading-order symmetry violations. The manuscript is commendably explicit about several open items: B_S is not computed, SN transport is not simulated, and D–D scattering requires a coupled-channel calculation. It also provides concrete, falsifiable branching-fraction estimates for D*→Da and K^+→π^+a. However, the advertised central claim — that the model is self-consistent and that no fatal constraint exists — is not supported by the paper's own calculations once the kaon-decay constraint is treated correctly.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.5, Eqs. (4.25)–(4.28)] The paper argues that the K^+→π^+a mode with BR∼4×10^-4 evades the E787/E949/NA62 invisible limits because the axion has a hadronic mean free path λ_a∼10^-9–10^-5 cm. That λ_a is computed for supernova-core density ρ∼3×10^14 g/cm^3. At detector densities of order 1 g/cm^3, the same cross sections give λ_a∼10^5 cm or larger (using the direct pseudoscalar cross section, ∼10^8 cm). With γβ∼90 and cτ_a∼9 m, the axion escapes a detector before decaying or scattering. Thus the standard K^+→π^+invisible bound of ∼10^-10 applies and excludes the predicted 4×10^-4 rate by several orders of magnitude. This is a load-bearing error: it invalidates the abstract's claim that rates are 'slightly below current sensitivity' and undermines the overall conclusion that no fatal constraint emerges.
  2. [§4.5, Eqs. (4.25)–(4.28)] The decisive B_s-mixing constraint is imported from Ref. [12] without derivation. Equation (4.25) is first described as tree-level σ exchange, but the surrounding text then refers to a box-like loop with CKM factors and a 1/(16π^2) factor 'absorbed into the definition.' No complete operator matching is shown, so the coefficient cannot be verified. Equation (4.28) then gives ΔM_NP/ΔM_SM∼0.5B_S, and the paper concedes that B_S∼1 would be excluded at more than 2σ. Since the abstract and summary present B_s mixing as the most stringent bound and the model's most urgent test, the central conclusion is conditional on an unquantified hadronic matrix element. The manuscript should either reproduce the derivation of the ΔB=2 operator from Ref. [12], provide an estimate or lattice projection for B_S, or state prominently in the abstract and conclusions that the viability claim is contingent on B_S
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.8, Eq. (4.49)] The numerical evaluation in Eq. (4.49) appears to overestimate the direct pseudoscalar cross section by about four orders of magnitude. With g_aNN=0.5, E=30 MeV, m_N=940 MeV, the expression gives roughly 10^-12 MeV^-2, not 5×10^-8 MeV^-2. The trapping conclusion for SN cores is unaffected, but the quoted range of λ_a and the detector discussion inherit this error.
  2. [§4.6 and §4.8, Eqs. (4.35) and (4.40)] The phase-space correction for K^+→π^+a is applied in Eq. (4.40), but the analogous D^+→π^+a estimate in Eq. (4.35) is obtained without the equivalent p^3 rescaling. The treatment should be uniform.
  3. [Table 6, charmonium row] The charmonium constraint is labeled 'Marginal' based on an estimated 0.8–1.5% shift in the effective Coulomb potential. As the text acknowledges, this is an order-of-magnitude estimate with no uncertainty quantification. Since the authors do not perform a full potential-model calculation, the status 'Marginal' overstates the reliability of the constraint.
  4. [General / references] The central B_s operator and much of the parameter window are taken from the author's companion paper Ref. [12]. Given that this is a self-citation chain and the operator is load-bearing, the manuscript should quote the full expression and not leave essential ingredients in a companion paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the HMChPT constraint analysis is self-contained, but the decisive B_s-mixing bound is imported from same-author Ref. [12] and depends on the unquantified bag parameter B_S.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular. The HMChPT Lagrangian in Sec. 3 is assembled from standard HQET and chiral building blocks, and the σ and a couplings are matched from the quark-level Lagrangian via the Feynman-Hellmann relation (Eq. 3.31) and 1/m_c power counting, not fitted to the observables subsequently checked. The numerical inputs entering Table 6 (g from CLEO, λ2 from D*–D splitting, f_D/f_Ds from FLAG, etc.) are external data, and the branching-ratio estimates such as BR(K+→π+a) ≈ θ²aπ BR(K+→π+π0) are scaling relations with θaπ fixed by fa, which is itself derived from model inputs; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The one load-bearing import from same-author Ref. [12] is the model parameter window (Table 2) and the σ-mediated ΔB=2 operator in Eq. (4.25). Eq. (4.28) then yields ΔM_NP/ΔM_SM ∼ 0.5 B_S(μ), and the paper explicitly concedes that a definitive test requires a dedicated lattice calculation of B_S and that B_S∼1 would exceed the experimental bound. This is an unquantified hadronic matrix element rather than a circular reduction of the derivation to its own output: the paper's 'no fatal HMChPT constraint' claim is a symmetry statement, while the B_s constraint is a conditional phenomenological discriminator. The self-citation chain is real but minor and not definitional, so the score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The model's input masses and couplings are adopted from the same author's prior preprint; the HMChPT construction itself is standard, but the σ LO coupling and the B_s operator inherit their size from that input. That is the main ledger burden.

free parameters (3)
  • PQ scalar mass m_φ = 3–4 MeV (chosen window from Ref. [12])
    Sets m_σ=√2 m_φ, f_a, and m_a via Eqs. (2.18), (2.23)-(2.24); no independent determination is given, and all HMChPT constraints scale with it.
  • Charm Yukawa κ_c = 0.44–0.59 (adopted from Ref. [12])
    Derived from SVZ with m_φ and C in Eq. (2.17), but the current paper adopts the range from the author's prior paper; it controls g_σ and f_a.
  • Scalar bag parameter B_S = unknown (O(1) assumed in vacuum insertion)
    Central B_s-mixing ratio ΔM_NP/ΔM_SM∼0.5 B_S (Eq. 4.28); the viability verdict depends on its value, which is not computed.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption HQET/HMChPT superfield H and LO Lagrangian Eq. (3.21) are the correct low-energy description for heavy-light mesons.
    Used to match σ/a operators; standard but not machine-checked.
  • standard math Feynman-Hellmann matching ⟨H|\bar cc|H⟩=2m_H and \bar cc↔−tr[\bar H_a H_a] (Eqs. 3.31-3.35) is exact at leading order.
    Standard consequence of the heavy-quark limit, but the sign/normalization is load-bearing for g_σ.
  • ad hoc to paper The charm PQ model Eq. (2.1) and its parameter window are taken from Ref. [12].
    The entire analysis assumes this model exists; the UV completion and SM gauge representation of φ are not specified.
  • domain assumption Axion-pion mixing is governed by Eq. (3.49), θ_{aπ}≈−f_π/f_a.
    Standard for QCD axions via topological susceptibility; used for all rare-decay rates.
  • domain assumption m_σ≪m_π permits power counting with σ as a dynamical field and σ-loop suppression (m_σ/Λ_χ)^2.
    Sec. 3.5; if m_σ were not ≪m_π, loop and pole contributions would change.
  • ad hoc to paper The B_s-mixing operator Eq. (4.25) from Ref. [12] correctly captures σ-mediated ΔB=2 with only mild RG running.
    Imported from a same-author preprint; no full operator mixing calculation is shown.
invented entities (2)
  • Radial mode σ (CP-even scalar, m_σ≈5 MeV) independent evidence
    purpose: CP-even partner of the charm-coupled PQ scalar; couples as g_σ \bar cc with O(0.3) and drives B_s mixing, charmonium shifts, and D-D effects.
    Predicts ΔM_Bs^NP≈0.5 B_S, charmonium shifts of 5-15 MeV, and D-D potential comparable to OPE; falsifiable but not yet measured.
  • Axion a (CP-odd pseudoscalar, m_a≈2-3 MeV) independent evidence
    purpose: QCD axion from charm-only PQ coupling; dominant phenomenology via a-π mixing θ≈0.04.
    Predicts BR(D*→Da)~9e-4, BR(K→πa)~4e-4, long decay length but strong hadronic scattering; testable at BESIII/NA62.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Heavy meson chiral perturbation theory constraints on a charm-coupled GeV-scale QCD axion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PTS325JT

@misc{pith2026260717277,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Heavy meson chiral perturbation theory constraints on a charm-coupled GeV-scale QCD axion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PTS325JT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.17277}
}
abstract

The QCD axion with charm-only Peccei-Quinn coupling evades the isospin-violation problem of light-quark models in $\chi$PT. Since $m_c>\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$, we employ heavy meson chiral perturbation theory (HMChPT) to constrain this GeV-scale axion, including its CP-even radial partner $\sigma$ and the axion $a$. In HMChPT, $\sigma$ enters at leading order with $O(1)$ coupling, while $a$ couples only at $O(1/m_c)$ and manifests via axion-pion mixing with $\theta_{a\pi}\simeq f_\pi/f_a\sim0.04$. We analyze $D$-meson masses, $D$-$D^*$ splitting, charmonium, $D$-$D$ scattering, $B_s$ mixing, rare $D$ decays, and the channels $K^+\to\pi^+a$, $B\to K a$. No fatal HMChPT constraint emerges, unlike the $\chi$PT isospin issue. The strongest bound is from $\sigma$-mediated $B_s$-$\bar B_s$ mixing; axion-pion mixing opens testable rare decays, though rates are slightly below current sensitivity.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 24 linked inside Pith

  1. [12]

    Lu,Naturally quality-safe GeV axion with charm coupling,2607.12956

    B.-Q. Lu,Naturally quality-safe GeV axion with charm coupling,2607.12956

    arXiv

  2. [1]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn,CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons,Phys. Rev. Lett. 38(1977) 1440–1443

    1977

  3. [2]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn,Constraints Imposed by CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons,Phys. Rev. D16(1977) 1791–1797

    1977

  4. [3]

    Weinberg,A New Light Boson?,Phys

    S. Weinberg,A New Light Boson?,Phys. Rev. Lett.40(1978) 223–226

    1978

  5. [4]

    Wilczek,Problem of StrongPandTInvariance in the Presence of Instantons,Phys

    F. Wilczek,Problem of StrongPandTInvariance in the Presence of Instantons,Phys. Rev. Lett.40(1978) 279–282

    1978

  6. [5]

    J. E. Kim,Weak Interaction Singlet and Strong CP Invariance,Phys. Rev. Lett.43(1979) 103

    1979

  7. [6]

    M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, and V. I. Zakharov,Can Confinement Ensure Natural CP Invariance of Strong Interactions?,Nucl. Phys. B166(1980) 493–506

    1980

  8. [7]

    A. R. Zhitnitsky,On Possible Suppression of the Axion Hadron Interactions,Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.31(1980) 260. [Yad. Fiz. 31, 497 (1980)]

    1980

Show all 56 references
  1. [8]

    M. Dine, W. Fischler, and M. Srednicki,A Simple Solution to the Strong CP Problem with a Harmless Axion,Phys. Lett. B104(1981) 199–202

    1981

  2. [9]

    L. F. Abbott and P. Sikivie,A Cosmological Bound on the Invisible Axion,Phys. Lett. B120 (1983) 133–136

    1983

  3. [10]

    Dine and W

    M. Dine and W. Fischler,The Not So Harmless Axion,Phys. Lett. B120(1983) 137–141

    1983

  4. [11]

    Preskill, M

    J. Preskill, M. B. Wise, and F. Wilczek,Cosmology of the Invisible Axion,Phys. Lett. B120 (1983) 127–132

    1983

  5. [13]

    M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, and V. I. Zakharov,QCD and Resonance Physics. Theoretical Foundations,Nucl. Phys. B147(1979) 385–447

    1979

  6. [14]

    Murayama,GeV-scale QCD Axion,arXiv(2026) [2601.02465]

    H. Murayama,GeV-scale QCD Axion,arXiv(2026) [2601.02465]

    2026

  7. [15]

    Di Luzio, M

    L. Di Luzio, M. Redi, A. Strumia, A. Tesi, and A. V. Titov,The too visible QCD axion,JHEP 06(2026) 151, [2602.10057]

    2026 arXiv

  8. [16]

    M. B. Wise,Chiral perturbation theory for hadrons containing a heavy quark,Phys. Rev. D45 (1992) R2188

    1992

  9. [17]

    Burdman and J

    G. Burdman and J. F. Donoghue,Union of chiral and heavy quark symmetries,Phys. Lett. B 280(1992) 287–291

    1992

  10. [18]

    Yan, H.-Y

    T.-M. Yan, H.-Y. Cheng, C.-Y. Cheung, G.-L. Lin, Y. C. Lin, and H.-L. Yu,Heavy quark symmetry and chiral dynamics,Phys. Rev. D46(1992) 1148–1164. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 55, 5851 (1997)]. – 40 –

    1992

  11. [19]

    Isgur and M

    N. Isgur and M. B. Wise,Weak Decays of Heavy Mesons in the Static Quark Approximation, Phys. Lett. B232(1989) 113–117

    1989

  12. [20]

    Isgur and M

    N. Isgur and M. B. Wise,Weak Transition Form-factors Between Heavy Mesons,Phys. Lett. B 237(1990) 527–530

    1990

  13. [21]

    Eichten and B

    E. Eichten and B. Hill,An Effective Field Theory for the Calculation of Matrix Elements Involving Heavy Quarks,Phys. Lett. B234(1990) 511–516

    1990

  14. [22]

    Georgi,An Effective Field Theory for Heavy Quarks at Low-energies,Phys

    H. Georgi,An Effective Field Theory for Heavy Quarks at Low-energies,Phys. Lett. B240 (1990) 447–450

    1990

  15. [23]

    Gasser and H

    J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler,Chiral Perturbation Theory to One Loop,Annals Phys.158(1984) 142

    1984

  16. [24]

    Gasser and H

    J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler,Chiral Perturbation Theory: Expansions in the Mass of the Strange Quark,Nucl. Phys. B250(1985) 465–516

    1985

  17. [25]

    Georgi, D

    H. Georgi, D. B. Kaplan, and L. Randall,Manifesting the Invisible Axion at Low-energies, Phys. Lett. B169(1986) 73–78

    1986

  18. [26]

    W. A. Bardeen, R. D. Peccei, and T. Yanagida,Constraints on Variant Axion Models,Nucl. Phys. B279(1987) 401–428

    1987

  19. [27]

    Narison,Gluon condensates and c, b quark masses from quarkonia ratios of moments,Phys

    S. Narison,Gluon condensates and c, b quark masses from quarkonia ratios of moments,Phys. Lett. B693(2010) 559–566, [1004.5333]. [28]Particle Data GroupCollaboration, R. L. Workmanet al.,Review of Particle Physics, PTEP2022(2022) 083C01

    2010 arXiv

  20. [29]

    Grilli di Cortona, E

    G. Grilli di Cortona, E. Hardy, J. Pardo Vega, and G. Villadoro,The QCD axion, precisely, JHEP01(2016) 034, [1511.02867]

    2016 arXiv

  21. [30]

    Neubert,Heavy quark symmetry,Phys

    M. Neubert,Heavy quark symmetry,Phys. Rept.245(1994) 259–396, [hep-ph/9306320]

    1994 arXiv

  22. [31]

    A. F. Falk and M. E. Luke,Strong decays of excited heavy mesons in chiral perturbation theory, Phys. Lett. B292(1992) 119–127, [hep-ph/9206241]

    1992 arXiv

  23. [32]

    Casalbuoni, A

    R. Casalbuoni, A. Deandrea, N. Di Bartolomeo, R. Gatto, F. Feruglio, and G. Nardulli, Phenomenology of heavy meson chiral Lagrangians,Phys. Rept.281(1997) 145–238, [hep-ph/9605342]. [33]CLEOCollaboration, S. Ahmedet al.,First measurement of Gamma(D*+),Phys. Rev. Lett. 87(2001)...

    1997 arXiv

  24. [34]

    Formalism and meson form-factors,Phys. Rev. D47(1993) 2965–2981, [hep-ph/9209268]

    1993 arXiv

  25. [35]

    Becirevic and F

    D. Becirevic and F. Sanfilippo,Theoretical estimate of theD ∗ →Dπdecay rate,Phys. Lett. B 721(2013) 94–99, [1210.5410]

    2013 arXiv

  26. [36]

    A. F. Falk and M. Neubert,Second order power corrections in the heavy quark effective theory

  27. [37]

    M. E. Luke and A. V. Manohar,Reparametrization invariance constraints on heavy particle effective field theories,Phys. Lett. B286(1992) 348–354, [hep-ph/9205228]. – 41 – [38]Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG)Collaboration, Y. Aokiet al.,FLAG Review 2021,Eur. Phys. J. C82(2...

    1992 arXiv

  28. [39]

    R. P. Feynman,Forces in Molecules,Phys. Rev.56(1939) 340–343

    1939

  29. [40]

    Urech,Virtual photons in chiral perturbation theory,Nucl

    R. Urech,Virtual photons in chiral perturbation theory,Nucl. Phys. B433(1995) 234–254, [hep-ph/9405341]

    1995 arXiv

  30. [41]

    Knecht and R

    M. Knecht and R. Urech,Virtual photons in low-energyπ-πscattering,Nucl. Phys. B519 (1998) 329–360, [hep-ph/9709348]. [42]BESIIICollaboration, M. Ablikimet al.,Precision measurement of theD ∗0 decay branching fractions,Phys. Rev. D91(2015), no. 3 031101, [1412.4566]

    1998 arXiv

  31. [43]

    Eichten, K

    E. Eichten, K. Gottfried, T. Kinoshita, K. D. Lane, and T.-M. Yan,Charmonium: The Model, Phys. Rev. D17(1978) 3090. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 21, 313 (1980)]

    1978

  32. [44]

    Eichten, K

    E. Eichten, K. Gottfried, T. Kinoshita, K. D. Lane, and T.-M. Yan,Charmonium: Comparison with Experiment,Phys. Rev. D21(1980) 203

    1980

  33. [45]

    Godfrey and N

    S. Godfrey and N. Isgur,Mesons in a Relativized Quark Model with Chromodynamics,Phys. Rev. D32(1985) 189–231. [46]HPQCDCollaboration, B. Chakraborty, C. T. H. Davies, B. Galloway, P. Knecht, J. Koponen, G. C. Donald, R. J. Dowdall, G. P. Lepage, and C. McNeile,High-precision q...

    1985 arXiv

  34. [47]

    R. A. Brice˜ noet al.,Issues and Opportunities in Exotic Hadrons,Chin. Phys. C40(2016), no. 4 042001, [1511.06779]

    2016 arXiv

  35. [48]

    G. T. Bodwin, E. Braaten, and G. P. Lepage,Rigorous QCD analysis of inclusive annihilation and production of heavy quarkonium,Phys. Rev. D51(1995) 1125–1171, [hep-ph/9407339]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 55, 5853 (1997)]

    1995 arXiv

  36. [49]

    Brambilla, A

    N. Brambilla, A. Pineda, J. Soto, and A. Vairo,Effective-field theories for heavy quarkonium, Rev. Mod. Phys.77(2005) 1423, [hep-ph/0410047]

    2005 arXiv

  37. [50]

    N. A. T¨ ornqvist,Isospin breaking of the narrow charmonium state of Belle at 3872 MeV as a deuson,Phys. Lett. B590(2004) 209–215, [hep-ph/0402237]

    2004 arXiv

  38. [51]

    E. S. Swanson,Short range structure in the X(3872),Phys. Lett. B588(2004) 189–195, [hep-ph/0311229]

    2004 arXiv

  39. [52]

    Liu, Z.-G

    X. Liu, Z.-G. Luo, Y.-R. Liu, and S.-L. Zhu,X(3872) and Other Possible Heavy Molecular States,Eur. Phys. J. C61(2009) 411–428, [0808.0073]

    2009 arXiv

  40. [53]

    F.-K. Guo, C. Hanhart, U.-G. Meißner, Q. Wang, Q. Zhao, and B.-S. Zou,Hadronic molecules, Rev. Mod. Phys.90(2018), no. 1 015004, [1705.00141]. [54]LHCbCollaboration, R. Aaijet al.,Precision measurement of theB 0 s - ¯B0 s oscillation frequency with the decayB 0 s →D − s π+,New...

    2018 arXiv

  41. [64]

    G. G. Raffelt,Stars as laboratories for fundamental physics. University of Chicago Press, 1996

    1996

  42. [65]

    G. G. Raffelt,Astrophysical axion bounds,Lect. Notes Phys.741(2008) 51–71, [hep-ph/0611350]

    2008 arXiv

  43. [66]

    Burrows, M

    A. Burrows, M. S. Turner, and R. P. Brinkmann,Axions and SN 1987A,Phys. Rev. D39 (1989) 1020

    1989

  44. [67]

    Keil, H.-T

    W. Keil, H.-T. Janka, D. N. Schramm, G. Sigl, M. S. Turner, and J. R. Ellis,A Fresh look at axions and SN-1987A,Phys. Rev. D56(1997) 2419–2432, [astro-ph/9612222]

    1997 arXiv

  45. [68]

    R. P. Brinkmann and M. S. Turner,Numerical Rates for Nucleon-Nucleon Axion Bremsstrahlung,Phys. Rev. D38(1988) 2338

    1988

  46. [69]

    J. H. Chang, R. Essig, and S. D. McDermott,Supernova 1987A Constraints on Sub-GeV Dark Sectors, Millicharged Particles, the QCD Axion, and an Axion-like Particle,JHEP09(2018) 051, [1803.00993]

    2018 arXiv

  47. [70]

    Weinberg,Pion Scattering Lengths,Phys

    S. Weinberg,Pion Scattering Lengths,Phys. Rev. Lett.17(1966) 616–619

    1966

  48. [71]

    Colangelo, J

    G. Colangelo, J. Gasser, and H. Leutwyler,ππscattering,Nucl. Phys. B603(2001) 125–148, [hep-ph/0103088]. [72]NA48/2Collaboration, J. R. Batleyet al.,Determination of theS-waveππscattering lengths from a study ofK ± →π ±π0π0 decays,Eur. Phys. J. C64(2009) 589–608, [0912.2165]. ...

    2001 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.