Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Radiative Transitions for the Ground and Excited Charmonia States

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a light-front quark model with oscillator wave functions fitted only to meson masses predicts E1 radiative decay widths of $\chi_{c0}(1P)\to J/\psi\gamma$ = 110.1 keV, $\psi(2S)\to\chi_{c0}\gamma$ = 25.3 keV…

desk verdict A plausible LFQM charmonium calculation with one new prediction, but the 2S wave function is under-specified by an undefined delta, so two headline widths aren't reproducible as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.14864 v1 pith:XFJ24PF6 submitted 2025-04-21 hep-ph

Anurag Yadav , Satyajit Puhan , Harleen Dahiya This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords charmoniumradiativetransitionsE1transitionlight-frontquarkmodelformfactordecaywidthbranchingratioradiallyexcitedcharmonia
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 uses the light-front quark model to compute the electric-dipole (E1) radiative transitions among charmonium states, starting from a single harmonic-oscillator wave function per meson whose scale parameter is fixed by each meson's mass. It predicts four decay widths: $\chi_{c0}(1P)\to J/\psi\gamma$ at 110.1 keV, $\psi(2S)\to\chi_{c0}(1P)+\gamma$ at 25.3 keV, $h_c(1P)\to\eta_c(1S)+\gamma$ at 497.1 keV, and $\eta_c(2S)\to h_c(1P)+\gamma$ at 44.8 keV. The corresponding branching ratios are 1.02%, 8.63%, 63.7%, and 0.37%, which the authors argue agree with world-average, lattice, and other model results. A reader should care because the calculation turns two input parameters (charm-quark mass and a wave-function scale) into several observable rates, and it singles out $h_c(1P)\to\eta_c(1S)\gamma$ as overwhelmingly dominant among these modes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the light-front quark-model wave function $\phi_{nS(nP)}(x,k_\perp)$, a harmonic-oscillator-type radial function in the longitudinal momentum fraction $x$ and transverse momentum $k_\perp$, with a scale parameter $\beta$ fitted to each meson mass by the variational principle. The transition form factor is defined through the covariant matrix element $\langle S(P')|J^\mu_{\rm em}|V(P,h)\rangle = i e\,\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}\epsilon_\nu(P,h) Q_\rho P_\sigma E_1(Q^2)$, evaluated with the plus component of the current in the $Q^+=0$ frame to avoid zero-mode contributions; the spacelike form factor is continued to the timelike region by $Q_\perp\to i Q_\perp$. The radiative width then follows from $\Gamma(V\to S\gamma)=\alpha\,G^2 K_\gamma^3/(2j+1)$ with $G=E_1(0)$ and $K_\gamma=(M_V^2-M_S^2)/M_V$ the photon energy. This machinery converts wave-function overlap integrals into concrete decay rates.

What would settle it

A lattice QCD calculation of $E_1(Q^2)$ for $h_c(1P)\to\eta_c(1S)\gamma$ extending to $Q^2=0$ would settle the endpoint prediction of about 3.63 versus the 3.2-3.4 range from existing data; alternatively, a precision measurement of the $\eta_c(2S)\to h_c(1P)\gamma$ width would test the 44.8 keV prediction against the 26-52 keV spread of other models.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a covariant light-front quark model with harmonic-oscillator radial wave functions reproduces the E1 radiative physics of ground and radially excited charmonia. Concretely, the paper derives $E_1(Q^2)$ transition form factors for $h_c(1P)\to\eta_c(1S)\gamma$ and $\psi(2S)\to\chi_{c0}(1P)\gamma$, shows they track lattice and other light-front results over the available $Q^2$ range, and at $Q^2=0$ obtains values 3.63 and 1.32 for these two transitions. From those form factors it obtains the four widths above, and it reports that the branching fraction of $h_c(1P)\to\eta_c(1S)\gamma$ is about 63.7%, indicating that this electric-dipole channel dominates the total width of the $h_c(1P)$. The paper also notes that the ratio $E_1(Q^2_{\max})/G$ is close to 1 for the two transitions studied, so recoil corrections in these heavy-quark radiative decays are small.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that each meson is described by a harmonic-oscillator wave function whose single scale $\beta$ is fixed by the meson mass alone, not by any radiative observable, and that this remains accurate for radially excited 2S states even though the 2S wave function contains an unspecified parameter $\delta$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the calculation is right, $h_c(1P)$ decays to $\eta_c(1S)\gamma$ with roughly a 64% branching fraction, making that E1 channel the dominant measured decay of the $h_c(1P)$.
  • The predicted $\psi(2S)\to\chi_{c0}(1P)\gamma$ width of 25.3 keV and branching ratio of 8.63% sit close to established values, so the same wave functions are consistent for a 2S-to-1P transition.
  • For $\chi_{c0}(1P)\to J/\psi\gamma$, the predicted 110.1 keV lies between the reported 27 keV and 216 keV experimental extremes and below the 151 keV average, supporting an intermediate value in that debated range.
  • The near-unity ratio $E_1(Q^2_{\max})/G$ means the transition form factor barely changes from the real-photon point to the kinematic endpoint for these heavy-quark decays, so the zero-recoil approximation is reliable.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extending the same machinery to M1 transitions would produce a prediction for $\psi(2S)\to\eta_c(1S)\gamma$; the paper does not compute it, but the framework is directly reusable.
  • The form-factor comparison suggests a clean lattice test: an independent $E_1(0)$ value for $h_c(1P)\to\eta_c(1S)\gamma$ near 3.6 would validate the oscillator calibration, while a value near 3.2 would not.
  • Because the 2S wave function in Eq. (9) includes an unspecified constant $\delta$, the $\psi(2S)$ and $\eta_c(2S)$ predictions cannot be reproduced from the paper alone; fixing $\delta$ from another observable would remove that ambiguity.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript applies the light-front quark model (LFQM) with harmonic-oscillator-type 1S, 2S, and 1P radial wave functions to compute decay constants, E1 transition form factors, radiative decay widths, and branching ratios for four charmonium transitions: chi_c0(1P)->J/psi(1S)+gamma, psi(2S)->chi_c0(1P)+gamma, h_c(1P)->eta_c(1S)+gamma, and eta_c(2S)->h_c(1P)+gamma. The beta parameters are fitted to meson masses through a variational principle, and the central quantitative outputs are widths of 110.1, 25.3, 497.1, and 44.8 keV, with branching ratios 1.02%, 8.63%, 63.7%, and 0.37%, respectively. The paper claims that these results are in overall good agreement with PDG, CLEO/BESIII, lattice, and BLFQ data, and it also presents TFF curves for two of the transitions.

Significance. If the results are robust, the paper is a useful LFQM-based estimate of radiative transitions involving radially excited charmonia, particularly h_c(1P)->eta_c(1S)+gamma and eta_c(2S)->h_c(1P)+gamma, for which direct experimental data are scarce and BESIII/Belle II measurements are anticipated. The paper collects an extensive comparison table against experimental, lattice, and quark-model results, and the TFF plots provide a concrete point of comparison for future lattice calculations. The central convolution formula for the E1 form factor is standard, and the numerical machinery is plausible. However, the predictive power is reduced by the per-state beta fits and by an undefined parameter delta in the 2S wave function, and the absence of uncertainties makes the claimed 'good agreement' difficult to assess quantitatively.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II.A, Eq. (9), Table I, Eq. (11)] The 2S radial wave function in Eq. (9) contains a parameter delta that is not defined anywhere in the text and has no entry in Table I. Because phi_2S enters the normalization condition (Eq. (11)), the decay constants in Eqs. (16)-(17), the overlap integral I(m_q, m_qbar, Q^2) in Eq. (23), and through Eq. (24) the widths for psi(2S)->chi_c0+gamma and eta_c(2S)->h_c+gamma, two of the four headline predictions cannot be independently checked. Please provide the value and source of delta (or demonstrate that the quoted results do not depend on it) and verify explicitly that the 2S wave functions satisfy Eq. (11).
  2. [Sec. III, Tables III-IV, Eq. (26)] The branching ratios in Table IV are computed from Eq. (26), but the paper never states which total widths Gamma_total are used. For instance, the chi_c0 row (110.1 keV and 1.02%) implies Gamma_total of about 10.8 MeV, while the psi(2S) row (25.3 keV and 8.63%) implies about 293 keV; the h_c and eta_c(2S) rows depend similarly on unstated normalization widths. Since the reported agreement with PDG branching ratios depends on this choice, the authors should explicitly list the adopted total widths and their experimental or theoretical sources.
  3. [Tables II-IV and Sec. III] No uncertainties or sensitivity estimates are given for any decay constant, TFF, width, or branching ratio. This matters because four separate beta parameters are fitted and the 2S wave function contains an unconstrained parameter delta; a sensitivity analysis (varying beta over the range consistent with the mass fit, and delta if it is retained) is needed to support the central claim of overall good agreement with experiment and lattice data.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III, first paragraph] The text says the input parameters are 'presented in Table II', but Table II lists decay constants; the input parameters are given in Table I.
  2. [Sec. I] The sentence about chi_c0(1P)->J/psi+gamma states that 'there is consensus regarding the decay width of PDG, CLEO and BESIII value' and immediately refers to 'This discrepancy'; the sentence is self-contradictory and should be rephrased.
  3. [Eqs. (8)-(10)] The typesetting of the prefactors in Eqs. (8)-(10) is ambiguous (for example, the exponent in Eq. (8) appears as '! 3 4'); a cleaner typesetting and explicit definitions of dk_z/dx inside the wave functions would improve readability.
  4. [Sec. III] The statement that 'we require only two input parameters' is misleading because Table I contains one charm mass and four separate beta values; please reword to make the per-state nature of the beta parameters clear.
  5. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption of Fig. 3(a) refers to a 'shaded green region' for BLFQ, but the legend and text do not make this band easy to identify; please ensure the BLFQ band is clearly visible and labeled in the figure itself.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the radiative observables are genuine overlap outputs of the LFQM wave functions, and the beta parameters are fitted to meson masses, not to the radiative data; the undefined δ in Eq. (9) is a reproducibility defect, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: choose a charm quark mass and per-meson harmonic-oscillator scale parameters β (Table I), which are obtained by fitting to meson masses through the variational principle following Refs. [32,33]; construct 1S, 2S, and 1P light-front wave functions (Eqs. 8-10); compute decay constants (Eqs. 16-17), transition form factors (Eqs. 22-23), decay widths (Eq. 24), and branching ratios (Eq. 26). None of the headline observables—decay constants, E1(0) values, or widths—are used as inputs or fitted targets. The β parameters are calibrated to masses, not to any radiative observable, so the χc0→J/ψγ, ψ(2S)→χc0γ, hc→ηcγ, and ηc(2S)→hcγ predictions are not forced by construction. The cited self-references [17-19] are methodological; the variational β values are attributed to Refs. [32,33], which are not the present authors' own load-bearing uniqueness claims. Branching ratios do use external total widths implicitly through Eq. (26), making them partially hybrid, but that is a standard comparison procedure rather than a circular reduction. The main verifiability caveat is Eq. (9): the 2S wave function contains an unexplained parameter δ, and Table I lists no value for it, so the ψ(2S) and ηc(2S) decay constants, TFFs, and the corresponding widths are not independently reproducible from the printed paper. This is a missing-input/transparency defect, not an equivalence between prediction and input; therefore it does not raise the circularity score beyond the low range.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on four per-meson beta parameters and a charm mass fitted to the spectrum, plus the LFQM wave-function ansatz from prior work. No new entities are introduced. The branching ratios additionally depend on unstated external total widths.

free parameters (5)
  • charm quark mass m_c = 1.4 GeV
    Fitted to meson masses through the variational principle (Table I); used in all wave functions and kinematics.
  • beta_chi_c0(1P) = 0.700 GeV
    Harmonic scale parameter for chi_c0(1P), fitted to its mass (Table I).
  • beta_eta_c(2S) = 0.301 GeV
    Fitted to eta_c(2S) mass (Table I).
  • beta_h_c(1P) = 0.536 GeV
    Fitted to h_c(1P) mass (Table I).
  • beta_psi(2S) = 0.566 GeV
    Fitted to psi(2S) mass (Table I).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The LFQM valence Fock-state truncation is sufficient for these radiative transitions; higher Fock states and confinement are negligible.
    The authors state in the Introduction that LFQM does not account for confinement and increased Fock-state contributions, yet the calculation relies on the minimal quark-antiquark Fock state.
  • ad hoc to paper The radial wave functions for 1S, 2S, and 1P states have the harmonic-oscillator forms in Eqs. (8)-(10).
    These forms are taken from prior literature (Refs. [14,27,28]) and are not derived in this paper; they determine the transition form factors.
  • domain assumption The analytic continuation Q_perp -> i Q_perp connects the spacelike TFF to the timelike region.
    Used to extract the real-photon coupling at Q^2=0 without detailed justification; standard in the LFQM literature (Ref. [33]).
  • domain assumption PDG masses are used as kinematic inputs for the initial and final meson states.
    The text says 'These masses have been taken from the PDG data' in Section II.C.
  • domain assumption Branching ratios are computed using total widths taken from external data (presumably PDG).
    The paper does not state this explicitly, but Table IV compares branching ratios to PDG and no model total widths are reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Radiative Transitions for the Ground and Excited Charmonia States." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XFJ24PF6

@misc{pith2026250414864,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Radiative Transitions for the Ground and Excited Charmonia States},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XFJ24PF6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.14864}
}
abstract

In this work, we have investigated the physical properties like decay constants, radiative transitions, decay widths, and branching ratios for the ground and radially excited charmonia states. For the numerical calculations, we have adopted the light-front quark model (LFQM). We have studied $\chi_{c0}\rightarrow J{/}\psi+\gamma $ and $\psi(2S)\rightarrow\chi_{c0}+\gamma$, $h_c(1P)\rightarrow\eta_c(1S)+\gamma $, and $\eta_c(2S)\rightarrow h_c(1P)+\gamma $ transitions in this work. We have also demonstrated the behavior of the transition form factors (TFFs) for the $h_c(1P)\rightarrow\eta_c(1S)+\gamma $ and $\psi(2S)\rightarrow\chi_{c0}+\gamma$ decays in this model. Using the TFFs results, we have calculated the decay widths and branching ratios for these transitions. Our numerical results of decay constants, decay widths, and branching ratios are overall in good agreement with available experimental, theoretical and lattice simulation data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.14864 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Lowest order Feynman diagram of Vector to pseudo-scalar charmonia. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: (Color online) The radially excited [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: (Color online) The transition form factors plotted with respect to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Electron-Ion Collision Environment: Distribution of Quark Spin and Orbital Angular Momentum

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Using NJL density-dependent quark masses in a light-front dressed-quark model, the paper predicts O(10–40%) medium modifications of GTMDs linked to quark OAM, spin, and spin–orbit correlation, and defines eA/eP GTMD r...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    S. J. Brodsky et al., Quantum chromodynamics and other field theories on the light cone, Phys. Rept. 301, 299 (1998)

    work page 1998

  2. [2]

    Zhang, A Weak coupling treatment of nonperturbative QCD dynamics to heavy hadrons, Phys

    W.-M. Zhang, A Weak coupling treatment of nonperturbative QCD dynamics to heavy hadrons, Phys. Rev. D 56, 1528 (1997)

    work page 1997

  3. [3]

    J. J. Aubert et al., Experimental observation of a heavy particle j, Phys. Rev. Lett. 33, 1404 (1974). 14

    work page 1974

  4. [4]

    J. E. Augustin et al., Discovery of a narrow resonance in e+e− annihilation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 33, 1406 (1974)

    work page 1974

  5. [5]

    Novikov et al., Charmonium and gluons, Physics Reports 41, 1 (1978)

    V . Novikov et al., Charmonium and gluons, Physics Reports 41, 1 (1978)

    work page 1978

  6. [6]

    S. K. Choi et al. (Belle), Observation of a narrow charmonium-like state in exclusive B± → K±π+π−J/ψ decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 262001 (2003)

    work page 2003

  7. [7]

    Aubert et al

    B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), The BaBar detector, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 479, 1 (2002)

    work page 2002

  8. [8]

    Abashian et al

    A. Abashian et al. (Belle), The Belle Detector, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 479, 117 (2002)

    work page 2002

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    A. J. Bevan et al. (BaBar, Belle), The Physics of the B Factories, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 3026 (2014)

    2014

  2. [10]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BES), First observation of the M1 transition ψ(3686)→γηc(2S ), Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 042003 (2012)

    2012

  3. [11]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BES), Measurement of psi(2S) radiative decays, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 011802 (2007)

    2007

  4. [12]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Study of Open-Charm Decays and Radiative Transitions of the X(3872), Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 242001 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    M. B. V oloshin, Charmonium, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 61, 455 (2008)

    2008

  6. [14]

    Cheng, C.-K

    H.-Y . Cheng, C.-K. Chua, and C.-W. Hwang, Covariant light front approach for s wave and p wave mesons: Its application to decay constants and form-factors, Phys. Rev. D 69, 074025 (2004)

    2004

  7. [15]

    Cheng, C.-Y

    H.-Y . Cheng, C.-Y . Cheung, and C.-W. Hwang, Mesonic form factors and the isgur-wise function on the light front, Physical Review D 55, 1559 (1997)

    1997

  8. [16]

    M. V . Terentev, On the Structure of Wave Functions of Mesons as Bound States of Relativistic Quarks, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 24, 106 (1976)

    1976

  9. [17]

    Puhan and H

    S. Puhan and H. Dahiya, Leading twist T-even TMDs for the spin-1 heavy vector mesons, Phys. Rev. D 109, 034005 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Acharyya, S

    R. Acharyya, S. Puhan, and H. Dahiya, Quark spin-orbit correlations in spin-0 and spin-1 mesons using the light-front quark model, Phys. Rev. D 110, 034020 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Acharyya, S

    R. Acharyya, S. Puhan, H. Dahiya, and N. Kumar, Spectroscopy of excited quarkonium states in the light-front quark model*, Chin. Phys. C 49, 023104 (2025)

    2025

  12. [20]

    This discrepancy in the values of decay width requires a theoretical investigation of this transition for a more detailed understanding

    , CLEO data [21] and measured BESIII value [22]. This discrepancy in the values of decay width requires a theoretical investigation of this transition for a more detailed understanding. For ψ(2S )→χc0(1P) +γ and hc(1P)→ηc(1S ) +γ, where there is no experimental data available ...

  13. [21]

    N. E. Adam et al. (CLEO), Branching fractions for psi(2S) to J /psi transitions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 232002 (2005)

    2005

  14. [22]

    Similarly, for theψ(2S )→χc0(1P) transition, the decay width is found to be 25.3 KeV

    data. Similarly, for theψ(2S )→χc0(1P) transition, the decay width is found to be 25.3 KeV . This value is in good agreement with different experimental data and theoretical model predictions which is clearly evident from the table. When compared to the other decays, the hc(1P...

  15. [23]

    R. L. Workman et al. (Particle Data Group), Review of Particle Physics, PTEP 2022, 083C01 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Branching fraction measurements of ψ(3686)→ γχcJ, Phys. Rev. D 96, 032001 (2017). 15

    2017

  17. [25]

    Choi and C.-R

    H.-M. Choi and C.-R. Ji, Light front quark model analysis of exclusive 0- — > 0- semileptonic heavy meson decays, Phys. Lett. B 460, 461 (1999)

    1999

  18. [26]

    Dhiman, H

    N. Dhiman, H. Dahiya, C.-R. Ji, and H.-M. Choi, Twist-2 Pseudoscalar and Vector Meson Distribution Amplitudes in Light-Front Quark Model with Exponential-type Confining Potential, Phys. Rev. D100, 014026 (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    Dhiman and H

    N. Dhiman and H. Dahiya, Decay constants of pseudoscalar and vector B and D mesons in the light- cone quark model, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 133, 134 (2018)

    2018

  20. [28]

    A. J. Arifi, H.-M. Choi, C.-R. ji, and Y . Oh, Mixing e ffects on 1S and 2S state heavy mesons in the light-front quark model, Phys. Rev. D 106, 014009 (2022)

    2022

  21. [29]

    Hwang, Study of quark distribution amplitudes of 1S and 2S heavy quarkonium states, Eur

    C.-W. Hwang, Study of quark distribution amplitudes of 1S and 2S heavy quarkonium states, Eur. Phys. J. C 62, 499 (2009)

    2009

  22. [30]

    Ke, X.-Q

    H.-W. Ke, X.-Q. Li, Z.-T. Wei, and X. Liu, Re-Study on the wave functions of Υ(nS ) states in LFQM and the radiative decays of Υ(nS )→ηb +γ, Phys. Rev. D 82, 034023 (2010)

    2010

  23. [31]

    Choi and C.-R

    H.-M. Choi and C.-R. Ji, Distribution amplitudes and decay constants for (pi, K, rho, K*) mesons in light-front quark model, Phys. Rev. D 75, 034019 (2007)

    2007

  24. [32]

    Ahmady, C

    M. Ahmady, C. Mondal, and R. Sandapen, Dynamical spin effects in the holographic light-front wave- functions of light pseudoscalar mesons, Phys. Rev. D 98, 034010 (2018)

    2018

  25. [33]

    Choi and C.-R

    H.-M. Choi and C.-R. Ji, Self-consistent covariant description of vector meson decay constants and chirality-even quark-antiquark distribution amplitudes up to twist-3 in the light-front quark model, Phys. Rev. D 89, 033011 (2014)

    2014

  26. [34]

    , Covariant light-front approach for Bc decays into charmonium: implications on form factors and branching ratios, Eur

    Zhang et al. , Covariant light-front approach for Bc decays into charmonium: implications on form factors and branching ratios, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 477 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    Choi, Decay constants and radiative decays of heavy mesons in light-front quark model, Phys

    H.-M. Choi, Decay constants and radiative decays of heavy mesons in light-front quark model, Phys. Rev. D 75, 073016 (2007)

    2007

  28. [36]

    P. A. Zyla et al. (Particle Data Group), Review of Particle Physics, PTEP 2020, 083C01 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    , CP violation in non-leptonic Bc decays to excited final states, Eur

    Zhou et al. , CP violation in non-leptonic Bc decays to excited final states, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 339 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    Wang, Analysis of the heavy quarkonium states hc and hb with QCD sum rules, Eur

    Z.-G. Wang, Analysis of the heavy quarkonium states hc and hb with QCD sum rules, Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2533 (2013)

    2013

  31. [39]

    Y . Li, P. Maris, and J. P. Vary, Quarkonium as a relativistic bound state on the light front, Phys. Rev. D 96, 016022 (2017). 16

    2017

  32. [40]

    M. Li, Y . Li, G. Chen, T. Lappi, and J. P. Vary, Light-front wavefunctions of mesons by design, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 1045 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    Choi and C.-R

    H.-M. Choi and C.-R. Ji, Light-front zero-mode issue for the transition form factors between pseu- doscalar and vector mesons, Few-Body Systems 52, 409 (2012)

    2012

  34. [42]

    Chen et al., Radiative transitions in charmonium fromN f = 2 twisted mass lattice QCD, Phys

    Y . Chen et al., Radiative transitions in charmonium fromN f = 2 twisted mass lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 84, 034503 (2011)

    2011

  35. [43]

    J. J. Dudek, R. Edwards, and C. E. Thomas, Exotic and excited-state radiative transitions in charmo- nium from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 79, 094504 (2009)

    2009

  36. [44]

    Z. Wang, M. Li, Y . Li, and J. P. Vary, Shedding light on charmonium, Phys. Rev. D 109, L031902 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Study of the hc(11P1) meson via ψ(2S)→π0hc decays at BESIII, Phys. Rev. D 106, 072007 (2022)

    2022

  38. [46]

    S. B. Athar et al. (CLEO), Photon transitions in psi(2S) decays to chi(cJ) (1P) and eta(c)(1S), Phys. Rev. D 70, 112002 (2004)

    2004

  39. [47]

    Dobbs et al

    S. Dobbs et al. (CLEO), Precision Measurement of the Mass of the h(c)(P-1(1)) State of Charmonium, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 182003 (2008)

    2008

  40. [48]

    J. L. Rosner et al. (CLEO), Observation of h(c))(P(1)-1) state of charmonium, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 102003 (2005)

    2005

  41. [49]

    Gaiser et al., Charmonium Spectroscopy from Inclusive psi-prime and J/psi Radiative Decays, Phys

    J. Gaiser et al., Charmonium Spectroscopy from Inclusive psi-prime and J/psi Radiative Decays, Phys. Rev. D 34, 711 (1986)

    1986

  42. [50]

    Biddick et al., Inclusiveγ-ray spectra fromψ(3095) andψ ′ (3684) decays, Phys

    C. Biddick et al., Inclusiveγ-ray spectra fromψ(3095) andψ ′ (3684) decays, Phys. Rev. Lett.38, 1324 (1977)

    1977

  43. [51]

    J. S. Whitaker et al., Radiative decays ofψ(3095) andψ(3684), Phys. Rev. Lett. 37, 1596 (1976)

    1976

  44. [52]

    J. J. Dudek, R. G. Edwards, and D. G. Richards, Radiative transitions in charmonium from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 73, 074507 (2006)

    2006

  45. [53]

    Delaney, C

    J. Delaney, C. E. Thomas, and S. M. Ryan (Hadron Spectrum), Radiative transitions in charmonium from lattice QCD, JHEP 05, 230 (2024)

    2024

  46. [54]

    Li, C.-C

    N. Li, C.-C. Liu, and Y .-J. Wu, Radiative transition for χc0→ j/ψγ from nf= 2 twisted mass lattice qcd, EPL 133, 11001 (2021)

    2021

  47. [55]

    Becirevic and F

    D. Becirevic and F. Sanfilippo, Lattice QCD study of the radiative decays J/ψ→ ηcγ and hc→ ηcγ, JHEP 01, 028 (2013). 17

    2013

  48. [56]

    Barnes, S

    T. Barnes, S. Godfrey, and E. S. Swanson, Higher charmonia, Phys. Rev. D 72, 054026 (2005)

    2005

  49. [57]

    W.-J. Deng, H. Liu, L.-C. Gui, and X.-H. Zhong, Charmonium spectrum and electromagnetic transi- tions with higher multipole contributions, Phys. Rev. D 95, 034026 (2017). 18

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.