Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 41 references

$\Upsilon(5S)$ in the unquenched quark model

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that coupling the $\Upsilon(5S)$ to open-bottom meson-meson channels shifts its mass down by 31.4 MeV, to 10896.2 MeV, close to the measured $\Upsilon(10860)$, and leaves $\Upsilon(10753)$ as a distinct state.

desk verdict First application of their modified unquenched quark model to Upsilon(5S) gives a plausible qualitative story, but the headline mass shift is a sum of separate single-channel shifts, not the coupled-channel eigenvalue, so the quantitative agreement is not yet established. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.13882 v1 pith:Y7PPADRY submitted 2025-07-18 hep-ph

Xiaoyun Chen , Yue Tan , Yuan Chen , Xuejie Liu , Jialun Ping This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords Upsilon(5S)Upsilon(10860)Upsilon(10753)unquenchedquarkmodelcoupled-channeleffectsopen-bottomthresholds3P0pair-creationGaussianExpansionMethod
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 asks whether the newly observed $\Upsilon(10753)$ and the established $\Upsilon(10860)$ are the same state, since they share quantum numbers $J^{PC}=1^{--}$ and have similar mass and width. To answer it, the paper computes the mass of the $\Upsilon(5S)$ in an unquenched quark model, where the bare $b\bar b$ state mixes with open-bottom meson-meson channels such as $B\bar B$ and $B^*\bar B^*$. The mixing shifts the mass by $-31.4$ MeV, from 10927.6 MeV to 10896.2 MeV, within 11 MeV of the measured 10885.2 MeV. Because the same calculation cannot push the mass down to the $\Upsilon(10753)$ value, the paper concludes that the two resonances are different states, and that $\Upsilon(5S)$ is a mixed bottomonium-plus-meson-meson object rather than a pure quark-antiquark state.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the unquenched quark model: a valence $b\bar b$ sector with $J^{PC}=1^{--}$ is coupled to four-quark color-singlet meson-meson sectors via a $^3P_0$ pair-creation operator modified by energy and distance damping factors ($f=0.5$ fm, $R_0=1$ fm, $\gamma=32.2$). The two- and four-quark Hamiltonians are solved with the Gaussian Expansion Method, and the coupled system is diagonalized as a generalized eigenvalue problem. The damping factors are what keep the mass shifts convergent and small enough that the valence picture retains meaning.

What would settle it

Perform a single coupled-channel calculation with all twelve $B^{(*)}$ and $B_s^{(*)}$ channels in the Hamiltonian simultaneously, and compare the lowest $1^{--}$ eigenvalue shift with the summed $-31.4$ MeV; a material difference would show that the agreement with 10885.2 MeV depends on the additivity assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the $\Upsilon(10860)$, the state listed as $\Upsilon(5S)$, is a strongly mixed $b\bar b$ plus four-quark state whose mass is set by coupled-channel effects. Twelve meson-meson channels with $L=1$ relative motion are coupled to the bare $1^{--}$ bottomonium state through a modified $^3P_0$ transition operator; summing the per-channel shifts gives $\Delta M = -31.4$ MeV and an unquenched mass of 10896.2 MeV, compared with the experimental 10885.2 MeV. The same framework does not reproduce the $\Upsilon(10753)$ at 10753 MeV, which the paper takes as evidence that the two resonances are not the same state. The residual 11 MeV difference is presented as quantitative adequacy of the coupled-channel description.

Load-bearing premise

The total mass shift is assumed to be the sum of the shifts computed for each meson-meson channel separately; if the channels were all coupled at once, their energy denominators would change and the shift need not be $-31.4$ MeV.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The physical $\Upsilon(5S)$ is a strongly mixed $b\bar b$ and four-quark state, not a pure bottomonium excitation.
  • The unquenched mass of 10896.2 MeV leaves an 11 MeV gap to the experimental 10885.2 MeV, which the paper reads as quantitative support for the coupled-channel description.
  • Because the calculation cannot lower the mass to 10753 MeV, the paper concludes that $\Upsilon(10860)$ and $\Upsilon(10753)$ are different states.
  • The repulsive $B^*\bar B^*$ $S=2$ channel may carry information about nearby $\Upsilon(4S)$-like configurations affecting the coupled-channel dynamics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If all twelve channels were coupled simultaneously rather than one at a time, the summed $-31.4$ MeV shift could change because the energy denominators shift when channels mix; a same-model comparison would test the paper's additivity premise.
  • Applying the same damped $^3P_0$ unquenching to the other $\Upsilon(nS)$ states above open-bottom thresholds could reveal whether the repulsive $B^*\bar B^*$ $S=2$ channel is tied to $\Upsilon(4S)$ or is a general D-wave effect.
  • If $\Upsilon(10753)$ is not the $5S$ state, its decays and production rates could be compared with hybrid and tetraquark expectations to decide which exotic configuration, if any, it belongs to.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper calculates the mass of the Υ(5S) (identified with Υ(10860)) in an unquenched quark model, coupling the bare b\bar b state to twelve open-bottom meson-meson channels through a modified 3P0 transition operator with damping factors. Solving the quoted bare quark-model mass of 10927.6 MeV, the authors report a total mass shift of -31.4 MeV and an unquenched mass of 10896.2 MeV, which they claim agrees with the PDG value of 10885.2 MeV to within 11 MeV. They further conclude that, because the calculated mass cannot be lowered to the Υ(10753) mass, the Υ(10860) and Υ(10753) are distinct states. The central methodological point of the paper is that coupled-channel (unquenching) effects are essential and that the resulting state is a strongly mixed b\bar b plus four-quark object.

Significance. If the calculation were correct, the work would provide a concrete dynamical explanation for the mass of the Υ(10860) and a model-based argument that Υ(10860) and Υ(10753) are not the same state. The paper builds on previous work by the same group, uses a well-defined GEM/RGM variational framework, and fits its quark-model parameters to a broad set of hadron data rather than to the target state, so the central result is not a trivial refit. The modified 3P0 operator with energy and distance damping is a coherent attempt to control the convergence problem of unquenched quark models, and the authors are explicit that the parameters (f, R0, γ) were fixed using other channels. The main significance, however, hinges on whether the reported -31.4 MeV shift is actually the solution of the coupled-channel problem they write down; the paper does not currently demonstrate this.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, Table V and Eq. (27)] The quoted total shift of -31.4 MeV is obtained by summing the twelve individual single-channel shifts listed in Table V, but this is not what Eq. (27) prescribes. Solving the full generalized eigenproblem with a single 2q row and twelve 4q channels gives an eigenvalue z that satisfies an implicit equation with energy denominators evaluated at the dressed mass (z - E_i), not at the bare mass (E0 - E_i), and with all channels coupled simultaneously through the 2q component. The per-channel shifts in Table V come from separate two-state diagonalizations, so their sum ignores both the dressing of the energy denominator and the interference between channels. For the closest channel, Bs Bs*, where E0 - E_i is about 137 MeV and the reported shift is -8.22 MeV, the nonlinear correction to the single-channel shift is already of order 0.5 MeV; summed over twelve channels and combined with the simultaneous-coupling effect, the correction is plausibly comparable to the 11 MeV residual that the authors tout as agreement. Therefore the unquenched mass 10896.2 MeV is not established by the calculation as presented; the authors should solve the full coupled-channel problem (or justify, with a numerical comparison, why the additive approximation is valid at the sub-MeV level).
  2. [Section III, page 6 and Eq. (20)] The paper states that 'when we adjust the range of the Gaussian to bring the energy of another scattering state close to that of 10927.6 MeV, the mass shift ... remains the same. Lastly, largest and most stable mass shift is obtained.' This indicates that the variational Gaussian range parameters are tuned to maximize the shift. Combined with the fact that the three 3P0 parameters γ = 32.2, f = 0.5 fm, R0 = 1 fm are taken from earlier fits without any uncertainty or sensitivity study, the central value -31.4 MeV has an unquantified systematic error. Since the exponential damping factors in the modified transition operator directly control the magnitude of the coupling, variations in f and R0 at the few-percent level could easily change the total shift by several MeV, which is of the same order as the 11 MeV residual. The paper should provide a sensitivity analysis or an error estimate for the reported shift.
  3. [Table III and model validation] The same constituent quark model that yields the bare Υ(5S) mass of 10927.6 MeV also predicts highly excited charmonium and bottomonium states with large deviations from experiment: ψ(3770) is predicted at 4155.8 MeV (experiment 3773.7 MeV), ψ(4040) at 4634.7 MeV (experiment 4040.0 MeV), Υ(2S) at 9968.4 MeV (experiment 10023.4 MeV), and Υ(3S) at 10281.8 MeV (experiment 10355.1 MeV). The authors acknowledge that the model 'performs poorly for highly excited states,' but they then use this same model to compute a 31 MeV shift for the highly excited Υ(5S). The paper does not demonstrate that the coupled-channel shift is insensitive to the sizable errors in the underlying two-quark spectrum; for instance, a misplacement of nearby thresholds or a misidentification of the dominant four-quark configurations could change the shift substantially. This limits the robustness of the claimed 11 MeV agreement.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] There is a repeated typo: 'decay with' should be 'decay width' in the abstract and in the introduction; also the text inconsistently refers to 'Υ(10735)' in the introduction (e.g., 'the new observed state Υ(10735)') while the rest of the paper uses 'Υ(10753)'.
  2. [Introduction and Conclusion] The abstract and introduction compare the mass and width of Υ(10753) and Υ(10860), but the paper only computes the mass; no prediction or discussion of the width is given. The scope should be clarified to avoid implying a width calculation was performed.
  3. [Eq. (19)] The modified transition operator in Eq. (19) has a prefactor (1/2π)^{3/2} i r^2 ... that is not derived or explained; please provide a reference or a brief derivation to make the normalization transparent.
  4. [Table III] In Table III, the state listed as 'ψ(3770)' is predicted at 4155.8 MeV, which is closer to the experimental ψ(4040) region; please clarify the assignment of model states to experimental states, given the large deviations for radially excited states.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the quark-model and 3P0 parameters are fixed by fits to light/ground-state hadrons and the ρ→ππ width, not to the Υ(10860) mass, so the unquenched-mass prediction is not forced by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that unquenching lowers the bare quark-model Υ(5S) mass from 10927.6 MeV to 10896.2 MeV. The model parameters in Table I are fitted to the ground-state meson spectrum (light to heavy), and the modified 3P0 transition operator parameters (γ=32.2, f=0.5 fm, R0=1 fm) were fixed in the authors' prior work by fitting the ρ→ππ width and by a generic requirement that low-lying mass shifts be ~10% of the bare mass. None of these parameters is fitted to the Υ(10860) mass or to the Υ(10753) mass; the comparison with the PDG average 10885.2 MeV is an external benchmark. The two-state conclusion follows from the failure to reach 10753 MeV and is not an input. Although the calculation relies on the authors' own modified transition operator via self-citation, the cited parameters are externally anchored (ρ→ππ decay width) and the target mass is not used in their determination, so this is ordinary model dependence rather than circularity. A separate technical concern—not a circularity—is that the total shift is obtained by summing 12 single-channel shifts rather than by solving the full coupled-channel eigenvalue problem of Eq. (27); however, this affects correctness, not whether the output is equivalent to an input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on a large parameter set fitted to other hadron data and on several truncations of the Hilbert space. No new particles or mediators are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • Quark masses = mu=md=490, ms=511, mc=1649, mb=4978 MeV
    Fitted to reproduce the hadron spectrum (Table I).
  • Goldstone boson masses and cutoffs = m_pi=0.70, m_sigma=3.42, m_eta=2.77, m_K=2.51, Lambda_pi=Lambda_sigma=3.5, Lambda_eta=Lambda_K=2.2 (fm^-1)
    Fitted to meson spectrum.
  • Chiral coupling = g_ch^2/(4pi)=0.54
    Determined from pi-N coupling.
  • Confinement parameters = ac=98.0 MeV/fm^2, Delta=-18.1 MeV, as=0.77
    Fitted to meson spectrum.
  • OGE couplings = alpha_qq=1.34, alpha_ss=0.92, alpha_bb=0.43, alpha_cc=0.56, alpha_qs=1.15, alpha_qb=0.75, alpha_qc=0.85…
    Each fitted to experimental data; not from the running-coupling formula of Eq. (16).
  • OGE scale parameters = rg=100.6 MeV, r0=81.0 MeV
    Fitted to meson spectrum.
  • 3P0 transition parameters = gamma=32.2, f=0.5 fm, R0=1 fm
    Fixed in Refs [29-31] by fitting rho->pi pi decay width and requiring about 10% mass shift.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Chiral quark model Hamiltonian with Goldstone boson exchange (Eqs. 13-15).
    Standard constituent quark model from Refs [22,32,33].
  • standard math Gaussian Expansion Method for solving the few-body Schrodinger equation.
    Numerical method from Ref [23], widely used.
  • standard math 3P0 model for quark pair creation (Eq. 17).
    Standard transition operator for strong decays, Refs [26,34,35].
  • domain assumption Four-quark system restricted to color-singlet meson-meson clusters.
    Section II.A; only color singlet-singlet (c1=c2=1) channels considered in Table IV.
  • domain assumption Meson clusters have internal orbital angular momentum l1=l2=0 and the relative motion is P-wave (Lr=1) for the 1-- state.
    Section III; this restricts the coupled-channel space.
  • domain assumption Only 12 B(star) and B_s(star) channels are included; other intermediate states are neglected.
    Section III and Table IV; convergence of the channel set is not demonstrated.
  • ad hoc to paper Modified transition operator with damping factors exp[-r^2/(4f^2)] and exp[-R_AV^2/R0^2].
    Introduced in Ref [29] to suppress unquenched mass shifts and ensure convergence; parameters f, R0, gamma fit to light meson data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of $\Upsilon(5S)$ in the unquenched quark model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y7PPADRY

@misc{pith2026250713882,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: $\Upsilon(5S)$ in the unquenched quark model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y7PPADRY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.13882}
}
abstract

The observation of the $\Upsilon(10753)$ state by Belle II Collaboration has sparked significant interest in the theoretical understanding of such states within the context of hadron physics. Considering the similar mass and the decay with, as well as the same quantum numbers $J^{PC}=1^{--}$ with the $\Upsilon(10860)$ state, which is referred to be the $\Upsilon(5S)$ in PDG, in this work, we try to calculate the mass of the $\Upsilon(5S)$ state. The model used to predict the high-energy spectrum of these states generally involves a constituent quark model, which can describe a variety of properties of hadrons containing heavy quarks. In the framework of the unquenched quark model, a coupled-channel calculation is employed to explore the effect of open-bottom meson-meson thresholds on the $\Upsilon(10860)$ state. The hypothesis is that coupled-channel effects could be large enough to create new dynamically generated states, thus potentially explaining the nature of the $\Upsilon(10860)$ state, as well as whether the $\Upsilon(10860)$ and $\Upsilon(10753)$ is the same state. The results indicate that unquenched effects play a crucial role in explaining the $\Upsilon(10860)$ state, providing a plausible mechanism for its formation. Besides in our calculations, the $\Upsilon(10860)$ and $\Upsilon(10753)$ may be two different states.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Liu, Chin

    X. Liu, Chin. Sci. Bull. 59, 3815-3830 (2014) doi:10.1007/s11434-014-0407-2 [arXiv:1312.7408 [hep- ph]]

    arXiv 2014

  2. [2]

    H. X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rept. 639, 1-121 (2016) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2016.05.004 [arXiv:1601.02092 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2016

  3. [3]

    Y. R. Liu, H. X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 107, 237-320 (2019) doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2019.04.003 [arXiv:1903.11976 [hep- ph]]

    arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    F. K. Guo, C. Hanhart, U. G. Meißner, Q. Wang, Q. Zhao and B. S. Zou, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, no.1, 015004 (2018) [erratum: Rev. Mod. Phys. 94, no.2, 029901 (2022)] doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.90.015004 [arXiv:1705.00141 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    Brambilla, S

    N. Brambilla, S. Eidelman, C. Hanhart, A. Nefediev, C. P. Shen, C. E. Thomas, A. Vairo and C. Z. Yuan, Phys. Rept. 873, 1-154 (2020) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2020.05.001 [arXiv:1907.07583 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    F. L. Wang, X. D. Yang, R. Chen and X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 104, no.9, 094010 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.094010 [arXiv:2103.04698 [hep-ph]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Adachi et al

    I. Adachi et al. [Belle-II], Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, no.9, 091902 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.091902 [arXiv:2208.13189 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    B. Chen, A. Zhang and J. He, Phys. Rev. D 101, no.1, 014020 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.014020 [arXiv:1910.06065 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2020

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    W. H. Liang, N. Ikeno and E. Oset, Phys. Lett. B 803, 135340 (2020) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135340 [arXiv:1912.03053 [hep-ph]]

    2020

  2. [10]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS], Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 860 (2021) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09566-y [arXiv:2011.09308 [hep-ex]]

    2021 arXiv

  3. [11]

    J. F. Giron and R. F. Lebed, Phys. Rev. D 102, no.1, 014036 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.014036 [arXiv:2005.07100 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  4. [12]

    van Beveren and G

    E. van Beveren and G. Rupp, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 117, 103845 (2021) doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2020.103845 [arXiv:2012.03693 [hep-ph]]

    2021

  5. [13]

    Y. S. Li, Z. Y. Bai, Q. Huang and X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 104, no.3, 034036 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.034036 [arXiv:2106.14123 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Z. Y. Bai, Y. S. Li, Q. Huang, X. Liu and T. Mat- suki, Phys. Rev. D 105, no.7, 074007 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.074007 [arXiv:2201.12715 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Tarr´ us Castell` a and E

    J. Tarr´ us Castell` a and E. Passemar, Phys. Rev. D104, no.3, 034019 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.034019 [arXiv:2104.03975 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    A. Ali, L. Maiani, A. Y. Parkhomenko and W. Wang, Phys. Lett. B 802, 135217 (2020) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135217 [arXiv:1910.07671 [hep-ph]]

    2020

  9. [17]

    Z. G. Wang, Chin. Phys. C 43, no.12, 123102 (2019) doi:10.1088/1674-1137/43/12/123102 [arXiv:1905.06610 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Bicudo, N

    P. Bicudo, N. Cardoso, L. Mueller and M. Wag- ner, Phys. Rev. D 103, no.7, 074507 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.074507 [arXiv:2008.05605 [hep-lat]]

    2021 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Bicudo, N

    P. Bicudo, N. Cardoso, L. Mueller and M. Wag- ner, Phys. Rev. D 107, no.9, 094515 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.094515

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    Besson et al.[CLEO], Phys

    D. Besson et al.[CLEO], Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 381 (1985)

    1985

  13. [21]

    Navas et al.[Particle Data Group], Phys

    S. Navas et al.[Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D 110, no.3, 030001 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    Vijande, F

    J. Vijande, F. Fernandez and A. Valcarce, J. Phys. G 31, 481 (2005) doi:10.1088/0954-3899/31/5/017 [arXiv:hep- ph/0411299 [hep-ph]]

    2005

  15. [23]

    Hiyama, Y

    E. Hiyama, Y. Kino and M. Kamimura, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 51, 223-307 (2003) doi:10.1016/S0146- 6410(03)90015-9

    2003 doi

  16. [24]

    Y. C. Tang, M. Lemere and D. R. Thompson, Phys. Rept. 47, 167-223 (1978) doi:10.1016/0370-1573(78)90175-8

    1978 doi

  17. [25]

    J. A. Wheeler, Phys. Rev. 52, 1083-1106 (1937) doi:10.1103/PhysRev.52.1083

    1937 doi

  18. [26]

    Micu, Nucl

    L. Micu, Nucl. Phys. B 10, 521-526 (1969) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(69)90039-X

    1969 doi

  19. [27]

    Barnes and E

    T. Barnes and E. S. Swanson, Phys. Rev. C 77, 055206 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.77.055206 [arXiv:0711.2080 [hep-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Ferretti and E

    J. Ferretti and E. Santopinto, Phys. Lett. B 789, 550-555 (2019) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.12.052 [arXiv:1806.02489 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    X. Chen, J. Ping, C. D. Roberts and J. Segovia, Phys. Rev. D 97, no.9, 094016 (2018) 9 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.094016 [arXiv:1712.04457 [nucl-th]]

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Chen and Y

    X. Chen and Y. Tan, Chin. Phys. C 48, no.9, 093107 (2024) doi:10.1088/1674-1137/ad53bd [arXiv:2406.00957 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    X. Chen, Y. Tan and Y. Yang, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 138, no.7, 653 (2023) doi:10.1140/epjp/s13360-023-04181-0 [arXiv:2301.12388 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Machleidt, K

    R. Machleidt, K. Holinde and C. Elster, Phys. Rept. 149, 1-89 (1987) doi:10.1016/S0370-1573(87)80002-9

    1987 doi

  25. [33]

    Valcarce, H

    A. Valcarce, H. Garcilazo, F. Fernandez and P. Gonzalez, Rept. Prog. Phys. 68, 965-1042 (2005) doi:10.1088/0034- 4885/68/5/R01

    2005 doi

  26. [34]

    Le Yaouanc, L

    A. Le Yaouanc, L. Oliver, O. Pene and J. C. Raynal, Phys. Rev. D 8, 2223-2234 (1973) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.8.2223

    1973 doi

  27. [35]

    Le Yaouanc, L

    A. Le Yaouanc, L. Oliver, O. Pene and J. C. Raynal, Phys. Rev. D 9, 1415-1419 (1974) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.9.1415

    1974 doi

  28. [36]

    Roberts and B

    W. Roberts and B. Silvestre- Brac, Acta Phys. Austriaca 11, 171-193 (1992)

    1992

  29. [37]

    Capstick and W

    S. Capstick and W. Roberts, Phys. Rev. D 49, 4570-4586 (1994) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.49.4570

    1994 doi

  30. [38]

    P. R. Page, Nucl. Phys. B 446, 189-210 (1995) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(95)00171-N

    1995 doi

  31. [39]

    E. S. Ackleh, T. Barnes and E. S. Swanson, Phys. Rev. D 54, 6811-6829 (1996) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.54.6811

    1996 doi

  32. [40]

    Segovia, D

    J. Segovia, D. R. Entem and F. Fern´ andez, Phys. Lett. B 715, 322-327 (2012) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.005

    2012 doi

  33. [41]

    Le Yaouanc, L

    A. Le Yaouanc, L. Oliver, O. Pene and J. C. Ray- nal, Phys. Lett. B 72, 57-61 (1977) doi:10.1016/0370- 2693(77)90062-4

    1977 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.