Light scalar $K_{0}^{*}(700)$ meson in vacuum and a hot medium

B. Barsbay; H. Sundu; K. Azizi

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 49 references

Light scalar $K_{0}^{*}(700)$ meson in vacuum and a hot medium

T0 review · 4 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 The light strange scalar meson keeps its vacuum mass to 0.6 Tc, then melts near the critical temperature.

desk verdict A legitimate thermal QCD sum rule calculation for a poorly known scalar meson, with a solid vacuum part but a central thermal melting claim that depends on an underjustified s0(T) ansatz. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00716 v4 pith:YIEXA6N5 submitted 2019-09-02 hep-ph hep-exhep-lat

K. Azizi , B. Barsbay , H. Sundu This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phhep-exhep-lat

keywords K0*(700)mesonlightscalarmesonsthermalQCDsumrulesfinitetemperaturemeltingcontinuumthresholddecayconstant

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 tries to establish how the lightest strange scalar meson, $K_0^*(700)$, behaves in a hot quark-gluon medium, treating it as an ordinary quark-antiquark state rather than a tetraquark or molecule. Using thermal QCD sum rules, it claims that the meson's mass is unchanged up to about $0.6\,T_c$, then falls steeply and approaches zero near the critical temperature, signalling that the meson melts. The coupling or decay constant stays mild until about $0.85\,T_c$ and then grows rapidly. If correct, the state would be a sensitive thermal probe of the deconfinement transition, and the vacuum result gives a mass consistent with the experimentally reported Breit-Wigner value.

What carries the argument

The central object is the thermal two-point correlation function $\Pi(p,T)=i\int d^4x\,e^{ip\cdot x}\langle T\{J_{K_0^*}(x)J_{K_0^*}^\dagger(0)\}\rangle_T$ with scalar interpolating current $J_{K_0^*}(x)=\bar d_i(x)s_i(x)$. The argument is carried by matching the Borel-transformed hadronic expression, a single-pole term proportional to $m_{K_0^*}^2(T)f_{K_0^*}^2(T)$, against the OPE side built from the hot-medium quark propagator, thermal condensates, and the gluonic and fermionic parts of the energy-momentum tensor. The temperature dependence that produces the reported melting enters mainly through the quark condensate fit of Eq. (18), the gluon condensate fit of Eq. (19), the energy-momentum fit of Eq. (20), and especially the temperature-dependent continuum threshold ansatz $s_0(T)=s_0[1-0.2(T/T_c)^4-0.7(T/T_c)^{12}]$ of Eq. (21), which is imposed by requiring pole dominance and OPE convergence at every temperature.

What would settle it

Evaluate the mass sum rule at $T/T_c=0.95$ with the $0.7(T/T_c)^{12}$ term in Eq. (21) omitted or with $s_0$ held at its vacuum value; if the mass stays far from zero, the melting is an artifact of the threshold ansatz. A lattice QCD calculation of the $K\pi$ spectral function near $T_c$, or a heavy-ion measurement that resolves the $K_0^*(700)$ peak, would also settle whether the state really disappears.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the thermal QCD sum rule framework, the paper derives the temperature-dependent mass and decay constant of $K_0^*(700)$ by matching the Borel-transformed two-point correlator of the scalar current $J_{K_0^*}=\bar d\,s$ in the hadronic and OPE channels. With thermal quark and gluon condensates, fermionic and gluonic energy-momentum tensor contributions, and a temperature-dependent continuum threshold, the mass sum rule gives $m_{K_0^*}(T)\simeq m_{K_0^*}(0)$ up to $T\simeq0.6\,T_c$, after which the mass falls and reaches zero near $T_c$, interpreted as melting. The decay constant grows rapidly after $0.85\,T_c$. In vacuum the zero-width sum rule gives $m_{K_0^*}=820\pm10$ MeV and $f_{K_0^*}=191\pm4$ MeV; including a finite width gives $m=834\pm10$ MeV, $f=156\pm3$ MeV and width $524\pm8$ MeV, with the mass and width consistent with the experimental Breit-Wigner values.

Load-bearing premise

The result that the mass vanishes near the critical temperature depends on a chosen formula for how the continuum threshold changes with temperature, Eq. (21); the paper imposes this formula to satisfy pole dominance and OPE convergence but does not derive it, so a different threshold behavior could leave the mass finite.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Below $T\simeq0.6\,T_c$ the meson mass is predicted to be thermally stable, so in-medium experiments at moderate temperatures should see essentially the vacuum mass.
Above $0.6\,T_c$ the mass drops sharply and reaches zero near $T_c$; if this is right, the $K_0^*(700)$ spectral peak disappears at deconfinement, making the state a thermometer for the transition.
The decay constant is insensitive to temperature until $0.85\,T_c$ and then grows rapidly, so the thermal response of the coupling lags the mass response.
Including the finite width shifts the vacuum mass upward and the decay constant downward but leaves the thermal pattern intact; the width itself stays flat to about 150 MeV and then grows towards $T_c$.
The vacuum mass and width agree with the experimental Breit-Wigner values, giving a parameter set for further calculations of the meson's electromagnetic and strong or weak decays.

Reading between the lines

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

If the temperature-threshold ansatz in Eq. (21) is the real driver of the mass drop, then a sum rule that fixes $s_0(T)$ self-consistently from the same equations, or from lattice spectral functions, would test whether the vanishing mass is physical or an artifact.
The predicted melting at $T_c$ could be checked indirectly through dilepton or pion-pair spectra in heavy-ion collisions, where a dropping scalar peak just below $T_c$ would show up as a distorted $K\pi$ invariant-mass distribution.
The same thermal sum-rule machinery could be applied to the $f_0(500)$ and other light scalars; a comparison of their melting temperatures would constrain whether these states share a common quark-gluon organization.
The rapid growth of the decay constant near $T_c$ suggests the coupling to the scalar current is being enhanced by medium effects; if real, it would alter the thermal production rate of strange scalar mesons in the late stages of a heavy-ion collision.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Fair read: this is a standard thermal QCD sum rule applied to a genuinely awkward meson, done carefully enough that the zero-temperature part is useful. The new content is real: I do not know of another thermal sum rule calculation for K0*(700) with the qqbar scalar current, and the paper also includes a finite-width treatment. The vacuum mass, 820 ± 10 MeV, agrees with PDG's Breit-Wigner value, and the decay constant, 191 ± 4 MeV, is a usable number. The citation pattern is fine: quark and gluon condensate fits and the energy-momentum tensor parametrizations come from standard lattice references, and the vacuum inputs are the usual SVZ values. Self-citations are to earlier papers in the same framework, which is not itself a problem.

The soft spot is exactly the one flagged in the stress test: Eq. (21), s0(T) = s0[1 - 0.2(T/Tc)^4 - 0.7(T/Tc)^12]. This function enters the mass and decay sum rules directly, and its shape is not derived from any calculation. The text says the form follows from imposing pole dominance and OPE convergence at each temperature, but the conditions and procedure are not shown, and the coefficients have no quoted uncertainty. At T = Tc the ansatz leaves only 10% of s0, so the conclusion that the mass melts near Tc may be partly installed by hand. The finite-width calculation does not rescue this, because it uses the same threshold. To the authors' credit, they do perform the standard sum-rule checks for the Borel window and continuum threshold and report mild stability. But the absence of sensitivity analysis around the 0.2 and 0.7 coefficients matters, because the paper's headline is the thermal melting.

I would not call this circular: the vacuum mass is not fitted to the K0* mass; it emerges from matching the OPE and hadronic sides. The concern is narrower but still load-bearing. The temperature dependence of the threshold should be derived from a model, or at least varied over a plausible range to map the systematic uncertainty. Until then, the thermal mass curve is conditional. The vacuum part, and the finite-width result at T = 0, are solid enough to stand alone.

Who gets value: hadron phenomenologists who want a fK0* input, and people comparing thermal sum rule methods. I would send it to peer review with a request for a proper derivation or sensitivity scan of Eq. (21) and propagated uncertainties in temperature. It is not a desk reject.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper uses thermal QCD sum rules to compute the mass and decay constant of the light scalar strange meson K0*(700), modeled as a quark-antiquark state. In vacuum the authors obtain m = 820 ± 10 MeV and f = 191 ± 4 MeV in the zero-width approximation, with the mass consistent with the PDG Breit-Wigner average. At finite temperature they report that the mass stays roughly constant up to T ≈ 0.6 Tc and then decreases toward zero near Tc, which they interpret as melting of the meson, while the decay constant grows rapidly above T ≈ 0.85 Tc. A finite-width treatment shifts the vacuum values but preserves the qualitative thermal behavior.

Significance. If the thermal-melting prediction is robust, the paper would provide a testable prediction for a poorly understood resonance and would extend thermal sum-rule techniques to a controversial scalar state. The vacuum mass result is a useful confirmation of the standard approach, and the authors should be credited for explicitly checking the finite-width case and reporting vacuum uncertainties. However, the central thermal conclusion rests on an ad hoc temperature-dependent continuum threshold whose coefficients are not derived, and no uncertainties are propagated to the thermal curves. Establishing the threshold form and its sensitivity is essential before the melting claim can be accepted as an independent QCD prediction.

major comments (4)

[Section III, Eq. (21)] The central thermal prediction is driven by the ansatz s0(T) = s0[1 - 0.2(T/Tc)^4 - 0.7(T/Tc)^12], but the paper does not show how the conditions of pole dominance and OPE convergence select this specific functional form or fix the coefficients 0.2 and 0.7. Because s0(T) enters both numerator and denominator of the mass sum rule in Eq. (15), and because s0(Tc) = 0.1 s0 removes 90% of the perturbative integral by construction, the claimed decrease of mK0*(T) to zero near Tc could be an artifact of the threshold parametrization rather than an independent QCD result. Please derive the coefficients from stated criteria, assign uncertainties to them, and demonstrate that the melting behavior survives alternative threshold parametrizations.
[Section III, Table II and Fig. 2] The thermal mass and decay constant curves in Fig. 2 are shown without error bands, and uncertainties from the thermal condensate fits in Eqs. (18)–(20) or from the threshold ansatz in Eq. (21) are not propagated to the temperature-dependent results. As a result, statements such as 'mass remains unchanged up to T ≃ 0.6 Tc' and 'melting near Tc' cannot be assessed quantitatively. The paper should propagate the input uncertainties into the thermal curves, or at minimum show that the qualitative conclusions are stable under independent variations of the condensate fit coefficients and of s0(T).
[Section II, after Eq. (13)] The text states that contributions of operators with mass dimension five and higher are zero, yet the light-quark propagator in Eq. (9) explicitly contains a mixed-condensate term proportional to m0^2 ⟨qq⟩. The paper should either show explicitly why these contributions vanish after contraction for the K0*(700) correlation function, or remove the assertion and include the relevant terms. This point matters because the OPE-convergence condition is used to fix the Borel window in Eq. (23).
[Section III, Eq. (24) and Fig. 3] The finite-width calculation uses the same s0(T) ansatz of Eq. (21), so it does not test the origin of the melting behavior; it only shows that the qualitative pattern is not caused by the zero-width approximation. In addition, the paper does not describe the numerical method used to solve the three coupled equations arising from Eq. (24) or check for multiple solutions. A brief presentation of the numerical procedure and a stability check would strengthen this section.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract and Section IV] There are typographical errors: 'aniquark' should be 'antiquark' in the abstract and 'reﬀering' should be 'referring' in Section IV.
[Eq. (20)] The fit function for the energy-momentum tensor components should explicitly state that T is in GeV, since the exponentials and powers involve quantities with implicit units.
[Eq. (22)] The vacuum threshold range 1.05 GeV^2 ≤ s0 ≤ 1.25 GeV^2 is quoted without giving the preferred central value or how the final vacuum errors depend on the chosen s0 within that range; adding this information would improve reproducibility.
[Fig. 2] The mass plot in Fig. 2(a) has a z-axis truncated at 1.0 GeV, which makes the approach to zero near Tc difficult to read; consider extending the range or adding a cross-section plot at a fixed Borel mass.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The thermal melting prediction is largely carried by the un-derived s0(T) ansatz, while the vacuum calculation remains independent.

fitted input called prediction [Section III, Eq. (21) feeding the mass sum rule Eq. (15); Abstract and Concluding Remarks (melting claim)]
"The mass sum rule for the K ∗ 0 (700) meson is obtained as m 2 K ∗ 0 (T ) = [∫ s0(T ) (md+ms)2 dssρ(s)e−s/M 2 + Π~ n.pert] / [∫ s0(T ) (md+ms)2 dsρ(s)e−s/M 2 + BΠ n.pert] (15) ... The temperature-dependent continuum threshold in light systems are taken as s0(T ) ≃ s0 ⟨¯qq⟩/⟨0|¯qq|0⟩. ... These lead to the expression, s0(T ) = s0 [ 1 − 0.2 (T TC )4 − 0.7 (T TC )12] , (21)"

The central thermal claim is that mK0*(T) falls and approaches zero near Tc. The mass sum rule (15) uses s0(T) as the upper limit of both spectral integrals, so the mass is highly sensitive to the chosen threshold. Equation (21) is not derived from QCD or fixed by external data; its coefficients 0.2 and 0.7 are chosen by the stated consistency requirements of pole dominance and OPE convergence. At T=Tc, Eq. (21) gives s0(Tc)=0.1s0, i.e. roughly 0.105–0.125 GeV^2 for the quoted s0 window, far below the vacuum pole position m^2≈0.67 GeV^2. The mass sum rule can then only be satisfied by a drastically reduced mass, so the 'melting' behaviour presented as an observation in the Abstract is largely imposed by the threshold ansatz rather than emerging independently from the OPE.

full rationale

The vacuum part of the paper is not circular: the mass and decay constant are obtained by matching physical and OPE sum rules with external lattice-based condensates and PDG quark masses, and the resulting vacuum mass 820±10 MeV is checked against the PDG Breit-Wigner value 824±30 MeV rather than fitted to it. The self-citations [39,45] provide fit functions to lattice data and a finite-width formalism, respectively, and are not load-bearing in the sense of importing an unproved central claim. The significant issue is exclusively the temperature-dependent continuum threshold Eq. (21): it is a phenomenological input whose coefficients are not derived or assigned uncertainties, and because it enters the mass sum rule as the upper integration limit, the near-Tc disappearance of the mass is to a large extent a consequence of this input. This makes the thermal-melting prediction partially circular, although the vacuum results retain independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central vacuum mass is obtained from standard sum rules with a small number of auxiliary parameters, but the thermal behavior depends on several fitted or assumed temperature functions, especially s0(T), whose coefficients are not derived. The lattice-based condensate fits are external inputs and are not the paper's own fitting.

free parameters (6)

Borel mass parameter M^2 = 0.8 to 1.4 GeV^2
Auxiliary parameter window selected by pole dominance and OPE convergence; vacuum mass and coupling vary mildly within it.
Vacuum continuum threshold s0 = 1.05 to 1.25 GeV^2
Chosen so that mass and decay constant are stable and related to the first excited state energy.
Thermal continuum threshold shape coefficients = 0.2 (T^4 term), 0.7 (T^12 term)
Eq. (21) sets s0(T) = s0 [1 - 0.2 (T/Tc)^4 - 0.7 (T/Tc)^12]; coefficients are asserted rather than derived.
Quark condensate thermal fit coefficients = 18.10042, 1.84692/GeV^2, 4.99216/GeV
Eq. (18), adopted from Refs. [38,39] lattice fits; central thermal input.
Gluon condensate thermal fit coefficients = -1.65, 8.735, 0.04967, 0.7211
Eq. (19), adopted from Refs. [39,42] lattice fits.
Energy-momentum tensor thermal fit coefficients = 113.867/GeV^2, -12.190/GeV, -10.141/GeV
Eq. (20), adopted from Ref. [39] lattice data.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Thermal QCD sum rules: OPE and quark-hadron duality remain valid at finite temperature with thermal condensates.
Invoked throughout Sec. II based on Refs. [28-30].
domain assumption K0*(700) is modeled as a bound state of a d quark and an s antiquark via current J = d_i s_i.
Sec. II Eq. (4); the tetraquark/molecule alternative discussed in Sec. I is set aside.
ad hoc to paper The temperature-dependent continuum threshold ansatz s0(T) preserves pole dominance and OPE convergence at all temperatures.
Sec. III, the paragraph before Eq. (21); the claimed exact relation is not derived.
domain assumption The lattice-based parametrizations of thermal quark and gluon condensates and the energy-momentum tensor are valid up to Tc = 197 MeV.
Sec. III Eqs. (18)-(20) from Refs. [38-43].
domain assumption Zero-width pole dominance in the main sum rules; finite width is treated only as a separate consistency check.
Sec. II Eq. (6) and Sec. III Eq. (24); K0* has a large width of about 478 MeV.
ad hoc to paper Contributions from operators of mass dimension five and higher in the OPE vanish.
Stated in Sec. II without derivation; this is not obvious and would need checking.
standard math The four-velocity decomposition of the thermal quark propagator Eq. (9) from Ref. [37] is correct.
Adopted as a standard thermal propagator without re-derivation.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Light scalar $K_{0}^{*}(700)$ meson in vacuum and a hot medium." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YIEXA6N5

@misc{pith2026190900716,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Light scalar $K_0^*(700)$ meson in vacuum and a hot medium},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YIEXA6N5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00716}
}

abstract

The $K_{0}^{*}(700)$ meson appears as the lightest strange scalar meson in PDG. Although there were a lot of experimental and theoretical efforts to establish this particle and determine its properties and nature, it still needs confirmation in an experiment and its internal quark-gluon organization needs to be clarified. In this connection, we study some spectroscopic properties of this state in a hot medium as well as a vacuum by modeling it as a usual meson of a quark and an aniquark. In particular, we investigate its mass and coupling or decay constant in terms of the temperature of a hot medium by including the medium effects by the fermionic and gluonic parts of the energy momentum tensor as well as the temperature-dependent continuum threshold, quark, gluon and mixed condensates. We observe that the mass of $K_{0}^{*}(700)$ remains unchanged up to $T \simeq 0.6 ~ T_c$ with $ T_c $ being the critical temperature, but it starts to diminish after this point and approaches zero near to the critical temperature referring to the melting of the meson. The coupling of $K_{0}^{*}(700)$ is also sensitive to $ T $ at higher temperatures. It starts to grow rapidly after $T \simeq 0.85 ~ T_c$. We turn off the medium effects and calculate the mass and coupling of the $K_{0}^{*}(700)$ state at zero temperature. The obtained mass is in accord with the average Breit-Wigner mass value reported by PDG.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.00716 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: (a) Dependence of the mass of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: (a) Dependence of the mass of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

[1]

25 GeV 2, (22) where the mass and decay constant of K ∗ 0 (700) meson show good stability with respect to its changes

05 GeV 2 ≤s0 ≤ 1. 25 GeV 2, (22) where the mass and decay constant of K ∗ 0 (700) meson show good stability with respect to its changes. Based on the prescriptions of the QCD sum rule ap- proach, the mass and decay constant of the K ∗ 0 (700) meson should also show mild variations with respect to M 2. The working window for the Borel parameter M 2 is acqu...

work page
[2]

J. D. Weinstein and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. D 41, 2236 (1990)

work page 1990
[3]

8 GeV 2 ≤M 2 ≤ 1. 4 GeV 2. (23) The 3-D mass and decay constant graphics for the K ∗ 0 (700) meson in a vacuum are presented in ﬁgure 1. From this ﬁgure, we see that the mass and decay con- stant show mild variations with respect to the changes in M 2 and s0 and satisfy the requirements of the method used. Extracted from the analyses, the vacuum results f...

work page
[4]

85 Tc, respectively. After these points the mass starts to fall and the decay constant grows rapidly: The mass approaches to zero at the critical temperature, referring to the melting of K ∗ 0 (700) meson and its decay constant grows substantially at Tc. By considering the ﬁnite width in the calculations, we observed considerable shifts in the values of t...

work page 2019
[5]

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

work page 1977
[6]

Cawlﬁeld et al., Phys

C. Cawlﬁeld et al., Phys. Rev. D 74, 031108R (2006)

work page 2006
[7]

Tanabashi et al

M. Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 98, 030001 (2018) and 2019 update

work page 2018
[8]

Guo et al., Nucl

F.K. Guo et al., Nucl. Phys. A 773, 78 (2006)

work page 2006

Show all 49 references

[9]

Epifanov et al., Phys

D. Epifanov et al., Phys. Lett. B 654, 65 (2007)

2007
[10]

C. M. Shakin and H. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 63, 014019 (2001)

2001
[11]

A. V. Anisovich and A.V. Sarantsev, Phys. Lett. B 413, 137 (1997)

1997
[12]

Delbourgo et al., Int

R. Delbourgo et al., Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 13, 657 (1998)

1998
[13]

J. A. Oller and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 60, 074023 (1999)

1999
[14]

Z. Y. Zhou and H.Q. Zheng, Nucl. Phys. A 775, 212 (2006)

2006
[15]

M. D. Scadron et al., Nucl. Phys. A 724, 391 (2003)

2003
[16]

D. V. Bugg, Phys. Lett. B 572, 1 (2003)

2003
[17]

H. Q. Zheng et al., Nucl. Phys. A 733, 235 (2004)

2004
[18]

Jamin et al., Nucl

M. Jamin et al., Nucl. Phys. B 587, 331 (2000)

2000
[19]

J. M. Link et al., Phys. Lett. B 653, 1 (2007)

2007
[20]

Aubert et al., Phys

B. Aubert et al., Phys. Rev. D 76, 011102R (2007)

2007
[21]

Kopp et al., Phys

S. Kopp et al., Phys. Rev. D 63, 092001 (2001)

2001
[22]

T. J. Humanic, J. Phys. G 46, no. 5, 055001 (2019)

2019
[23]

Black, Phys

D. Black, Phys. Rev. D 64, 014031 (2001)

2001
[24]

Descotes-Genon and B

S. Descotes-Genon and B. Moussallam, Eur. Phys. J. C 48, 553 (2006)

2006
[25]

J. R. Pelaez, A. Rodas, J. Ruiz de Elvira, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 91 (2017)

2017
[26]

In the present study, we investigate the thermal be- havior of the light scalar strange K ∗ 0 (700) meson

by using an eﬀective hadronic model. In the present study, we investigate the thermal be- havior of the light scalar strange K ∗ 0 (700) meson. In particular, we discuss the behavior of the mass and de- cay constant of this state with respect to the tempera- ture by including ...
[27]

M. G. Alford and R. L. Jaﬀe, Nucl. Phys. B 578, 367 (2000)

2000
[28]

S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi and H. Sundu, Phys. Lett. B 789, 405 (2019)

2019
[29]

R. Gao, Z. H. Guo and J. Y. Pang, arXiv:1907.01787 [hep-ph]

1907 arXiv
[30]

Giacosa, arXiv:1811.00298 [hep-ph]

F. Giacosa, arXiv:1811.00298 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[31]

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

1979
[32]

Bochkarev, M.E

A.I. Bochkarev, M.E. Shaposhnikov, Nucl. Phys. B 268, 220 (1986)

1986
[33]

Adami, T

C. Adami, T. Hatsuda, I. Zahed, Phys. Rev. D 43, 921 (1991)

1991
[34]

Hatsuda, Y

T. Hatsuda, Y. Koike, S. H. Lee, Nucl. Phys. B 394, 221 (1993)

1993
[35]

Gubler, K

P. Gubler, K. Morita and M. Oka, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 092003 (2011)

2011
[36]

Yazici, H

E. Yazici, H. Sundu and E. V. Veliev, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, no. 2, 89 (2016)

2016
[37]

Veli Veliev, S

E. Veli Veliev, S. Gunaydin and H. Sundu, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 133, no. 4, 139 (2018)

2018
[38]

E. V. Veliev and T. M. Aliev, J. Phys. G 35, 125002 (2008)

2008
[39]

L. J. Reinders, H. Rubinstein and S. Yazaki, Phys. Rept. 127, 1(1985)

1985
[40]

Z. G. Wang, Z. C. Liu and X. H. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C 64, 373 (2009)

2009
[41]

Mallik, Phys

S. Mallik, Phys. Lett. B 416, 373 (1998)

1998
[42]

Ayala, A

A. Ayala, A. Bashir, C. A. Dominguez, E. Gutierrez, M. Loewe, A. Raya, Phys. Rev. D 84, 056004 (2011)

2011
[43]

Azizi and G

K. Azizi and G. Bozkır, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, no. 10, 521 (2016)

2016
[44]

Cheng et al., Phys

M. Cheng et al., Phys. Rev. D 81, 054504 (2010)

2010
[45]

Bazavov et al., Phys

A. Bazavov et al., Phys. Rev. D 80, 014504 (2009)

2009
[46]

Ayala, C

A. Ayala, C. A. Dominguez, M. Loewe, Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 86, 114036 (2012)

2012
[47]

Cheng et al

M. Cheng et al. , Phys. Rev. D 77, 014511 (2008)

2008
[48]

Tanabashi et al

M. Tanabashi et al. [Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D 98, no. 3, 030001 (2018). 8

2018
[49]

Azizi and N

K. Azizi and N. Er, Phys. Rev. D 81, 096001 (2010)

2010

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

25 GeV 2, (22) where the mass and decay constant of K ∗ 0 (700) meson show good stability with respect to its changes

05 GeV 2 ≤s0 ≤ 1. 25 GeV 2, (22) where the mass and decay constant of K ∗ 0 (700) meson show good stability with respect to its changes. Based on the prescriptions of the QCD sum rule ap- proach, the mass and decay constant of the K ∗ 0 (700) meson should also show mild variations with respect to M 2. The working window for the Borel parameter M 2 is acqu...

work page

[2] [2]

J. D. Weinstein and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. D 41, 2236 (1990)

work page 1990

[3] [3]

8 GeV 2 ≤M 2 ≤ 1. 4 GeV 2. (23) The 3-D mass and decay constant graphics for the K ∗ 0 (700) meson in a vacuum are presented in ﬁgure 1. From this ﬁgure, we see that the mass and decay con- stant show mild variations with respect to the changes in M 2 and s0 and satisfy the requirements of the method used. Extracted from the analyses, the vacuum results f...

work page

[4] [4]

85 Tc, respectively. After these points the mass starts to fall and the decay constant grows rapidly: The mass approaches to zero at the critical temperature, referring to the melting of K ∗ 0 (700) meson and its decay constant grows substantially at Tc. By considering the ﬁnite width in the calculations, we observed considerable shifts in the values of t...

work page 2019

[5] [5]

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

work page 1977

[6] [6]

Cawlﬁeld et al., Phys

C. Cawlﬁeld et al., Phys. Rev. D 74, 031108R (2006)

work page 2006

[7] [7]

Tanabashi et al

M. Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 98, 030001 (2018) and 2019 update

work page 2018

[8] [8]

Guo et al., Nucl

F.K. Guo et al., Nucl. Phys. A 773, 78 (2006)

work page 2006