On heavy-light meson resonances and chiral symmetry

E.E. Kolomeitsev; M.F.M. Lutz

REVIEW

On heavy-light meson resonances and chiral symmetry

E.E. Kolomeitsev, M.F.M. Lutz

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 9 Jul 2003 · 28 references

Pith's verdict: The anti-triplet half is a real parameter-free post-diction of the D_s(2317)/D_s(2460) states; the sextet half is a conjecture built on threshold cusps and a 130 MeV miss on D(2420).

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on October 29, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 5 major objections · 6 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv IDhep-ph/0307133 (version 2)

Pith IDVDQ4YMYL, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationE.E. Kolomeitsev, M.F.M. Lutz. "On heavy-light meson resonances and chiral symmetry." arXiv:hep-ph/0307133 (2003). https://pith.science/paper/VDQ4YMYL

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

Worth your time, but read the anti-triplet half as the result and the sextet half as a proposal for later work. The two halves are not equally supported and the abstract doesn't make that clear enough. What's real: leading-order chiral Lagrangian for Goldstone bosons off heavy-light mesons, unitarized in their chi-BS(3) scheme, subtraction scales fixed by crossing symmetry, and out comes D_s(2317) at 2303 MeV and its 1+ partner at 2440 MeV with nothing fitted. That is a genuine post-diction of the BABAR/CLEO states. The (1/2,0) spectrum, a narrow 2413 MeV state plus a broad 2138 MeV one, is a clean falsifiable statement, and the machinery is written up well enough to re-implement. Where it's soft: the sextet. In the heavy SU(3) limit at f = 90 MeV the sextet channel doesn't bind at all; poles at 2298 MeV appear only when they drop f to 80. In the physical spectra the sextet shows up as threshold cusps, not second-sheet poles, and a cusp is not a resonance. Their one empirical anchor, D(2420) as the (1/2,0) sextet member, comes out about 130 MeV high, and they read that as evidence for missing chiral attraction. Fine as a conjecture, but it means the sextet is not a leading-order parameter-free prediction. Related and smaller: the 140 MeV 0+/1+ splitting that 'agrees very well' with experiment is mostly inherited from the input D*(2008) minus D(1867) = 141 MeV. On the abstract mismatch: the numbers in the version I was handed (2361/2501, 5719/5622, 5507/5553) don't match the body, but the body's own v2 abstract gives 5761/5807 and 5643/5690, which do. That's a versioning artifact, not an internal contradiction, and I wouldn't hold it against them. What survives is milder: the abstract says narrow (0,-1) states 'are predicted' while Section 3 reports only a cusp and says a bound state would need chiral corrections. Who should read it: anyone working on the D_s states, chiral unitarization, or heavy-light spectroscopy. It deserves referees.

Referee report

Major objections (5)

[Abstract vs. §3] The abstract supplied with the manuscript states that 'so far unobserved narrow isospin-singlet states with negative strangeness (I,S)=(0,-1) are predicted at 2361 MeV J^P=0^+ and 2501 MeV (J^P=1^+)', and quotes open-bottom values of 5719 MeV (0⁺) and 5622 MeV (1⁺), (1,1) values of 5580 and 5650 MeV, and (0,1) bound states at 5507 and 5553 MeV. None of these numbers appear in §3, which instead reports a (0,1) bound state at 2303 MeV (0⁺) and 2440 MeV (1⁺), a (0,−1) bottom bound state at 5761 MeV (0⁺) and 5807 MeV (1⁺), a 'broad resonance with mass of about 5750 MeV' in (1,1), and, for (0,−1) charm, only 'a pronounced cusp effect at the K̄D(1867)-threshold'. The abstract's 1⁺ bottom value (5622 MeV) also lies below its 0⁺ value (5719 MeV), contrary to the roughly 140 MeV upward shift the body reports throughout. A reader cannot determine which set of numbers constitutes the paper's prediction, and the abstract's (0,−1) charm claim is directly contradicted by the body's own description of that channel as a cusp. This must be reconciled before publication.
[§3 and Figs. 1–2] The sextet half of the central claim is supported only by threshold cusps and 'broad structure', not by poles. In the heavy SU(3) limit the paper states that the sextet channel 'does not show a bound state signal', and poles at 2298 MeV appear only when f is lowered from 90 to 80 MeV; since the kernel scales as 1/f², that is roughly a 27% increase in attraction, not the 'slight' increase the text describes. Nowhere in the paper are second-Riemann-sheet pole positions quoted for any channel. For a paper whose stated major result is the existence of resonance states, the pole trajectories should be exhibited; a cusp at the KD threshold is a kinematical feature and does not by itself establish a state. Either show the poles or describe the sextet signals explicitly as threshold enhancements rather than states.
[§2, Eq. (7) and §3] The statement in §3 that the 0⁺/1⁺ splitting 'agrees very well with the empirical value of about 140 MeV' is largely built in by construction. The paper notes that the kernels V are identical for the two sectors and that the loop functions differ only by a 1/M²-suppressed factor (Eq. 6), while the subtraction scales of Eq. (7) differ by M_{D_s(2110)} − M_{D_s(1969)} ≈ 141 MeV. The computed charm splitting (2440 − 2303 = 137 MeV) therefore follows from the input masses in Eq. (7) rather than being an independent success of the scheme. The bottom sector confirms this reading: the (0,1) states at 5643 and 5690 MeV split by 47 MeV, matching M_{B_s(5417)} − M_{B_s(5370)} = 47 MeV rather than 140 MeV. This should be stated explicitly so that the splitting is not presented as a confirmation of the dynamics.
[§3] The D(2420) is predicted at 2552 MeV, about 130 MeV high, and the authors then argue that chiral corrections 'conspire to slightly increase the net attraction', which 'would lead to a (0,−1)-bound state'. The same uncomputed correction is thus invoked both to excuse the mass error and to generate the (0,−1) and (1,+1) states that the abstract advertises as predictions. Because the correction is neither computed nor bounded, those states are conditional on an unquantified higher-order term, and the argument that the D(2420) discrepancy 'predicts' them is a consistency expectation rather than a leading-order prediction. The paper should either estimate the leading correction or present the (0,−1) and (1,+1) states explicitly as conditional, with an estimated uncertainty on the pole positions.
[§3 and abstract] Widths are quoted ('about 20 MeV', 'about 30 MeV', 'about 50 MeV') without stating how they were extracted. No second-sheet pole positions are given, and the speed plots of Figs. 1–4 do not by themselves determine a width. Since 'narrow' is part of the headline claim in the abstract, the extraction method should be specified, and the widths should be tied to the pole locations on the appropriate sheet.

Minor objections (6)

[Table 2] The column structure of Table 2 is difficult to reconcile with the channel counts of Table 1: the (1,+1) column lists entries 13, 23 and 33 although Table 1 assigns only two channels to that sector. Please check the table and, if the extra entries are correct, explain the channel labelling.
[Eq. (6)] The additive constant I(0) in Eq. (6) is not defined, and the reader is left to verify that it cancels in the differences J_{0⁺} and J_{1⁺}. A sentence stating the renormalization condition would help.
[§2] The value f = 90 MeV is used throughout without discussion. Please state whether this is the chiral-limit normalization of f_π and how a few-percent variation would affect the pole positions, given that the sextet binding is sensitive to f (see the f = 80 MeV discussion in §3).
[Figs. 1–4] The speed plots would be much easier to read if the relevant thresholds were marked and the pole positions indicated. As drawn, the reader cannot easily locate the structures the text describes.
[References] Reference [12] is given as 'hep-ph/035049', which appears to be an incomplete arXiv identifier, and reference [15] contains the string 'help-ph/0306051'. Both should be corrected.
[§3] The statement that in the light SU(3) limit 'we do not find anymore resonances or bound states in the J^P = 0⁺, 1⁺ sectors' deserves one sentence of interpretation, since it implies that the physical-world states depend sensitively on the Goldstone masses being near their physical values.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

Using only the non-linear chiral SU(3) Lagrangian, with no fitted parameters beyond the pion decay constant, the authors argue that heavy-light meson resonances with $J^P=0^+$ and $1^+$ must come in two SU(3) families — an anti-triplet and,

The reading

The paper asks what the non-linear chiral SU(3) Lagrangian, taken at face value and unitarized, says about mesons made of one heavy quark (charm or bottom) and one light quark. Its answer is that the same coupled-channel mechanism that generates light scalar and axial-vector resonances also generates heavy-light resonances, and that these fall into two SU(3) families — an anti-triplet and a sextet — rather than the anti-triplet alone that models built on a linear realization of chiral symmetry predict. The claim matters because it is parameter-free: once the subtraction scale in the loop integral is fixed by demanding approximate crossing symmetry, there is nothing left to tune, so the predicted poles are genuine consequences of the starting Lagrangian. The authors check this by recovering the newly announced narrow open-charm states near 2.3 GeV and by predicting where the corresponding open-bottom states should sit, including a bound state just below the $K B$ threshold and narrow states with the unconventional quantum numbers $(I,S)=(0,-1)$ and $(1,1)$.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the unitarized coupled-channel amplitude $M^{(I,S)}_{J^P}(s) = [1 - V^{(I,S)}(s) J^{(I,S)}_{J^P}(s)]^{-1} V^{(I,S)}(s)$, where the kernel $V$ is the Weinberg–Tomozawa interaction read off the leading-order chiral Lagrangian for heavy-light fields $H$ and $H_μ$, and the diagonal loop matrix $J$ is a once-subtracted bubble integral. The subtraction is the load-bearing choice: the scale $μ^{(I,S)}_{J^P}$ is set to the heavy-meson mass of the relevant channel ($M_D = 1867$ MeV, $M_{D_s} = 1969$ MeV, $M_{D} = 2008$ MeV, $M_{D_s} = 2110$ MeV, and the analogous bottom values) precisely so that the amplitude is approximately crossing symmetric. With that single prescription the model has no free parameters, and the poles of $M$ in each $(I,S)$ sector are the predicted resonances. The group theory does the rest: $3̄ ⊗ 8 = 3̄ ⊕ 6 ⊕ 15$ means the interaction is attractive in the anti-triplet and sextet channels and repulsive in the anti-15-plet, which is why two families appear rather than one.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the leading-order non-linear chiral SU(3) Lagrangian for Goldstone bosons scattering off heavy-light pseudoscalar and vector mesons, when unitarized in coupled channels, produces $J^P=0^+$ and $J^P=1^+$ resonances that fill both the anti-triplet and the sextet representations of SU(3). This is a stronger multiplet structure than the linear-realization approach, which yields anti-triplet states only, and it is what allows the paper to forecast states with unusual quantum numbers. Concretely, in the open-charm sector the authors find a $(0,1)$ bound state at 2303 MeV coupling dominantly to $D K$, identified with the narrow state seen by BABAR, and a narrow $(1/2,0)$ state at 2413 MeV in the $0^+$ sector and 2552 MeV in the $1^+$ sector, the latter identified with $D(2420)$ even though it comes out about 130 MeV heavy. The $1^+$ spectrum sits roughly 140 MeV above the $0^+$ spectrum, matching the observed charm-sector splitting. In the open-bottom sector the same logic gives a $(0,1)$ bound state at 5643 MeV, a narrow $(1/2,0)$ state near 5760 MeV, and — the most exposed prediction — a bound state just below the $K B$ threshold at 5761 MeV in the $(0,-1)$ channel.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on fixing the single subtraction scale of the loop integral to the heavy-meson mass by demanding approximate crossing symmetry, and on the assumption that higher-order chiral corrections are small enough not to move the poles — an assumption the authors themselves strain when they attribute the 130 MeV overshoot of $D(2420)$ to exactly those neglected corrections.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Narrow isospin-singlet states with negative strangeness, $(I,S)=(0,-1)$, should exist in both the charm and bottom sectors, appearing as sharp structures at the $\bar K D$ and $\bar K B$ thresholds.
A second, sextet family of heavy-light states should be found alongside the familiar anti-triplet, including members in the $(I,S)=(1,1)$ channel with widths around 50 MeV.
In the open-bottom sector the anti-triplet masses should differ substantially from linear-realization predictions, with the $(0,1)$ bound state lying roughly 70 MeV lower than those models place it.
Strongly bound $0^+$ and $1^+$ states with $(I,S)=(0,1)$ should appear in the bottom sector, at 5643 MeV and 5690 MeV respectively.
Because chiral corrections are expected to be identical in the $0^+$ and $1^+$ channels at leading order, any upward shift needed to fix the $D(2420)$ mass should also push the $0^+$ sextet states upward by a comparable amount.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper's own reading of the 130 MeV overshoot on $D(2420)$ — that missing attraction must be supplied by higher-order chiral terms — turns a numerical failure into a directional prediction, and the natural test is whether the same shift, applied consistently, lands the $(0,-1)$ and $(1,1)$ states on top of observed structures rather than below them.
If the sextet really exists, the physical heavy-light states are mixtures of anti-triplet and sextet components, so the clean SU(3) labels used here should show up experimentally as systematic deviations from pure-multiplet mass relations and as correlated branching ratios across the $(1/2,0)$, $(1,1)$ and $(0,-1)$ channels.
The same coupled-channel bookkeeping could be run in the finite-temperature or finite-density setting, where the light meson masses are effectively raised; the paper's own 'heavy' SU(3) limit, in which the anti-triplet states become bound rather than resonant, suggests the spectrum is not stable against changes in the Goldstone masses.
Lattice calculations of the $\bar K B$ and $\bar K D$ s-wave scattering lengths would be a cheaper discriminator than hunting the states directly, since the sign and magnitude of the threshold attraction is what the whole prediction rests on.

Original abstract

We study heavy-light meson resonances with quantum numbers J^P=0^+ and J^P=1^+ in terms of the non-linear chiral SU(3) Lagrangian. At leading order a parameter-free prediction is obtained for the scattering of Goldstone bosons off heavy-light pseudo-scalar and vector mesons once we insist on approximate crossing symmetry of the unitarized scattering amplitude. The recently announced narrow open charm states observed by the BABAR and CLEO collaborations are reproduced. We suggest the existence of states that form an anti-triplet and a sextet representation of the SU(3) group. In particular, so far unobserved narrow isospin-singlet states with negative strangeness (I,S)=(0,-1) are predicted at 2361 MeV J^P=0^+ and 2501 MeV (J^P=1^+). Similarly, open bottom states are found at 5719 MeV (J^P=0^+) and 5622 MeV (J^P=1^+). Additional narrow states of mass 5580 MeV (J^P=0^+) and 5650 MeV (J^P=1^+) with widths of about 50 MeV are obtained in the (I,S)=(1,1) sector. For the anti-triplet states our results differ most significantly from predictions that are based on a linear realization of the chiral SU(3) symmetry in the open bottom sector. Strongly bound 0^+-and 1^+-states with (I,S)=(0,1) at 5507 MeV and 5553 MeV are predicted.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 7,211 input tokens, $0.0003 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.04 · states limitation 0.18 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.14 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.99 · compares with prior results 0.95 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v2. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

We study heavy-light meson resonances with quantum numbers J^P=0^+ and J^P=1^+ in terms of the non-linear chiral SU(3) Lagrangian. At leading order a parameter-free prediction is obtained for the scattering of Goldstone bosons off heavy-light pseudo-scalar and vector mesons once we insist on approximate crossing symmetry of the unitarized scattering amplitude. The recently announced narrow open charm states observed by the BABAR and CLEO collaborations are reproduced. We suggest the existence of states that form an anti-triplet and a sextet representation of the SU(3) group. In particular, so far unobserved narrow isospin-singlet states with negative strangeness (I,S)=(0,-1) are predicted at 2361 MeV J^P=0^+ and 2501 MeV (J^P=1^+). Similarly, open bottom states are found at 5719 MeV (J^P=0^+) and 5622 MeV (J^P=1^+). Additional narrow states of mass 5580 MeV (J^P=0^+) and 5650 MeV (J^P=1^+) with widths of about 50 MeV are obtained in the (I,S)=(1,1) sector. For the anti-triplet states our results differ most significantly from predictions that are based on a linear realization of the chiral SU(3) symmetry in the open bottom sector. Strongly bound 0^+-and 1^+-states with (I,S)=(0,1) at 5507 MeV and 5553 MeV are predicted.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	We study heavy-light meson resonances with quantum numbers J^P=0^+ and J^P=1^+ in terms of the non-linear chiral SU(3) Lagrangian.	contribution 0.95	0.91	0.05	asserted 0.95
s1	At leading order a parameter-free prediction is obtained for the scattering of Goldstone bosons off heavy-light pseudo-scalar and vector mesons once we insist on approximate crossing symmetry of the unitarized scattering amplitude.	result 0.41	0.91	0.14	asserted 1.00
s2	The recently announced narrow open charm states observed by the BABAR and CLEO collaborations are reproduced.	result 0.99	0.56	0.18	asserted 1.00
s3	We suggest the existence of states that form an anti-triplet and a sextet representation of the SU(3) group.	result 0.45	0.80	0.22	hedged possibility 0.46
s4	In particular, so far unobserved narrow isospin-singlet states with negative strangeness (I,S)=(0,-1) are predicted at 2361 MeV J^P=0^+ and 2501 MeV (J^P=1^+).	result 1.00	0.90	0.24	asserted 0.82
s5	Similarly, open bottom states are found at 5719 MeV (J^P=0^+) and 5622 MeV (J^P=1^+).	result 1.00	0.93	0.09	asserted 1.00
s6	Additional narrow states of mass 5580 MeV (J^P=0^+) and 5650 MeV (J^P=1^+) with widths of about 50 MeV are obtained in the (I,S)=(1,1) sector.	result 1.00	0.93	0.07	asserted 1.00
s7	For the anti-triplet states our results differ most significantly from predictions that are based on a linear realization of the chiral SU(3) symmetry in the open bottom sector.	interpretation 0.60	0.69	0.12	asserted 0.99
s8	Strongly bound 0^+-and 1^+-states with (I,S)=(0,1) at 5507 MeV and 5553 MeV are predicted.	result 1.00	0.92	0.13	asserted 0.98

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 1.00 · evidence from proof or derivation 0.74.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v2

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 1.** Open charm resonances with J P = 0+, 1 + and (I, S) = (0, 1),(1, 1) as seen in the scattering of Goldstone bosons of D(1867), Ds(1969) and D(2008), Ds(2110) mesons. Shown speed plots together with real and imaginary parts of reduced scattering amplitude, fab, with tab = fab (p (a) cm p (b) cm) 1/2 (see (8)). 2204 MeV with poles in the (0, +1),(1/2, 0) amplitudes. The sextet channel does not show a bound state signal in this case. However if the attraction is increased slightly by using f = 80 MeV rather than the canonical value 90 MeV poles at mass 2298 MeV arise in the (1, +1)

**Figure 2.** Open charm resonances with J P = 0+, 1 + and (I, S) = ( 1 2 , 0),(0, −1) as seen in the scattering of Goldstone bosons of D(1867), Ds(1969) and D(2008), Ds(2110) mesons. Shown speed plots together with real and imaginary parts of reduced scattering amplitude, fab, with tab = fab (p (a) cm p (b) cm) 1/2 (see (8)). ¯3 ⊗ 8 = ¯3 ⊕ 6 ⊕ 15 (9) predicts attraction in the anti-triplet and sextet channel but repulsion for the anti-15-plet. In contrast performing the ’light’ SU(3) limit [21,1] with mπ,K,η ∼ 140 MeV together with MD = 1800 MeV we do not find any signal 7

**Figure 3.** Open bottom resonances with J P = 0+, 1 + and (I, S) = (0, 1),(1, 1) as seen in the scattering of Goldstone bosons of B(5279), Bs(5370) and B(5325), Bs(5417) mesons. Shown speed plots together with real and imaginary parts of reduced scattering amplitude, fab, with tab = fab (p (a) cm p (b) cm) 1/2 (see (8)). SU(3) symmetry. Besides the additional sextet states predicted by the more general non-linear realization of the chiral SU(3) group, most notable are the differences in the open bottom sector. Using 5279 MeV and 5370 MeV for the 0− ground states [28] we obtain the followin

**Figure 4.** Open bottom resonances with J P = 0+, 1 + and (I, S) = ( 1 2 , 0),(0, −1) as seen in the scattering of Goldstone bosons of B(5279), Bs(5370) and B(5325), Bs(5417) mesons. Shown speed plots together with real and imaginary parts of reduced scattering amplitude, fab, with tab = fab (p (a) cm p (b) cm) 1/2 (see (8)). predicted in [12,13]. In the (1, 1)-channel we predict a broad resonance with mass of about 5750 MeV. In the ( 1 2 , 0)-channel a broad state of mass 5526 MeV and a narrow resonance of mass 5760 MeV and width of about 30 MeV is predicted. Most spectacular is a bou

Figures reproduced from arXiv:hep-ph/0307133 by the authors.

References

Works cited (28)

[1]

M.F.M. Lutz and E. E. Kolomeitsev, GSI-Preprint-2003-1 9, nucl-th/0307039

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[2]

E. Van Beveren et al., Z. Phys. C 30 (1986) 615

View on Pith 1986
[3]

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

View on Pith 1990
[4]

G. Janssen, B. C. Pearce, K. Holinde, J. Speth, Phys. Rev. D 52 (1995) 2690

View on Pith 1995
[5]

J.A. Oller, E. Oset and J.R. Pelaez, Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999) 074001; Erratum- ibid. D 60 (1999) 099906

View on Pith 1999
[6]

J. Nieves, M.P. Valderramaa and E.R. Arriola, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 036002

View on Pith 2002
[7]

A.G. Nicolaa and J.R. Pelaez, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 054009

View on Pith 2002
[8]

BABAR Collaboration, B. Aubert et al., hep-ex/0304021

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[9]

CLEO Collaboration, D. Besson et al., hep-ex/0305017, h ep-ex/0305100

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[10]

M.A. Nowak, M. Rho and I. Zahed, Phys. Rev. D 48 (1993) 4370

View on Pith 1993
[11]

W.A. Bardeen and C.T. Hill, Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994) 409

View on Pith 1994
[12]

W.A. Bardeen, E.J. Eichten and Ch.T. Hill, hep-ph/0350 49

View on Pith
[13]

M.A. Nowak, M. Rho and I. Zahed, hep-ph/0307102

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[14]

R.N. Cahn and J.D. Jackson, hep-ph/0305012; T. Barnes, F.E. Close and H.J. Lipkin, hep-ph/0305025; E. van Beveren and G. Rupp, hep-ph/0305035; H.-Y. Cheng and W.-S. Hou, hep-ph/0305038; A.P. Szczepaniak, hep-ph/0305060; S. Godfrey, hep-ph/0305122; P. Colangelo and F. De Fazio, hep-ph/0305140; G. S. Bali, hep-ph/0305209; K. Terasaki, hep-ph/0305213; S. Nus...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[15]

E. van Beveren and G. Rupp, hep-ph/0305035; help-ph/03 06051

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[16]

M.F.M. Lutz and E. E. Kolomeitsev, Proc. of Int. Worksho p XXVIII on Gross Properties of Nuclei and Nuclear Excitations, Hirschegg, A ustria, January 16-22, 2000

View on Pith 2000
[17]

M.F.M. Lutz und E.E. Kolomeitsev, Found. Phys. 31 (2001) 1671

View on Pith 2001
[18]

M.F.M. Lutz, GSI-Habil-2002-1

View on Pith 2002
[19]

M.F.M. Lutz and E. E. Kolomeitsev, Nucl. Phys. A 700 (2002) 193

View on Pith 2002
[20]

C. Garc ´ ıa-Recio, M.F.M. Lutz and J. Nieves, nucl-th/0305100

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[21]

E.E. Kolomeitsev and M.F.M. Lutz, nucl-th/0305101

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[22]

S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 17 (1966) 616; Y. Tomozawa, Nuov. Cim. A46 (1966) 707

View on Pith 1966
[23]

M.B. Wise, Phys. Rev. D 45 (1992) 2188

View on Pith 1992
[24]

T.-M. Yan et al., Phys. Rev. 46 (1992) 1148

View on Pith 1992
[25]

G. Burdman and J. Donoghue, Phys. Lett. 280 (1992) 287

View on Pith 1992
[26]

G. H¨ ohler,πN NewsLetter 9 (1993) 1

View on Pith 1993
[27]

F.T. Smith, Phys. Rev. 118 (1960) 349

View on Pith 1960
[28]

K. Hagiwara et al., Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 010001. 12

View on Pith 2002

Forward citations

Cited by 40 Pith papers

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

Where are the higher excited $B$ and $B_s$ mesons with coupled-channel effects?
hep-ph 2026-10 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

Coupled-channel effects shift the masses of higher B and Bs mesons downward by 30-300 MeV and reverse the mass ordering of the 2^3D_1 and 3^3S_1 states.
Revealing the $D_0^*(2300)$ two-pole structure from lattice data and the SU(3) limit
hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

Lattice data analysis with UChPT finds two I=1/2 poles at physical point with positions 2094-i111 MeV and 2463-i108 MeV; lower pole splits like the sigma on ms=const trajectory and links to 3-bar, higher pole links to...
$D_1$ and $D_2$ resonances in coupled-channel scattering amplitudes from lattice QCD
hep-lat 2025-02 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

Lattice QCD at m_π≈391 MeV finds D1 bound state below D*π threshold strongly coupled in S-wave and D1' resonance in elastic D*π region for I=1/2 charmed channels.
Probing the two-pole structure of the $D_0^*(2300)$ with an $SU(3)$ flavor filter
hep-ph 2026-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Antitriplet-tagged production should expose the lower 2.1 GeV pole of D0*(2300) while sextet-tagged production exposes the higher 2.45 GeV pole, with complementary Dpi, Deta and DsKbar line shapes.
The new LHCb beauty-strange state as the bottom partner of the $D_{s0}^*(2317)$: a LQCD constrained coupled-channel chiral analysis
hep-ph 2026-09 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

LQCD-constrained unitarized chiral amplitudes put the new LHCb B_s0* within 1.1-1.7 sigma of the measured peak and, after a small one-parameter adjustment, describe the spectrum and yield a 1+ partner near 5750 MeV.

Show 35 more citing papers

Exotic $B_s$ mesons in the continuum from a nonperturbatively-tuned heavy quark action
hep-lat 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Lattice QCD with a nonperturbatively tuned bottom-quark action predicts that the B_s0* and B_s1 mesons are bound by about 66 and 61 MeV below their BK and B*K thresholds in the continuum limit.
QCD Sum Rule Analysis of Triply Heavy $(Q\bar{Q})(Q\bar{q})$ Tetraquark States with $J^P=0^{\pm}$
hep-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

QCD sum rule analysis predicts four (c cbar)(c qbar) tetraquark candidates with J^P=0+/- (4.76, 5.00, 5.04 and 5.37 GeV) and (b bbar)(b qbar) states near 13.8 to 14.2 GeV, with some expected to be narrow.
Properties of the $D_{s0}^*(2317)^\pm$ in hot and dense nuclear matter
hep-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A coupled-channel molecular model predicts that in nuclear matter the D_s0*(2317)+ shifts downward and broadens with density, while temperature narrows it and broadens its antiparticle, yielding a possible structural test.
The $D_{s1}(2460)$ and other open-charm $1^+$ states in relativistic chiral effective field theory
hep-ph 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

Relativistic U(3) chiral EFT at NLO yields scattering lengths that match lattice data and identifies D_s1(2460) as an SU(3) triplet bound-state pole and D1(2430) as a triplet-sextet pole pair, none of which are conven...
The $B^{+(0)} \to \bar D^{0(-)} D^{*}_{s0}(2317)^+$ decays and the molecular structure of $D^*_{s0}(2317)$
hep-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Using B→D D K data and a two-parameter model, the authors derive B→D D*_s0(2317) branching fractions that agree with experiment within errors, supporting a sizable DK molecular component of D*_s0(2317).
A Paradigm for the Coupled-Channel Origin of Resonances: the Exotic $T_{c\bar{s}}$ in $D_{s1}(2460/2536)\to D_s\pi\pi$
hep-ph 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

An off-diagonal DK–D_sπ coupled-channel interaction generates the T_cbar{s} pole on the second Riemann sheet, and predicts a single-peak D_s1(2536) decay.
Determination of the binding and $DK$ probability of the $D^{*}_{s0}(2317)$ from the $(\bar{D}\bar K)^-$ mass distributions in $\Lambda_{b}\to \Lambda_{c} (\bar{D}\bar K)^-$ decays
hep-ph 2024-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A simulation-based feasibility study shows that near-threshold Dbar Kbar mass distributions from Lambda_b decays could determine the D*_s0(2317) mass to about 4 MeV and its DK molecular probability to about 11%.
Towards a new paradigm for heavy-light meson spectroscopy
hep-ph 2017-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The LHCb B- -> D+ pi- pi- angular moments are consistent with S-wave amplitudes fixed from lattice QCD, supporting a molecular interpretation of the lightest positive-parity charm mesons.
Masses and decay constants of the $D_{s0}^*(2317)$ and $D_{s1}(2460)$ from $N_f=2$ lattice QCD close to the physical point
hep-lat 2017-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A six-ensemble lattice QCD study at a = 0.07 fm extracts the DK and D*K scattering lengths, the infinite-volume masses of the D*_s0(2317) and D_s1(2460), and their weak decay constants, f_V = 114(2)(0)(+5)(10) MeV and...
Amplitude analysis of $B^{-} \to D^{+} \pi^{-} \pi^{-}$ decays
hep-ex 2016-08 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

A Dalitz plot analysis of B- to D+ pi- pi- decays establishes the D*3(2760)0 and D*2(3000)0 resonances for the first time and measures the masses, widths and fit fractions of four excited charm states.
Predicting positive parity $B_{s}$ mesons from lattice QCD
hep-lat 2015-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Coupled-channel lattice QCD places the Bs0 and Bs1 as bound states below the B(*)K threshold at 5.711(13)(19) and 5.750(17)(19) GeV.
Interactions of Charmed Mesons with Light Pseudoscalar Mesons from Lattice QCD and Implications on the Nature of the D_{s0}^*(2317)
hep-lat 2012-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Full-QCD lattice scattering lengths, extrapolated with unitarized chiral perturbation theory, produce a DK bound-state pole near 2317 MeV and a revised D_s0*(2317) to D_s pi width of about 133 keV.
Strong and radiative decays of the Ds0*(2317) meson in the DK-molecule picture
hep-ph 2007-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

In the DK-molecule picture of Ds0*(2317), direct isospin-violating pion emission from constituent mesons dominates the eta-pi0 mixing contribution to the Ds0* to Ds pi0 decay.
The $K T_{cc}(3875)$ Interaction: Bound State, Scattering Observables and Correlation Function
hep-ph 2026-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

The K0 Tcc(3875) interaction, modeled with the Tcc as a D*D molecule, supports two bound states with binding energies around 63 and 51 MeV.
Vector charmonium(-like) states in the energy range of 4.1-4.6 GeV
hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

A coupled-channel framework is developed and fitted to BESIII data on vector charmonium-like states in the 4.1-4.6 GeV range, concluding that coupled-channel effects with dynamically generated poles explain the line shapes.
Compact $cs\bar{s}\bar{s}$ Tetraquarks in the Charm--Strange Sector: Mass Spectra, Rearrangement Decays and Regge Trajectories with $D_s$ Threshold Inputs
hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

The authors compute mass spectra, rearrangement decays, and Regge trajectories for cs s-bar s-bar tetraquarks modeled as axial [cs][s-bar s-bar] systems in a Cornell potential framework with Ds threshold inputs.
What can we learn from the radiative decays of the $D_{s1}(2460)$ meson?
hep-ph 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

Measuring the ratio of radiative decay branching fractions from Ds1(2460) can probe the nature of Ds0*(2317) and Ds1(2460) mesons.
Correlation functions for $n\,\bar{D}_{s1}(2460)$ and $n\,\bar{D}_{s1}(2536)$
hep-ph 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

The neutron-D_{s1}(2460) and neutron-D_{s1}(2536) systems are predicted to have bound states, with correlation functions sensitive to the molecular structure of the D_{s1} mesons.
Investigating triply heavy tetraquark states through QCD sum rules
hep-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

QCD sum rules with condensates up to dimension 9 predict triply heavy tetraquark masses of 5.4 to 6.2 GeV for charm systems and 14.9 to 15.7 GeV for bottom systems.
Study of the exotic three-body $N D^* \bar{K}^*$ system
hep-ph 2024-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A fixed-center Faddeev calculation predicts five N D* K̄* bound states with spin 1/2, 3/2, 5/2 and binding energies of 10 to 30 MeV.
A survey of heavy-antiheavy hadronic molecules
hep-ph 2021-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A symmetry-based contact-interaction survey of all charmed-anticharmed hadron pairs yields 229 candidate hadronic molecules, including a Lambda_c anti-Lambda_c bound state offered as an explanation of the flat BESIII ...
Exotic Hadrons from Heavy Ion Collisions
nucl-th 2017-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Coalescence and statistical models of heavy ion collisions predict that compact multiquark hadrons are produced about an order of magnitude less abundantly than hadronic molecules or ordinary excited states of the same mass.
Reanalysis of lattice QCD spectra leading to the $D_{s0}^*(2317)$ and $D_{s1}^*(2460)$
hep-lat 2014-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A reanalysis of three lattice QCD energy levels finds the Ds0*(2317) and Ds1*(2460) to be bound KD and KD* states about 40 MeV below threshold, with roughly 70% and 57% meson-meson probability.
Light meson mass dependence of the positive parity heavy-strange mesons
hep-ph 2010-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A kaon-plus-D-meson molecular model reproduces the D_s0^*(2317) and D_s1(2460) masses and predicts bottom partners near 5.7 GeV, with a kaon-mass-slope test proposed to distinguish molecules from quark states.
Interactions between heavy mesons and Goldstone bosons from chiral dynamics
hep-ph 2009-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Unitarized chiral perturbation theory reproduces lattice QCD scattering lengths for charmed-meson-Goldstone-boson scattering and predicts non-perturbative poles in several channels.
Dynamically Generated Open and Hidden Charm Meson Systems
hep-ph 2006-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A unitarized SU(4) coupled-channel model predicts a new narrow hidden-charm scalar meson near 3.7 GeV, mostly a D Dbar quasi-bound state.
A Phenomenological Study of Semileptonic $B^+$ and $B_s^0$ Decays into Axial-Vector Mesons $\big(D_1(2420),\, D_1^\prime(2430),\, D_{s1}(2460),\, \text{and } D_{s1}^\prime(2536)\big)$ within the Standard Model
hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

Semileptonic B to axial-vector meson decays are studied as functions of the mixing angle θ_D1 using covariant light-front quark model form factors, producing predictions for branching ratios, forward-backward asymmetr...
A survey of heavy-heavy hadronic molecules
hep-ph 2021-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

A leading-order contact-interaction model predicts 124 doubly-charmed hadronic molecules, including a DD* bound state near the newly observed Tcc.
Radiative decays of hadronic molecules: From confusion to inspiration
hep-ph 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

Radiative decays of hadronic molecules require careful treatment of scale hierarchies to resolve interpretive confusions, as demonstrated by reviewing decay types and instructive examples.
Evidence for the existence of a flavor-sextet charmed meson?
hep-ph 2025-04 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

A comment proposing that the LHCb T_{c\bar{s}} signal is the isovector member of an SU(3) flavor-sextet charmed-meson multiplet, with no new calculation provided.
Towards a theory of hadron resonances
hep-ph 2022-06 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

The review consolidates lattice-QCD and effective-field-theory methods for hadron resonances and argues that Breit-Wigner parameterizations are incompatible with chiral symmetry in strongly coupled channels.
Chiral perturbation theory for heavy hadrons and chiral effective field theory for heavy hadronic molecules
hep-ph 2022-04 accept novelty 2.0 of 10

A comprehensive review argues that chiral effective field theory, the framework behind nuclear forces, also organizes the near-threshold heavy hadronic molecules observed since 2003.
Two-pole structures in QCD: Facts, not fantasy!
hep-ph 2020-05 accept novelty 2.0 of 10

The Lambda(1405) and the D*0(2300) are each two resonances rather than one, according to unitarized chiral perturbation theory checked against lattice QCD and LHCb data.
Heavy quarkonium: progress, puzzles, and opportunities
hep-ph 2010-10 accept novelty 2.0 of 10

The Quarkonium Working Group's 2010 review consolidates a decade of charmonium and bottomonium measurements, catalogues the dozen-plus unexplained XYZ states, and ranks the open problems for the next generation of exp...
Lattice QCD calculations of hadron spectroscopy
hep-lat 2025-05 unverdicted novelty 1.0 of 10

A pedagogical chapter explains how lattice QCD eigen-energies are converted into hadron masses, widths, and scattering amplitudes via the Lüscher formalism, using known examples.

How later papers used it

109 later papers cite it

Evidence: some. 97 of the citing papers share no author with it, and 15 of those carry a confident label from Pith's citation classifier.

Pith read 5 of the 203 citing sentences, choosing only those whose citation markers point at this paper alone, and wrote the paraphrases from them. The summary, the counts, the evidence level, the links and the quotes come from code; the summary counts the papers listed below. A later paper is listed under a label when Pith's citation classifier gives one of its sentences that label at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), Pith's reading finds that the citing paper itself did it, and a second check confirms the paraphrase against the sentence. This section lists uses only. It does not list criticism or disagreement, so their absence here says nothing about how the paper has been received. Papers that share an author with this one are listed apart, under "By the same authors". A quote is the citing authors' own sentence, shown when their paper's licence is CC BY, CC BY-SA or CC0. JSON

1 paper by the same authors is listed below: 1 used its method or tool.

Uses its method or tool 1 of 6 papers with this label · 1 by the same authors

By the same authors

Used this paper's natural values of the parameter to imply an asymmetric error from a ±0.1 GeV deviation for its pole at (2.082 -0.187i) GeV in Fit 4.

On chiral extrapolations of coupled-channel reaction dynamics for charmed mesons (2018) (same authors) · 0.85 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

How the literature uses it

107 arXiv papers cite this in 199 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers citing it · 142 sentences without a confident label

Contests it 1 paper

One is traced as a misprint, in $C_WT$ of Tab. 2 of [ref] , in which the two entries $13$ and $22$ need to be interchanged (see [ref] ).

On chiral extrapolations of charmed meson masses and coupled-channel reaction dynamics · Low-energy constants from QCD lattice data · contest 0.85

Builds on it 1 paper

The Lagrangian in [ref] contains the Lagrangian used in [ref] , which is suited for the study of open-charm resonances like the $D^*_s0 (2317)$, but it also contains other terms which allow to study the hidden-charm states.

Radiative decay of the dynamically generated open and hidden charm scalar meson resonances D_{s0}^*(2317) and X(3700) · Introduction · 0.81

Uses its method or tool 6 papers

We apply the coupled-channel framework pioneered in [ref] which is based on the flavour SU(3) chiral Lagrangian.

On chiral extrapolations of charmed meson masses and coupled-channel reaction dynamics · Low-energy constants from QCD lattice data · 0.97
The latter exhibits a pole at $(2.082_+2^-9 -0.187_-28^+44i)$ GeV (Fit 4) where the asymmetric error is implied by a $±0.1$GeV deviation of $μ_M$ from their natural values [ref] .

On chiral extrapolations of coupled-channel reaction dynamics for charmed mesons · Phase shifts and poles in the complex plane · 0.85
In Fit 1-4 the coupled-channel framework established in [ref] was applied.

Coupled-channel dynamics with chiral long-range forces in the open-charm sector of QCD · From Lattice QCD data to low-energy constants · 0.99

Compares with it 7 papers

The predicted masses are given in Table [ref], together with a comparison with previous calculations [ref] .

Light meson mass dependence of the positive parity heavy-strange mesons · Scattering amplitudes · 1.00
These results are, though, less stable and contrast with previous works done where states with the same quantum numbers are narrower [ref] .

Meson Resonances in the Open and Hidden Charm Sectors · results · 0.94
These results are, though, less stable and contrast with previous works done where states with the same quantum numbers are narrower [ref] .

The $e^+e^-\to J/\psi D \bar D$, $J/\psi D\bar D^*$ reactions with dynamically generated resonances · II. Framework · 0.89

Cites it as support 5 papers

For instance, in Refs. [ref] , it was shown through the coupled-channel formalism that the $D_s0^*(2317)$ can indeed be dynamically generated.

$D_{s0}^*(2317)$ and $B_{s0}^*$ as molecular states · Introduction · 1.00
Based on this, it is concluded that $$ state probably has a significant contribution from the molecular component $(D^*K)$, which is consistent with earlier assumption made in the papers [ref] to explain the considerable difference of measured $$ mass from the predicted value obtained within the potential models.

Why do we not see the radiative decays of Ds1(2536)? · Conclusion · 1.00
we can explicitly see that in the proper expression below threshold, there is only one physical pole for the $DK$ system (no pole for the $DD$ system), [equation] This pole is interpreted as the $DK$ bound state, $D_s0^*(2317)$ which has been supported by both lattice QCD [ref] and phenomenological studies [ref] .

$DDK$ system in finite volume · 2-body part · 0.99

Cites it as background 31 papers

Such multiplets are predicted by the leading order chiral Lagrangian ([ref]), which entails in particular the Tomozawa-Weinberg coupled-channel interactions of the Goldstone bosons with the $D$ mesons [ref] .

On chiral extrapolations of charmed meson masses and coupled-channel reaction dynamics · The chiral Lagrangian with open-charm meson fields · 0.80
Since the experimental discovery of narrow P-wave states of the charm-strange quarkonia $D_s0(2317)^+$ [ref] and $D_s1(2460)^+$ [ref] , discussions continue on the quark structure of these states [ref] .

Why do we not see the radiative decays of Ds1(2536)? · Introduction · 1.00
The idea of generating dynamically resonances in order to describe the newly found charmed states is not new and had already been exploited in [ref] .

The $e^+e^-\to J/\psi D \bar D$, $J/\psi D\bar D^*$ reactions with dynamically generated resonances · I. Introduction · 0.85

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [1]

M.F.M. Lutz and E. E. Kolomeitsev, GSI-Preprint-2003-1 9, nucl-th/0307039

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[2] [2]

E. Van Beveren et al., Z. Phys. C 30 (1986) 615

View on Pith 1986

[3] [3]

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

View on Pith 1990

[4] [4]

G. Janssen, B. C. Pearce, K. Holinde, J. Speth, Phys. Rev. D 52 (1995) 2690

View on Pith 1995

[5] [5]

J.A. Oller, E. Oset and J.R. Pelaez, Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999) 074001; Erratum- ibid. D 60 (1999) 099906

View on Pith 1999

[6] [6]

J. Nieves, M.P. Valderramaa and E.R. Arriola, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 036002

View on Pith 2002

[7] [7]

A.G. Nicolaa and J.R. Pelaez, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 054009

View on Pith 2002

[8] [8]

BABAR Collaboration, B. Aubert et al., hep-ex/0304021

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[9] [9]

CLEO Collaboration, D. Besson et al., hep-ex/0305017, h ep-ex/0305100

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[10] [10]

M.A. Nowak, M. Rho and I. Zahed, Phys. Rev. D 48 (1993) 4370

View on Pith 1993

[11] [11]

W.A. Bardeen and C.T. Hill, Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994) 409

View on Pith 1994

[12] [12]

W.A. Bardeen, E.J. Eichten and Ch.T. Hill, hep-ph/0350 49

View on Pith

[13] [13]

M.A. Nowak, M. Rho and I. Zahed, hep-ph/0307102

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[14] [14]

R.N. Cahn and J.D. Jackson, hep-ph/0305012; T. Barnes, F.E. Close and H.J. Lipkin, hep-ph/0305025; E. van Beveren and G. Rupp, hep-ph/0305035; H.-Y. Cheng and W.-S. Hou, hep-ph/0305038; A.P. Szczepaniak, hep-ph/0305060; S. Godfrey, hep-ph/0305122; P. Colangelo and F. De Fazio, hep-ph/0305140; G. S. Bali, hep-ph/0305209; K. Terasaki, hep-ph/0305213; S. Nus...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[15] [15]

E. van Beveren and G. Rupp, hep-ph/0305035; help-ph/03 06051

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[16] [16]

M.F.M. Lutz and E. E. Kolomeitsev, Proc. of Int. Worksho p XXVIII on Gross Properties of Nuclei and Nuclear Excitations, Hirschegg, A ustria, January 16-22, 2000

View on Pith 2000

[17] [17]

M.F.M. Lutz und E.E. Kolomeitsev, Found. Phys. 31 (2001) 1671

View on Pith 2001

[18] [18]

M.F.M. Lutz, GSI-Habil-2002-1

View on Pith 2002

[19] [19]

M.F.M. Lutz and E. E. Kolomeitsev, Nucl. Phys. A 700 (2002) 193

View on Pith 2002

[20] [20]

C. Garc ´ ıa-Recio, M.F.M. Lutz and J. Nieves, nucl-th/0305100

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[21] [21]

E.E. Kolomeitsev and M.F.M. Lutz, nucl-th/0305101

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[22] [22]

S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 17 (1966) 616; Y. Tomozawa, Nuov. Cim. A46 (1966) 707

View on Pith 1966

[23] [23]

M.B. Wise, Phys. Rev. D 45 (1992) 2188

View on Pith 1992

[24] [24]

T.-M. Yan et al., Phys. Rev. 46 (1992) 1148

View on Pith 1992

[25] [25]

G. Burdman and J. Donoghue, Phys. Lett. 280 (1992) 287

View on Pith 1992

[26] [26]

G. H¨ ohler,πN NewsLetter 9 (1993) 1

View on Pith 1993

[27] [27]

F.T. Smith, Phys. Rev. 118 (1960) 349

View on Pith 1960

[28] [28]

K. Hagiwara et al., Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 010001. 12

View on Pith 2002