Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Systematic study of light and charm meson M1 radiative transitions

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that a single empirical factor, Omega=1.28, brings effective-mass and potential-model predictions of charm meson M1 radiative widths into line with experiment, while light meson widths need no rescaling at all.

desk verdict Transparent two-model study of M1 widths; the raw comparisons are honest, but the 'improved' charm predictions are post hoc calibrations that the paper's own numbers contradict. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.10560 v2 pith:EHBWNNTC submitted 2025-06-12 hep-ph hep-ex

Binesh Mohan , Christas Mony A. , Rohit Dhir This is my paper
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords M1radiativetransitionseffectivemassschemecharmmesonstransitionmagneticmomentspotentialmodelhyperfineinteractionQCDcorrectionsdecaywidths
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 aims to show that magnetic dipole (M1) radiative transitions of vector to pseudoscalar mesons, from light mesons through charmonium, can be described by one unified picture built from quark effective masses. Its central move is to extract effective quark masses and hyperfine terms from measured meson masses, then compute V->P transition magnetic moments and decay widths. In the light sector the scheme reproduces measured widths without any scale factor; in the charm sector a single factor $\Omega$=1.28, extracted from D*+ -> D+ gamma and interpreted as the heavy-quark anomalous magnetic moment correction, restores agreement. A non-relativistic potential model, after a factor f=0.603 fixed by J/psi -> eta_c gamma, converges to the same predictions. The paper concludes that the scale dependence of the strong coupling and the wave function at the origin encodes genuine QCD corrections, so the framework reliably predicts M1 decay widths.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the V -> P transition magnetic moment mu_{V->P} = mu_q^E - mu_{\bar q'}^E, built from effective quark magnetic moments with a transition mass taken as the arithmetic mean of the effective masses. The decay width follows as Gamma = ($omega^{3}$ / (12 pi)) |mu_{V->P}|^2 with omega the photon momentum computed from measured masses. The hyperfine term b_qq' = 32 pi alpha_s / (9 m_q m_q') |psi(0)|^2 absorbs the joint scale dependence of alpha_s and the wave function at the origin, which is what lets the scheme separate spectroscopy from the residual correction encoded in $\Omega$. In the potential model the analogous object is the spatial overlap matrix element in the width formula with spherical Bessel functions j0(k_gamma r m_q'/(m_q+m_q')), whose scale and flavor dependence is corrected by the factor f. The convergence of $\Omega$ and f is the argument that a single QCD correction underlies both descriptions.

What would settle it

A decisive test is a precision measurement of Gamma(D*0 -> D0 gamma). With $\Omega$=1.28, the EMS predicts a width near 19 keV and the corrected PM near 21 keV, while the D*+ -> D+ gamma width is fixed at 1.33(33) keV; a measured ratio for D*0/D*+ that deviates from about 14:1 would falsify the single-factor assumption. A complementary test is J/psi -> eta_c gamma at few-percent precision, which would distinguish the 2-loop prediction of 1.041(90) keV from the 3-loop prediction of 1.834(414) keV.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that a parameter-lean effective mass scheme, using effective quark masses m_q^E = m_q plus or minus (3/8 or 1/8) b_qq' defined through the one-gluon-exchange hyperfine interaction, reproduces the light meson M1 widths directly, and that the same scheme describes the charm sector once the transition moments are multiplied by $\Omega$=1.28, a factor interpreted as (1+kappa_Q) with kappa_Q the heavy-quark anomalous magnetic moment. The potential model, which solves the Schrodinger equation with the Cornell potential and computes widths from spatial wave function overlaps, overestimates the same charm widths until reduced by f=0.603, fixed by the experimental J/psi -> eta_c gamma width; after that factor the two approaches agree. The paper presents this convergence as evidence that the missing physics in both frameworks is the same higher-order QCD and relativistic correction.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that one empirically determined factor, $\Omega$=1.28 from D*+ -> D+ gamma in EMS and f=0.603 from J/psi -> eta_c gamma in PM, applies unchanged to every charm-sector M1 transition, so channel-dependent missing QCD corrections would invalidate the refined predictions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Light meson M1 widths (rho, omega, phi, K*) are predicted with no rescaling and can be checked against improved direct measurements.
  • The charm-sector predictions for D*0 -> D0 gamma (about 19 keV in EMS, 21 keV in corrected PM) and D*_s -> D_s gamma (about 0.2 keV) become concrete targets for future charm-factory measurements.
  • Total widths of D*0 and D*_s estimated from the computed M1 widths and measured branching ratios are about 54 keV and 0.23 keV, testable once total widths are measured.
  • For J/psi -> eta_c gamma, the 2-loop anomalous magnetic moment correction gives 1.041(90) keV and the 3-loop gives 1.834(414) keV, bracketing the experimental value and motivating higher-order calculations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the single-factor logic holds, the same Omega extracted from D*+ -> D+ gamma should transfer to B* -> B gamma when experimental widths arrive; the bottom sector provides a clean out-of-sample test the paper does not perform.
  • The near-coincidence of Omega=1.28 with the 2-loop (1+kappa_Q)=1.324 suggests that the charm scale factor may be a running-coupling artifact; measuring J/psi -> eta_c gamma to about 5% would tell whether the 2-loop or 3-loop value better represents the underlying QCD correction.
  • The relation g_VP_gamma proportional to mu_{V->P} used to extract Omega implies that independent coupling determinations for each charm channel could replace the single global factor with channel-specific factors, which is the natural next refinement.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes two complementary descriptions of V→P M1 radiative transitions in light and charm mesons: an effective mass scheme (EMS) in which effective quark masses are derived from experimental meson masses and hyperfine terms, and a non-relativistic Cornell potential model (PM). The EMS transition moments are converted to decay widths using Eq. (15), and the PM widths are obtained from Eq. (22). For the charm sector, the paper introduces a scale factor Ω=1.28 extracted from the experimental D*+→D+γ coupling and a phenomenological factor f=0.603 extracted from the J/ψ→ηcγ width, which are then applied to all charm channels. The paper reports improved widths in Table IX and interprets the scale factors as estimates of higher-order QCD corrections such as the heavy-quark anomalous magnetic moment and relativistic corrections.

Significance. If the unified description claimed in the abstract were quantitatively supported, the paper would offer a compact, semi-analytic tool for M1 transitions and a useful benchmark for future charm measurements. The paper also provides a broad comparison with many existing models, and the explicit use of machine-checkable algebraic definitions for the additive mass scheme is a positive feature. However, the central predictive claim is not established: the 'improved' charm widths are calibrated to the very channels they are said to predict, the uniform charm-sector scale factor is contradicted by the paper's own numbers, and the light-meson agreement is overstated. The manuscript is best viewed as a model study with useful aggregate comparisons rather than as a source of reliable new predictions.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. V.C.1.5 and Table IX] The 'improved' EMS width for D*+→D+γ is not a prediction, because Ω=1.28 is defined as g_Expt/g_EMS for that exact channel. Similarly, the PM row for J/ψ→ηcγ in Table IX is forced to the PDG value by construction, since f=0.603 is Γ_Expt/Γ_PM for the same transition. For these calibration channels, the agreement in Table IX is a restatement of the input data; the table should be labeled as a recalibration or consistency check rather than as a set of improved predictions.
  2. [Sec. V.C.1.5 and Table IX] The assumption that a single scale factor Ω refines all charm-sector transitions uniformly is not supported by the paper's own results. Extracting Ω independently from J/ψ→ηcγ gives sqrt(1.57/0.594) ≈ 1.63, compared with Ω = 1.28 obtained from D*+→D+γ. With Ω = 1.28, the improved J/ψ width is 0.973 keV, which remains 38% below the PDG value 1.57(37) keV, a discrepancy outside the quoted experimental uncertainty. The text therefore overstates the uniformity of the charm-sector correction.
  3. [Sec. V.D.3] The loop order of the anomalous-magnetic-moment correction is chosen per channel after comparison with data. The 2-loop factor (1+κ_Q)=1.324 is retained for D*+→D+γ, while the 3-loop factor 1.757 is invoked only to bring J/ψ→ηcγ into agreement. Since no scheme-independent criterion fixes the loop order before confronting the data, the 'improved' widths in Table IX carry limited predictive value; the analysis should either prescribe a single consistent order or explicitly present both orders as a range without claiming a unified prediction.
  4. [Sec. V.C.1.1 and Table VII] The claim that EMS reproduces light-meson M1 widths without scale factors is overstated. The EMS entries for φ→ηγ and φ→η′γ are 29.524 keV and 0.129 keV, respectively, against PDG values of 55.28 keV and 0.26 keV, i.e., deviations by factors of about 1.9 and 2.0. These are among the same transitions used to argue agreement, so the abstract's wording 'reliably predict' should be qualified to reflect the actual level of quantitative agreement in the light sector.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. VI] The concluding sentence that 'complete consistency across all decays remains challenging... highlighting the need for decay-specific treatments' is in tension with the earlier presentation of a universal scale factor for the charm sector; the main text should explicitly reconcile these two statements.
  2. [Sec. IV and Sec. V.C.2] The term 'isoplet masses' appears to be a typo for 'isospin multiplet masses' or 'isomultiplet masses'; please correct it.
  3. [Sec. V.C.1.5 and Sec. V.D.3] The notation Ω and Ω′ is easy to confuse because Ω′ is defined later as (1+κ_Q) while Ω is the g-based scale factor; please define both quantities in one place and use distinct symbols consistently throughout the text and Table IX.
  4. [Table VII] The PDG column mixes directly measured widths, such as ρ→πγ, with values extracted from branching ratios and total widths; a footnote clarifying which entries are direct measurements and which are derived would improve transparency.

Circularity Check

4 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Charm-sector 'improved' widths in Table IX are calibrated: Omega is fitted to D*+->D+gamma and f is fitted to J/psi->eta_c gamma, forcing those entries to the measured values by construction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. V.C.1.5 (EMS scale factor Omega), using Eq. (15)]
    "Considering gExpt V Pγ = −0.47(7) GeV−1 [5] and our estimate for D∗+ → D+γ, we obtain Ω = gExpt V Pγ / gEM S V Pγ = µExpt V →P / µEM S V →P = 1.28. This factor will incorporate dynamical effects into our static transition magnetic moments, and thereby improve our transition moments and M1 decay widths of charm mesons."

    Equation (15) gives Γ ∝ |µV→P|², so multiplying the EMS transition moment by Ω = µExpt/µEMS makes the 'improved' D*+→D+γ width equal Ω²ΓEMS = ΓExpt by construction. Table IX lists EMS(Ω)=1.328 keV against the PDG input 1.33(33) keV. The claimed 'improved' charm widths are therefore calibrated to the measured D*+ width, not independent predictions of it.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. V.C.2.4 (PM correction factor f)]
    "using ΓExpt(J/ψ → ηcγ) = 1.57(37) keV [5] and our theoretical value (from Eq. (22)), we find f = ΓExpt(J/ψ → ηcγ)/ΓP M(J/ψ → ηcγ) = 0.603. Subsequently, this factor, which represents a 40% reduction, is applied to all our predictions for the decay widths of charmed and charm-strange mesons."

    The corrected J/ψ width is f × ΓPM = ΓExpt by definition, and Table IX indeed lists PM(f)=1.571 keV for the PDG input 1.57(37) keV. All other PM 'improved' charm widths are obtained by multiplying raw predictions by a factor extracted from this single measured charm decay, so their improvement is inherited from the fit rather than derived from the dynamics.

2 more flagged steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. V.D.3 (anomalous magnetic moment in EMS) and Table IX]
    "Incorporating the 3-loop correction of Ref. [84] gives (1 + κQ) = 1.757(197) and a width of 1.834(414) keV. While the 3-loop result agrees better with experiment and lattice QCD result for J/ψ → ηcγ, the 2-loop result proves more consistent for Γ(D∗+ → D+γ) as shown in column 3 of Table IX."

    The order of the QCD correction is selected per channel after comparing with data: the 2-loop result is retained for D*+ to preserve the Ω=1.28 calibration, while the 3-loop result is invoked for J/ψ because the 2-loop value remains 38% low. This is post-hoc matching to the two measured widths, not a parameter-free prediction; the 'scale-dependent correction' acts as a channel-dependent fit.

  2. other [Sec. V.B.5 and Sec. VI bullet on transition mass]
    "We find that using the arithmetic mean as the transition mass yields excellent results for M1 decay widths compared to the geometric mean, especially for light mesons. Given the lack of experimental data on transition moments, this approach appears to be a reasonable choice for explaining the decay widths."

    The transition-mass prescription is selected because it reproduces the light-meson widths, and the same data are then quoted as validating the scheme. The 'without a scale factor' light-sector claim is therefore not an independent test of the framework; a different choice (geometric mean) would shift the predictions, and the choice between the two is made by optimizing agreement with the target decay widths.

full rationale

The raw EMS and PM calculations in Tables VII and VIII have independent content: effective quark masses and bqq' terms are fixed from meson spectra, and the PM wave functions come from a Cornell-potential Schrödinger solution. Those raw numbers are not circular. The circularity enters at the 'improved' stage. In Sec. V.C.1.5, Ω is defined as µExpt/µEMS for D*+→D+γ; because Γ is proportional to |µ|², the entry EMS(Ω)=1.328 keV in Table IX equals the experimental input 1.33(33) keV by construction, not by prediction. Likewise, f is defined as ΓExpt(J/ψ→ηcγ)/ΓPM(J/ψ→ηcγ), so PM(f)=1.571 keV is the PDG input 1.57(37) keV by construction. The remaining charm entries are rescaled by these single-channel factors under a universality assumption that the paper itself contradicts: with uniform Ω, J/ψ→ηcγ remains 38% low, and the 2-loop versus 3-loop κQ choice is made per channel after seeing the data (Sec. V.D.3). The light-sector validation is weakened by the data-driven choice of the arithmetic-mean transition mass (Sec. V.B.5), although the raw light widths are not fitted coefficients. Reference [63] is a self-citation for PM parameters, but it is parametric calibration rather than the reduction that forces the predictions, so it is not the main source of circularity. Overall, the framework has genuine independent components, but the headline 'reliably predict' charm results reduce in part to the experimental inputs used to set Ω and f, giving partial circularity rather than a fully independent derivation.

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

The model's freedom comes from quark masses, hyperfine terms, potential parameters, and empirical scale factors, all fixed by fitting to meson spectra and, in the case of Omega and f, to the very decay widths the paper aims to predict. The central predictions therefore inherit a substantial calibration burden.

free parameters (6)
  • Constituent quark masses (m_u=m_d, m_s, m_c) = 0.306, 0.489, 1.587 GeV
    Extracted from experimental ground-state meson masses via Eqs. (3)-(4) (Table I); set the scale of all magnetic moment predictions.
  • Hyperfine terms b_qq' = 0.629, 0.402, 0.164, 0.142, 0.144, 0.113 GeV
    Fixed by vector-pseudoscalar mass splittings; control effective mass shifts and transition moments.
  • Potential model parameters (alpha_s, sigma, V_c, rho) = alpha_s=0.56; sigma_cu=0.114, sigma_cs=0.145 GeV^2; Vc values -0.25, -0.291, -0.014 GeV; rho 1.776, 1.245, 1.19 GeV
    Calibrated to charm and charmonium spectra (Table II); determine wave functions used in M1 matrix elements.
  • Scale factor Omega (EMS) = 1.28
    Ratio of experimental to EMS g_VPgamma for D*+->D+gamma; applied to all charm transition moments.
  • Phenomenological factor f (PM) = 0.603
    Ratio of experimental to PM J/psi->eta_c gamma width; applied to all charm PM widths.
  • Transition mass averaging scheme = arithmetic mean
    Selected post hoc because it improves light meson widths relative to geometric mean (Sec. V.B.5).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Meson mass is the sum of effective quark masses with a hyperfine term proportional to s_q.s_qbar (Eq. (1)).
    Foundation of EMS; taken from one-gluon exchange models (Ref. [48]).
  • domain assumption The magnetic moment of a constituent quark is e_i/(2 m^E_i) with m^E_i from spectroscopy (Eq. (12)).
    Assumes the mass parameter controlling spin interactions also governs the magnetic moment.
  • ad hoc to paper The transition mass equals the arithmetic mean of the initial and final effective masses.
    Phenomenological choice; geometric mean gives worse light-meson widths.
  • ad hoc to paper A single scale factor (Omega or f) corrects all charm-sector M1 transitions.
    Extracted from one channel; assumed universal across quarkonium and heavy-light systems.
  • domain assumption The Cornell potential plus a smeared delta spin-spin term yields reliable wave functions and masses (Eqs. (17)-(20)).
    Standard non-relativistic potential model; parameters fitted to spectra.
  • ad hoc to paper g_VPgamma is proportional to the static transition magnetic moment mu_V->P.
    Stated without derivation in Sec. V.C.1.5; used to relate scale factors to widths.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Systematic study of light and charm meson M1 radiative transitions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EHBWNNTC

@misc{pith2026250610560,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Systematic study of light and charm meson M1 radiative transitions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EHBWNNTC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.10560}
}
abstract

Motivated by recent experimental advancements in the study of radiative decays of charmed mesons, we investigate the magnetic (transition) moments of vector mesons by applying the effective mass scheme, obtained from the one-gluon exchange interaction between quark-antiquark pairs. By incorporating high-precision experimental data from both heavy and light flavor sectors, we accurately account for the strong hyperfine interaction contributions to the quark and antiquark masses within mesons. We calculate the $V \to P$ effective transition magnetic moments to reliably predict M1 decay widths. Furthermore, to enhance the completeness of our analysis, we employ the non-relativistic potential model to calculate bound state isomultiplet masses and to predict the M1 decay widths of charmed mesons. Additionally, scale-dependent effects in both the effective mass scheme and the potential model are systematically analyzed and interpreted, emphasizing the decisive role of higher-order QCD corrections in determining M1 decay widths.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.10560 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Variation of M1 decay width, Γ, with effective coupling, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Variation of |ψ(0)| 2 estimates with αs for charm mesons in EMS. 37 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Variation of anomalous magnetic moment, κQ = 2αs(µ) 3π , with scale, µ, for charm mesons. The corresponding curves in EMS and PM are plotted based on αs(µ) estimated from αs(mc) = 0.56(6) and αsc(mc) = 0.334, respectively. 38 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. $M1$ Radiative Transition of Light Mesons in the Light-Front Quark Model

    hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The paper predicts M1 radiative transition couplings and partial widths for rho and K* mesons in the 1S and 2S states using light-front quark model wave functions from a smeared spin-spin effective Hamiltonian.

  2. Radiative Decays of Vector Mesons with Light-Cone Sum Rules

    hep-ph 2025-11 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Light-cone sum rules yield radiative decay widths for ground-state vector mesons that match data where available and exhibit a universal linear dependence on a function A(x) in log coordinates arising from decay-const...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    V. P. Druzhinin, [arXiv:0710.3455 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv

  2. [2]

    Garc ´ ıa Gudi˜ no and G

    D. Garc ´ ıa Gudi˜ no and G. Toledo S´ anchez, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A30, no.18n19, 1550114 (2015) doi:10.1142/S0217751X15501146 27

    work page doi:10.1142/s0217751x15501146 2015

  3. [3]

    J. P. Lees et al. [BaBar], Phys. Rev. D 96, no.9, 092009 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.092009 [arXiv:1709.01171 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    Rojas and G

    A. Rojas and G. Toledo, Phys. Rev. D 110, no.5, 056037 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.056037 [arXiv:2406.14676 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Navas et al

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

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.030001 2024

  6. [6]

    Gronberg et al

    J. Gronberg et al. [CLEO], Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 3232-3236 (1995) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.3232 [arXiv:hep-ex/9508001 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 1995

  7. [7]

    Abachi, C

    S. Abachi, C. Akerlof, P. Baringer, D. Blockus, B. Brabson, J. M. Brom, B. G. Bylsma, J. Chap- man, B. Cork and R. Debonte, et al. Phys. Lett. B 212, 533-536 (1988) doi:10.1016/0370- 2693(88)91811-4

    doi:10.1016/0370- 1988

  8. [8]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII], Phys. Rev. D 91, no.3, 031101 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.031101 [arXiv:1412.4566 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2015

Show all 87 references
  1. [9]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII], Phys. Rev. D 107, no.3, 032011 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.032011 [arXiv:2212.13361 [hep-ex]]

    2023

  2. [10]

    Simonis, arXiv:1803.01809 [hep-ph]

    V. Simonis, arXiv:1803.01809 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  3. [11]

    ˇSimonis, Eur

    V. ˇSimonis, Eur. Phys. J. A 52, no.4, 90 (2016) doi:10.1140/epja/i2016-16090-5 [arXiv:1604.05894 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Pullin and R

    B. Pullin and R. Zwicky, JHEP 09, 023 (2021) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2021)023 [arXiv:2106.13617 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  5. [13]

    T. M. Aliev, S. Bilmis and M. Savci, Phys. Rev. D 101, no.5, 054009 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.054009 [arXiv:1912.05988 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  6. [14]

    T. M. Aliev, A. Ozpineci and M. Savci, Phys. Lett. B 678, 470-476 (2009) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2009.06.073 [arXiv:0902.4627 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  7. [15]

    W. X. Zhang, H. Xu and D. Jia, Phys. Rev. D 104, no.11, 114011 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.114011 [arXiv:2109.07040 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Y. L. Luan, X. L. Chen and W. Z. Deng, Chin. Phys. C 39, no.11, 113103 (2015) doi:10.1088/1674-1137/39/11/113103 [arXiv:1504.03799 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  9. [17]

    H. B. Deng, X. L. Chen and W. Z. Deng, Chin. Phys. C 38, no.1, 013103 (2014) doi:10.1088/1674-1137/38/1/013103 [arXiv:1304.5279 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  10. [18]

    M. S. Bhagwat and P. Maris, Phys. Rev. C77, 025203 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.77.025203 [arXiv:nucl-th/0612069 [nucl-th]]

    2008 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Maris and P

    P. Maris and P. C. Tandy, Phys. Rev. C 65, 045211 (2002) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.65.045211 [arXiv:nucl-th/0201017 [nucl-th]]

    2002 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Y. Z. Xu, JHEP 07, 118 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2024)118 [arXiv:2402.06141 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    A. M. Badalian and Y. A. Simonov, Phys. Rev. D 87, no.7, 074012 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.074012 [arXiv:1211.4349 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  14. [22]

    B. Owen, W. Kamleh, D. Leinweber, B. Menadue and S. Mahbub, Phys. Rev. D 91, no.7, 074503 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.074503 [arXiv:1501.02561 [hep-lat]]

    2015 arXiv

  15. [23]

    F. X. Lee, S. Moerschbacher and W. Wilcox, Phys. Rev. D 78, 094502 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.094502 [arXiv:0807.4150 [hep-lat]]. 28

    2008 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Y. Meng, J. L. Dang, C. Liu, Z. Liu, T. Shen, H. Yan and K. L. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 109, no.7, 074511 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.074511 [arXiv:2401.13475 [hep-lat]]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Colquhoun et al.[Particle Data Group, HPQCD and (HPQCD Collaboration)‡], Phys

    B. Colquhoun et al.[Particle Data Group, HPQCD and (HPQCD Collaboration)‡], Phys. Rev. D 108, no.1, 014513 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.014513 [arXiv:2305.06231 [hep-lat]]

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Becirevic and B

    D. Becirevic and B. Haas, Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1734 (2011) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1734-y [arXiv:0903.2407 [hep-lat]]

    2011 arXiv

  19. [27]

    L. Meng, B. Wang, G. J. Wang and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rept. 1019, 1-149 (2023) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2023.04.003 [arXiv:2204.08716 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    B. Wang, B. Yang, L. Meng and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 100, no.1, 016019 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.016019 [arXiv:1905.07742 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    S. N. Jena, M. K. Muni, H. R. Pattnaik and K. P. Sahu, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 25, 2063-2086 (2010) doi:10.1142/S0217751X10048214

    2010 doi

  22. [30]

    S. N. Jena, P. Panda and T. C. Tripathy, Nucl. Phys. A699, 649-664 (2002) doi:10.1016/S0375- 9474(01)01299-4

    2002 doi

  23. [31]

    F. L. Wang, S. Q. Luo and X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 107, no.11, 114017 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.114017 [arXiv:2303.04542 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Ahmady, S

    M. Ahmady, S. Kaur, C. Mondal and R. Sandapen, Phys. Rev. D 102, no.3, 034021 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.034021 [arXiv:2006.07675 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  25. [33]

    H. M. Choi and C. R. Ji, Phys. Rev. D 59, 074015 (1999) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.59.074015 [arXiv:hep-ph/9711450 [hep-ph]]

    1999 arXiv

  26. [34]

    H. M. Choi, Phys. Rev. D 75, 073016 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.75.073016 [arXiv:hep- ph/0701263 [hep-ph]]

    2007

  27. [35]

    J. Lu, G. L. Yu, Z. G. Wang and B. Wu, Phys. Lett. B 852, 138624 (2024) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138624 [arXiv:2401.00669 [hep-ph]]

    2024

  28. [36]

    Bonnaz, B

    R. Bonnaz, B. Silvestre-Brac and C. Gignoux,Eur. Phys. J. A 13, 363-376 (2002) doi:10.1007/s10050-002-8765-6 [arXiv:hep-ph/0101112 [hep-ph]]

    2002 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Priyadarsini, P

    M. Priyadarsini, P. C. Dash, S. Kar, S. P. Patra and N. Barik,Phys. Rev. D 94, no.11, 113011 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.113011

    2016 doi

  30. [38]

    Ebert, R

    D. Ebert, R. N. Faustov and V. O. Galkin, Phys. Lett. B 537, 241-248 (2002) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(02)01939-1 [arXiv:hep-ph/0204089 [hep-ph]]

    2002 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Ebert, R

    D. Ebert, R. N. Faustov and V. O. Galkin, Phys. Rev. D 67, 014027 (2003) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.67.014027 [arXiv:hep-ph/0210381 [hep-ph]]

    2003 arXiv

  32. [40]

    C. Y. Cheung and C. W. Hwang, JHEP 04, 177 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2014)177 [arXiv:1401.3917 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  33. [41]

    C. Y. Cheung and C. W. Hwang, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, no.1, 19 (2016) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052- 016-3883-5 [arXiv:1508.07686 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Godfrey and K

    S. Godfrey and K. Moats, Phys. Rev. D 93, no.3, 034035 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.034035 [arXiv:1510.08305 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Godfrey and N

    S. Godfrey and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. D 32, 189-231 (1985) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.32.189

    1985 doi

  36. [44]

    C. T. Tran, M. A. Ivanov, P. Santorelli and Q. C. Vo, Chin. Phys. C 48, no.2, 023103 (2024) doi:10.1088/1674-1137/ad102c [arXiv:2311.15248 [hep-ph]]. 29

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Mohan, T

    B. Mohan, T. M. S., A. Hazra and R. Dhir, Phys. Rev. D 106, no.11, 113007 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.113007 [arXiv:2211.16418 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Hazra, S

    A. Hazra, S. Rakshit and R. Dhir, Phys. Rev. D 104, no.5, 053002 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.053002 [arXiv:2108.01840 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  39. [47]

    R. Dhir, C. S. Kim and R. C. Verma, Phys. Rev. D 88, 094002 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.094002 [arXiv:1309.4057 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  40. [48]

    De Rujula, H

    A. De Rujula, H. Georgi and S. L. Glashow, Phys. Rev. D 12, 147-162 (1975) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.12.147

    1975 doi

  41. [49]

    Morpurgo, Phys

    G. Morpurgo, Phys. Rev. D 41, 2865 (1990) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.41.2865

    1990 doi

  42. [50]

    Dillon and G

    G. Dillon and G. Morpurgo, Phys. Rev. D 53, 3754-3769 (1996) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.53.3754

    1996 doi

  43. [51]

    Dillon and G

    G. Dillon and G. Morpurgo, Phys. Rev. D 68, 014001 (2003) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.68.014001 [arXiv:hep-ph/0211256 [hep-ph]]

    2003 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Durand, P

    L. Durand, P. Ha and G. Jaczko, Phys. Rev. D 64, 014008 (2001) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.64.014008 [arXiv:hep-ph/0101267 [hep-ph]]

    2001 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Durand, P

    L. Durand, P. Ha and G. Jaczko, Phys. Rev. D 65, 034019 (2002) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 65, 099904 (2002)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.65.099904 [arXiv:hep-ph/0104197 [hep-ph]]

    2002 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Morpurgo, Riv

    G. Morpurgo, Riv. Nuovo Cim. 22N2, 1-23 (1999) doi:10.1007/BF02893622

    1999 doi

  47. [55]

    R. C. Verma, Phys. Rev. D 22, 698 (1980) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.22.698

    1980 doi

  48. [56]

    Eichten, K

    E. Eichten, K. Gottfried, T. Kinoshita, J. B. Kogut, K. D. Lane and T. M. Yan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 34, 369-372 (1975) [erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett. 36, 1276 (1976)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.34.369

    1975 doi

  49. [57]

    Eichten, K

    E. Eichten, K. Gottfried, T. Kinoshita, K. D. Lane and T. M. Yan, Phys. Rev. D 21, 203 (1980) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.21.203

    1980 doi

  50. [58]

    Eichten and F

    E. Eichten and F. L. Feinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 1205 (1979) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.43.1205

    1979 doi

  51. [59]

    Eichten and F

    E. Eichten and F. Feinberg, Phys. Rev. D 23, 2724 (1981) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.23.2724

    1981 doi

  52. [60]

    Gromes, Z

    D. Gromes, Z. Phys. C 26, 401 (1984) doi:10.1007/BF01452566

    1984 doi

  53. [61]

    Lucha and F

    W. Lucha and F. F. Schoberl, [arXiv:hep-ph/9601263 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  54. [62]

    Barnes, S

    T. Barnes, S. Godfrey and E. S. Swanson, Phys. Rev. D 72, 054026 (2005) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.72.054026 [arXiv:hep-ph/0505002 [hep-ph]]

    2005 arXiv

  55. [63]

    C. Mony A. and R. Dhir, J. Phys. G 51, no.11, 115004 (2024) doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ad7bd5 [arXiv:2311.05274 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    D. M. Li, P. F. Ji and B. Ma, Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1582 (2011) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-011- 1582-9 [arXiv:1011.1548 [hep-ph]]

    2011 arXiv

  57. [65]

    R. H. Ni, Q. Li and X. H. Zhong, Phys. Rev. D 105, no.5, 056006 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.056006 [arXiv:2110.05024 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  58. [66]

    W. Hao, Y. Lu and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. D 106, no.7, 074014 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.074014 [arXiv:2208.10915 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  59. [67]

    W. Hao, M. A. Sultan and E. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 111, no.9, 094024 (2025) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.094024 [arXiv:2411.02976 [hep-ph]]. 30

    2025 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Lectures on the New Particles,

    J. D. Jackson, “Lectures on the New Particles,” Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report No. LBL-5500, reprinted in Proceedings of the SLAC Summer Institute on Particle Physics, 1976, SLAC Report No. SLAC-198, edited by Martha C. Zipf, p. 147

    1976

  61. [69]

    V. A. Novikov, L. B. Okun, M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, M. B. Voloshin and V. I. Zakharov, Phys. Rept. 41, 1-133 (1978) doi:10.1016/0370-1573(78)90120-5

    1978 doi

  62. [70]

    Ridwan, A

    M. Ridwan, A. J. Arifi and T. Mart, Phys. Rev. D 111, no.1, 016011 (2025) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.016011 [arXiv:2409.13172 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  63. [71]

    M. Jia, W. Li, S. Y. Pei, X. Y. Du, G. Z. Ning and G. L. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, no.3, 282 (2025) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-13974-9 [arXiv:2412.10775 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Wang and Q

    J. Wang and Q. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 111, no.9, 096007 (2025) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.096007 [arXiv:2503.13138 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Becirevic and F

    D. Becirevic and F. Sanfilippo, Phys. Lett. B 721, 94-100 (2013) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2013.03.004 [arXiv:1210.5410 [hep-lat]]

    2013 arXiv

  66. [74]

    W. J. Deng, H. Liu, L. C. Gui and X. H. Zhong, Phys. Rev. D 95, no.3, 034026 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.034026 [arXiv:1608.00287 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Brambilla et al

    N. Brambilla et al. [Quarkonium Working Group], doi:10.5170/CERN-2005-005 [arXiv:hep- ph/0412158 [hep-ph]]

    2005

  68. [76]

    Brambilla, S

    N. Brambilla, S. Eidelman, B. K. Heltsley, R. Vogt, G. T. Bodwin, E. Eichten, A. D. Frawley, A. B. Meyer, R. E. Mitchell and V. Papadimitriou, et al. Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1534 (2011) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-010-1534-9 [arXiv:1010.5827 [hep-ph]]

    2011 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Brambilla, Y

    N. Brambilla, Y. Jia and A. Vairo, Phys. Rev. D 73, 054005 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.054005 [arXiv:hep-ph/0512369 [hep-ph]]

    2006 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Brambilla, A

    N. Brambilla, A. Pineda, J. Soto and A. Vairo, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 1423 (2005) doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.77.1423 [arXiv:hep-ph/0410047 [hep-ph]]

    2005 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Kwong, P

    W. Kwong, P. B. Mackenzie, R. Rosenfeld and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. D 37, 3210 (1988) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.37.3210

    1988 doi

  72. [80]

    Herren and M

    F. Herren and M. Steinhauser, Comput. Phys. Commun. 224, 333-345 (2018) doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2017.11.014 [arXiv:1703.03751 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Schmidt and M

    B. Schmidt and M. Steinhauser, Comput. Phys. Commun. 183, 1845-1848 (2012) doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2012.03.023 [arXiv:1201.6149 [hep-ph]]

    2012 arXiv

  74. [82]

    K. G. Chetyrkin, J. H. Kuhn and M. Steinhauser, Comput. Phys. Commun. 133, 43-65 (2000) doi:10.1016/S0010-4655(00)00155-7 [arXiv:hep-ph/0004189 [hep-ph]]

    2000 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Pineda and J

    A. Pineda and J. Segovia, Phys. Rev. D 87, no.7, 074024 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.074024 [arXiv:1302.3528 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  76. [84]

    A. G. Grozin, P. Marquard, J. H. Piclum and M. Steinhauser, Nucl. Phys. B 789, 277-293 (2008) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2007.08.012 [arXiv:0707.1388 [hep-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  77. [85]

    A. S. Fomin, S. Barsuk, A. Y. Korchin, V. A. Kovalchuk, E. Kou, M. Liul, A. Natochii, E. Niel, P. Robbe and A. Stocchi, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, no.5, 358 (2020) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020- 7891-0 [arXiv:1909.04654 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  78. [86]

    A. S. Fomin, A. Y. Korchin, A. Stocchi, O. A. Bezshyyko, L. Burmistrov, S. P. Fomin, I. V. Kirillin, L. Massacrier, A. Natochii and P. Robbe, et al. JHEP 08, 120 (2017) 31 doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2017)120 [arXiv:1705.03382 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  79. [87]

    G. M. Prosperi, M. Raciti and C. Simolo, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 58, 387-438 (2007) doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2006.09.001 [arXiv:hep-ph/0607209 [hep-ph]]. 32 Table III: Magnetic moments of mesons (in units of nuclear magneton, µN ). V ector This work EBM LCQSR MIT NJL DSE DSE/BSE RH ...

    2007 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.