High spin states in 190Tl have been studied experimentally using the 160Gd(35Cl,5n) fusion evaporation reaction at beam energies of 167—175 MeV. A rotational band built on the πh9/2⊙νi13/2 configuration with oblate deformation has been established. Spin values have been firmly assigned to the πh9/2⊙νi13/2 oblate band by combining the present in beam experimental results with the complementary α γ correlation measurements of 194Bi α decay. With the configuration and spin parity assignments, the low spin signature inversion has been revealed for the πh9/2⊙νi13/2 oblate band. It is the first experimental observation of low spin signature inversion for a band associated with the oblate πh9/2⊙νi13/2 configuration. The low spin signature inversion could be interpreted in the framework of the quasiparticles plus rotor model including a J dependent proton neutron residual interaction.
The hadron X(3872) has attracted considerable attention since it was first observed by Belle in the exclusive decay B±→K±π+π−J/Ψ [1]. Though X(3872) has been confirmed by many experimental collaborations, such as the CDF [2], D0 [3], Babar [4], and LHCb [5], with quantum numbers JPC=1++ and isospin I=0, there are still many uncertainties. Because the mass of X(3872) is close to the D0ˉD∗0 threshold, several authors interpret it as a loosely bound molecular state [6–10], in which the building blocks are hadrons [11]. Others regard X(3872) as a compact tetraquark state [12–15], in which the building blocks are quarks and anti-quarks. There are other explanations, such as cˉcg hybrid meson [16, 17] and glueballs [18]. Though there are many different exotic hadron state interpretations of X(3872), it has not been ruled out that the first radial excitation of the 1P charmonium state χc1(1P) is the most natural assignment [19–21]. Note that X(3872) was renamed χc1(3872) by the Particle Data Group (PDG) [22].
Many studies on the production and decays of X(3872)have been performed to investigate the inner structure ofX(3872) [23–26]. In Ref. [26], the authors calculated Γ(X(3872)→J/ψπ+π−) using QCD sum rules and concluded that X(3872) is approximately 97% a charmonium state with a small molecular component. Many B meson decays with X(3872) in the final states have been studied using different approaches [27–33]. In Ref. [28], the authors studied the B→χc1(1P,2P)K decays using the QCD factorization (QCDF) approach and argued that X(3872) has a dominant cˉc component but mixes with the D0ˉD∗0+D∗0ˉD0 continuum component. The Bc→X(3872)π(K) decays were studied both using the covariant light-front (CLF) approach [29] and generalized factorization (GF) approach [30], respectively. In the former, X(3872) was identified as a 1++ charmonium state, whereas a tetraquark state was assumed in the latter. One may expect different results for the same decays under the different structure hypotheses ofX(3872). The B→X(3872)K decay has also received significant attention from many researchers. In Refs. [31, 32], the authors assumed X(3872) to be a loosely bound S-wave molecular state of D0ˉD∗0(D∗0ˉD0) and estimated the branching ratio of the B+→X(3872)K+ decay to be (0.07∼1)×10−4. Furthermore, they considered the branching ratio of the B0→X(3872)K0 decay to be suppressed by more than one order of magnitude compared with that of the B+→X(3872)K+decay, which indicates that there is large isospin symmetry between the B+→X(3872)K+ and B0→X(3872)K0decays. If this type of large isospin symmetry is observed in experiments, any charmonium interpretation of X(3872) will be disfavored. Two years later, the branching ratio of the B+→X(3872)K+ decay was calculated using the perturbative QCD (PQCD) approach, assuming X(3872) as a regular cˉc charmonium state, in Ref. [33]; a large value of Br(B+→X(3872)K+)=(7.88+4.87−3.76)×10−4was obtained. Clearly, this result is significantly larger than the present experimental upper limits given by Belle [34] and BaBar [35] at the 90% C.L.,
Br(B+→X(3872)K+)<2.6×10−4(Belle),
(1)
Br(B+→X(3872)K+)<3.2×10−4(BaBar).
(2)
Here, we conduct a systematic study of the Bc,u,d→X(3872)P decays using the PQCD approach, where P represents a light pseudoscalar meson (K or π). The layout of this paper is as follows. We present the analytic calculations of the amplitudes of the Bc,u,d→X(3872)P decays in Section II. The numerical results and discussions are given in Section III, where we compare our results with other theoretical predictions and experimental data. The conclusions are presented in Section IV.
Because the PQCD approach based on kT factorization has been successfully applied to many two-body charmed B meson decays [36–39], we use this approach to investigate the Bc,u,d→X(3872)P decays in this study. First, the effective Hamiltonian for the B+c→X(3872)π+(K+) decays can be written as [40]
Heff=GF√2V∗cbVuq[C1(μ)O1(μ)+C2(μ)O2(μ)]+H.c.,
(3)
where the Fermi coupling constant GF≃1.166×10−5 GeV−2 [22], V∗cbVuq is the product of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix elements with q=d (q=s) for B+c→X(3872)π+ (B+c→X(3872)K+) decay, Ci(μ)(i=1,2) are the Wilson coefficients at the renormalization scale μ, and Oi(i=1,2) are the local four-quark operators,
where α and β are the SU(3) color indices, and the summation convention over repeated indices is understood. Because the four quarks in the operators are different, there is no penguin contribution and thus no CP violation. Here, we analyze the B+c→X(3872)π+ decay as an example, and its Feynman diagrams are given in Fig. 1, where only the factorizable and non-factorizable emission diagrams need to be considered at the leading order①. The amplitude for the factorizable emission diagrams in Fig. 1(a) and Fig. 1(b) can be written as
Figure 1
Figure 1.
Feynman diagrams contributing to the B+c→X(3872)π+ decay at the leading order.
where the superscript LL denotes the contribution from the (V−A)(V−A) operators, the color factor CF=4/3,fπ(Bc) is the decay constant for the meson π(Bc), the mass ratio rX(b,c)=mX(mb,mc)/mBc, the exponent exp(−ω2Bcb21/2) originates from the Bc meson wave function, and ΨL,t(x2) are the distribution amplitudes for X(3872) (given in Sec. III).
The amplitude for the non-factorizable spectator diagrams in Fig. 1(c) and Fig. 1(d) is given as
where J0 is the Bessel function, and K0,I0 are the modified Bessel functions with K0(ix)=π(−N0(x)+iJ0(x))/2. In Eqs. (5) and (6), α and βa,b,c,d in the hard function h are the invariant masses of the internal quarks and gluons, respectively. The hard scales ta,b,c,d are given as the maximum energy scale appearing in each Feynman diagram to remove the large logarithmic radiative corrections. Their expressions are listed in the appendix. The evolution factors Ee(t),Ecd(t) evolving the Sudakov exponent and jet function St(x) can be found in Refs. [38, 41]. For the reader's convenience, their explicit forms are also summarized in the appendix.
Second, the effective Hamiltonian for the Bu,d→X(3872)π(K) decays is written as
where V∗c(t)bVc(t)q is the product of the CKM matrix elements, q=d or s. The local four-quark operators Oi(μ) and corresponding QCD-corrected Wilson coefficients Ci(μ) can be found in Ref. [40]. Here, we analyze B+→X(3872)π+ as an example, and its Feynman diagrams are given in Fig. 2. The amplitudes for the factorizable and nonfactorizable emission diagrams from the (V−A)(V−A) operators are denoted as FLLB→π and MLLB→π, respectively. Their analytical expressions are given as
Figure 2
Figure 2.
Feynman diagrams contributing to the B+→X(3872)π+ decay at the leading order.
where the evolution factors Ee′(t),Ec(t) evolving the Sudakov exponent are given in the appendix. Besides the upper two (V−A)(V−A) type amplitudes, there are factorizable and nonfactorizable emission diagram contributions from the (V−A)(V+A) and (S−P)(S+P) operators, which are expressed as FLRB→π and MSPB→π, respectively.
where the combinations of the Wilson coefficients a1=C1/3+C2,a2=C1+C2/3,ai=Ci+Ci+1/3 with i= 3, 5, 7, and 9, and q=d (q=s) corresponds to the decays induced by the b→d (b→s) transition.
For the CKM matrix elements, we adopt the Wolfenstein parameterization and the updated values A=0.814, λ=0.22537,ˉρ=0.117±0.021, and ˉη=0.353±0.013 [22]. With the total amplitudes, the decay width can be expressed as
Γ(B→X(3872)P)=G2F32πmB(1−r2X)|A(B→X(3872)P)|2.
(20)
The wave functions of B,π, and K have been well defined in many studies, whereas those of Bc and X(3872) still have many uncertainties. For the Bc meson, we use its wave function in the nonrelativistic limit [42],
ΦBc(x)=ifBc4NC[(p̸Bc+MBc)γ5δ(x−rc)]exp(−b2ω2Bc2),
(21)
where b is the conjugate space coordinate of the parton transverse momentum kT, and the shape parameter ωBc=0.6 GeV. The last exponent term reveals the kT dependence.
For the light cone distribution amplitude of X(3872), we adopt a similar formula to that of the χc1 meson [33, 43],
where ϵL is the longitudinal polarization vector, and mX is the X(3872) mass. Here, only the longitudinal polarization contributes to the considered decays, and the asymptotic models of the twist-2 distribution amplitude ϕLX(x) and twist-3 distribution amplitude ϕtX(x) are given as
where the first error arises from the X(3872) decay constant, fX=0.234±0.052 GeV, the second and third uncertainties are caused by the shape parameter ωBc=0.6±0.1 GeV and decay constant fBc=0.398+0.054−0.055 GeV, respectively, and the final error is from the variation in the hard scale from 0.8t to 1.2t, which characterizes the size of the next-to-leading-order QCD contributions. The branching ratios are sensitive to the decay constant fX because the dominant contributions for these two channels are from the factorization emission amplitudes, which are proportional to fX. The branching ratio of B+c→X(3872)π+ is approximately one order of magnitude larger than that of B−c→X(3872)K−, which is mainly induced by the difference between the CKM elements Vud=1−λ2/2 and Vus=λ. From Table 1, it is shown that our predictions are consistent with the results given in the covariant light-front quark model within errors [29]; however, they are significantly larger than those calculated using the generalized factorization approach [30].
Table 1
Table 1.
Our predictions for the branching ratios of the B+c→X(3872)π+(K+)decays, along with the results from the covariant light-front (CLF) approach [29] and generalized factorization (GF) approach [30].
where the first uncertainty arises from the shape parameter ωB=0.4±0.04 GeV in the B meson wave function, the second error is from the decay constant fX=0.234±0.052 GeV of X(3872), and the third error arises from the choice of hard scales, which vary from 0.8t to 1.2t. From the results, we find that the branching ratios of the B+→X(3872)K+ and B0→X(3872)K0 decays are similar because they differ only in the lifetimes between B+ and B0 in our formalism. Our prediction for the branching ratio of the B+→X(3872)K+decay is less than the previous PQCD calculation result (7.88+4.87−3.76)×10−4 [33]. However, it is still slightly larger than the upper limits 2.6×10−4 given by Belle [34] and 3.2×10−4 given by BaBar [35]. If the present experimental upper limits are confident, a pure charmonium assignment for X(3872) may not be suitable under the PQCD approach. We expect that the branching ratios of the B0,+→X(3872)K0,+ decays can be precisely measured at the current LHCb and SuperKEKB experiments, which will help probe the inner structure of X(3872).
However, note that X(3872) was renamed χc1(3872) by the current PDG [22], which seems to assume it is a radial excited state of χc1(1P). As we know, the χc1(1P) meson is another P-wave charmonium state with the same quantum numbers J(PC)=1++ and a slightly lighter mass of 3.511 GeV. In this case, they should have similar properties in B meson decays. For example, the branching ratio of the B+→χc1(1P)K+ decay is measured as (4.85±0.33)×10−4 [22], which is consistent with the result predicted using the PQCD approach (4.4+1.9−1.6)×10−4 [43]. The corresponding decay B+→X(3872)K+ should have a similar but slightly smaller branching ratio. Comparisons of the branching ratios of the B→X(3872)π(K) and B→χc1(1P)π(K) decays can be found in Table 2, where the theoretical predictions for the branching ratios of the B→χc1(1P)π(K)) decays are taken from other PQCD calculations [43]. From Table 2, we know that calculations for the B→X(3872)P decays using the PQCD approach are under control and credible. Therefore, we suggest that experimental researchers measure these decays at LHCb and Belle II to help discriminate the inner structure of X(3872) from different assumptions.
Table 2
Table 2.
Comparison of Br(B→X(3872)π(K)) (this study) and Br(B→χc1(1P)π(K)) [43] calculated using the PQCD approach. The data are taken from the Particle Data Group 2020 [22].
In Table 3, we compare our predictions with the results calculated using the generalized factorization approach [30]. It is interesting that the branching ratios of the B→X(3872)π(K) decays calculated with these two different approaches are consistent with each other within errors. We find that Br(B+→X(3872)π+)≃2Br(B0→X(3872)π0), which is supported by the isospin symmetry.
Table 3
Table 3.
Our predictions for the branching ratios of the B→X(3872)π(K)decays, along with the results from the generalized factorization (GF) approach [30].
In the following we discuss the CP asymmetries in the B→X(3872)Pdecays. As we know, CP asymmetry arises from the interference between the tree and penguin amplitudes; however, there are no contributions from the penguin amplitudes for the B+c→X(3872)π+(K+)decays. Therefore, the corresponding direct CP violation is zero. For the charged decays B+→X(3872)π+(K+), we only need to consider the direct CP violation AdirCP, which is defined as
AdirCP=|ˉA|2−|A|2|ˉA|2+|A|2,
(31)
where ˉA is the CP-conjugate amplitude of A. For neutral B meson decays, there is another type of CP violation that must be considered, known as as time-dependent CP asymmetry, which is induced by interference between the direct decay and the decay via oscillation. Time-dependent CP violation can be defined as
A(t)CP=Afcos(Δmt)+Sfsin(Δmt),
(32)
where the subscript f represents a CP eigenstate, Δm is the mass difference of the two neutral B meson mass eigenstates, and the direct CP asymmetry Af and mixing-induced CP asymmetry Sf are expressed as
Af=|λf|2−1|λf|2+1,Sf=2Im(λf)|λf|2+1,
(33)
with
λf=ηfe−2iβˉAA,
(34)
where ηf is 1(−1) for a CP-even (CP-odd) final state f, and β is the CKM angle [22]. Because the charged decay channel and corresponding neutral mode are the same, except for the lifetime and isospin factor in the amplitudes, they have the same direct CP asymmetries. Therefore, we only need to consider the neutral decays, whose direct CP asymmetries are calculated as
AX(3872)K0=(1.2+0.0+0.0+0.2−0.0−0.0−0.3)×10−3,
(35)
AX(3872)π0=(2.7+0.1+0.0+0.4−0.2−0.0−0.4)×10−2,
(36)
where the errors are induced by the same sources as those for the branching ratios; however, the direct CP violations are less sensitive to the nonperturbative parameters within their uncertainties, except for the hard scale t. Compared to the tree contributions, the penguin amplitudes are loop suppressed by one to two orders of magnitude. At the same time, the product of the CKM matrix elements associated with the tree amplitudes is approximately four times larger than that of penguin amplitudes. Hence, direct CP violations, which arise from interference between the tree and penguin contributions, are very small. Because the final state X(3872)K0 and its CP conjugate state are flavor-specific, we should use the CP-odd eigenstate X(3872)K0S to analyze the mixing-induced CP violations. The results for the mixing-induced CP violations are calculated as
SX(3872)K0S=(70.3+0.0+0.0+0.9−0.0−0.0−1.2)%,
(37)
SX(3872)π=(−60.8+0.0+0.0+1.5−0.0−0.0−1.4)%,
(38)
where the errors are similar to those listed in the direct CP violations and are not sensitive to the nonperturbative parameters given in the wave functions. We find that SX(3872)K0S is highly consistent with the current world average value sin2β=0.699±0.017 [44], which is obtained from B0 decays to charmonium and K0S. Therefore, we can check the nature of X(3872) by extracting the CKM phase β from future experimental data on the B0→X(3872)K0Sdecay. Conversely, the mixing-induced CP asymmetry of the B0→X(3872)π0 decay exhibits a significant deviation from the world average value of sin2β because the imaginary parts of the total amplitudes for this channel and its CP-conjugate process exhibit a large difference. Our results can be tested in future experiments.
In this study, we analyze the Bc,u,d→X(3872)π(K) decays using the PQCD approach by assuming X(3872) to be a 1++ charmonium state. Comparing our predictions for the branching ratios and CP asymmetries of the considered decays with other theoretical results and available experimental data, we find the following results:
(1) The branching ratios of the B−c→X(3872)π− and B−c→X(3872)K− decays can reach orders of 10−4 and 10−5, respectively, which are consistent with the results obtained via the covariant light-front approach within errors but larger than those given by the generalized factorization approach. These results can be discriminated at the current LHCb and Belle II experiments.
(2) Our predictions for the branching ratio of the B→X(3872)K and B→X(3872)π decays are consistent with the results given by the generalized factorization approach. The branching ratio of the B→X(3872)K) decay can reach the order of 10−4, which is significantly larger than that of the B→X(3872)π decay induced by the b→d transition. On the experimental side, it is helpful to probe the inner structure of X(3872) by measuring the branching ratios and testing the SU(3) and isospin symmetries of these considered decays.
(3) The direct CP violations of the B→X(3872)π(K) decays are small (only 10−3∼10−2). The mixing-induced CP violation of the B→X(3872)K0S decay agrees with the current world average value sin2β=(69.9±1.7)%. However, it is different for the value of SX(3872)π0 because the imaginary parts of the total amplitudes of the B→X(3872)π0 decay and its CP-conjugate process exhibit a large difference.
with the variables defined by ˆq=ln[Q/(√2Λ)],ˆq=ln[1/(bΛ)] and the coefficientsA(1,2) and β1expressed as
β1=33−2nf12,A(1)=43,
A(2)=679−π23−1027nf+83β1ln(12eγE),
nf is the number of quark flavors, and γE is Euler's constant.
As we know, the double logarithms αsln2x produced by the radiative corrections are not small expansion parameters when the end point region is important. To improve the perturbative expansion, the threshold resummation of these logarithms to all orders is required, which leads to a quark jet function
St(x)=21+2cΓ(3/2+c)√πΓ(1+c)[x(1−x)]c,
with c=0.3. It is effective to smear the end point singularity with a momentum fraction x→0.
From now on, we will use \begin{document}$ X $\end{document} to denote \begin{document}$ X(3872) $\end{document} for simply in some places.
References
[1]
. Bohr A, Mottelson B R. Nuclear Structure ( II Nuclear Deformations), New York: Benjamin, 19752. Bengtsson R et al. Nucl. Phys., 1984, A415: 1893. Cardona M A et al. Phys. Rev., 1999, C59: 12984. Plettner C et al. Phys. Rev. Lett., 2000, 85: 24545. Kreiner A J et al. Phys. Rev., 1980, C21: 9336. Kreiner A J et al. Phys. Rev., 1979, C20: 22057. Kreiner A J et al. Nucl. Phys., 1978, A308: 1478. Kreiner A J et al. Nucl. Phys., 1977, A282: 2439. Kreiner A J et al. Phys. Rev., 1981, C23: 74810. Kreiner A J et al. Phys. Rev., 1980, C22: 257011. Van Duppen P et al. Nucl. Phys., 1981, A529: 26812. Huyse M et al. Phys. Lett., 1988, B201: 29313. Ellis-Akovali YA et al. Phys. Rev., 1981, C23: 48014. Kreiner A J et al. Phys. Rev. Lett., 1981, 47: 170915. Menges R et al. G. S. I. Scientific Report 8921, 1989, 3316. Hubel H et al. Nucl. Phys., 1986, A453: 31617. Porquet M G et al. Phys. Rev., 1991, C44: 244518. Reviol W et al. Phys. Scr., 1995, T56: 167
References
[1]
. Bohr A, Mottelson B R. Nuclear Structure ( II Nuclear Deformations), New York: Benjamin, 19752. Bengtsson R et al. Nucl. Phys., 1984, A415: 1893. Cardona M A et al. Phys. Rev., 1999, C59: 12984. Plettner C et al. Phys. Rev. Lett., 2000, 85: 24545. Kreiner A J et al. Phys. Rev., 1980, C21: 9336. Kreiner A J et al. Phys. Rev., 1979, C20: 22057. Kreiner A J et al. Nucl. Phys., 1978, A308: 1478. Kreiner A J et al. Nucl. Phys., 1977, A282: 2439. Kreiner A J et al. Phys. Rev., 1981, C23: 74810. Kreiner A J et al. Phys. Rev., 1980, C22: 257011. Van Duppen P et al. Nucl. Phys., 1981, A529: 26812. Huyse M et al. Phys. Lett., 1988, B201: 29313. Ellis-Akovali YA et al. Phys. Rev., 1981, C23: 48014. Kreiner A J et al. Phys. Rev. Lett., 1981, 47: 170915. Menges R et al. G. S. I. Scientific Report 8921, 1989, 3316. Hubel H et al. Nucl. Phys., 1986, A453: 31617. Porquet M G et al. Phys. Rev., 1991, C44: 244518. Reviol W et al. Phys. Scr., 1995, T56: 167
[1]
XING Zhi-Zhong
. T2K indication of relatively large θ13 and a natural perturbation to the democratic neutrino mixing pattern. Chinese Physics C,
2012, 36(2): 101-105.
doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/36/2/001
ZHANG Yu-Hu
, WEN Shu-Xian
, ZHU Li-Hua
. Signature Inversion Phenomena in the Rotational Bands of Odd-Odd 176Ir. Chinese Physics C,
2002, 26(5): 445-449.
[11]
ZHANG Xin-Ming
, ZHOU Huan-Qiang
. Study for Superdeformed Bands in A~190 Region with Quantum Group Uqp(u2) Model. Chinese Physics C,
2002, 26(8): 843-850.
[12]
ZHANG YuHu
. Signature Inversion in the Rotational Bands of Odd-Odd 178Ir. Chinese Physics C,
2000, 24(12): 1123-1130.
Xu Furong
, Hu Jimin
, Zheng Chunkai
. The Vibrational and Rotational Motions Model of Nucleus(Ⅲ) Study of Superdeformed Bands in A~190 Region. Chinese Physics C,
1996, 20(6): 554-562.
GAO YUAN-YI
. TO ANALYSE THE PROPERTY SUPERBAND BY USING 2Δ. Chinese Physics C,
1981, 5(4): 508-512.
Access
Get Citation
ZHOU Xiao-Hong, XIE Cheng-Ying, ZHANG Yu-Hu, GUO Ying-Xiang, LEI Xiang-Guo, ZHENG Yong, LIU Min-Liang, SONG Li-Tao, WANG Hua-Lei, YU Hai-Ping, LUO Peng, GUO Wen-Tao, Signature Inversion in the πh9/2⊙νi13/2 Oblate Band of 190Tl[J]. Chinese Physics C, 2004, 28(10): 1045-1049.
ZHOU Xiao-Hong, XIE Cheng-Ying, ZHANG Yu-Hu, GUO Ying-Xiang, LEI Xiang-Guo, ZHENG Yong, LIU Min-Liang, SONG Li-Tao, WANG Hua-Lei, YU Hai-Ping, LUO Peng, GUO Wen-Tao, Signature Inversion in the πh9/2⊙νi13/2 Oblate Band of 190Tl[J]. Chinese Physics C, 2004, 28(10): 1045-1049.
Share Article
Milestone
Received: 2004-04-29
Revised: 1900-01-01
Article Metric
Article Views(4107) PDF Downloads(590) Cited by(0)
Policy on re-use
To reuse of subscription content published by CPC, the users need to request permission from CPC, unless the content was published under an Open Access license which automatically permits that type of reuse.
Institute of Modern Physics,Chinese Academy of Sciences,Lanzhou 730000,China2 China Institute of Atomic Energy, Beijing 102413,China
Received Date:
2004-04-29
Accepted Date:
1900-01-01
Available Online:
2004-10-05
Abstract: High spin states in 190Tl have been studied experimentally using the 160Gd(35Cl,5n) fusion evaporation reaction at beam energies of 167—175 MeV. A rotational band built on the πh9/2⊙νi13/2 configuration with oblate deformation has been established. Spin values have been firmly assigned to the πh9/2⊙νi13/2 oblate band by combining the present in beam experimental results with the complementary α γ correlation measurements of 194Bi α decay. With the configuration and spin parity assignments, the low spin signature inversion has been revealed for the πh9/2⊙νi13/2 oblate band. It is the first experimental observation of low spin signature inversion for a band associated with the oblate πh9/2⊙νi13/2 configuration. The low spin signature inversion could be interpreted in the framework of the quasiparticles plus rotor model including a J dependent proton neutron residual interaction.
ZHOU Xiao-Hong, XIE Cheng-Ying, ZHANG Yu-Hu, GUO Ying-Xiang, LEI Xiang-Guo, ZHENG Yong, LIU Min-Liang, SONG Li-Tao, WANG Hua-Lei, YU Hai-Ping, LUO Peng, GUO Wen-Tao, Signature Inversion in the πh9/2⊙νi13/2 Oblate Band of 190Tl[J]. Chinese Physics C, 2004, 28(10): 1045-1049.
Table 1.
Our predictions for the branching ratios of the B+c→X(3872)π+(K+)decays, along with the results from the covariant light-front (CLF) approach [29] and generalized factorization (GF) approach [30].
Table 2.
Comparison of Br(B→X(3872)π(K)) (this study) and Br(B→χc1(1P)π(K)) [43] calculated using the PQCD approach. The data are taken from the Particle Data Group 2020 [22].
Table 3.
Our predictions for the branching ratios of the B→X(3872)π(K)decays, along with the results from the generalized factorization (GF) approach [30].