Mixing of X and Y states from QCD sum rules analysis *
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We study <?CDATA $ \bar{Q}Q\bar{q}q $?> and <?CDATA $ \bar{Q}qQ\bar{q} $?> states as mixed states in QCD sum rules. By calculating the two-point correlation functions of pure states of their corresponding currents, we review the mass and coupling constant predictions of <?CDATA $ J^{PC} = 1^{++} $?> , <?CDATA $1^{--}$?> , and <?CDATA $ 1^{-+} $?> states. By calculating the two-point mixed correlation functions of <?CDATA $ \bar{Q}Q\bar{q}q $?> and <?CDATA $ \bar{Q}qQ\bar{q} $?> currents, we estimate the mass and coupling constants of the corresponding "physical state" that couples to both <?CDATA $ \bar{Q}Q\bar{q}q $?> and <?CDATA $ \bar{Q}qQ\bar{q} $?> currents. Our results suggest that for <?CDATA $ 1^{++} $?> states, the <?CDATA $ \bar{Q}Q\bar{q}q $?> and <?CDATA $ \bar{Q}qQ\bar{q} $?> components are more likely to mix, while for <?CDATA $ 1^{--} $?> and <?CDATA $ 1^{-+} $?> states, there is less mixing between <?CDATA $ \bar{Q}Q\bar{q}q $?> and <?CDATA $ \bar{Q}qQ\bar{q} $?> . Our results suggest the Y series of states have more complicated components.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".