Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 46 references

Production of $X(3872)$ and a Photon in $e^+e^-$ Annihilation

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Under the charm-meson-molecule picture of $X(3872)$, $e^+e^-$ annihilation into $X\gamma$ develops a narrow, normalized peak from a triangle singularity, $2.2$ MeV above the $D^{*0}\bar D^{*0}$ threshold at $\sqrt{s}\simeq 4.016$ GeV.

desk verdict A careful, honest working-out of a triangle-singularity prediction for e+e- -> X gamma; the central caveat is the unquantified short-distance background, and the paper itself says so. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.03901 v2 pith:EWGZQGQ5 submitted 2019-09-05 hep-ph

Eric Braaten , Li-Ping He , Kevin Ingles This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph PACS 14.80.Va67.85.Bc31.15.bt
keywords X(3872)charm-mesonmoleculetrianglesingularitye+e-annihilationcrosssectionexotichadronseffectivefieldtheoryD*Dbar*threshold
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 prove a sharp production prediction: if the $X(3872)$ is a weakly bound charm-meson molecule, then $e^+e^-$ annihilation produces $X(3872)\gamma$ with a narrow peak in the cross section, located $2.2$ MeV above the $D^{*0}\bar D^{*0}$ threshold at $\sqrt{s}\approx 4.016$ GeV. The peak comes from a charm-meson triangle singularity, a kinematic point where all three charm mesons in the rescattering diagram are simultaneously on their mass shells. The predicted peak height is $0.51$ pb for the preferred amplitudes, and between roughly $0.2$ and $0.9$ pb as the ratio of the two P-wave production amplitudes is varied. This matters because the energy region has not yet been measured, so a dedicated scan could confirm or exclude the molecular interpretation of the $X(3872)$. The paper also establishes that the previously computed absorptive contribution alone is not a good approximation to the peak, since it sits about $1.3$ MeV higher and reaches only about $58\%$ of the full peak height.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the charm-meson triangle singularity, a kinematic singularity that arises when the three virtual particles forming a triangle diagram can all be on their mass shells at the same energy. Here it is realized in the two rescattering diagrams for $e^+e^- \to X\gamma$, and it enters through the loop amplitude $F(W)$, a scalar integral over the undetermined loop energy and momentum. The amplitude is reduced analytically to an integral over one variable and then evaluated in closed form; the singularity sits in the argument of a logarithm whose denominator vanishes at the triangle energy $W_\Delta$. A secondary piece of machinery is the bound-state wavefunction for the $X$ in a moving frame, expressed in terms of the relative velocity of its constituents, which is used to compare the full amplitude with the earlier absorptive approximation.

What would settle it

Scan $e^+e^- \to X(3872)\gamma$ in steps of about 0.5 MeV across $\sqrt{s}=4.010$ to $4.030$ GeV with enough integrated luminosity to resolve a cross section near 0.5 pb; absence of the predicted narrow peak 2.2 MeV above the $D^{*0}\bar D^{*0}$ threshold would falsify the central claim, unless the short-distance background amplitudes turn out to dominate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a triangle singularity governs $e^+e^- \to X(3872)\gamma$ near the $D^{*0}\bar D^{*0}$ threshold whenever $X(3872)$ is a weakly bound charm-meson molecule. The virtual photon creates a P-wave $D^{*0}\bar D^{*0}$ pair at short distances; one of the charm mesons radiates a photon; and the remaining $D^0$ or $\bar D^0$ combines with the other charm meson to form the $X$. At one specific energy all three charm-meson lines in the triangle go on shell simultaneously, producing a logarithmic singularity in the loop amplitude $F(W)$. Evaluating the scalar loop integral analytically, the cross section $\sigma[e^+e^- \to X\gamma]$ acquires a narrow peak at $W=2.2$ MeV, i.e. $\sqrt{s}\approx 4.016$ GeV, whose height is insensitive to the binding energy for $|E_X|$ between $0.10$ and $0.30$ MeV. The paper further shows that the absorptive part of the amplitude, which corresponds to on-shell $D^{*0}\bar D^{*0}$ intermediate states, is not an adequate replacement for the full amplitude: it peaks about $1.3$ MeV higher and at only about $58\%$ of the full peak height.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that short-distance amplitudes for $e^+e^- \to X\gamma$ that do not pass through the $D^{*0}\bar D^{*0}$ triangle are negligible; if they are large, the predicted sharp peak becomes a small bump or even a dip on a smooth background.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The predicted peak sits at $\sqrt{s}\approx 4.016$ GeV, 2.2 MeV above the $D^{*0}\bar D^{*0}$ threshold, in an energy gap that existing $e^+e^-$ measurements skipped; a fine scan there can test the molecular hypothesis.
  • The peak height is $0.51$ pb for the preferred $A_0,A_2$ amplitudes and ranges from about $0.2$ to $0.9$ pb under all complex values of $A_2/A_0$ consistent with the same $|A_0|^2+|A_2|^2$; its position is insensitive to the $X$ binding energy for $|E_X|$ between 0.10 and 0.30 MeV.
  • After multiplication by the $X\to J/\psi\pi^+\pi^-$ branching fraction, loosely bounded between 4% and 33%, the visible peak can be a sizable fraction of the $X\gamma$ cross sections already measured at higher energies.
  • The absorptive contribution alone is not a good approximation in the peak region, so any extraction of the peak from data must use the full dispersive loop amplitude.
  • The same triangle-singularity peak appears with roughly the same shape for a zero-energy resonance or a virtual state, so observing the peak supports the molecular or resonant interpretation but would not by itself distinguish a narrow bound state from those alternatives.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A dedicated energy scan in steps of order 0.5 MeV across $\sqrt{s}=4.010$ to $4.030$ GeV would settle the prediction; the existing data gap makes this an immediately available experimental test.
  • The triangle-singularity mechanism is not channel-specific: any short-distance production of $D^{*0}\bar D^{*0}$ can feed it, so analogous narrow peaks may appear in other final states, and the analytic loop amplitude here is a template for such predictions.
  • Precise line-shape data could also constrain the spin composition of P-wave charm-meson-pair production, because the normalization of the peak depends on the ratio $A_2/A_0$.
  • If no peak appears, the short-distance amplitudes that bypass the triangle would have to be large; quantifying those amplitudes is then necessary before ruling out the molecule picture, since the paper leaves that input unquantified.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper calculates the cross section for e+e- -> X(3872) gamma in the near-threshold region, assuming that X(3872) is a weakly bound D*0 Dbar0 molecule. The production proceeds through e+e- -> D*0 Dbar*0 followed by rescattering of the charm-meson pair into X gamma. The loop amplitude is reduced to an analytic scalar integral, and a triangle singularity produces a narrow peak 2.2 MeV above the D*0 Dbar*0 threshold. Using amplitudes fitted to Belle data on e+e- -> D*+D*-, the peak height is predicted to be about 0.51 pb, with a range of 0.2 to 0.9 pb when the A2/A0 phase is varied. The paper also compares the full amplitude with the absorptive contribution computed previously by Dubynskiy and Voloshin, and concludes that the absorptive contribution is not a good approximation near the peak.

Significance. If the result holds, it provides a distinctive, falsifiable line-shape prediction for X(3872) as a charm-meson molecule. The calculation is carried through analytically, with explicit cross-section formulas, and the peak position is derived from kinematics and is robust to the binding-energy scan. The paper is careful to disclose the A2/A0 phase ambiguity, to scan the binding energy, and to compare with the earlier Dubynskiy-Voloshin wavefunction prescription, including an instructive comparison between the full amplitude and its absorptive part. The main weakness, acknowledged in the text, is the unquantified short-distance background, which is load-bearing for the absolute normalization claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section VII (Summary)] The predicted peak height is only the triangle-diagram contribution. In the Summary the authors state, "We have assumed the short-distance amplitudes are negligible compared to the amplitude from the triangle diagrams. Quantitative estimates of the short-distance amplitudes would be useful." Because the abstract and the Summary present 0.51 pb and the 0.2-0.9 pb range as the prediction for the cross section, the central quantitative claim depends on an unquantified premise. This needs to be either quantified, for example by using the BESIII measurement at sqrt(s)=4.009 GeV from Ref. [24] where the triangle singularity is absent, or explicitly reframed as the triangle-only contribution.
  2. [Section II, Eqs. (6)-(7)] The normalization of the cross section rests on |A0| and |A2| extracted from the Uglov et al. fit to e+e- -> D*+D*-, but the paper's own comparison with the alternative analysis of Du, Meissner, and Wang (Ref. [28]) shows a significantly different ratio of spin-2 to spin-0 cross sections (0.81 vs 2.92 at sqrt(s)=4.040 GeV). The quoted normalization range 0.47-1.80 only scans the A2/A0 phase with |A0|^2+|A2|^2 fixed; it does not include the uncertainties in that sum or in the amplitude ratio, so the uncertainty in the predicted peak height is underestimated.
  3. [Section II, isospin assumption] The identification of the neutral amplitudes A0 and A2 with the charged ones assumes that isospin-1 amplitudes are negligible. The paper argues from psi(4040) dominance, but no quantitative bound on the isospin-1 contamination is provided. Since the neutral amplitude is the difference of isospin-0 and isospin-1 amplitudes, a moderate isospin-1 amplitude could change the normalization beyond the quoted range, making this a load-bearing assumption for the absolute prediction.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section VII] There is a typo: "triangle singularitiy" should read "triangle singularity".
  2. [Section IV] In the sentence "They did not measure the cross section at energies between 4.009 MeV and 4.178 MeV," the units should be GeV, not MeV.
  3. [Section VII] The phrase "restricted to a singe quadrant" should read "restricted to a single quadrant".
  4. [Eq. (7)] The ratio in Eq. (7) is typeset as "A 2/A0 = +/-1.9i"; the spacing in the numerator is a formatting error and should be "A2/A0".

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the peak position follows from known masses and kinematics, and the normalization is transferred from independent Belle e+e- -> D*+D*- data rather than fitted to e+e- -> X gamma.

full rationale

The paper's derivation is self-contained conditional on the molecular hypothesis. The predicted peak position W_Delta is obtained by solving k = (mu/M0)q using Eq. (24), i.e. purely from the D*0 mass, the D*-D mass splitting, and the X binding energy; no e+e- -> X gamma data are used. The normalization is fixed by Eq. (7), whose values |A0| = 8 GeV^-1 and |A2| = 15 GeV^-1 come from a published fit to Belle e+e- -> D*+D*- cross sections (Ref. [23]); the paper explicitly assumes isospin-1 amplitudes are negligible and approximates neutral by charged amplitudes. This is an extrapolation from an independent process, not a fit to the target observable. The loop amplitude F(W) is evaluated analytically (Eq. (22)), and the comparison with the Dubynskiy-Voloshin absorptive contribution is an independent check. Self-citations (XEFT vertices, universal wavefunction, branching-fraction bounds) are background tools or auxiliary estimates; they do not encode the predicted X-gamma cross section. The summary's caveat that short-distance amplitudes are assumed negligible is an unquantified premise affecting observability, but it is not a circular reduction: the paper identifies it explicitly and asks for quantitative estimates. Hence no step reduces by construction to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The calculation assumes the molecular nature of X(3872), a nonrelativistic EFT description, isospin-1 suppression in e+e- -> D* Dbar*, the narrow-bound-state limit, and negligible short-distance production. The only fitted inputs are the P-wave amplitudes A0 and A2 that set the overall normalization; no invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • A0 and A2 magnitudes = |A0| = 8 GeV^-1, |A2| = 15 GeV^-1
    Fit to Belle e+e- -> D*+D*- cross section via Uglov et al. (Section II, Eq. (6)). Sets the overall normalization of the predicted X gamma cross section.
  • A2/A0 phase ratio = preferred +/- 1.9 i; all complex values with |A0|^2 + |A2|^2 = 280 GeV^-2 considered
    The relative phase is not fixed by the fit; the predicted peak height varies by factors 0.47 to 1.80 (Eq. (7), Section IV).
  • Binding energy |E_X| = 0.10, 0.17, 0.30 MeV (scan)
    Chosen around the PDG value E_X = +0.01 +/- 0.18 MeV; the peak position and height are insensitive to this choice, so it is not a fitted constant in the usual sense.
  • Binding momentum gamma_X = 18 MeV for |E_X| = 0.17 MeV
    Derived from the binding energy via Eq. (11), not fitted to X gamma data.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption X(3872) is a weakly bound S-wave charm-meson molecule with flavor superposition (|D*0 Dbar0> + |D0 Dbar*0>)/sqrt(2).
    Stated at the start of Section I; the predicted triangle-singularity peak exists only under this identification.
  • domain assumption XEFT (Galilean-invariant nonrelativistic effective field theory) with universal near-threshold S-wave interactions describes D*0 Dbar0 scattering and the X coupling vertex in Eq. (10).
    Used to write the X-D Dbar* vertex and the one-PI transition amplitude in Appendix A; references [30], [31], [35].
  • domain assumption The electromagnetic current creates D*0 Dbar*0 in a P-wave with amplitudes A0 and A2 taken from a fit to Belle e+e- -> D*+D*- data by Uglov et al., and isospin-1 amplitudes are negligible because of psi(4040) dominance.
    Section II; normalization of the predicted cross section depends on |A0| = 8 GeV^-1 and |A2| = 15 GeV^-1 from Eq. (6).
  • domain assumption X is a narrow bound state with |E_X| much larger than Gamma_*0 ~ 56 keV, so a sharp bound-state pole and momentum-independent vertex can be used.
    Section III before Eq. (11); the paper considers E_X = -0.30, -0.17, -0.10 MeV and an appendix for non-narrow states.
  • ad hoc to paper Short-distance contributions to e+e- -> X gamma that do not proceed through D*0 Dbar*0 rescattering are negligible in the peak region.
    Assumed in Section VII; the authors state these amplitudes are essentially constant and could turn the peak into a dip if large, and they call for quantitative estimates.
  • standard math Nonrelativistic propagators and standard loop-integral analytic continuation are valid near threshold.
    Used to derive F(W) in Eqs. (13), (19), and (22).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Production of $X(3872)$ and a Photon in $e^+e^-$ Annihilation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EWGZQGQ5

@misc{pith2026190903901,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Production of $X(3872)$ and a Photon in $e^+e^-$ Annihilation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EWGZQGQ5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.03901}
}
abstract

If the $X(3872)$ is a weakly bound charm-meson molecule, it can be produced in $e^+ e^-$ annihilation by the creation of $D^{*0} \bar D^{*0}$ from a virtual photon followed by the rescattering of the P-wave charm-meson pair into the $X$ and a photon. A triangle singularity produces a narrow peak in the cross section for $e^+ e^- \to X \gamma$ 2.2 MeV above the $D^{*0} \bar{D}^{*0}$ threshold. We predict the normalized cross section in the region of the peak. We show that the absorptive contribution to the cross section for $e^+ e^- \to D^{*0} \bar D^{*0} \to X \gamma$, which was calculated previously by Dubynskiy and Voloshin, does not give a good approximation to the peak from the triangle singularity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.03901 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Feynman diagram for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Cross section for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Cross section for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Feynman diagrams for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: F(W) = i √πγX M∗0M0 Z d 3k (2π) 3 q · k Z dω 2π 1 ω − k2/(2M∗0) + iΓ∗0/2 × 1 W − ω − k2/(2M∗0) + iΓ∗0/2 1 W − (|q| − δ) − ω − (q − k) 2/(2M0) + i .(13) To obtain the scalar loop integral in Eq. (13), we used rotational symmetry to replace a factor of k i inside the mo…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: As W increases towards 0 from below, F(W) increases along the positive real axis. As W passes through 0, Im[F(W)] begins to increase. The amplitude F(W) then follows a roughly circular path. The value of F(W) is (1.20 + 0.86 i)|F(0)| at W = 2.2 MeV, where |F(W)| 2 has …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Argand diagram for the amplitude [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Cross section for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Cross section for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Cross section for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: It is qualitatively similar to that of an ideal resonance, with the amplitude tracing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. The 1PI transition amplitude [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Short-distance-decay contribution to the line shape Im[ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Cross section for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [22]

    Production of $X(3872)$ Accompanied by a Soft Pion at Hadron Colliders

    E. Braaten, L.-P. He and K. Ingles, Production of X(3872) Accompanied by a Pion at Hadron Colliders, arXiv:1903.04355 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 1903

  2. [24]

    X.H. Liu, M. Oka and Q. Zhao, Searching for observable effects induced by anomalous triangle singularities, Phys. Lett. B 753, 297 (2016) [arXiv:1507.01674]

    arXiv 2016

  3. [28]

    $e^+e^- \to \gamma X(3872)$ near the $D^* {\bar D}^*$ threshold

    S. Dubynskiy and M.B. Voloshin, e+e−→γX(3872) near the D∗ ¯D∗ threshold, Phys. Rev. D 74, 094017 (2006) [hep-ph/0609302]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2006

  4. [1]

    The particles have short-range interactions that produce an S-wave resonance very close to the scattering threshold, whose energy we take to be E = 0

    Transition amplitude We consider a stable particle with mass M0 and a particle with mass M∗0 and decay width Γ∗0. The particles have short-range interactions that produce an S-wave resonance very close to the scattering threshold, whose energy we take to be E = 0. Many aspects of the two-body physics can be derived from the one-particle-irreducible (1PI) ...

    work page

  5. [2]

    numerically of the order of 1 pb

    The corre- sponding integral with the DV wavefunction in Eq. (29) can be obtained by subtracting from the factor in square brackets the corresponding factor with γX replaced by Λ and then multiplying by the first prefactor in Eq. (29): Im [ FDV(W ) ] = √ Λ(Λ +γX) Λ−γX µ√πγX 2πM0 k [ 1 4q2 +k2 +γ2 X 2qk log ( 1 2q +k )2 +γ2 X ( 1 2q−k )2 +γ2 X − 1 4q2 +k2 +...

    work page

  6. [3]

    Bound-state wavefunction In a quantum field theory, the Schr¨ odinger wavefunction for a 2-particle bound state can be determined from the 2→ 2 transition amplitude for its constituents [38, 39]. We take the particles with massesM0 andM∗0 to have incoming momentaq0 andq1, outgoing momenta q′ 0 andq′ 1 withq′ 0 +q′ 1 =q0 +q1, and total energy E relative to ...

    work page

  7. [4]

    This allowed the coupling of theX to a pair of charm mesons to be described by the momentum- independent vertex in Eq

    Resonance Feature from the Triangle Singularity In our calculation of the loop amplitudeF (W ) from the triangle singularity in Section IV, we assumed that the X is a narrow bound state with the sharp rest energy EX. This allowed the coupling of theX to a pair of charm mesons to be described by the momentum- independent vertex in Eq. (10). In the calculat...

    work page

  8. [5]

    Short-distance production If there is a reaction that can produce the two particles at short distances, the inclusive production rate of the two particles and their decay products can be determined by the optical theorem. The amplitude for the production of the two particles can be expressed as the product of A(E), which depends on the CM energy of the tw...

    work page

Show all 46 references
  1. [6]

    Ali, J.S

    A. Ali, J.S. Lange and S. Stone, Exotics: Heavy Pentaquarks and Tetraquarks, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 97, 123 (2017) [arXiv:1706.00610]

    2017 arXiv

  2. [7]

    Olsen, T

    S.L. Olsen, T. Skwarnicki and D. Zieminska, Nonstandard heavy mesons and baryons: Exper- imental evidence, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 015003 (2018) [arXiv:1708.04012]

    2018 arXiv

  3. [8]

    In the absorptive contribution, the widths of the spin-1 charm mesons are set to 0

    The absorptive contribution is not a good approximation near the triangle singularity region. In the absorptive contribution, the widths of the spin-1 charm mesons are set to 0. The narrow peak in the cross section comes from the triangle singularitiy that arises when all thre...

  4. [9]

    H.X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu and S.L. Zhu, The hidden-charm pentaquark and tetraquark states, Phys. Rept. 639, 1 (2016) [arXiv:1601.02092]

    2016 arXiv

  5. [10]

    Hosaka, T

    A. Hosaka, T. Iijima, K. Miyabayashi, Y. Sakai and S. Yasui, Exotic hadrons with heavy flavors: X, Y , Z, and related states, PTEP 2016, 062C01 (2016) [arXiv:1603.09229]. 24

    2016 arXiv

  6. [11]

    Lebed, R.E

    R.F. Lebed, R.E. Mitchell and E.S. Swanson, Heavy-Quark QCD Exotica, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 93, 143 (2017) [arXiv:1610.04528]

    2017 arXiv

  7. [12]

    Esposito, A

    A. Esposito, A. Pilloni and A.D. Polosa, Multiquark Resonances, Phys. Rept. 668, 1 (2017) [arXiv:1611.07920]

    2017 arXiv

  8. [13]

    F.K. Guo, C. Hanhart, U.G. Meißner, Q. Wang, Q. Zhao and B.S. Zou, Hadronic molecules, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 015004 (2018) [arXiv:1705.00141]

    2018 arXiv

  9. [14]

    Braaten, L.-P

    E. Braaten, L.-P. He and K. Ingles, Production of X(3872) Accompanied by a Pion in B Meson Decay, arXiv:1902.03259 [hep-ph]

    1902 arXiv

  10. [15]

    The quantum numbers 1++ of theX imply thatXγ can be produced bye+e− annihilation into a virtual photon

    and in B meson decays into KXπ [14], but we did not recognize the connection to triangle singularities. The quantum numbers 1++ of theX imply thatXγ can be produced bye+e− annihilation into a virtual photon. The virtual photon can create D∗0 ¯D∗0 at short distances in a P-wave...

  11. [16]

    Karliner, J.L

    M. Karliner, J.L. Rosner and T. Skwarnicki, Multiquark States, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 68, 17 (2018) [arXiv:1711.10626]

    2018 arXiv

  12. [17]

    Yuan, The XYZ states revisited, Int

    C.Z. Yuan, The XYZ states revisited, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 33, 1830018 (2018) [arXiv:1808.01570]

    2018 arXiv

  13. [18]

    Brambilla, S

    N. Brambilla, S. Eidelman, C. Hanhart, A. Nefediev, C.P. Shen, C.E. Thomas, A. Vairo and C.Z. Yuan, The XYZ states: experimental and theoretical status and perspectives, arXiv:1907.07583 [hep-ex]

    1907 arXiv

  14. [19]

    Choi et al

    S.K. Choi et al. [Belle Collaboration], Observation of a narrow charmonium-like state in ex- clusiveB±→K±π+π−J/ψ decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 262001 (2003) [hep-ex/0309032]

    2003 arXiv

  15. [20]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb Collaboration], Determination of the X(3872) meson quantum numbers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 222001 (2013) [arXiv:1302.6269]

    2013 arXiv

  16. [21]

    Tanabashi et al

    M. Tanabashi et al. [Particle Data Group], Review of Particle Physics, Phys. Rev. D 98, 030001 (2018)

    2018

  17. [23]

    Szczepaniak, Triangle Singularities and XYZ Quarkonium Peaks, Phys

    A.P. Szczepaniak, Triangle Singularities and XYZ Quarkonium Peaks, Phys. Lett. B 747, 410 (2015) [arXiv:1501.01691]

    2015 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Szczepaniak, Dalitz plot distributions in presence of triangle singularities, Phys

    A.P. Szczepaniak, Dalitz plot distributions in presence of triangle singularities, Phys. Lett. B 757, 61 (2016) [arXiv:1510.01789]

    2016 arXiv

  19. [26]

    F. K. Guo, Traps in hadron spectroscopy: Thresholds, triangle singularities, ..., PoS Hadron 2017, 015 (2018) [arXiv:1712.10126]

    2018 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Guo, Novel method for precisely measuring the X(3872) mass, Phys

    F.K. Guo, Novel method for precisely measuring the X(3872) mass, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 202002 (2019) [arXiv:1902.11221]

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Braaten, L

    E. Braaten, L. P. He and K. Ingles, Triangle Singularity in the Production of X(3872) and a Photon in e+e− Annihilation, Phys. Rev. D 100, 031501 (2019) [arXiv:1904.12915]

    2019 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Uglov, Y.S

    T.V. Uglov, Y.S. Kalashnikova, A.V. Nefediev, G.V. Pakhlova and P.N. Pakhlov, Exclusive open-charm near-threshold cross sections in a coupled-channel approach, JETP Lett. 105, 1 (2017) [arXiv:1611.07582]

    2017 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII Collaboration], Observation of e+e−→γX(3872) at BESIII, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 092001 (2014) [arXiv:1310.4101]. 25

    2014 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Ablikim et al., Study of e+e−→γωJ/ψ and Observation ofX(3872)→ωJ/ψ, Phys

    M. Ablikim et al., Study of e+e−→γωJ/ψ and Observation ofX(3872)→ωJ/ψ, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 232002 (2019) [arXiv:1903.04695]

    2019 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. [Belle Collaboration], Measurement of the near-threshold e+e−→ D(∗)±D(∗)∓ cross section using initial-state radiation, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 092001 (2007) [hep-ex/0608018]

    2007 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Pakhlova et al

    G. Pakhlova et al. [Belle Collaboration], Measurement of the near-thresholde+e−→D ¯D cross section using initial-state radiation, Phys. Rev. D 77, 011103 (2008) [arXiv:0708.0082]

    2008 arXiv

  27. [35]

    M.L. Du, U.G. Meißner and Q. Wang, P -wave coupled channel effects in electron-positron annihilation, Phys. Rev. D 94, 096006 (2016) [arXiv:1608.02537]

    2016 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Rosner, Hadronic and radiative D∗ widths, Phys

    J.L. Rosner, Hadronic and radiative D∗ widths, Phys. Rev. D 88, 034034 (2013) [arXiv:1307.2550]

    2013 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Fleming, M

    S. Fleming, M. Kusunoki, T. Mehen and U. van Kolck, Pion interactions in the X(3872), Phys. Rev. D 76, 034006 (2007) [hep-ph/0703168]

    2007 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Braaten, Galilean-invariant effective field theory for the X(3872), Phys

    E. Braaten, Galilean-invariant effective field theory for the X(3872), Phys. Rev. D 91, 114007 (2015) [arXiv:1503.04791]

    2015 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Braaten, H.-W

    E. Braaten, H.-W. Hammer and T. Mehen, Scattering of an Ultrasoft Pion and the X(3872), Phys. Rev. D 82, 034018 (2010) [arXiv:1005.1688]

    2010 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Braaten, L.-P

    E. Braaten, L.-P. He and K. Ingles, Branching Fractions of the X(3872), arXiv:1908.02807 [hep-ph]

    1908 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Wormser (on behalf of the BaBar collaboration), presented at Quarkonium 2019 in Torino, May 2019

    G. Wormser (on behalf of the BaBar collaboration), presented at Quarkonium 2019 in Torino, May 2019

    2019

  34. [42]

    Braaten and H.-W

    E. Braaten and H.-W. Hammer, Universality in few-body systems with large scattering length, Phys. Rept. 428, 259 (2006) [cond-mat/0410417]

    2006 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Voloshin, X(3872) diagnostics with decays to D ¯Dγ, Int

    M.B. Voloshin, X(3872) diagnostics with decays to D ¯Dγ, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 21, 1239 (2006) [hep-ph/0509192]

    2006 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Poling, CLEO-c hot topics, eConf C 060409, 005 (2006) [hep-ex/0606016]

    R. Poling, CLEO-c hot topics, eConf C 060409, 005 (2006) [hep-ex/0606016]

    2006 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Gell-Mann and F

    M. Gell-Mann and F. Low, Bound states in quantum field theory, Phys. Rev. 84, 350 (1951)

    1951

  38. [46]

    Salpeter and H.A

    E.E. Salpeter and H.A. Bethe, A Relativistic equation for bound state problems, Phys. Rev. 84, 1232 (1951). 26

    1951

Pith tools

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