Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Study of the exotic three-body $N D^* \bar{K}^*$ system

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Five bound states form when a nucleon meets the D*K̄* pair

desk verdict Clean FCA extension with five concrete three-body predictions, but the 3/2 and 5/2 states lean on a spin-degenerate NK* input that needs scrutiny. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18285 v1 pith:H2CWISGI submitted 2024-11-27 hep-ph hep-ex

Qing-Yu Zhai , Raquel Molina , Eulogio Oset , Li-Sheng Geng This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords exotichadronsthree-bodyboundstatesFixedCenterApproximationFaddeevequationsD*K̄*moleculeX0(2900)heavymesonspectroscopymolecular
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

This paper predicts five bound states in the three-body system built from a nucleon ($N$), a $D^*$ meson, and an antikaon vector meson $\bar K^*$. Treating the exotic $D^*\bar K^*$ pair as a pre-existing cluster with spin $0$, $1$, or $2$, and letting the nucleon scatter off each component inside the cluster, the authors find total-spin $1/2$, $3/2$, and $5/2$ states with binding energies of $10$ to $30$ MeV and widths below $60$ MeV. The prediction matters because these states would be genuinely exotic: an ordinary baryon bound to a meson pair that is not a conventional quark-antiquark system. If the peaks appear in $DKN$, $D^*KN$, and $DK^*N$ invariant-mass distributions, they would be the first three-body hadrons built on an exotic two-body core.

What carries the argument

The engine is the Fixed Center Approximation (FCA) to the Faddeev equations, in which the $D^*\bar K^*$ pair is treated as a fixed cluster and the nucleon scatters successively off its two constituents. The summed amplitude is $T=(\tilde t_1+\tilde t_2+2\tilde t_1\tilde t_2\tilde G_0)/(1-\tilde t_1\tilde t_2\tilde G_0^2)$, with $\tilde t_1$ and $\tilde t_2$ the $N D^*$ and $N\bar K^*$ scattering amplitudes renormalized by the cluster masses, and $\tilde G_0$ the nucleon propagator weighted by the cluster form factor. The input $t_1$ is a Breit-Wigner amplitude for the $\Lambda_c(2910)$ (spin $1/2$) and $\Lambda_c(2940)$ (spin $3/2$) resonances, with couplings $g=3.71$ and $2.63$ fixed by the Weinberg compositeness condition; $t_2$ is a Breit-Wigner amplitude for $\Lambda(1800)$ with coupling $g=3.3$. The cluster form factor $F_X(q)$ is computed from the $D^*\bar K^*$ wave function with a cutoff $q_{\max}=1.1$ GeV.

What would settle it

Perform a high-statistics search for narrow peaks in the $DKN$, $D^*KN$, and $DK^*N$ invariant-mass distributions produced in decays of heavy mesons; finding no peaks with binding energies of $10$-$30$ MeV and widths below $60$ MeV would rule out the prediction, as would a direct measurement of the $N D^*$ amplitude showing that $\Lambda_c(2910)$ and $\Lambda_c(2940)$ do not dominate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the $N D^* \bar K^*$ system is bound in five distinct channels. Starting from the previously computed $D^*\bar K^*$ cluster states with $J_{\rm clu}=0,1,2$ (the $J=0$ state identified with the observed $X_0(2900)$), the Fixed Center Approximation to the Faddeev equations generates one $J=1/2$ state from the $J=0$ cluster, two states ($J=1/2$ and $3/2$) from the $J=1$ cluster, and two states ($J=3/2$ and $5/2$) from the $J=2$ cluster. The binding energies range from about $10$ MeV (for the $5/2$ state) to about $30$ MeV, and the widths range from about $30$ to $60$ MeV. The paper argues that the states should show up as peaks in $DKN$, $D^*KN$, and $DK^*N$ invariant-mass distributions, not in the $N D^*\bar K^*$ channel itself, because the three-body system is bound below that threshold.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that the $N D^*$ interaction is fully described by the two resonances $\Lambda_c(2910)$ and $\Lambda_c(2940)$, and the $N\bar K^*$ interaction by $\Lambda(1800)$, with the masses, widths, and couplings taken from previous analyses; if any of these inputs is wrong or incomplete, the five predicted peaks would shift or disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Five experimentally accessible peaks are predicted in the three-body invariant-mass channels $DKN$, $D^*KN$, and $DK^*N$.
  • The $J=5/2$ state, with about $10$ MeV binding and about $30$ MeV width, is the narrowest and therefore the cleanest experimental target.
  • The states should be searched for in those decay channels, not in the $N D^*\bar K^*$ component, because the three-body system is bound below that threshold.
  • Because the Fixed Center Approximation produces widths as well as binding energies, the prediction gives concrete peak shapes for experiments, going beyond methods that yield only binding energies.
  • Confirmation of all five states would extend the molecular picture already used for the $X_0(2900)$ to a complete three-body sector.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extrapolation not made in the paper is that other baryons ($\Lambda$, $\Sigma$) attached to the same $D^*\bar K^*$ cluster would produce analogous families of bound states with shifted masses and widths.
  • The quoted binding energies and widths inherit the Breit-Wigner approximation for the input amplitudes; replacing those with more microscopic two-body inputs could change the numbers, so the existence of bound states is more robust than the precise values.
  • The extra peaks seen between the two thresholds resemble Efimov-like three-body enhancements, suggesting the system could serve as a hadronic test of universal three-body physics; measuring the spacing of those extra peaks would discriminate between molecular and threshold-effect interpretations.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the three-body N D* anti-K* system using the Fixed Center Approximation (FCA) to the Faddeev equations, treating the D* anti-K* pair as a cluster in J_clu=0,1,2 states and allowing the nucleon to scatter on D* and anti-K*. The two-body input amplitudes are Breit-Wigner forms for Lambda_c(2910) and Lambda_c(2940) in the ND* subsystem and for Lambda(1800) in the N anti-K* subsystem, with couplings fixed by compositeness or taken from Ref. [67]. Solving the FCA equations yields five peaks in |T|^2: one J=1/2 state from J_clu=0, two states from J_clu=1, and two states from J_clu=2, with reported bindings of 10-30 MeV and widths of 30-60 MeV. The paper proposes DKN, D*KN, and DK*N as the decay channels where these states could be observed experimentally.

Significance. If the five states are real, they would be a new family of three-body molecular exotica and a useful extension of the FCA method to a system with a heavy-light exotic cluster. The paper's strengths are its concrete, falsifiable predictions (masses, widths, and decay channels) and its use of a well-established formalism. However, the quantitative five-state claim is not yet robust: the N anti-K* amplitude is taken to be spin-degenerate, several resonance parameters are adopted from earlier analyses without variation, and no systematic uncertainties are provided. These issues do not invalidate the framework, but they mean the paper presently overstates the certainty of the abstract's 'five states with bindings from 10 to 30 MeV and widths below 60 MeV' conclusion.

major comments (3)
  1. [II, Eq. (11) and Table I] The N anti-K* amplitude in Eq. (11) is taken to be the same Lambda(1800) Breit-Wigner for S=1/2 and S=3/2, but Table I shows that the Jtot=3/2 (Jclu=1) and Jtot=5/2 (Jclu=2) peaks are dominated by the S=3/2 component, with coefficients 5/6 and 1, respectively. If Lambda(1800) is only a spin-1/2 state, or if the S=3/2 N anti-K* interaction has a different pole position or strength, the predicted 3/2 and 5/2 states would shift or disappear. The authors should test this by using spin-dependent N anti-K* amplitudes or by varying the S=3/2 pole within a plausible range; without such a test, the five-state claim is not fully supported.
  2. [II, Eqs. (7), (10)-(12)] The input parameters entering the FCA equations are taken from previous works with no variation: the resonance masses and widths in Eqs. (10)-(11), the couplings from Eq. (12) and Ref. [67], the cluster masses from Ref. [45], and the cutoff qmax=1.1 GeV in Eq. (7). The abstract's quantitative claim of 10-30 MeV bindings and widths below 60 MeV is therefore a single-parameter-set result. A sensitivity study, even a simple scan over the resonance masses, widths, couplings, and qmax, is needed to determine whether the five peaks are robust or merely reflect the choices of input parameters.
  3. [II, Eqs. (4) and (13)] The FCA loop of Eq. (4) relies on a cluster form factor whose parameters are inherited from Ref. [45], and the xi factor in Eq. (13), which distributes cluster binding between D* and anti-K* proportionally to their masses, is introduced without validation against an alternative prescription. Because the D* anti-K* cluster is a relatively shallow bound state, the accuracy of the fixed-center approximation for this kinematics is not self-evident. A comparison with a few-body calculation or, at minimum, a variation of xi and qmax would strengthen the central claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [I (Introduction)] The phrase 'D* anti-K N system' near the start of Section I appears to be missing a star on the K and should read 'D* anti-K* N system'.
  2. [IV (Summary and Outlook)] The word 'landshapes' should be 'lineshapes'.
  3. [Acknowledgments] The acknowledgment 'Natural Science Foundation of Chian' contains a typo and should read 'Natural Science Foundation of China'.
  4. [II, Eq. (4)] The symbol q0 in Eq. (4) denotes an energy, while q denotes a three-momentum; the text should explicitly clarify that q0 is not the zeroth component of the same four-vector to avoid confusion.
  5. [II, Eq. (12)] The compositeness formula in Eq. (12) uses a 'binding energy' B, but the text does not specify the sign convention for B; the authors should state whether B is taken as positive for a bound state.
  6. [References] Reference [81] cites a conference talk without author initials or publication details; this reference should be completed or replaced with a citable source.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the FCA three-body peaks are genuine dynamical outputs of the input two-body amplitudes, not refits of those inputs; remaining concerns are model assumptions and cumulative self-citation, not derivation-by-construction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular in the sense of the hard-rule test: no quoted equation reduces an output to an input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The FCA equations (1)-(2) take the two-body amplitudes t1 (ND*) and t2 (NK*) as inputs; these are Breit-Wigner forms (Eqs. 10-11) whose masses, widths, and couplings are taken from previous works (Refs. 16, 45, 67) and are anchored to empirical resonances: Lambda_c(2910), Lambda_c(2940), Lambda(1800), and, for the J=0 D*Kbar* cluster, the LHCb X0(2900). The three-body peaks in Fig. 2 are obtained by solving the FCA denominator and are not fed back into any input parameter. The 'five states' count is indeed kinematically predetermined by spin addition (Table I: Jclu=0,1,2 combined with N spin 1/2), but this is a labeling step rather than a dynamical prediction; the actual dynamical content, namely bindings of 10-30 MeV and widths below 60 MeV, is genuinely computed from the FCA equations. The paper does rely heavily on self-citations (Refs. 16, 42, 45, 67, 68, 69), but these are published calculations, not unverified uniqueness theorems, and the J=1,2 D*Kbar* cluster states being unconfirmed is a physics risk rather than a circularity. Likewise, using the same Lambda(1800) pole for S=1/2 and S=3/2 in Eq. (11) is a model assumption, not a reduction of the prediction to its inputs. Overall, the central claim is an honest model prediction whose quantitative output is not equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calculation has no fully first-principles content: it combines a standard three-body method with two-body amplitudes and cluster properties taken from earlier fits. The free parameters listed above are all imported or derived from imported inputs, so the five-state prediction should be read as a model consequence, not a measurement-independent derivation.

free parameters (7)
  • qmax = 1.1 GeV
    Cutoff in the D* K̄* form factor loop, Eq. (7); taken from Ref. [45] to reproduce the Tcs state. It affects the FCA form factor and hence the computed binding.
  • Cluster masses m_X = 2866, 2861, 2775 MeV
    Masses of the D* K̄* cluster for J=0,1,2 from Ref. [45]; they set the three-body thresholds and enter the ξ correction.
  • g_N K̄* = 3.3
    Coupling of N K̄* to Λ(1800) taken from Ref. [67]; input to t2 in Eq. (11).
  • g_ND* S=1/2 = 3.71
    Coupling from Weinberg compositeness, Eq. (12), using mΛc(2910); input to t1 in Eq. (10).
  • g_ND* S=3/2 = 2.63
    Coupling from Weinberg compositeness, Eq. (12), using mΛc(2940); input to t1 in Eq. (10).
  • Resonance widths = 51.8, 20, 205 MeV
    Widths of Λc(2910), Λc(2940), and Λ(1800) in the Breit-Wigner denominators; experimental or fitted inputs from Refs. [16,67].
  • ξ correction factor = m_X/(m_D* + m_K̄*)
    Prescription in Eq. (13) that distributes cluster binding energy between D* and K̄* to estimate subsystem invariant masses s1 and s2.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The fixed center approximation to the Faddeev equations is valid for a bound D* K̄* cluster plus a nucleon.
    The whole calculation relies on Eq. (2) as the three-body amplitude; the approximation is imported from Refs. [63-69] without a validity check for this specific system.
  • domain assumption The D* K̄* subsystem exists as a bound S-wave cluster in J=0,1,2 with the masses of Ref. [45].
    This is the molecular interpretation of X0(2900) and its J=1,2 partners; the paper adopts it in the Introduction.
  • domain assumption Only I=0 N D* and N K̄* amplitudes contribute.
    Eq. (9) sets coefficients for I=1 and I=0, then drops the I=1 part; the paper argues the I=1 strength is small in Sec. II.
  • domain assumption The N D* and N K̄* interactions are single Breit-Wigner poles with the stated resonance parameters.
    Eqs. (10)-(11) approximate t1 and t2 by one pole each; no background terms or coupled channels are included.
  • standard math The Weinberg compositeness condition provides the couplings from bound-state masses.
    Eq. (12) uses the S-wave Weinberg compositeness formula from Ref. [80] to derive g_ND* values.
  • ad hoc to paper The ξ factor distributes cluster binding proportionally to meson masses.
    Eq. (13) introduces this prescription to estimate s1 and s2; it is not derived from a dynamical equation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Study of the exotic three-body $N D^* \bar{K}^*$ system." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H2CWISGI

@misc{pith2026241118285,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Study of the exotic three-body $N D^* \barK^*$ system},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H2CWISGI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18285}
}
abstract

We have studied the $N D^* \bar{K}^*$ system in the framework of the Fixed Center Approximation to the Faddeev equations, taking the exotic $D^* \bar{K}^* $ system as the cluster and allowing the N to interact with the components of the cluster. Previous studies have determined the existence of three states of spin $0,1,2$ for the $D^* \bar{K}^* $ system, the one of spin $0$ associated to the $X_0(2900)$ state observed by the LHCb collaboration. From this perspective, we find five states with total spin $1/2,3/2,5/2$, with bindings from $10$ to $30$ MeV and widths below $60$ MeV, which could be well identified. We also discuss the decay channels of these states that should help in future experimental searches of these states.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18285 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Constraining the $DDD^*$ three-body bound state via the $Z_c(3900)$ pole

    hep-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A model-dependent study showing that the existence of a DDD* bound state is tied to the virtual-state pole position of Zc(3900), with binding occurring only for near-threshold Zc poles.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [45]

    Molina and E

    R. Molina and E. Oset, Phys. Lett. B 811, 135870 (2020) , [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 837, 137645 (2023)], arXiv:2008.11171 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  2. [67]

    Oset and A

    E. Oset and A. Ramos, Eur. Phys. J. A 44, 445 (2010) , arXiv:0905.0973 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2010

  3. [1]

    Martinez Torres, K

    A. Martinez Torres, K. P . Khemchandani, L. Roca, and E. Oset, Few Body Syst. 61, 35 (2020) , arXiv:2005.14357 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2020

  4. [2]

    Wu, Y .-W

    T.-W. Wu, Y .-W. Pan, M.-Z. Liu, and L.-S. Geng, Sci. Bull. 67, 1735 (2022) , arXiv:2208.00882 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  5. [3]

    Liu, Y .-W

    M.-Z. Liu, Y .-W. Pan, Z.-W. Liu, T.-W. Wu, J.-X. Lu, and L.-S. Geng, (2024), arXiv:2404.06399 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  6. [4]

    Esposito, A

    A. Esposito, A. L. Guerrieri, F. Piccinini, A. Pilloni, and A. D. Polosa, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 30, 1530002 (2015) , arXiv:1411.5997 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2015

  7. [5]

    Hosaka, T

    A. Hosaka, T. Iijima, K. Miyabayashi, Y . Sakai, and S. Yasui, PTEP 2016, 062C01 (2016) , arXiv:1603.09229 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2016

  8. [6]

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

    arXiv 2017

Show all 83 references
  1. [7]

    F.-K. Guo, C. Hanhart, U.-G. Meißner, Q. Wang, Q. Zhao, and B.-S. Zou, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 015004 (2018) , [Erratum: Rev.Mod.Phys. 94, 029901 (2022)], arXiv:1705.00141 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  2. [8]

    A. Ali, J. S. Lange, and S. Stone, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 97, 123 (2017) , arXiv:1706.00610 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  3. [9]

    S. L. Olsen, T. Skwarnicki, and D. Zieminska, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 015003 (2018) , arXiv:1708.04012 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Liu, H.-X

    Y .-R. Liu, H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, and S.-L. Zhu, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 107, 237 (2019) , arXiv:1903.11976 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Brambilla, S

    N. Brambilla, S. Eidelman, C. Hanhart, A. Nefediev, C.- P . Shen, C. E. Thomas, A. V airo, and C.-Z. Y uan, Phys. Rept. 873, 1 (2020) , arXiv:1907.07583 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  6. [12]

    H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, Y .-R. Liu, and S.-L. Zhu, Rept. Prog. Phys. 86, 026201 (2023) , arXiv:2204.02649 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Luo, L.-S

    S.-Q. Luo, L.-S. Geng, and X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 106, 014017 (2022) , arXiv:2206.04586 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Hiyama, PTEP 2012, 01A204 (2012)

    E. Hiyama, PTEP 2012, 01A204 (2012)

    2012

  9. [15]

    Hiyama, Y

    E. Hiyama, Y . Kino, and M. Kamimura, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 51, 223 (2003)

    2003

  10. [16]

    Montesinos, J

    V . Montesinos, J. Song, W.-H. Liang, E. Oset, J. Nieves, and M. Albaladejo, Phys. Rev. D 110, 054043 (2024) , arXiv:2405.09467 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [17]

    Luo, T.-W

    S.-Q. Luo, T.-W. Wu, M.-Z. Liu, L.-S. Geng, and X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 105, 074033 (2022) , arXiv:2111.15079 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  12. [18]

    Bayar, A

    M. Bayar, A. Martinez Torres, K. P . Khemchandani, R. Molina, and E. Oset, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 46 (2023) , arXiv:2211.09294 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  13. [19]

    P . G. Ortega, Phys. Rev. D 110, 034015 (2024) , arXiv:2403.10244 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [20]

    Ikeno, M

    N. Ikeno, M. Bayar, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 107, 034006 (2023) , arXiv:2208.03698 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  15. [21]

    V . R. Debastiani, J. M. Dias, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 96, 016014 (2017) , arXiv:1705.09257 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  16. [22]

    Wu, M.-Z

    T.-W. Wu, M.-Z. Liu, and L.-S. Geng, Few Body Syst. 62, 38 (2021) , arXiv:2105.09017 [hep-ph]. 5

    2021 arXiv

  17. [23]

    Wu, M.-Z

    T.-W. Wu, M.-Z. Liu, and L.-S. Geng, Phys. Rev. D 103, L031501 (2021) , arXiv:2012.01134 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  18. [24]

    X.-L. Ren, B. B. Malabarba, L.-S. Geng, K. P . Khemchandani, and A. M. Torres, JPS Conf. Proc. 26, 031006 (2019)

    2019

  19. [25]

    X.-L. Ren, K. P . Khemchandani, and A. Mart´ ınez Torres, (2024), arXiv:2409.16281 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [26]

    Pang, J.-J

    J.-Y . Pang, J.-J. Wu, and L.-S. Geng, Phys. Rev. D 102, 114515 (2020) , arXiv:2008.13014 [hep-lat]

    2020 arXiv

  21. [27]

    Wu, M.-Z

    T.-W. Wu, M.-Z. Liu, L.-S. Geng, E. Hiyama, and M. P . V alderrama, Phys. Rev. D 100, 034029 (2019) , arXiv:1906.11995 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  22. [28]

    Martinez Torres, K

    A. Martinez Torres, K. P . Khemchandani, and L.-S. Geng, Phys. Rev. D 99, 076017 (2019) , arXiv:1809.01059 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  23. [29]

    van Beveren and G

    E. van Beveren and G. Rupp, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 012003 (2003) , arXiv:hep-ph/0305035

    2003 arXiv

  24. [30]

    Barnes, F

    T. Barnes, F. E. Close, and H. J. Lipkin, Phys. Rev. D 68, 054006 (2003) , arXiv:hep-ph/0305025

    2003 arXiv

  25. [31]

    Chen and X.-Q

    Y .-Q. Chen and X.-Q. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 232001 (2004) , arXiv:hep-ph/0407062

    2004 arXiv

  26. [32]

    E. E. Kolomeitsev and M. F. M. Lutz, Phys. Lett. B 582, 39 (2004) , arXiv:hep-ph/0307133

    2004 arXiv

  27. [33]

    Gamermann, E

    D. Gamermann, E. Oset, D. Strottman, and M. J. Vicente V a- cas, Phys. Rev. D 76, 074016 (2007) , arXiv:hep-ph/0612179

    2007 arXiv

  28. [34]

    Guo, P .-N

    F.-K. Guo, P .-N. Shen, and H.-C. Chiang, Phys. Lett. B 647, 133 (2007) , arXiv:hep-ph/0610008

    2007 arXiv

  29. [35]

    Yang, G.-J

    Z. Yang, G.-J. Wang, J.-J. Wu, M. Oka, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 112001 (2022) , arXiv:2107.04860 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  30. [36]

    Liu, X.-Z

    M.-Z. Liu, X.-Z. Ling, L.-S. Geng, En-Wang, and J.-J. Xie, Phys. Rev. D 106, 114011 (2022) , arXiv:2209.01103 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  31. [37]

    Mohler, C

    D. Mohler, C. B. Lang, L. Leskovec, S. Prelovsek, and R. M. Woloshyn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 222001 (2013) , arXiv:1308.3175 [hep-lat]

    2013 arXiv

  32. [38]

    C. B. Lang, L. Leskovec, D. Mohler, S. Prelovsek, and R. M. Woloshyn, Phys. Rev. D 90, 034510 (2014) , arXiv:1403.8103 [hep-lat]

    2014 arXiv

  33. [39]

    G. S. Bali, S. Collins, A. Cox, and A. Sch¨ afer, Phys. Rev. D 96, 074501 (2017) , arXiv:1706.01247 [hep-lat]

    2017 arXiv

  34. [40]

    G. K. C. Cheung, C. E. Thomas, D. J. Wilson, G. Moir, M. Peardon, and S. M. Ryan (Hadron Spectrum), JHEP 02, 100 (2021) , arXiv:2008.06432 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  35. [41]

    Mart´ ınez Torres, E

    A. Mart´ ınez Torres, E. Oset, S. Prelovsek, and A. Ramos, JHEP 05, 153 (2015) , arXiv:1412.1706 [hep-lat]

    2015 arXiv

  36. [42]

    Molina, T

    R. Molina, T. Branz, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 82, 014010 (2010) , arXiv:1005.0335 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  37. [43]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 242001 (2020) , arXiv:2009.00025 [hep-ex]

    2020

  38. [44]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. D 102, 112003 (2020) , arXiv:2009.00026 [hep-ex]

    2020

  39. [46]

    Liu, J.-J

    M.-Z. Liu, J.-J. Xie, and L.-S. Geng, Phys. Rev. D 102, 091502 (2020) , arXiv:2008.07389 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Huang, J.-X

    Y . Huang, J.-X. Lu, J.-J. Xie, and L.-S. Geng, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 973 (2020) , arXiv:2008.07959 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Hu, X.-Y

    M.-W. Hu, X.-Y . Lao, P . Ling, and Q. Wang, Chin. Phys. C 45, 021003 (2021) , arXiv:2008.06894 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  42. [49]

    H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, R.-R. Dong, and N. Su, Chin. Phys. Lett. 37, 101201 (2020) , arXiv:2008.07516 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  43. [50]

    Xiao, D.-Y

    C.-J. Xiao, D.-Y . Chen, Y .-B. Dong, and G.-W. Meng, Phys. Rev. D 103, 034004 (2021) , arXiv:2009.14538 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Kong, J.-T

    S.-Y . Kong, J.-T. Zhu, D. Song, and J. He, Phys. Rev. D 104, 094012 (2021) , arXiv:2106.07272 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  45. [52]

    He and D.-Y

    J. He and D.-Y . Chen, Chin. Phys. C 45, 063102 (2021) , arXiv:2008.07782 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  46. [53]

    S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi, and H. Sundu, J. Phys. G 48, 085012 (2021) , arXiv:2008.13027 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  47. [54]

    L. M. Abreu, Phys. Rev. D 103, 036013 (2021) , arXiv:2010.14955 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Wang and S.-L

    B. Wang and S.-L. Zhu, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 419 (2022) , arXiv:2107.09275 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Z.-M. Ding, Q. Huang, and J. He, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 822 (2024) , arXiv:2407.13503 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  50. [57]

    S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi, and H. Sundu, Phys. Rev. D 107, 094019 (2023) , arXiv:2212.12001 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  51. [58]

    Z. Y u, Q. Wu, and D.-Y . Chen, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 985 (2024) , arXiv:2310.12398 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  52. [59]

    Karliner and J

    M. Karliner and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. D 102, 094016 (2020) , arXiv:2008.05993 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  53. [60]

    G. Yang, J. Ping, and J. Segovia, Phys. Rev. D 103, 074011 (2021) , arXiv:2101.04933 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  54. [61]

    ¨Ozdem and K

    U. ¨Ozdem and K. Azizi, Eur. Phys. J. A 58, 171 (2022) , arXiv:2202.11466 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  55. [62]

    T. J. Burns and E. S. Swanson, Phys. Lett. B 813, 136057 (2021) , arXiv:2008.12838 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  56. [63]

    Chand and R

    R. Chand and R. H. Dalitz, Annals Phys. 20, 1 (1962)

    1962

  57. [64]

    R. C. Barrett and A. Deloff, Phys. Rev. C 60, 025201 (1999)

    1999

  58. [65]

    Deloff, Phys

    A. Deloff, Phys. Rev. C 61, 024004 (2000)

    2000

  59. [66]

    S. S. Kamalov, E. Oset, and A. Ramos, Nucl. Phys. A 690, 494 (2001) , arXiv:nucl-th/0010054

    2001 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Roca and E

    L. Roca and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 82, 054013 (2010) , arXiv:1005.0283 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  61. [69]

    C. W. Xiao, M. Bayar, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 84, 034037 (2011) , arXiv:1106.0459 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Ma et al

    Y . Ma et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 151903 (2023) , arXiv:2211.11151 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Roca and E

    L. Roca and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. C 88, 055206 (2013) , arXiv:1307.5752 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Y ue, Q.-Y

    Z.-L. Y ue, Q.-Y . Guo, and D.-Y . Chen, Phys. Rev. D 109, 094049 (2024) , arXiv:2402.10594 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  65. [73]

    He, X.-Q

    X.-G. He, X.-Q. Li, X. Liu, and X.-Q. Zeng, Eur. Phys. J. C 51, 883 (2007) , arXiv:hep-ph/0606015

    2007 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Y . Dong, A. Faessler, T. Gutsche, S. Kumano, and V . E. Lyubovitskij, Phys. Rev. D 82, 034035 (2010) , arXiv:1006.4018 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  67. [75]

    He, Y .-T

    J. He, Y .-T. Ye, Z.-F. Sun, and X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 82, 114029 (2010) , arXiv:1008.1500 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  68. [76]

    P . G. Ortega, D. R. Entem, and F. Fernandez, Few Body Syst. 54, 1101 (2013)

    2013

  69. [77]

    B. Wang, L. Meng, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 101, 094035 (2020) , arXiv:2003.05688 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Kong, J.-T

    S.-Y . Kong, J.-T. Zhu, S. Chen, and J. He, (2024), arXiv:2402.02703 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. 137, B672 (1965)

    1965

  72. [80]

    Gamermann, J

    D. Gamermann, J. Nieves, E. Oset, and E. Ruiz Arriola, Phys. Rev. D 81, 014029 (2010) , arXiv:0911.4407 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Liu, , talk of Beijang Liu in the Few Body Conference (2024)

    B. Liu, , talk of Beijang Liu in the Few Body Conference (2024)

    2024

  74. [82]

    Sekihara, E

    T. Sekihara, E. Oset, and A. Ramos, PTEP 2016, 123D03 (2016) , arXiv:1607.02058 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Sada et al

    Y . Sada et al. (J-PARC E15), PTEP 2016, 051D01 (2016) , arXiv:1601.06876 [nucl-ex]

    2016 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.