Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 4 cited by

Unveiling the electromagnetic structure and intrinsic dynamics of spin-$\frac{3}{2}$ hidden-charm pentaquarks: A comprehensive QCD analysis

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The electromagnetic moments of six spin-3/2 hidden-charm pentaquark states are predicted, and the magnetic dipole moment is found to depend strongly on whether the diquark-diquark-antiquark current places the Lorentz index on the first or…

desk verdict A competent sum-rule calculation that overstates the significance of its current-dependent predictions: the J1/J2 spread is not yet evidence for distinct pentaquark states. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.13488 v2 pith:5B2RVWLI submitted 2025-04-18 hep-ph hep-exhep-lat

U. Özdem This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-exhep-lat
keywords hidden-charmpentaquarksmagneticdipolemomentsQCDlight-conesumrulesdiquark-diquark-antiquarkcurrentselectricquadrupoleoctupolespin-3/2U-spinsymmetrybreaking
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 the magnetic dipole, electric quadrupole, and magnetic octupole moments of six hidden-charm pentaquark configurations with quark content $[q_1 q_1][q_2 c]\bar c$ and spin-parity $J^P = \frac{3}{2}^-$, using QCD light-cone sum rules with two different diquark-diquark-antiquark interpolating currents. The central result is that the magnetic dipole moment depends strongly on which current is used: the same quark content yields $3.86\text{--}4.53\,\mu_N$ with one current and $1.84\text{--}3.43\,\mu_N$ with the other. The paper interprets this as evidence that pentaquark states with identical quantum numbers and quark content can be physically distinct, differing in how their diquarks are arranged, and that electromagnetic moments are a sensitive probe of that internal structure. If true, this would give future experiments and lattice calculations a concrete way to tell diquark configurations apart.

What carries the argument

The central objects are two diquark-diquark-antiquark interpolating currents, $J^1_\mu$ and $J^2_\mu$, each built from two diquarks and a $\bar c$ antiquark but distinguished by which diquark carries the spinor index $\mu$. The technical machinery is the QCD light-cone sum rule: the correlation function of the current with a photon is evaluated once by summing over hadronic states and once by the operator product expansion, and the coefficients of four Lorentz structures ($g_{\mu\nu}\not p \not \epsilon \not q$, $g_{\mu\nu}\not \epsilon \not q$, $q_\mu q_\nu \not \epsilon \not q$, and $(\epsilon\cdot p)q_\mu q_\nu \not p \not q$) are matched after a double Borel transformation. This matching produces sum rules for the form factors $F_1,\dots,F_4$, which at $q^2=0$ give the magnetic dipole, electric quadrupole, and magnetic octupole moments.

What would settle it

A lattice QCD calculation of the magnetic dipole moment of the $[uu][dc]\bar c$ state with the same quark content and quantum numbers: a value clearly outside both the $3.95 \pm 0.82\,\mu_N$ ($J^1$) and $3.17 \pm 0.82\,\mu_N$ ($J^2$) predictions would contradict the claim that these currents isolate the ground state.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For each of the six configurations $[uu][dc]\bar c$, $[dd][uc]\bar c$, $[uu][sc]\bar c$, $[dd][sc]\bar c$, $[ss][uc]\bar c$, and $[ss][dc]\bar c$, the paper constructs two interpolating currents, $J^1_\mu$ and $J^2_\mu$, that differ only in which diquark carries the Lorentz index. Matching the hadronic and operator-product sides of the correlation function at $q^2=0$ yields the magnetic dipole moment $\mu$, the electric quadrupole moment $Q$, and the magnetic octupole moment $O$. The magnetic dipole moments cluster near $4\,\mu_N$ for $J^1_\mu$ and between about $1.8$ and $3.4\,\mu_N$ for $J^2_\mu$; the quadrupole moments range from $-1.53\times 10^{-2}\,\mathrm{fm}^2$ to $4.85\times 10^{-2}\,\mathrm{fm}^2$, and the octupole moments are all negative, between about $-1.1$ and $-0.2\times 10^{-3}\,\mathrm{fm}^3$. Because the masses of the two current choices for a given quark content are nearly degenerate, the paper concludes that these are not numerical artifacts but reflect distinct internal diquark organizations of states that have the same external quantum numbers.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the quark-level operators chosen to represent each pentaquark couple almost exclusively to a single spin-3/2- resonance with the mass and residue taken from earlier QCD sum rule work, so contributions from neighboring states are negligible.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The predicted magnetic dipole moments give a concrete numeric target for future measurements of radiative pentaquark transitions, for example $\gamma N \to P_c \to J/\psi N\gamma$.
  • For the $[uu][dc]\bar c$ state, whose mass is close to the observed $P_c(4440)$, the two current choices yield moments that differ from the quark-model and meson-baryon sum rule values, so a measurement could discriminate among competing internal structures.
  • The nonzero electric quadrupole moments imply a non-spherical charge distribution; their signs (prolate for most $J^1$ states, oblate for some $J^2$ states) would be observable in angular correlations.
  • The paper's estimate that U-spin symmetry breaking stays below about 15% for $J^1$ and 10% for $J^2$ provides a testable pattern across strange and non-strange pentaquarks.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: If two nearly degenerate states with identical quantum numbers and quark content really have magnetic moments that differ by a factor of roughly 1.3 to 2.4, then for multiquark hadrons the choice of interpolating basis cannot be treated as physically irrelevant; observables must be assigned to specific internal structures rather than to a single state.
  • Editorial inference: The same two-current comparison could be applied to other spin-3/2 multiquark candidates; the sensitivity of the light-quark contribution to the current choice suggests that the light-quark component of the magnetic moment is a diagnostic of diquark organization.
  • Editorial inference: A lattice QCD calculation of any one of these six moments would provide a current-independent check; matching one of the two bands would support that diquark arrangement, while falling in between would indicate that neither current isolates the physical state.
  • Editorial inference: The scaling factors relating the $J^1$ and $J^2$ results (1.25 to 2.40 across the six states) may have a group-theoretic origin in spin recoupling between the two diquark bases; deriving them from a simple recoupling identity would make the sum rule result more transparent and testable.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 uses QCD light-cone sum rules to compute the magnetic dipole, electric quadrupole, and magnetic octupole moments of six hidden-charm pentaquark states with JP = 3/2- and quark contents [uu][dc]\bar c, [dd][uc]\bar c, [uu][sc]\bar c, [dd][sc]\bar c, [ss][uc]\bar c, and [ss][dc]\bar c. Two diquark-diquark-antiquark interpolating currents, J1 and J2, are constructed, and the analysis extracts the multipole moments by matching Lorentz structures g_mu_nu p_slash epsilon_slash q_slash, g_mu_nu epsilon_slash q_slash, q_mu q_nu epsilon_slash q_slash, and (epsilon.p) q_mu q_nu p_slash q_slash. Masses and residues of the pentaquark states are taken from Ref. [53], a previous QCD sum rule study of the same states. The paper reports that J1 and J2 give different magnetic dipole moments, e.g. 3.95 +/- 0.82 versus 3.17 +/- 0.82 mu_N for [uu][dc]\bar c, and interprets this as evidence that multiple pentaquark states with identical quantum numbers and quark content can have distinct electromagnetic properties depending on their internal diquark configurations.

Significance. If established, the claim that the magnetic dipole moment strongly discriminates between diquark-diquark-antiquark configurations would be a useful step toward identifying the internal structure of hidden-charm pentaquarks and would complement existing molecular-model predictions. The paper's strengths are that it provides the full analytic sum rules for the J1 current in the Appendix, includes stability checks against Borel parameter and continuum threshold variations, and decomposes the moments into light- and charm-quark contributions. However, the central physical conclusion rests on an assumption about current-resonance correspondence that the paper does not test, and the statistical significance of the J1-J2 differences is weaker than the abstract suggests for several states. The J2 results are not independently checkable because the corresponding spectral densities are not shown.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II.C, Eqs. (24)-(26), and Sec. III] The interpretation that the J1-J2 difference reflects distinct physical pentaquark states requires that each current predominantly couples to a separate JP = 3/2- resonance. The paper does not analyze the off-diagonal correlator <0|T J1_mu J2†_nu|0>, so if both currents overlap the same low-lying states, the extracted 'moments' are current-dependent weighted averages rather than properties of different resonances. The suppression of spin-3/2+ contamination is asserted from Refs. [53-56] but not demonstrated inside the chosen Borel windows M^2 ~ 2.5-3.5 GeV^2. This is load-bearing for the central claim, and the paper's statement that the result raises questions about basis independence of physical observables is not a valid consequence: physical observables are basis-independent, so a current-dependent result signals truncation or mixing effects that need to be quantified.
  2. [Table IV and Abstract] The abstract's claim of 'significant deviations' between the two currents is not supported by the quoted uncertainties for three of the six states. For [uu][dc]\bar c the difference is 3.95 +/- 0.82 versus 3.17 +/- 0.82 mu_N (about 0.7 sigma with combined uncertainty); for [dd][uc]\bar c the difference is 3.86 +/- 0.80 versus 3.09 +/- 0.61 mu_N (about 0.8 sigma); and for [uu][sc]\bar c the difference is 4.33 +/- 1.09 versus 3.43 +/- 0.83 mu_N (about 0.7 sigma). Only [dd][sc]\bar c, [ss][uc]\bar c, and [ss][dc]\bar c show differences at the 1.4-2.4 sigma level. The conclusion that multiple states with identical quantum numbers and quark content have distinct magnetic moments should be restricted to the states where the difference is statistically meaningful, or the uncertainties need to be recomputed.
  3. [Appendix, Eqs. (28)-(37)] Only the J1 spectral densities rho1, rho2, and rho3 are given explicitly. The J2 results in Table IV, which carry half of the paper's central comparison, depend on rho4, rho5, and rho6, and these functions are neither displayed nor provided in an ancillary file. Without these expressions, the J2 predictions cannot be independently verified or reproduced, and the claimed current-dependence of the moments cannot be checked. The authors should either provide the full J2 sum rules or make the computation available in a reproducible form.
  4. [Sec. III, numerical inputs] The masses and residues used in Eqs. (24)-(26) are all taken from Ref. [53], a QCD sum rule analysis of the same diquark-diquark-antiquark configurations by the same group. Since both the interpolating currents and the input parameters are constructed within the same model, the conclusion that different diquark structures lead to different moments may be partly built into the input assumptions. As a concrete test, the authors should examine the sensitivity of the J1-J2 differences to variations of the masses and residues that go beyond the quoted uncertainties of Ref. [53], or to alternative determinations of these parameters.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II.C, Eq. (20)] The text below Eq. (20) refers to 'initial (final) Pc(s) tetraquarks', but the paper studies pentaquarks; this should be corrected.
  2. [Abstract and Sec. I] The phrase 'diquark-diquark-antidiquark structures' is used in the abstract and elsewhere, while the interpolating currents in Eqs. (2)-(3) are diquark-diquark-antiquark with an anti-charm quark; the terminology should be made uniform.
  3. [Table V] The scaling factors lambda listed in Table V are introduced but are not used in any later equation or analysis; the authors should either explain their role or remove the table.
  4. [Sec. III, U-spin discussion] The claim that U-spin breaking is at most 15% (J1) and 10% (J2) is based on ratios of central values only; the quoted uncertainties of the individual moments are larger than these differences, so the statement should be presented with an uncertainty estimate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the predicted moments are computed from independent OPE sum rules with external inputs, not reconstructed from the outputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. The magnetic dipole, electric quadrupole, and magnetic octupole moments are extracted by matching the hadronic and OPE representations of the same correlator (Eqs. (1), (8), (24)-(26)), with no parameter fitted to the moment predictions themselves. The inputs—quark masses, condensates, photon distribution amplitudes, and the masses and residues from Ref. [53]—are external; Ref. [53] provides masses and pole residues from two-point QCD sum rules, not the electromagnetic moments computed here, so the moments are not equivalent to the inputs by construction. The use of two different interpolating currents J1 and J2 is not circular: the currents are distinct operators, and the difference in the resulting moments is a calculated output, not an assumed one. The paper's interpretation that the spread suggests multiple pentaquark states is a speculative inference that may be questioned on model-dependence or statistical grounds, but it is not a logical reduction of the conclusion to the input. The positive-parity contamination is argued away using Refs. [53-56]; those are external prior results and are not self-citations, and they are not uniqueness theorems that force the paper's choice. The many self-citations by the author are procedural applications of the same method and are not load-bearing in the derivation. Overall, the central predictions are independent OPE calculations; any weaknesses are correctness or robustness concerns, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The calculation relies on standard QCD sum rule assumptions, but the masses and residues come from a prior model-dependent calculation of the same states, and the Borel window and continuum threshold are chosen to make the results stable. No new entities beyond the states themselves are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Borel mass parameter M^2 = [2.5, 3.5] GeV^2 depending on the state
    Chosen so that the pole contribution is above 30% and the OPE converges. This is a standard sum rule window parameter, but the final moments vary within this window.
  • Continuum threshold s0 = [25.0, 29.3] GeV^2 depending on the state
    Chosen in the interval (m_Pc + 0.5)^2 to (m_Pc + 0.8)^2. The results depend on this choice.
  • Mass of each pentaquark state = 4.39 to 4.60 GeV
    Taken from Ref. [53], a model-dependent QCD sum rule calculation. These masses enter the sum rules and the conversion to nuclear magnetons.
  • Residue (coupling) lambda_Pc = Not shown in text, borrowed from Ref. [53]
    The residues multiply the extracted moments, so their values affect the predictions. They are not quoted in this paper.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The interpolating currents J1 and J2 couple predominantly to a single JP=3/2- state, with the JP=3/2+ admixture suppressed.
    Stated in Sec. II, justified by the mass difference between positive and negative parity states. This is a standard but unproven assumption in QCD sum rules.
  • domain assumption Quark-hadron duality: the hadronic spectral density equals the OPE spectral density below the continuum threshold s0.
    Used in Eq. (21) of Sec. II.C. This is the central approximation of all QCD sum rule calculations.
  • domain assumption The relevant Lorentz structures isolate the form factors F1 through F4 without contaminations from other structures or spin-1/2 admixtures.
    Used in Sec. II.C when equating coefficients of specific structures. Spin-3/2 currents also contain spin-1/2 parts that are usually removed by projection; this is not discussed.
  • domain assumption The photon distribution amplitudes from Ref. [63] are correct and complete at the required twist order.
    The non-perturbative photon contributions use these DAs, which are inputs from the literature.
invented entities (1)
  • The six [qq][qc] anti-c pentaquark states with JP=3/2-
    purpose: Hypothetical hidden-charm pentaquark states whose electromagnetic moments are predicted.
    No experimental evidence for these specific states is cited. They are model constructs with masses from Ref. [53].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unveiling the electromagnetic structure and intrinsic dynamics of spin-$\frac{3}{2}$ hidden-charm pentaquarks: A comprehensive QCD analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5B2RVWLI

@misc{pith2026250413488,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unveiling the electromagnetic structure and intrinsic dynamics of spin-$\frac32$ hidden-charm pentaquarks: A comprehensive QCD analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5B2RVWLI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.13488}
}
abstract

In this study, we investigate the electromagnetic properties$-$ specifically, the magnetic dipole, electric quadrupole, and magnetic octupole moments$-$ of six hidden-charm pentaquark states: $[u u][d c] \bar c$, $[dd][u c] \bar c$, $[u u][s c] \bar c$, $[dd] [s c] \bar c$, $[s s][u c] \bar c$, and $[s s][d c] \bar c$. Employing the framework of QCD light-cone sum rules and utilizing two distinct diquark-diquark-antiquark interpolating currents, we focus on pentaquark configurations with spin-parity quantum numbers $\mathrm{J^P =\frac{3}{2}^-}$. From the numerical results, we observe significant deviations between the magnetic dipole moment predictions obtained using different diquark-diquark-antidiquark structures. These results suggest that multiple pentaquark states with identical quantum numbers and quark constituents may exhibit distinct magnetic dipole moments, depending on their internal quark configurations. The obtained electromagnetic moments, particularly the variations in magnetic dipole moments, may provide insights into the internal structure of hidden-charm pentaquark states.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.13488 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The magnetic dipole moments of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The magnetic dipole moments of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Charting doubly strange hidden-charm pentaquarks: An electromagnetic mapping of spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ and $\frac{3}{2}$ states

    hep-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    LCSR calculations of magnetic, quadrupole and octupole moments for S=-2 hidden-charm pentaquarks yield large current-dependent ranges (-4.25 to 5.74 μ_N) dominated by the charm quark in most diquark configurations.

  2. Magnetic dipole moments as probes of doubly-bottom molecular pentaquarks

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    For the molecular pentaquark configurations BΣ_b, BΣ_b*, and B*Σ_b, the predicted magnetic dipole moments are 2.40, −2.84, and 5.17 nuclear magnetons respectively, with a sign and magnitude pattern sensitive to spin s...

  3. Electromagnetic form factors: A window into the $D\Lambda_c$, $D^*\Lambda_c$, and $D\Lambda_c^*$ molecular structure

    hep-ph 2025-11 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    Using light-cone QCD sum rules, the paper predicts negative magnetic dipole moments of roughly -1.27, -2.78, and -3.80 nuclear magnetons for the DΛc, D*Λc, and DΛc* molecular pentaquark candidates, plus small quadrupo...

  4. Probing the electromagnetic structure of the $P_c(4337)^+$ pentaquark: Insights from a diquark-diquark-antiquark picture for $J^P = \frac{1}{2}^-$ and $\frac{3}{2}^-$ states

    hep-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Under the diquark-diquark-antiquark model, the magnetic moment of Pc(4337)+ is predicted to be 1.76 ± 0.44 μN for J^P = 1/2^- and -1.38 ± 0.35 μN for J^P = 3/2^-, with nonzero quadrupole and octupole moments in the 3/...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [53]

    Wang, Analysis of the3 2 ± pentaquark states in the diquark-diquark-antiquark model with QCD sum rules, Nucl

    Z.-G. Wang, Analysis of the3 2 ± pentaquark states in the diquark-diquark-antiquark model with QCD sum rules, Nucl. Phys. B 913 (2016) 163–208.arXiv:1512.04763, doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2016.09.009

    arXiv 2016

  2. [1]

    S. K. Choi, et al., Observation of a narrow charmonium-like state in exclusiveB±→ K±π+π−J/ψ decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003) 262001.arXiv:hep-ex/0309032, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.262001

    arXiv 2003

  3. [2]

    Pert" and

    Following the conclusion of the aforementioned procedure, the continuum subtraction by setting the upper limit tos0 is equivalent (in the original double spectral density) to subtract everything outside the triangular regions =s1u0+s2¯u0≡s0. Following this scheme, the QCD light-cone sum rules for theF1,F2, F3, andF4 form factors can be determined by equat...

  4. [3]

    Aaij, et al., Observation of a narrow pentaquark state,Pc(4312)+, and of two-peak structure of thePc(4450)+, Phys

    R. Aaij, et al., Observation of a narrow pentaquark state,Pc(4312)+, and of two-peak structure of thePc(4450)+, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (22) (2019) 222001.arXiv:1904.03947, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.222001

    arXiv 2019

  5. [4]

    Aaij, et al., Observation ofJ/ψp Resonances Consistent with Pentaquark States inΛ0 b→J/ψK−p Decays, Phys

    R. Aaij, et al., Observation ofJ/ψp Resonances Consistent with Pentaquark States inΛ0 b→J/ψK−p Decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015) 072001.arXiv:1507.03414, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.072001

    arXiv 2015

  6. [5]

    Aaij, et al., Observation of a J/ψΛ Resonance Consistent with a Strange Pentaquark Candidate in B-→J/ψΛp¯ Decays, Phys

    R. Aaij, et al., Observation of a J/ψΛ Resonance Consistent with a Strange Pentaquark Candidate in B-→J/ψΛp¯ Decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (3) (2023) 031901.arXiv:2210.10346, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.031901

    arXiv 2023

  7. [6]

    Aaij, et al., Evidence of aJ/ψΛ structure and observation of excitedΞ− states in theΞ− b →J/ψΛK− decay, Sci

    R. Aaij, et al., Evidence of aJ/ψΛ structure and observation of excitedΞ− states in theΞ− b →J/ψΛK− decay, Sci. Bull. 66 (2021) 1278–1287. arXiv:2012.10380, doi:10.1016/j.scib.2021.02.030

    arXiv 2021

  8. [7]

    Adachi, et al., Search for Pcs(4459) and Pcs(4338) in Upsilon(1S,2S) inclusive decays at Belle (2 2025).arXiv:2502

    I. Adachi, et al., Search for Pcs(4459) and Pcs(4338) in Upsilon(1S,2S) inclusive decays at Belle (2 2025).arXiv:2502. 09951

    2025

Show all 88 references
  1. [8]

    Dong, et al., Search for a pentaquark state decaying intopJ/ψ in Υ(1, 2S) inclusive decays at Belle (3 2024).arXiv: 2403.04340

    X. Dong, et al., Search for a pentaquark state decaying intopJ/ψ in Υ(1, 2S) inclusive decays at Belle (3 2024).arXiv: 2403.04340

    2024 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Esposito, A

    A. Esposito, A. L. Guerrieri, F. Piccinini, A. Pilloni, A. D. Polosa, Four-Quark Hadrons: an Updated Review, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 30 (2015) 1530002.arXiv:1411.5997, doi:10.1142/S0217751X15300021

    2015 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Hayrapetyan, et al., Observation of theΛ0 b→J/ψΞ−K + decay, Eur

    A. Hayrapetyan, et al., Observation of theΛ0 b→J/ψΞ−K + decay, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (10) (2024) 1062.arXiv:2401.16303, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13114-9

    2024 arXiv

  4. [11]

    S. L. Olsen, T. Skwarnicki, D. Zieminska, Nonstandard heavy mesons and baryons: Experimental evidence, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90 (1) (2018) 015003.arXiv:1708.04012, doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.90.015003

    2018 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Esposito, A

    A. Esposito, A. Pilloni, A. D. Polosa, Multiquark Resonances, Phys. Rept. 668 (2017) 1–97.arXiv:1611.07920, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2016.11.002

    2017 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Nielsen, F

    M. Nielsen, F. S. Navarra, S. H. Lee, New Charmonium States in QCD Sum Rules: A Concise Review, Phys. Rept. 497 (2010) 41–83. arXiv:0911.1958, doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2010.07.005

    2010 arXiv

  7. [14]

    R. F. Lebed, R. E. Mitchell, E. S. Swanson, Heavy-Quark QCD Exotica, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 93 (2017) 143–194. arXiv:1610.04528, doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2016.11.003. 19

    2017 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Agaev, K

    S. Agaev, K. Azizi, H. Sundu, Four-quark exotic mesons, Turk. J. Phys. 44 (2) (2020) 95–173. arXiv:2004.12079, doi:10.3906/fiz-2003-15

    2020 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Brambilla, S

    N. Brambilla, S. Eidelman, C. Hanhart, A. Nefediev, C.-P. Shen, C. E. Thomas, A. Vairo, C.-Z. Yuan, TheXYZ states: experimental and theoretical status and perspectives, Phys. Rept. 873 (2020) 1–154.arXiv:1907.07583, doi:10.1016/j. physrep.2020.05.001

    2020 arXiv

  10. [17]

    A. Ali, J. S. Lange, S. Stone, Exotics: Heavy Pentaquarks and Tetraquarks, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 97 (2017) 123–198. arXiv:1706.00610, doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2017.08.003

    2017 arXiv

  11. [18]

    H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, S.-L. Zhu, The hidden-charm pentaquark and tetraquark states, Phys. Rept. 639 (2016) 1–121. arXiv:1601.02092, doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2016.05.004

    2016 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Liu, H.-X

    Y.-R. Liu, H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, S.-L. Zhu, Pentaquark and Tetraquark states, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 107 (2019) 237–320. arXiv:1903.11976, doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2019.04.003

    2019 arXiv

  13. [20]

    F.-K. Guo, C. Hanhart, U.-G. Meißner, Q. Wang, Q. Zhao, B.-S. Zou, Hadronic molecules, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90 (1) (2018) 015004, [Erratum: Rev.Mod.Phys. 94, 029901 (2022)].arXiv:1705.00141, doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.90.015004

    2018 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Dong, F.-K

    X.-K. Dong, F.-K. Guo, B.-S. Zou, A survey of heavy-antiheavy hadronic molecules, Progr. Phys. 41 (2021) 65–93.arXiv: 2101.01021, doi:10.13725/j.cnki.pip.2021.02.001

    2021 arXiv

  15. [22]

    G. Yang, J. Ping, J. Segovia, Tetra- and penta-quark structures in the constituent quark model, Symmetry 12 (11) (2020)

    2020

  16. [23]

    H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, Y.-R. Liu, S.-L. Zhu, An updated review of the new hadron states, Rept. Prog. Phys. 86 (2) (2023) 026201. arXiv:2204.02649, doi:10.1088/1361-6633/aca3b6

    2023 arXiv

  17. [24]

    L. Meng, B. Wang, G.-J. Wang, S.-L. Zhu, Chiral perturbation theory for heavy hadrons and chiral effective field theory for heavy hadronic molecules, Phys. Rept. 1019 (2023) 1–149.arXiv:2204.08716, doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2023.04.003

    2023 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Dong, F.-K

    X.-K. Dong, F.-K. Guo, B.-S. Zou, A survey of heavy–heavy hadronic molecules, Commun. Theor. Phys. 73 (12) (2021) 125201. arXiv:2108.02673, doi:10.1088/1572-9494/ac27a2

    2021 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Wang, Review of the QCD sum rules for exotic states (2 2025).arXiv:2502.11351

    Z.-G. Wang, Review of the QCD sum rules for exotic states (2 2025).arXiv:2502.11351

    2025 arXiv

  20. [27]

    V. L. Chernyak, I. R. Zhitnitsky, B meson exclusive decays into baryons, Nucl. Phys. B 345 (1990) 137–172. doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(90)90612-H

    1990 doi

  21. [28]

    Liu, Y.-W

    M.-Z. Liu, Y.-W. Pan, Z.-W. Liu, T.-W. Wu, J.-X. Lu, L.-S. Geng, Three ways to decipher the nature of exotic hadrons: Multiplets, three-body hadronic molecules, and correlation functions, Phys. Rept. 1108 (2025) 1–108.arXiv:2404.06399, doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2024.12.001

    2025 arXiv

  22. [29]

    I. I. Balitsky, V. M. Braun, A. V. Kolesnichenko, Radiative Decay Sigma+ —> p gamma in Quantum Chromodynamics, Nucl. Phys. B 312 (1989) 509–550.doi:10.1016/0550-3213(89)90570-1

    1989 doi

  23. [30]

    G.-J. Wang, R. Chen, L. Ma, X. Liu, S.-L. Zhu, Magnetic moments of the hidden-charm pentaquark states, Phys. Rev. D 94 (9) (2016) 094018.arXiv:1605.01337, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.094018

    2016 arXiv

  24. [31]

    V. M. Braun, I. E. Filyanov, QCD Sum Rules in Exclusive Kinematics and Pion Wave Function, Z. Phys. C 44 (1989) 157. doi:10.1007/BF01548594

    1989 doi

  25. [32]

    Ortiz-Pacheco, R

    E. Ortiz-Pacheco, R. Bijker, C. Fernández-Ramírez, Hidden charm pentaquarks: mass spectrum, magnetic moments, and photocouplings, J. Phys. G 46 (6) (2019) 065104.arXiv:1808.10512, doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ab096d

    2019 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Xu, Y.-L

    Y.-J. Xu, Y.-L. Liu, M.-Q. Huang, The magnetic moment ofPc(4312) as a ¯DΣc molecular state, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (5) (2021) 421. arXiv:2008.07937, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09211-8

    2021 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Özdem, K

    U. Özdem, K. Azizi, Electromagnetic multipole moments of theP + c (4380) pentaquark in light-cone QCD, Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (5) (2018) 379.arXiv:1803.06831, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5873-2

    2018 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Özdem, Magnetic dipole moments of the hidden-charm pentaquark states:Pc(4440), Pc(4457) and Pcs(4459), Eur

    U. Özdem, Magnetic dipole moments of the hidden-charm pentaquark states:Pc(4440), Pc(4457) and Pcs(4459), Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (4) (2021) 277.arXiv:2102.01996, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09070-3

    2021 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Li, Z.-W

    M.-W. Li, Z.-W. Liu, Z.-F. Sun, R. Chen, Magnetic moments and transition magnetic moments of Pc and Pcs states, Phys. Rev. D 104 (5) (2021) 054016.arXiv:2106.15053, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.054016

    2021 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Özdem, Electromagnetic properties of thePc (4312) pentaquark state, Chin

    U. Özdem, Electromagnetic properties of thePc (4312) pentaquark state, Chin. Phys. C 45 (2) (2021) 023119. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/abd01c

    2021 doi

  31. [38]

    F.-L. Wang, X. Liu, Higher molecular PψsΛ/Σ pentaquarks arising from theΞc(’,*)D¯1/Ξc(’,*)D¯2* interactions, Phys. Rev. D 108 (5) (2023) 054028.arXiv:2307.08276, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.054028

    2023 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Özdem, Investigation of magnetic moment of Pcs(4338) and Pcs(4459) pentaquark states, Phys

    U. Özdem, Investigation of magnetic moment of Pcs(4338) and Pcs(4459) pentaquark states, Phys. Lett. B 836 (2023) 137635. arXiv:2208.07684, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137635

    2023 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Özdem, Electromagnetic properties of D¯(∗)Ξc’, D¯(∗)Λc, D¯s(∗)Λc and D¯s(∗)Ξc pentaquarks, Phys

    U. Özdem, Electromagnetic properties of D¯(∗)Ξc’, D¯(∗)Λc, D¯s(∗)Λc and D¯s(∗)Ξc pentaquarks, Phys. Lett. B 846 (2023) 138267. arXiv:2303.10649, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023.138267

    2023 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Guo, H.-S

    F. Guo, H.-S. Li, Analysis of the hidden-charm pentaquark states based on magnetic moment and transition magnetic moment, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (4) (2024) 392.arXiv:2304.10981, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12699-5

    2024 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Özdem, Magnetic moments of pentaquark states in light-cone sum rules, Eur

    U. Özdem, Magnetic moments of pentaquark states in light-cone sum rules, Eur. Phys. J. A 58 (3) (2022) 46.doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00700-2

    2022 doi

  36. [43]

    Gao, H.-S

    F. Gao, H.-S. Li, Magnetic moments of hidden-charm strange pentaquark states*, Chin. Phys. C 46 (12) (2022) 123111. arXiv:2112.01823, doi:10.1088/1674-1137/ac8651

    2022 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Wang, H.-Y

    F.-L. Wang, H.-Y. Zhou, Z.-W. Liu, X. Liu, What can we learn from the electromagnetic properties of hidden-charm 20 molecular pentaquarks with single strangeness?, Phys. Rev. D 106 (5) (2022) 054020.arXiv:2208.10756, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.106.054020

    2022 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Özdem, Analysis of the isospin eigenstate¯DΣc, ¯D∗Σc, and ¯DΣ∗ c pentaquarks by their electromagnetic properties, Eur

    U. Özdem, Analysis of the isospin eigenstate¯DΣc, ¯D∗Σc, and ¯DΣ∗ c pentaquarks by their electromagnetic properties, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (8) (2024) 769.arXiv:2401.12678, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13124-7

    2024 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Wang, S.-Q

    F.-L. Wang, S.-Q. Luo, H.-Y. Zhou, Z.-W. Liu, X. Liu, Exploring the electromagnetic properties of theΞc(’,*)D¯s* and Ωc(*)D¯s* molecular states, Phys.Rev. D 108 (3) (2023)034006.arXiv:2210.02809, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.034006

    2023 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Li, Molecular pentaquark magnetic moments in heavy pentaquark chiral perturbation theory, Phys

    H.-S. Li, Molecular pentaquark magnetic moments in heavy pentaquark chiral perturbation theory, Phys. Rev. D 109 (11) (2024) 114039. arXiv:2401.14759, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.114039

    2024 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Özdem, Elucidating the nature of hidden-charm pentaquark states with spin-32 through their electromagnetic form factors, Phys

    U. Özdem, Elucidating the nature of hidden-charm pentaquark states with spin-32 through their electromagnetic form factors, Phys. Lett. B 851 (2024) 138551.arXiv:2402.03802, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138551

    2024 arXiv

  42. [49]

    H.-S. Li, F. Guo, Y.-D. Lei, F. Gao, Magnetic moments and axial charges of the octet hidden-charm molecular pentaquark family, Phys. Rev. D 109 (9) (2024) 094027.arXiv:2401.14767, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.094027

    2024 arXiv

  43. [50]

    Mutuk, X.-W

    H. Mutuk, X.-W. Kang, Unveiling the structure of hidden-bottom strange pentaquarks via magnetic moments, Phys. Lett. B 855 (2024) 138772.arXiv:2405.07066, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138772

    2024 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Mutuk, Magnetic moments of hidden-bottom pentaquark states, Eur

    H. Mutuk, Magnetic moments of hidden-bottom pentaquark states, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (8) (2024) 874.arXiv:2403.16616, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13263-x

    2024 arXiv

  45. [52]

    ÖZDEM, Insight into the nature of thePc(4457) and related pentaquarks, Eur

    U. ÖZDEM, Insight into the nature of thePc(4457) and related pentaquarks, Eur. Phys. J. C 85 (6) (2025) 624.arXiv: 2409.09449, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-14323-6

    2025 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Duan, Q.-N

    F.-B. Duan, Q.-N. Wang, Z.-Y. Yang, X.-L. Chen, W. Chen, Doubly charmed pentaquark states in QCD sum rules, Phys. Rev. D 109 (9) (2024) 094018.arXiv:2401.10078, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.094018

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Mutuk, In the pursuit for the nature of thePc(4457) and related pentaquarks (11 2024).arXiv:2411.16486

    H. Mutuk, In the pursuit for the nature of thePc(4457) and related pentaquarks (11 2024).arXiv:2411.16486

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Z.-G. Wang, T. Huang, Analysis of the1 2 ± pentaquark states in the diquark model with QCD sum rules, Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (1) (2016) 43.arXiv:1508.04189, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-3880-8

    2016 arXiv

  49. [57]

    H. J. Weber, H. Arenhovel, Isobar Configurations in Nuclei, Phys. Rept. 36 (1978) 277–348.doi:10.1016/0370-1573(78) 90187-4

    1978 doi

  50. [58]

    Wang, Analysis of the1 2 ± pentaquark states in the diquark–diquark–antiquark model with QCD sum rules, Eur

    Z.-G. Wang, Analysis of the1 2 ± pentaquark states in the diquark–diquark–antiquark model with QCD sum rules, Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (3) (2016) 142.arXiv:1509.06436, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-3983-2

    2016 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Pascalutsa, M

    V. Pascalutsa, M. Vanderhaeghen, S. N. Yang, Electromagnetic excitation of the Delta(1232)-resonance, Phys. Rept. 437 (2007) 125–232. arXiv:hep-ph/0609004, doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2006.09.006

    2007 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Ramalho, M

    G. Ramalho, M. T. Pena, F. Gross, Electric quadrupole and magnetic octupole moments of the Delta, Phys. Lett. B 678 (2009) 355–358. arXiv:0902.4212, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2009.06.052

    2009 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Nozawa, D

    S. Nozawa, D. B. Leinweber, Electromagnetic form-factors of spin 3/2 baryons, Phys. Rev. D 42 (1990) 3567–3571. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.42.3567

    1990 doi

  54. [62]

    V. M. Belyaev, B. Y. Blok, CHARMED BARYONS IN QUANTUM CHROMODYNAMICS, Z. Phys. C 30 (1986) 151. doi:10.1007/BF01560689

    1986 doi

  55. [63]

    P. Ball, V. M. Braun, N. Kivel, Photon distribution amplitudes in QCD, Nucl. Phys. B 649 (2003) 263–296.arXiv: hep-ph/0207307, doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(02)01017-9

    2003 arXiv

  56. [64]

    I. I. Balitsky, V. M. Braun, Evolution Equations for QCD String Operators, Nucl. Phys. B 311 (1989) 541–584.doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(89)90168-5

    1989 doi

  57. [65]

    Özdem, Electromagnetic form factors of the Bc-like tetraquarks: Molecular and diquark-antidiquark pictures, Phys

    U. Özdem, Electromagnetic form factors of the Bc-like tetraquarks: Molecular and diquark-antidiquark pictures, Phys. Lett. B 838 (2023) 137750.arXiv:2211.10169, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023.137750

    2023 arXiv

  58. [66]

    B. L. Ioffe, A. V. Smilga, Nucleon Magnetic Moments and Magnetic Properties of Vacuum in QCD, Nucl. Phys. B 232 (1984) 109–142. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(84)90364-X

    1984 doi

  59. [67]

    Özdem, Electromagnetic properties of doubly heavy pentaquark states, Eur

    U. Özdem, Electromagnetic properties of doubly heavy pentaquark states, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 137 (2022) 936.arXiv: 2201.00979, doi:10.1140/epjp/s13360-022-03125-4

    2022 arXiv

  60. [68]

    R. L. Workman, et al., Review of Particle Physics, PTEP 2022 (2022) 083C01.doi:10.1093/ptep/ptac097

    2022 doi

  61. [69]

    B. L. Ioffe, QCD at low energies, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 56 (2006) 232–277.arXiv:hep-ph/0502148, doi:10.1016/j. ppnp.2005.05.001

    2006 arXiv

  62. [70]

    T. M. Aliev, E. Askan, A. Ozpineci, Radiative decays of the spin-3/2 to spin-1/2 doubly heavy baryons in QCD, Phys. Rev. D 108 (5) (2023) 054015.arXiv:2306.14552, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.054015

    2023 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Özdem, Investigating the underlying structure of vector hidden-charm tetraquark states via their electromagnetic characteristics, Phys

    U. Özdem, Investigating the underlying structure of vector hidden-charm tetraquark states via their electromagnetic characteristics, Phys. Rev. D 111 (5) (2025) 054009.arXiv:2412.06447, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.054009

    2025 arXiv

  64. [72]

    U. Özdem, Unveiling the underlying structure of axial-vector bottom-charm tetraquarks in the light of their magnetic moments, JHEP 05 (2024) 301.arXiv:2403.16191, doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2024)301

    2024 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Narison, mc,b, < αsG2 > and αs from Heavy Quarkonia, Nucl

    S. Narison, mc,b, < αsG2 > and αs from Heavy Quarkonia, Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc. 300-302 (2018) 153–164. doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2018.12.026

    2018 doi

  66. [74]

    Özdem, Shedding light on the nature of the Pcs(4459) pentaquark state, Phys

    U. Özdem, Shedding light on the nature of the Pcs(4459) pentaquark state, Phys. Rev. D 111 (7) (2025) 074038.arXiv: 2411.11442, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.074038

    2025 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Pascalutsa, M

    V. Pascalutsa, M. Vanderhaeghen, Magnetic moment of the Delta(1232)-resonance in chiral effective field theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 (2005) 102003.arXiv:nucl-th/0412113, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.102003

    2005 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Azizi, U

    K. Azizi, U. Özdem, Exploring the magnetic dipole moments ofTQQqs andTQQss states in the framework of QCD light-cone sum rules, JHEP 03 (2023) 166.arXiv:2301.07713, doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2023)166

    2023 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Pascalutsa, M

    V. Pascalutsa, M. Vanderhaeghen, Chiral effective-field theory in the Delta(1232) region. II. Radiative pion photoproduc- tion, Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 014027.arXiv:0709.4583, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.014027

    2008 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Kotulla, et al., The Reaction gamma p —>pi zero gamma-prime p and the magnetic dipole moment of the delta+(1232) resonance, Phys

    M. Kotulla, et al., The Reaction gamma p —>pi zero gamma-prime p and the magnetic dipole moment of the delta+(1232) resonance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 272001.arXiv:nucl-ex/0210040, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.272001

    2002 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Pascalutsa, M

    V. Pascalutsa, M. Vanderhaeghen, Chiral effective-field theory in the Delta(1232) region: I. Pion electroproduction on the 21 nucleon, Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 034003.arXiv:hep-ph/0512244, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.034003

    2006 arXiv

  72. [80]

    A. I. Machavariani, A. Faessler, A. J. Buchmann, Field-theoretical description of electromagnetic Delta resonance pro- duction and determination of the magnetic moment of the∆+(1232) resonance by theep→ e′N′π′γ′ and γp→ N′π′γ′ reactions, Nucl. Phys. A 646 (1999) 231–257, [Erra...

    1999 doi

  73. [81]

    Drechsel, M

    D. Drechsel, M. Vanderhaeghen, M. M. Giannini, E. Santopinto, Inelastic photon scattering and the magnetic moment of the Delta (1232) resonance, Phys. Lett. B 484 (2000) 236–242.arXiv:nucl-th/0003035, doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(00) 00654-7

    2000 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Drechsel, M

    D. Drechsel, M. Vanderhaeghen, Magnetic dipole moment of the Delta+ (1232) from the gamma p —> gamma pi0 pi reaction, Phys. Rev. C 64 (2001) 065202.arXiv:hep-ph/0105060, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.64.065202

    2001 arXiv

  75. [83]

    A.I.Machavariani, A.Faessler, PropagatoroftheDeltaresonanceanddeterminationofthemagneticmomentoftheDelta+ from the gamma p —> gamma pi0 p reaction, Phys. Rev. C 72 (2005) 024002.doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.72.024002

    2005 doi

  76. [84]

    K. U. Can, G. Erkol, B. Isildak, M. Oka, T. T. Takahashi, Electromagnetic properties of doubly charmed baryons in Lattice QCD, Phys. Lett. B 726 (2013) 703–709.arXiv:1306.0731, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2013.09.024

    2013 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Chiang, M

    W.-T. Chiang, M. Vanderhaeghen, S. N. Yang, D. Drechsel, Unitary model for the gamma p —> gamma pi0 p reaction and the magnetic dipole moment of the Delta+ (1232), Phys. Rev. C 71 (2005) 015204.arXiv:hep-ph/0409078, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.71.015204

    2005 arXiv

  78. [88]

    K. U. Can, G. Erkol, B. Isildak, M. Oka, T. T. Takahashi, Electromagnetic structure of charmed baryons in Lattice QCD, JHEP 05 (2014) 125.arXiv:1310.5915, doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2014)125

    2014 arXiv

  79. [1869]

    arXiv:2009.00238, doi:10.3390/sym12111869

    2009 arXiv

  80. [2019]

    In 2022, the LHCb collaboration made a notable observation: a novel structure, Pcs(4338), was identified within theJ/ψΛ mass distribution in theB−→J/ψΛ−p decays [5]

    In 2020, the LHCb Collaboration unveiled an additional pentaquark state, designated asPcs(4459), within the invariant mass spectrum ofJ/ψΛ [4]. In 2022, the LHCb collaboration made a notable observation: a novel structure, Pcs(4338), was identified within theJ/ψΛ mass distribu...

    2020 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.