Exotic multistrange-anticharm baryon systems

Eulogio Oset; Jing Song

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Exotic multistrange-anticharm baryon systems

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Two new exotic baryons emerge from anticharm-strange binding

desk verdict A useful but model-dependent systematic survey of anticharm-strange molecular baryons; the S=-2 bound state is the soft spot because it barely survives the paper's own cutoff scan. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09262 v3 pith:HUKPD6LP submitted 2025-06-10 hep-ph

Jing Song , Eulogio Oset This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-ph

keywords exoticbaryonshadronicmoleculesanticharmedmesonsstrangecoupled-channelBethe-Salpeterequationvector-mesonexchangebound-statepredictions

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 seeks to establish that anticharmed mesons and strange baryons can form hadronic molecules, and that the binding depends sharply on how many strange quarks are present. Solving coupled-channel equations with vector-meson exchange, it finds a bound state near 2888 MeV (about 18 MeV below the $\bar D_s N$ threshold) for $S=-1$ and another near 3057 MeV (about 27 MeV below $\bar D_s \Lambda$) for $S=-2$. For $S=-3$ and $S=-4$ the same mechanism is repulsive and produces no states. The pattern matters because it converts a general molecular-binding idea into specific masses, quantum numbers, and a strangeness cutoff that experiments can look for.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the coupled-channel Bethe-Salpeter equation in its on-shell factorized form, $T=[1-VG]^{-1}V$, with kernel $V_{ij}=C_{ij}(k_0+k'_0)/(4f_\pi^2)$ built from vector-meson exchange in the extended local hidden gauge approach. The coefficients $C_{ij}$ carry the SU(3) flavor structure and determine everything: they are attractive in the $S=-1$ and $S=-2$ sectors, repulsive in $S=-3$ and $S=-4$, and the off-diagonal transitions such as $\bar D\Sigma\to\bar D_s N$ add attraction beyond the diagonal terms. The loop function $G_i$ is regulated by a momentum cutoff $q_{\rm max}=630$ MeV, and varying that cutoff is the paper's way of estimating uncertainty.

What would settle it

A high-statistics search in $\Lambda_b$ decays for narrow peaks at 2888 MeV and 3057 MeV in the $\bar D_s N$ and $\bar D_s \Lambda$ invariant-mass spectra; finding neither with sensitivity to states a few MeV wide would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the coupled channels $\bar D_s N$, $\bar D \Lambda$, $\bar D \Sigma$ dynamically generate a bound state at about 2888 MeV with 18 MeV binding, and the coupled channels $\bar D_s \Lambda$, $\bar D \Xi$ generate a bound state at about 3057 MeV with 27 MeV binding. The first state has $I=1/2$ and its strongest coupling is to $\bar D \Sigma$, while the second has $I=0$ and is dominated by $\bar D \Xi$. Varying the cutoff $q_{\rm max}$ between 550 and 650 MeV moves the $S=-1$ pole from 2906 to 2880 MeV and the $S=-2$ pole from 3083 to 3046 MeV, and below $q_{\rm max}\approx 550$ MeV the $S=-2$ state is no longer bound. In $S=-3$ and $S=-4$ all coefficients are repulsive, so no poles appear. Replacing $\bar D$, $\bar D_s$ by the vector mesons $\bar D^*$, $\bar D^*_s$ leaves the kernels essentially unchanged except for masses and produces slightly more deeply bound analogues.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a regularization parameter borrowed from fits to the $P_{cs}$ and $\Omega_c$ states ($q_{\rm max}=630$ MeV) stays valid for these anticharm-strange channels, even though the $S=-2$ bound state disappears when that parameter is lowered to about 550 MeV.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A narrow exotic baryon with mass near 2888 MeV, isospin $1/2$, and a dominant $\bar D\Sigma$ coupling is predicted to show up in $\bar D_s N$, $\bar D\Lambda$, or $\bar D\Sigma$ invariant-mass distributions.
A second narrow exotic baryon near 3057 MeV, with isospin $0$ and a dominant $\bar D\Xi$ component, is predicted in the $S=-2$ sector.
No such states should appear in the $S=-3$ and $S=-4$ sectors, so a resonance claimed there would indicate a different mechanism.
The $\bar D^*_s N$, $\bar D^*\Lambda$, $\bar D^*\Sigma$ analogues should bind more deeply, with the $S=-1$ pole around 3028 MeV at the central cutoff.
The $I=3/2$ $\bar D\Sigma$ channel stays unbound unless the cutoff is pushed above 630 MeV, where weak coupled-channel attraction can produce a state.

Reading between the lines

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

The most cutoff-sensitive prediction is the $S=-2$ state, so measuring whether a peak near 3057 MeV exists or not is a sharper test of the parameter transfer than the $S=-1$ state, which survives the full 550–650 MeV range; the paper does not rank its predictions this way.
The claimed strangeness threshold suggests a pattern worth checking independently: binding is tied to the attractive $\bar D\Sigma$ and $\bar D\Xi$ diagonal channels, while the $s\bar s$-exchange diagonal terms at higher strangeness flip repulsive, which could be tested by lattice QCD or by a calculation that separates single-channel and coupled-channel contributions.
If the cutoff transfer from previously fitted exotic states is the weakest link, then tying $q_{\rm max}$ to data for a known anticharm-strange state, or computing the loop function with a different regulator, would tell whether the 3057 MeV state is a genuine prediction or an artifact of the chosen regularization.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Bottom line: this is a useful systematic survey, not a breakthrough. If you work on heavy-flavor hadronic molecules, you'll want it on file; if you use its predictions, hold the S=-2 state at arm's length.

The genuinely new pieces are the extension to decuplet baryons, the vector-meson versions, and the S=-3/-4 null sectors, together with the full C-coefficient tables for every isospin configuration. The Bethe-Salpeter machinery is standard, the equations are reproducible from the text, and the authors are honest about what changes with qmax. I see no circularity: the kernels come from an effective Lagrangian, and the cutoff is anchored to Pcs and Omega_c states from earlier work, not to the states being predicted. The S=-1 and S=-2 octet bound states are not new, since Refs. [48] and [73] already found them, but the paper acknowledges this and documents why its binding energies differ.

The soft spots are real, though proportionate. The S=-2 state is the fragile one. At qmax=560 MeV it sits about 1 MeV below the DsLambda threshold; below 550 MeV the pole moves above threshold and becomes a resonance. Binding varies from roughly 1 to 38 MeV over the 560-650 window. That does not kill the prediction, because the calibrated values (600 and 650 MeV) both give a bound state, but it does mean the abstract's "qualitative stability" is too strong for S=-2. The S=-1 octet state survives over the full 550-650 range, and the S=-3/-4 null results follow from repulsive C coefficients, so those parts are on firmer ground.

The I=3/2 S=-1 state that appears only for qmax>630 MeV and is not tabulated deserves more caution than it gets; it has the signature of a cutoff-induced coupled-channel artifact. There are also a few garbled table entries in the decuplet sectors: Tables V and VI have mislabeled rows, and one threshold in Table XVI reads as 3.20171. Minor, but they need cleaning.

Who is this for? Hadron spectroscopists and experimental colleagues hunting for exotic baryons at LHCb, Belle II, or BESIII. It gives them specific masses and dominant channels to look for, with an honest estimate of model dependence.

My recommendation: send it to review, and ask the referees to push the authors on a dedicated qmax study for the anticharm-strange channels, a clear treatment of the I=3/2 cutoff state, and corrected tables. This is not a desk reject.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies anticharmed-meson–strange-baryon systems in strangeness sectors S = -1, -2, -3, -4 using the extended local hidden gauge approach. The authors construct coupled-channel interaction kernels from vector-meson exchange, solve the on-shell factorized Bethe-Salpeter equation with a cutoff regularization, and report dynamically generated bound states in S = -1 and S = -2, including both octet and decuplet baryons. The main predictions are an S = -1, I = 1/2 state near 2888 MeV, an S = -2, I = 0 state near 3057 MeV, analogous decuplet states, deeper bound states in the Dbar* and Dbar*_s vector-baryon systems, and no poles in S = -3 or S = -4. A cutoff scan between 550 and 650 MeV is used to estimate uncertainties, and the results are compared with earlier quark-model and molecular predictions.

Significance. If the predictions are robust, they provide concrete, falsifiable masses, dominant channels, and couplings for exotic multistrange-anticharm hadronic molecules, extending the molecular picture to a new sector and offering guidance for LHCb, Belle II, and BESIII searches. The paper's strengths include transparent Cij tables, a standard unitarization scheme, explicit cutoff-variation tables, and a balanced comparison with earlier work. The main scientific value lies in the strangeness dependence: attraction in S = -1 and S = -2, repulsion in S = -3 and S = -4. However, the significance is tempered by the fact that the existence of the S = -2 bound state depends on a cutoff transferred from other sectors, and the uncertainty analysis does not fully establish the claimed qualitative stability.

major comments (2)

[Sec. III B, Table XIV; Sec. IV] The existence of the S = -2, I = 0 bound state is not stable across the cutoff range the authors themselves consider. Table XIV gives pole positions of 3083, 3071, 3057, and 3046 MeV for qmax = 560, 600, 630, and 650 MeV, while the Dbar_s Lambda threshold is 3084.03 MeV; the 560 MeV point is bound by less than 1 MeV, and the text states that for qmax below about 550 MeV the pole moves above threshold and becomes a resonance. Since qmax = 630 MeV is calibrated in the Pcs and Omega_c sectors (Refs. [76,42]) and is not independently constrained for anticharm-strange channels, the abstract's claim of qualitative stability is too strong for the S = -2 existence claim. Please either restrict the bound-state claim to the calibrated window, quantify the sensitivity to the transferred cutoff, or provide a channel-specific constraint.
[Sec. III A, I = 3/2 paragraph; Sec. V] The S = -1 I = 3/2 state is handled asymmetrically: it is said to appear only when qmax exceeds 630 MeV, but no pole position or couplings are tabulated, and the adopted central cutoff is exactly 630 MeV. Because this state arises from coupled-channel attraction that overcomes a repulsive diagonal interaction precisely at the cutoff boundary, it is a prime example of a possible cutoff artifact. It should either be analyzed quantitatively, with its pole position and couplings reported, or be explicitly removed from the conclusions, since it weakens the robustness claim that underlies the paper's central predictions.

minor comments (5)

[Table V] The row labels in Table V appear to be a typo: the rows should be labeled Dbar_s Sigma* and Dbar Xi*, matching the column labels, rather than Dbar_s Lambda and Dbar Xi.
[Table XVIII] In the vector-baryon threshold table, the entries in the 'States' row mix notations: the last two entries should presumably be Dbar*_s Xi* and Dbar* Omega, not Dbar_s Xi* and Dbar Omega, and the threshold 3644 seems to be missing a decimal place or should be recomputed.
[Eq. (3)] Equation (3) is an empty numbered equation; it should be removed or renumbered to avoid confusion.
[Table XII caption] The caption contains the typo 'issopin' and should read 'isospin'.
[Sec. IV, form-factor discussion] The estimate that the form factor of Ref. [73] reduces vector exchange by a factor 0.57 assumes the momentum transfer q^2 is negligible relative to Lambda^2; this assumption should be stated explicitly, since the form factor is momentum dependent.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No by-construction circularity: the predicted masses are genuine Bethe-Salpeter outputs, but the cutoff envelope that keeps the marginal S=-2 state bound comes entirely from the authors' own earlier calibrations (Refs. [17, 76, 42]), and the paper concedes measurements would be needed to tune qmax.

self citation load bearing [Section II.B (Eq. (17) loop regularization and qmax choice) and Section IV (Discussion); Table XIV cutoff scan for S=-2]
"We adopt a cutoff regularization with qmax = 630 MeV , consistent with Ref. [17], but vary qmax is a reasonable range to get uncertainties also taking qmax = 600 MeV from the study of the Pcs states [76] and qmax = 650 MeV from the study of Ωc states [42]."

qmax is the only free parameter, and every adopted value (550-650 MeV, centered at 630) comes from prior papers co-authored by Oset ([17], [76], [42]). The S=-2 bound-state claim is marginal: at qmax=560 MeV the pole sits at 3083 MeV versus the 3084.03 MeV threshold (~1 MeV binding), and the text states that below qmax=550 MeV the pole becomes a resonance. Thus the existence claim survives only inside the authors' self-cited calibration envelope; an independent calibration below ~550 MeV would erase it. Section IV concedes that measuring a predicted state would be needed 'to tune the parameters.' Because the poles are numerical BSE outputs and the cited cutoffs are anchored to measured Λ(1405), Pcs and Ωc states, this is a minor self-calibration burden, not a by-construction equivalence.

full rationale

Most of the derivation chain is self-contained. The interaction kernels Vij = Cij (k0 + k'0)/(4 f_pi^2) (Eq. (10)) follow from the SU(3)-substructure vertices of Eqs. (4) and (7) with coefficients listed in Tables I-VII; these C-coefficients are computed from the Lagrangian and isospin wave functions, not fitted to the target states. The pole positions and couplings (Tables XII-XV, XX-XXIII) are numerical outputs of the coupled-channel Bethe-Salpeter equation T = [1 - VG]^{-1} V, and I can exhibit no equation in which a predicted mass is equal to an input by construction. The S=-1 bound state exists for every cutoff in the scan (2906 to 2880 MeV across qmax=550-650 MeV), so that claim is robust. The S=-3/S=-4 'no poles' results follow directly from the positive diagonal coefficients C(Dbar_sΞ)=2 and C(Dbar_sΩ)=3; that is a legitimate model consequence, not a renamed input. The only genuine burden is the provenance of qmax, the single free parameter: 630 MeV from Ref. [17] and the scan endpoints 600 MeV ([76]) and 650 MeV ([42]) are all authors' own calibrations, and the paper's own Table XIV shows the S=-2 bound state is marginal (pole at 3083 MeV at qmax=560 MeV versus the 3084.03 MeV threshold, becoming a resonance below qmax=550 MeV). The Section IV admission that measuring a predicted state would be needed 'to tune the parameters' is an honest limitation statement and is weighed here. This is a robustness/parameter-transfer concern — the abstract's 'qualitative stability' is overstated for S=-2 — rather than a circular reduction, because the cited cutoffs are anchored to externally measured Λ(1405), Pcs and Ωc states. Score 2 reflects the one minor self-citation burden with independent dynamical content in the central claims.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new fundamental entities; the predicted molecular states are the outputs of the calculation, not inputs pulled from a hat. The central claim rests on standard unitarized BSE, SU(3)-based vector-exchange kernels with a spectator charm quark, and the transfer of the cutoff qmax from prior fits.

free parameters (1)

Loop-function cutoff qmax = 630 MeV, scanned from 550 to 650 MeV
The cutoff regularizes the meson-baryon loop function. It is taken from prior fits to the Pcs and Omega_c states in the same formalism. The S=-2 bound state disappears below about qmax=550 MeV, so the central prediction depends on this value.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The Bethe-Salpeter equation can be used in its on-shell factorized form with a cutoff-regularized loop function.
Invoked in Eqs. (16)-(17); this is the standard unitarized meson-baryon approximation, but it omits off-shell and crossed-channel effects.
domain assumption The anticharm quark acts as a spectator, so only rho, omega, and K* exchange contribute and the SU(3) substructure of the SU(4) matrices is valid.
Stated in Section II: 'the c quark of the mesons acts as a spectator and one only exchanges rho, omega, K* mesons.' This is load-bearing for all C coefficients.
ad hoc to paper The cutoff qmax calibrated in the Pcs and Omega_c sectors transfers unchanged to the anticharm-strange sectors.
Section IV: 'With the values of qmax obtained from our study of the Pcs and Omega_c states with the same formalism...' The S=-2 bound state is only robust for qmax at or above about 550 MeV.
domain assumption Mixing between the DsB and Ds*B blocks through pseudoscalar exchange has little influence on the binding energies.
Section IV cites Ref [80] for this effect, but the paper does not quantify it in the present channels. This affects the vector-baryon predictions.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exotic multistrange-anticharm baryon systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HUKPD6LP

@misc{pith2026250609262,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exotic multistrange-anticharm baryon systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HUKPD6LP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09262}
}

abstract

We study exotic baryon systems composed of anticharmed mesons and strange baryons using the extended local hidden gauge approach. By solving the coupled-channel Bethe-Salpeter equation with interaction kernels from vector meson exchange, we explore the formation of hadronic molecular states in sectors with strangeness $S = -1$, $-2$, $-3$ and $-4$. {We systematically consider all possible isospin configurations and include both octet and decuplet baryons in the coupled-channel systems.} \textcolor{black}{Our results indicate that attractive interactions in $S=-1,-2$ can dynamically generate bound states, while systems with $S=-3,-4$ have repulsive interactions and do not support molecular formation.} We also investigate vector-baryon systems with $\bar{D}^*$ and $\bar{D}_s^*$ mesons, finding similar but more deeply bound states. The results show that bound exotic states are more likely when one or two strange quarks are present. {To assess the robustness of our predictions, we perform an uncertainty analysis by varying the cutoff parameter $ q_{\text{max}} $, which affects the loop function regularization. The variations lead to moderate shifts in the pole positions, confirming the qualitative stability of the molecular states.} These results highlight the strangeness dependence of the molecular formation mechanism and provide theoretical predictions that can guide future experimental searches for exotic multistrange-anticharm baryon systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.09262 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: Diagram for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: Diagram for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

Final state interaction in the $\Lambda_b\to D^+D^- \Lambda,~D^0D_s^- p,~D_s^+D_s^-\Lambda$ reactions
hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Threshold enhancements in the Ds-p, Ds-Lambda, and related mass distributions of Lambda_b decays are predicted from final state interactions with molecular exotic states.
Molecular states with bottom mesons and multistrange baryons systems
hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Using vector meson exchange and coupled-channel Bethe-Salpeter equations, the authors predict bound molecular states of bottom mesons with strangeness S=-1 and S=-2 baryons, with masses around 6.3-6.8 GeV.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[48]

Hofmann and M

J. Hofmann and M. F. M. Lutz, Nucl. Phys. A 763, 90 (2005)

2005
[73]

Yalikun and B.-S

N. Yalikun and B.-S. Zou, Phys. Rev. D 105, 094026 (2022), 2112.06426

arXiv 2022
[1]

S. K. Choi et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 262001 (2003)

2003
[2]

R. L. Jaffe, Phys. Rev. D 15, 267 (1977)

1977
[3]

Gell-Mann, Phys

M. Gell-Mann, Phys. Lett. 8, 214 (1964)

1964
[4]

Esposito, A

A. Esposito, A. Pilloni, and A. D. Polosa, Phys. Rept. 668, 1 (2017)

2017
[5]

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

2018
[6]

S. L. Olsen, T. Skwarnicki, and D. Zieminska, Rev. Mod. Ph ys. 90, 015003 (2018)

2018

Show all 90 references

[7]

R. F. Lebed, R. E. Mitchell, and E. S. Swanson, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 93, 143 (2017)

2017
[8]

H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rept. 639, 1 (2016)

2016
[9]

Liu, H.-X

Y .-R. Liu, H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, and S.-L. Zhu, Prog . Part. Nucl. Phys. 107, 237 (2019)

2019
[10]

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)

2020
[11]

A. Ali, J. S. Lange, and S. Stone, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 97, 123 (2017)

2017
[12]

Karliner, J

M. Karliner, J. L. Rosner, and T. Skwarnicki, Ann. Rev. N ucl. Part. Sci. 68, 17 (2018)

2018
[13]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), JHEP 07, 140 (2024)

2024
[14]

N. A. Tornqvist, Z. Phys. C 61, 525 (1994)

1994
[15]

E. S. Swanson, Phys. Rept. 429, 243 (2006)

2006
[16]

Kaiser, P

N. Kaiser, P . B. Siegel, and W. Weise, Nucl. Phys. A 594, 325 (1995)

1995
[17]

Oset and A

E. Oset and A. Ramos, Nucl. Phys. A 635, 99 (1998)

1998
[18]

J. A. Oller and U. G. Meissner, Phys. Lett. B 500, 263 (2001)

2001
[19]

D. Jido, J. A. Oller, E. Oset, A. Ramos, and U. G. Meissner , Nucl. Phys. A 725, 181 (2003)

2003
[20]

Hyodo and D

T. Hyodo and D. Jido, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 67, 55 (2012)

2012
[21]

L. Roca, E. Oset, and M. Singh, Phys. Rev. D 72, 014002 (2005)

2005
[22]

Garcia-Recio, J

C. Garcia-Recio, J. Nieves, and L. L. Salcedo, Phys. Rev . D 74, 034025 (2006)

2006
[23]

Gamermann and E

D. Gamermann and E. Oset, Eur. Phys. J. A 36, 189 (2008)

2008
[24]

Roca and E

L. Roca and E. Oset, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 591 (2016)

2016
[25]

L. Roca, J. Nieves, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 92, 094003 (2015)

2015
[26]

J.-J. Wu, R. Molina, E. Oset, and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. Let t. 105, 232001 (2010)

2010
[27]

J.-J. Wu, R. Molina, E. Oset, and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. C 84, 015202 (2011)

2011
[28]

C. W. Xiao, J. Nieves, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 88, 056012 (2013), 1304.5368

2013 arXiv
[29]

J. M. Dias, J. J. Wu, C. W. Xiao, and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. D 98, 094004 (2018)

2018
[30]

W.-F. Wang, A. Feijoo, J. Song, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 106, 116004 (2022)

2022
[31]

Ramos, A

A. Ramos, A. Feijoo, Q. Llorens, and G. Monta˜ na, Few Bod y Syst. 61, 34 (2020)

2020
[32]

Monta˜ na, A

G. Monta˜ na, A. Ramos, and A. Feijoo, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1137, 012040 (2019)

2019
[33]

Monta˜ na, A

G. Monta˜ na, A. Feijoo, and A. Ramos, Eur. Phys. J. A 54, 64 (2018)

2018
[34]

L. Roca, J. Song, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 109, 094005 (2024)

2024
[35]

B. Wang, L. Meng, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 101, 034018 (2020)

2020
[36]

Liu, Y .-W

M.-Z. Liu, Y .-W. Pan, and L.-S. Geng, Phys. Rev. D 103, 034003 (2021). 15

2021
[37]

Lin, H.-X

J.-X. Lin, H.-X. Chen, W.-H. Liang, W.-Y . Liu, and D. Zho u, Eur. Phys. J. A 60, 15 (2024)

2024
[38]

Liu, T.-W

M.-Z. Liu, T.-W. Wu, J.-J. Xie, M. Pavon V alderrama, and L.-S. Geng, Phys. Rev. D 98, 014014 (2018)

2018
[39]

Wang and J.-X

Z.-G. Wang and J.-X. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 503 (2018)

2018
[40]

V . R. Debastiani, J. M. Dias, W.-H. Liang, and E. Oset, Ph ys. Rev. D 98, 094022 (2018)

2018
[41]

Huang, C.-j

Y . Huang, C.-j. Xiao, Q. F. L¨ u, R. Wang, J. He, and L. Geng, Phys. Rev. D 97, 094013 (2018)

2018
[42]

V . R. Debastiani, J. M. Dias, W. H. Liang, and E. Oset, Phy s. Rev. D 97, 094035 (2018)

2018
[43]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 072001 (2015)

2015
[44]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 222001 (2019)

2019
[45]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Nature Phys. 18, 751 (2022)

2022
[46]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Nature Commun. 13, 3351 (2022)

2022
[47]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 182001 (2017)

2017
[49]

Mizutani and A

T. Mizutani and A. Ramos, Phys. Rev. C 74, 065201 (2006)

2006
[50]

Tolos, A

L. Tolos, A. Ramos, and T. Mizutani, Phys. Rev. C 77, 015207 (2008)

2008
[51]

Garcia-Recio, J

C. Garcia-Recio, J. Nieves, and L. Tolos, Phys. Rev. C 83, 065207 (2011)

2011
[52]

Romanets et al., Physical Review D 85, 114032 (2012)

O. Romanets et al., Physical Review D 85, 114032 (2012)

2012
[53]

Yang, Z.-F

Z.-C. Yang, Z.-F. Sun, J. He, X. Liu, and S.-L. Zhu, Chin. Phys. C 36, 6 (2012)

2012
[54]

C. W. Xiao, J. Nieves, and E. Oset, Phys. Lett. B 799, 135051 (2019)

2019
[55]

J. M. Dias, F. Aceti, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 91, 076001 (2015)

2015
[56]

J. He, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 393 (2019)

2019
[57]

Sakai, H.-J

S. Sakai, H.-J. Jing, and F.-K. Guo, Phys. Rev. D 100, 074007 (2019)

2019
[58]

Bando, T

M. Bando, T. Kugo, S. Uehara, K. Yamawaki, and T. Yanagid a, Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 1215 (1985)

1985
[59]

Bando, T

M. Bando, T. Kugo, and K. Yamawaki, Phys. Rept. 164, 217 (1988)

1988
[60]

U. G. Meissner, Phys. Rept. 161, 213 (1988)

1988
[61]

Nagahiro, L

H. Nagahiro, L. Roca, A. Hosaka, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 79, 014015 (2009)

2009
[62]

Haidenbauer, G

J. Haidenbauer, G. Krein, U.-G. Meissner, and L. Tolos, Eur. Phys. J. A 47, 18 (2011)

2011
[63]

Yamaguchi, S

Y . Yamaguchi, S. Ohkoda, S. Yasui, and A. Hosaka, Phys. R ev. D 84, 014032 (2011)

2011
[64]

W. L. Wang, F. Huang, Z. Y . Zhang, and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. C 84, 015203 (2011)

2011
[65]

Garcia-Recio, J

C. Garcia-Recio, J. Nieves, L. L. Salcedo, and L. Tolos, Phys. Rev. C 85, 025203 (2012)

2012
[66]

Han (Belle, Belle-II), Nucl

Y . Han (Belle, Belle-II), Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc. 347, 52 (2024)

2024
[67]

Szabelski (LHCb), PoS DISCRETE2024, 025 (2025)

A. Szabelski (LHCb), PoS DISCRETE2024, 025 (2025)

2025
[68]

Ablikim et al

M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 102001 (2021)

2021
[69]

Ablikim et al

M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 252001 (2013)

2013
[70]

H. J. Lipkin, Phys. Lett. B 195, 484 (1987)

1987
[71]

Gignoux, B

C. Gignoux, B. Silvestre-Brac, and J. M. Richard, Phys. Lett. B 193, 323 (1987)

1987
[72]

Yan, F.-Z

M.-J. Yan, F.-Z. Peng, and M. Pavon V alderrama, Phys. Re v. D 109, 014023 (2024), 2304.14855

2024 arXiv
[74]

Bramon, A

A. Bramon, A. Grau, and G. Pancheri, Phys. Lett. B 283, 416 (1992)

1992
[75]

J. A. Oller, E. Oset, and A. Ramos, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys . 45, 157 (2000)

2000
[76]

Feijoo, W.-F

A. Feijoo, W.-F. Wang, C.-W. Xiao, J.-J. Wu, E. Oset, J. N ieves, and B.-S. Zou, Phys. Lett. B 839, 137760 (2023), 2212.12223

2023 arXiv
[77]

Gamermann, J

D. Gamermann, J. Nieves, E. Oset, and E. Ruiz Arriola, Ph ys. Rev. D 81, 014029 (2010)

2010
[78]

Navas et al

S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

2024
[79]

J.-J. Wu, L. Zhao, and B. S. Zou, Phys. Lett. B 709, 70 (2012)

2012
[80]

J. M. Dias, G. Toledo, L. Roca, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 103, 116019 (2021), 2102.08402

2021 arXiv
[81]

J. A. Oller and E. Oset, Nucl. Phys. A 620, 438 (1997), [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.A 652, 407–409 (1999)], h ep-ph/9702314

1997
[82]

Kaiser, Eur

N. Kaiser, Eur. Phys. J. A 3, 307 (1998)

1998
[83]

E. Oset, H. Toki, M. Mizobe, and T. T. Takahashi, Prog. Th eor. Phys. 103, 351 (2000), nucl-th/0011008

2000 arXiv
[84]

Aceti, M

F. Aceti, M. Bayar, J. M. Dias, and E. Oset, Eur. Phys. J. A 50, 103 (2014), 1401.2076

2014 arXiv
[85]

Aceti, M

F. Aceti, M. Bayar, E. Oset, A. Martinez Torres, K. P . Khemchandani, J. M. Dias, F. S. Navarra, and M. Nielsen, Phys. Re v. D 90, 016003 (2014), 1401.8216

2014 arXiv
[86]

Hyodo, Int

T. Hyodo, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 28, 1330045 (2013), 1310.1176

2013 arXiv
[87]

Wang and B.-S

Z.-L. Wang and B.-S. Zou, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 509 (2022), 2203.02899

2022 arXiv
[88]

Aceti, L

F. Aceti, L. R. Dai, L. S. Geng, E. Oset, and Y . Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. A 50, 57 (2014), 1301.2554

2014 arXiv
[89]

F. E. Close, An Introduction to Quarks and Partons (1979), ISBN 978-0-12-175152-4

1979
[90]

Close, An introduction to quarks and proton, Academi c Press (1976)

F. Close, An introduction to quarks and proton, Academi c Press (1976)

1976

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [48]

Hofmann and M

J. Hofmann and M. F. M. Lutz, Nucl. Phys. A 763, 90 (2005)

2005

[2] [73]

Yalikun and B.-S

N. Yalikun and B.-S. Zou, Phys. Rev. D 105, 094026 (2022), 2112.06426

arXiv 2022

[3] [1]

S. K. Choi et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 262001 (2003)

2003

[4] [2]

R. L. Jaffe, Phys. Rev. D 15, 267 (1977)

1977

[5] [3]

Gell-Mann, Phys

M. Gell-Mann, Phys. Lett. 8, 214 (1964)

1964

[6] [4]

Esposito, A

A. Esposito, A. Pilloni, and A. D. Polosa, Phys. Rept. 668, 1 (2017)

2017

[7] [5]

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

2018

[8] [6]

S. L. Olsen, T. Skwarnicki, and D. Zieminska, Rev. Mod. Ph ys. 90, 015003 (2018)

2018