Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Molecular states with bottom mesons and multistrange baryons systems

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper predicts that bottom mesons and multistrange baryons form molecular bound states in the $S=-1$ and $S=-2$ sectors, with masses near 6.25--6.85 GeV and binding energies that grow from about 6 to 67 MeV as the cutoff increases.

desk verdict A straightforward bottom-sector extension of a known molecular model, with transparent cutoff dependence, but the 'no bound states in higher strangeness' claim rests on an internal inconsistency in the C matrices and needs rechecking. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.00840 v2 pith:EN7W6QD4 submitted 2025-07-01 hep-ph

Jing Song , Yi-Yao Li , Eulogio Oset This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords bottommesonsmultistrangebaryonsmolecularstatesexotichadronscoupled-channelBethe-Salpeterlocalhiddengaugeheavyquarkspinsymmetryvectormesonexchange
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 aims to show that some combinations of a bottom meson and a strange baryon are dynamically bound, forming exotic molecular states that cannot be reduced to ordinary three-quark baryons. Using vector-meson-exchange potentials from the local hidden gauge approach and solving the coupled-channel Bethe-Salpeter equation, it predicts bound states in the $S=-1$, $I=1/2$ and $I=3/2$ sectors and in the $S=-2$, $I=0$ sector, with masses near 6.25--6.85 GeV. It finds no bound states in the remaining isospin channels or at strangeness $S=-3$ and $S=-4$. If these predictions hold, they give experiment a concrete set of new hadrons to search for and extend the molecular-state picture from the charmed to the bottom sector.

What carries the argument

The central object is the coupled-channel Bethe-Salpeter equation $T=[1-VG]^{-1}V$, with the vector-meson-exchange potential $V_{ij}=g^2(k^0+k'^0)C_{ij}$. The dimensionless coefficient matrices $C_{ij}$ encode the SU(3) flavor couplings for each strangeness-isospin sector; the paper takes them to be identical to the charmed-sector coefficients of Ref. [71], with $\bar D$ replaced by $B$. That replacement is the heavy-quark-spin-symmetry assumption that the $\bar b$ quark is a spectator. The meson-baryon loop function $G$ is regulated by a cutoff $q_{\max}$ between 550 and 650 MeV, and poles on the second Riemann sheet are identified as bound states; the compositeness $X_i=-g_i^2\,\partial G_i/\partial\sqrt{s}$ evaluated at the pole measures how molecular each state is.

What would settle it

A lattice QCD computation of the $S=-1$, $I=1/2$ $B_s^{(*)}N$ and $B^{(*)}\Lambda$ scattering amplitudes that finds no bound-state pole near 6.3 GeV would settle against the central claim, as would a high-statistics search that sees no near-threshold states in the predicted mass windows.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the coupled-channel Bethe-Salpeter equation, with vector-meson-exchange potentials whose coefficients are taken from the charmed sector, produces poles below threshold corresponding to molecular states of $B^{(*)}$ and $B_s^{(*)}$ mesons with octet and decuplet baryons. Specifically, bound states appear in $S=-1$, $I=1/2$ (octet $B_s N$, $B\Lambda$, $B\Sigma$; decuplet $B\Sigma^*$), in $S=-1$, $I=3/2$ (decuplet $B_s\Delta$, $B\Sigma^*$), and in $S=-2$, $I=0$ (octet $B_s\Lambda$, $B\Xi$; decuplet $B\Xi^*$), together with their vector-meson counterparts. No poles are found in the $S=-1$, $I=3/2$ octet, $S=-2$, $I=1$, $S=-3$, or $S=-4$ sectors. The predicted masses lie near 6.25--6.85 GeV and the binding energies range from about 6 to 67 MeV depending on the cutoff, with compositeness close to 1.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that swapping the charm quark for a bottom quark leaves the meson-baryon interaction coefficients unchanged, because the heavy quark is assumed to sit passively while the light-quark dynamics does all the binding.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A new family of exotic hadrons is predicted: states containing a bottom meson and a strange baryon, with masses between roughly 6.25 and 6.85 GeV, just below their meson-baryon thresholds.
  • Each pseudoscalar-baryon bound state has a vector-meson counterpart at nearly the same mass, so experiments should see degenerate spin multiplets ($1/2^-$, $3/2^-$ for vector-octet; up to $5/2^-$ for vector-decuplet).
  • Because $\sum_i X_i\simeq 1$, all predicted states are essentially purely molecular; their production and decay should follow meson-baryon dynamics rather than compact-quark recombination.
  • No bound states appear in $S=-3$ and $S=-4$ or in the $S=-1$, $I=3/2$ octet and $S=-2$, $I=1$ channels, so experimental searches should focus on the $S=-1$ and $S=-2$ sectors.
  • Binding energies depend strongly on the cutoff (varying from about 6 to 67 MeV), so measuring a binding energy would constrain the regularization scale of the model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's own numbers show binding energies swinging by tens of MeV as the cutoff moves from 550 to 650 MeV, so the robust prediction is the qualitative pattern of which sectors bind, not the precise masses; matching a future lattice or experimental measurement would pin the cutoff.
  • Because the coefficients are borrowed wholesale from the charm sector, the same calculation should produce an analogous family of molecular states with charmed mesons and multistrange baryons at correspondingly shifted thresholds; comparing the two spectra would test the spectator assumption directly.
  • The appearance of a bound state in the $S=-1$, $I=3/2$ decuplet sector despite a repulsive diagonal interaction suggests that coupled-channel mixing, not single-channel attraction, is the operative binding mechanism; other channels dismissed as repulsive could bind if additional coupled channels are included.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript extends the local hidden-gauge coupled-channel Bethe-Salpeter formalism to systems formed by a bottom (or bottom-strange) meson and an octet or decuplet strange baryon, for strangeness sectors S = -1 to -4. The interaction coefficients are taken from the charm-sector analysis of the same group via heavy-quark spin symmetry, the loop function is regularized with a momentum cutoff (550 and 650 MeV), and poles are searched on the second Riemann sheet. The authors predict bound molecular states in the S = -1, I = 1/2 and I = 3/2 sectors (decuplet for the latter) and in the S = -2, I = 0 sector, with masses of about 6.25-6.85 GeV and binding energies of order 6-67 MeV depending on the cutoff. They further claim that no bound states appear in the S = -2, I = 1 sector or in the higher strangeness sectors S = -3 and S = -4.

Significance. The paper provides concrete, falsifiable predictions in a largely unexplored sector of heavy-flavor hadrons, and the calculations are transparent about cutoff dependence and compositeness. Strengths include that the poles are not fitted to any bottom-strange data, that both pseudoscalar- and vector-meson channels are treated on equal footing, and that the cutoff sensitivity is explicitly quantified. The main significance is therefore as a guide for future experimental searches and as a consistency check of the molecular picture in the open-bottom sector. However, the quantitative masses and binding energies are model-dependent through the assumed heavy-quark spin symmetry relations and the regularization scheme, so the predictions should be interpreted with appropriate caution.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III.C; Tables V and VI] The stated reason for the absence of poles in the S = -3 and S = -4 sectors is that 'all coefficients in the corresponding Cij matrices are positive, leading to repulsive or non-attractive interactions.' This is not correct for the decuplet sectors. Once the evident row-label typos are corrected, Table VI (S = -3, I = 1/2 decuplet) is the symmetric matrix [[2, sqrt(3)], [sqrt(3), 0]] with eigenvalues 3 and -1, and Table V (S = -2, I = 1 decuplet) is [[1, 2], [2, 1]] with eigenvalues 3 and -1. The eigenvalue -1 is the same attractive strength that produces the bound B Sigma* state in the S = -1, I = 1/2 decuplet sector (Eq. (10)). Consequently the qualitative argument in Section III.C does not support the no-pole claim. The authors should demonstrate explicitly that no pole exists in these sectors in their numerical solution (for example by reporting the zero trajectories of det(1 - V G) or equivalent), or revise the negative predictions in the abstract and conclusions.
  2. [Section III.A; Table IV] The text says that bound states are found in the S = -1, I = 3/2 decuplet sector 'despite the apparently repulsive interaction.' The coefficient matrix in Table IV, [[0, sqrt(3)], [sqrt(3), 2]], has one negative eigenvalue (-1), so the interaction is not repulsive in all partial waves. The same holds for the S = -2, I = 1 decuplet matrix in Table V. The explanation should be rephrased in terms of an attractive eigenchannel; this also matters for the consistency of the negative results discussed in the first comment.
  3. [Section II.D; Section III.C] For the sectors in which no poles are claimed, the manuscript does not report the numerical search itself. Given that the coefficient matrices in the S = -2, I = 1 and S = -3, I = 1/2 decuplet sectors contain an attractive eigenchannel, the absence of a pole is a nontrivial dynamical result rather than a consequence of repulsive coefficients. The authors should either document the search (e.g., the behavior of |det(1 - V G)| or the absence of zeros on the relevant Riemann sheet) or provide a physical explanation for why the attractive eigenchannel does not bind. This is necessary to support the abstract's negative prediction.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section II.B (headings)] The headings 'Pesudoscalar-octet baryon states' and 'Pesudoscalar-decuplet baryon states' contain a typo; they should read 'Pseudoscalar'.
  2. [Section II.D] The text says qmax = 630 MeV is used following Ref. [33], but the numerical results are presented for qmax = 550 and 650 MeV; please clarify the role of the 630 MeV value and consider also presenting results for that central value.
  3. [Abstract and Section III.C] The phrase 'where the interaction is repulsive' in the abstract is inaccurate for the S = -2, I = 1 decuplet channel, given the negative eigenvalue discussed above; the wording should be made consistent with the corrected analysis.
  4. [Tables V and VI] The row labels in Tables V and VI do not match the channel columns: the rows are printed as BsLambda and BXi, while the columns and the surrounding text refer to BsSigma*, BXi* and BsXi*, BOomega, respectively; please correct these labels and verify the displayed entries.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: predicted poles are outputs of the coupled-channel Bethe-Salpeter calculation, and no bottom-strange data are fitted to produce them.

full rationale

I find no circular step that reduces a prediction to its input. The bound states are poles of T = [1 - V G]^{-1} V (Eq. 13), with V built from the coefficients C_{ij} imported from Ref. [71] ("They are the same as those found in Ref. [71] replacing \bar D by B..."). That citation is an input from prior work, not a fit to the target states: no data on bottom-meson multistrange molecules are used to tune C_{ij}, and the cutoff is varied over 550-650 MeV as an uncertainty estimate rather than adjusted to reproduce the predicted poles. The poles, couplings, and compositeness values in Tables IX-XIV are therefore genuine outputs of the equations. The remark that "by construction, the states obtained are of molecular nature" is an interpretive tautology, not a derived claim. Separately, Sec. III.C's assertion that S=-3 and S=-4 channels have no poles because "all coefficients in the corresponding C_{ij} matrices are positive" is internally inconsistent with Table VI (correcting the row labels gives eigenvalues 3 and -1, one attractive), so the negative-prediction argument needs rechecking; this is a correctness risk, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on one essential free parameter, the cutoff, and on several domain assumptions about vector-meson exchange, spectator b quark, and transferability from charm-sector fits. No new fundamental degrees of freedom are introduced; the predicted molecular states are outputs of the equations, not inputs.

free parameters (1)
  • Regularization cutoff qmax = 630 MeV (varied 550-650 MeV)
    Determines the loop function G_l and therefore the pole positions. Binding energies shift from about 7 MeV to 51-67 MeV across this range, and no bottom-strange data fix its value.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Vector meson exchange from the local hidden gauge Lagrangian generates the meson-baryon interaction.
    Assumed at the start of Section II; the model is not derived from QCD.
  • domain assumption The b quark acts as a spectator, so the SU(3) coupling coefficients C_ij are identical to those of the charmed sector.
    Stated in Section II; this transferability from D mesons to B mesons is the key bridge between the companion paper and this one.
  • domain assumption The cutoff regularization with qmax near 630 MeV is a valid scheme for open-bottom channels.
    Quoted from fits to Pcs and Omega_c; the paper tests 550 and 650 MeV but does not explore other model uncertainties.
  • domain assumption The decuplet baryon couplings are obtained from explicit quark wave functions as in Ref. [71].
    The derivation is not repeated here; the resulting coefficients are tabulated in Tables IV-VII.
  • standard math The Bethe-Salpeter equation can be factorized on-shell with the loop function of Eq. (14).
    Standard unitarization used in the approach; not proven in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Molecular states with bottom mesons and multistrange baryons systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EN7W6QD4

@misc{pith2026250700840,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Molecular states with bottom mesons and multistrange baryons systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EN7W6QD4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.00840}
}
abstract

We investigate molecular states formed by bottom mesons and multistrange baryons from both octet and decuplet flavor representations, using the local hidden gauge approach combined with coupled-channel Bethe-Salpeter equations. Focusing on strangeness sectors \(S = -1\) to \(-4\), we predict several bound states in the \(S=-1, I=1/2,~3/2\) and \(S=-2, I=0\) sectors. No bound states are found in other isospin channels, where the interaction is repulsive, nor in higher strangeness sectors. The binding energies are analyzed under different values of the cutoff regularization parameters, providing estimates of theoretical uncertainties. This study provides concrete predictions to support future experimental investigations and improve understanding of heavy-flavor multistrange exotic hadrons.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.00840 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Diagrammatic representation of the meson-baryon in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.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. Possibility of the antibottom-strange molecular pentaquarks near $ B\Sigma$ and $ B^*\Sigma$ thresholds

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Coupled-channel OBE dynamics with S–D mixing produce three near-threshold poles dominated by BΣ/B*Σ that should show as narrow enhancements in open Bs0N, BΛ and B*Λ channels.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

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

    2003

  2. [2]

    Aubert et al

    B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 142001 (2005)

    2005

  3. [3]

    Ablikim et al

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

    2013

  4. [4]

    Z. Q. Liu et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 252002 (2013), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 111, 019901 (201 3)]

    2013

  5. [5]

    Chilikin et al

    K. Chilikin et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. D 88, 074026 (2013)

    2013

  6. [6]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 222002 (2014)

    2014

  7. [7]

    Aaij and others [LHCb Collaboration], Phys

    R. Aaij and others [LHCb Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett . 124, 222002 (2020)

    2020

  8. [8]

    Aaij et al

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

    2015

Show all 94 references
  1. [9]

    Aaij et al

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

    2019

  2. [10]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. D 104, 012005 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Sci. Bull. 66, 1278 (2021), 2012.10380

    2021

  4. [12]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 031901 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    Aaij et al

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

    2022

  6. [14]

    Aaij et al

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

    2017

  7. [15]

    Gell-Mann, Phys

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

    1964

  8. [16]

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

    1977

  9. [17]

    Esposito, A

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

    2017

  10. [18]

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

    2018

  11. [19]

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

    2017

  12. [20]

    Maiani, F

    L. Maiani, F. Piccinini, A. D. Polosa, and V . Riquer, Phy s. Rev. D 71, 014028 (2005)

    2005

  13. [21]

    Ebert, R

    D. Ebert, R. N. Faustov, and V . O. Galkin, Phys. Lett. B 634, 214 (2006)

    2006

  14. [22]

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

    2017

  15. [23]

    Maiani, F

    L. Maiani, F. Piccinini, A. D. Polosa, and V . Riquer, Phy s. Rev. D 89, 114010 (2014)

    2014

  16. [24]

    Guo, H.-J

    F.-K. Guo, H.-J. Jing, U.-G. Meißner, and S. Sakai, Phys . Rev. D 99, 091501 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    Bayar, F

    M. Bayar, F. Aceti, F.-K. Guo, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 94, 074039 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    X. Liu, E. Oset, and L. Roca, Phys. Rev. D 93, 074015 (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    Aceti, J

    F. Aceti, J. M. Dias, and E. Oset, Eur. Phys. J. A 51, 48 (2015)

    2015

  20. [28]

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

    1994

  21. [29]

    J. D. Weinstein and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. D 41, 2236 (1990). 12

    1990

  22. [30]

    Karliner and J

    M. Karliner and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 122001 (2015)

    2015

  23. [31]

    H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, Y .-R. Liu, and S.-L. Zhu, Rep t. Prog. Phys. 86, 026201 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    Kaiser, P

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

    1995

  25. [33]

    Oset and A

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

    1998

  26. [34]

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

    2001

  27. [35]

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

    2003

  28. [36]

    Hyodo and D

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

    2012

  29. [37]

    Z.-F. Sun, J. He, X. Liu, Z.-G. Luo, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. R ev. D 84, 054002 (2011)

    2011

  30. [38]

    Yang, Z.-F

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

    2012

  31. [39]

    Yamaguchi, S

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

    2011

  32. [40]

    Garcia-Recio, M

    C. Garcia-Recio, M. F. M. Lutz, and J. Nieves, Phys. Lett . B 582, 49 (2004)

    2004

  33. [41]

    Uchino, W.-H

    T. Uchino, W.-H. Liang, and E. Oset, Eur. Phys. J. A 52, 43 (2016)

    2016

  34. [42]

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

    2000

  35. [43]

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

    2018

  36. [44]

    Dong, F.-K

    X.-K. Dong, F.-K. Guo, and B.-S. Zou, Commun. Theor. Phy s. 73, 125201 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    Dong, F.-K

    X.-K. Dong, F.-K. Guo, and B.-S. Zou, Progr. Phys. 41, 65 (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

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

    2016

  39. [47]

    Y . Dong, A. Faessler, and V . E. Lyubovitskij, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 94, 282 (2017)

    2017

  40. [48]

    Ramos, A

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

    2020

  41. [49]

    F.-L. Wang, R. Chen, and X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 103, 034014 (2021)

    2021

  42. [50]

    J. A. Mars´ e-V alera, V . K. Magas, and A. Ramos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 091903 (2023)

    2023

  43. [51]

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

    2024

  44. [52]

    Hofmann and M

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

    2005

  45. [53]

    E. J. Garzon and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 87, 014036 (2013)

    2013

  46. [54]

    W. H. Liang, C. W. Xiao, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 89, 054023 (2014)

    2014

  47. [55]

    W. H. Liang, J. J. Xie, and E. Oset, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 3023 (2014)

    2014

  48. [56]

    Isgur and M

    N. Isgur and M. B. Wise, Phys. Lett. B 232, 113 (1989)

    1989

  49. [57]

    Neubert, Phys

    M. Neubert, Phys. Rept. 245, 259 (1994)

    1994

  50. [58]

    Ji, X.-K

    T. Ji, X.-K. Dong, M. Albaladejo, M.-L. Du, F.-K. Guo, J. Nieves, and B.-S. Zou, Sci. Bull. 68, 688 (2023)

    2023

  51. [59]

    Ji, X.-K

    T. Ji, X.-K. Dong, M. Albaladejo, M.-L. Du, F.-K. Guo, an d J. Nieves, Phys. Rev. D 106, 094002 (2022)

    2022

  52. [60]

    M.-L. Du, M. Albaladejo, F.-K. Guo, and J. Nieves, Phys. Rev. D 105, 074018 (2022)

    2022

  53. [61]

    Nieves, R

    J. Nieves, R. Pavao, and L. Tolos, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 22 (2020)

    2020

  54. [62]

    Bando, T

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

    1985

  55. [63]

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

    1988

  56. [64]

    Nagahiro, L

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

    2009

  57. [65]

    J. A. Oller and E. Oset, Nucl. Phys. A 620, 438 (1997)

    1997

  58. [66]

    Liu, H.-X

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

    2019

  59. [67]

    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

  60. [68]

    Karliner, J

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

    2018

  61. [69]

    Yan, F.-Z

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

    2024

  62. [70]

    Yalikun and B.-S

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

    2022

  63. [71]

    Song and E

    J. Song and E. Oset (2025), 2506.09262

    2025 arXiv

  64. [72]

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

    2010

  65. [73]

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

    2012

  66. [74]

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

    2018

  67. [75]

    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)

    2023

  68. [76]

    Yang, G.-J

    Z. Yang, G.-J. Wang, J.-J. Wu, M. Oka, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys . Rev. Lett. 128, 112001 (2022)

    2022

  69. [77]

    Liang, J

    W.-H. Liang, J. M. Dias, V . R. Debastiani, and E. Oset, Nu cl. Phys. B 930, 524 (2018)

    2018

  70. [78]

    Liang and E

    W.-H. Liang and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 101, 054033 (2020)

    2020

  71. [79]

    Mizutani and A

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

    2006

  72. [80]

    Tolos, A

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

    2008

  73. [81]

    Garcia-Recio, J

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

    2011

  74. [82]

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

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

    2012

  75. [83]

    Bando, T

    M. Bando, T. Kugo, and K. Yamawaki, Physics Reports 164, 217 (1988)

    1988

  76. [84]

    Harada and K

    M. Harada and K. Yamawaki, Physics Reports 381, 1 (2003)

    2003

  77. [85]

    J. M. Dias, Q.-X. Y u, W.-H. Liang, Z.-F. Sun, J.-J. Xie, a nd E. Oset, Chin. Phys. C 44, 064101 (2020)

    2020

  78. [86]

    Q. X. Y u, R. Pavao, V . R. Debastiani, and E. Oset, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 167 (2019)

    2019

  79. [87]

    Q.-X. Y u, J. M. Dias, W.-H. Liang, and E. Oset, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 1025 (2019)

    2019

  80. [88]

    Kong, J.-T

    S.-Y . Kong, J.-T. Zhu, D. Song, and J. He, Phys. Rev. D 104, 094012 (2021)

    2021

  81. [89]

    Sakai, L

    S. Sakai, L. Roca, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 96, 054023 (2017)

    2017

  82. [90]

    Bramon, A

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

    1992

  83. [91]

    Gamermann, J

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

    2010

  84. [92]

    Hyodo, Int

    T. Hyodo, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 28, 1330045 (2013). 13

    2013

  85. [93]

    Aceti, L

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

    2014

  86. [94]

    Hyodo, D

    T. Hyodo, D. Jido, and A. Hosaka, Phys. Rev. C 85, 015201 (2012)

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.