Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Triply heavy tetraquarks $\bar{b}c\bar{q}c$ and $\bar{c}b\bar{q}b$ in a constituent quark model

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 A constituent quark model predicts narrow tetraquark resonances in two triply heavy sectors, with masses and widths specific enough for experimenters to hunt.

desk verdict Concrete new predictions of mixed heavy tetraquark resonances, but the missing basis-convergence documentation makes the sub-MeV widths premature. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.13728 v1 pith:YSOPPKPG submitted 2025-07-18 hep-ph hep-exhep-latnucl-exnucl-th

Gang Yang , Jialun Ping , Jorge Segovia This is my paper
classification hep-phhep-exhep-latnucl-exnucl-th
keywords triplyheavytetraquarksconstituentquarkmodelGaussianExpansionMethodComplexScalingexotichadronsresonancestatesK-typeconfigurationsmagneticmoments
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 claims that the quark systems $\bar{b}c\bar{q}c$ and $\bar{c}b\bar{q}b$ (with $q=u,d,s$) support multiple narrow $S$-wave tetraquark resonances in every allowed $I(J^P)$ channel. Solving the four-body Schr\"odinger equation with a constituent quark model, Gaussian basis expansion, and complex scaling, the authors find resonance masses of 8.87–9.36 GeV for $\bar{b}c\bar{q}c$ and 12.13–12.45 GeV for $\bar{c}b\bar{q}b$, with widths typically below 13 MeV. Most predicted states are compact (under 1 fm), and their wave functions are dominated by K-type configurations rather than ordinary meson-meson clusters. Because no triply heavy tetraquark has been observed yet, these predictions matter as concrete targets, complete with suggested golden decay channels.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the complex-scaled four-body Schr\"odinger equation solved by the Gaussian Expansion Method (GEM), in which spatial wave functions are expanded in Gaussian basis functions with size parameters in geometric progression, combined with the Complex Scaling Method (CSM) to rotate coordinates into the complex plane and expose resonance poles. The basis includes meson-meson, diquark-antidiquark, and five K-type configurations, together with all allowed color structures. The K-type configurations, in particular, are the structural ingredient that the paper identifies as the dominant component of the predicted resonances.

What would settle it

A specific check would be to recompute the same coupled-channel spectra with a substantially enlarged Gaussian basis (or with a different variational basis such as Lagrange meshes) and verify that every pole listed in Table XXVIII remains at the same complex energy; a second test would be an experimental search for the predicted narrow peaks in the golden decay channels, for instance $B_cD$ near 8.87 GeV or $B_cB_s$ near 12.20 GeV, where a null result would contradict the prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that fully coupled-channel calculations yield stable resonance poles, not just scattering continua, for triply heavy tetraquarks $\bar{b}c\bar{q}c$ and $\bar{c}b\bar{q}b$. For example, in the $\frac{1}{2}(0^+)$ channel of $\bar{b}c\bar{q}c$, two poles appear at $8870-i5.0$ MeV and $8885-i2.2$ MeV, and the $\frac{1}{2}(1^+)$ channel shows three poles at $8867-i7.8$, $8937-i4.5$, and $8950-i7.4$ MeV. The paper further claims that the K-type configurations dominate the internal structure of nearly all resonances, with meson-meson, hidden-color, and diquark-antidiquark components playing secondary roles, and that most states are compact tetraquarks with sizes below 1 fm. Magnetic moments and dominant decay channels are tabulated for each pole, giving experimental searches a specific signature in channels such as $B_cD$, $B_c^*D^*$, $B_cD_s$, and $B_cB_s$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Gaussian basis with geometrically spaced size parameters is complete enough to converge the coupled-channel eigenvalue problem; the paper does not state the basis size or show a convergence test, so the very narrow resonance poles could in principle be numerical artifacts of an incomplete basis.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the resonances are real, experiments at LHCb, CMS, and ATLAS can search for them in the golden decay channels listed in the paper, such as $B_cD$ for $\bar{b}c\bar{q}c$ and $B_cB_s$ for $\bar{c}b\bar{q}b$.
  • The predicted masses give a sharp mass window (8.87–9.36 GeV and 12.13–12.45 GeV) for future invariant-mass searches, with narrow widths below 13 MeV making them identifiable peaks.
  • The K-type dominance implies that these states are not simply meson-meson molecules; their internal structure involves quark rearrangements that standard two-meson thresholds would not capture.
  • The magnetic moment patterns, including zero moments for the $0^+$ states and specific $\mu$ values for $1^+$ and $2^+$ states, provide additional observables that would distinguish a tetraquark interpretation from alternative explanations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the K-type dominance is robust, a natural next step is to check whether the same basis yields analogous resonances in fully heavy tetraquark systems, where the constituent quark model has already been applied; that comparison is not made in this paper.
  • The very narrow widths (down to 0.4–0.8 MeV) are sensitive to the completeness of the Gaussian basis, so an independent variational or lattice calculation of the same channels would be a demanding test of whether the narrowest poles survive.
  • The predicted zero magnetic moments of all $0^+$ resonances, together with nonzero moments for $1^+$ and $2^+$ states, could be used experimentally to constrain the spin-parity assignment of any candidate found in the golden decay channels.
  • The paper does not provide production cross-section estimates; a phenomenological study of how abundantly these tetraquarks would be produced in $B$ meson decays or heavy-ion collisions would sharpen the experimental relevance of the mass predictions.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a systematic constituent-quark-model study of S-wave triply heavy tetraquarks with quark content \bar{b}c\bar{q}c and \bar{c}b\bar{q}b (q = u, d, s), for J^P = 0^+, 1^+, 2^+ and isospin I = 0, 1/2. The authors construct color, spin, flavor, and spatial wave functions over meson-meson, diquark-antidiquark, and five K-type configurations, and solve the complex-scaled four-body Schr\"odinger equation with the Gaussian Expansion Method combined with the Complex Scaling Method. They find no bound states but report more than thirty narrow resonances, with \bar{b}c\bar{q}c masses in the range 8.87-9.36 GeV and \bar{c}b\bar{q}b masses in 12.13-12.45 GeV, together with widths, RMS radii, magnetic moments, dominant wave-function components, and proposed golden decay channels.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides concrete, falsifiable predictions for a sector where no experimental signals exist yet, and the use of model parameters fixed to meson spectra rather than to tetraquark observables is a genuine predictive feature. The inclusion of all allowed color structures and five K-type configurations is more exhaustive than many earlier studies. However, the numerical support for the resonance claim is currently incomplete: the absence of any convergence information for the GEM basis and the qualitative treatment of the CSM stability leave open the possibility that some of the narrow poles are artifacts. The paper also contains a load-bearing ambiguity in the component analysis, where the two non-orthogonality prescriptions can give different dominant configurations for the same state.

major comments (3)
  1. [II.B, Eq. (48); all resonance tables (V-XXVII)] The paper never specifies the number of Gaussian basis functions per Jacobi coordinate, the minimum and maximum size parameters, or the geometric progression ratio, and it reports no convergence test for the four-body eigenvalue problem. Section III states only that the rotation angle is varied from 0° to 14°, without showing pole trajectories or the complex energies at each angle. This is load-bearing because several headline poles have widths below 1 MeV (e.g., 12163-i0.8, 12201-i0.4, 12313-i1.0 in Table XXVIII); in a finite-basis CSM calculation, such poles can be discretized continuum artifacts or can shift by tens of MeV if the basis is incomplete. Please provide the GEM basis parameters and a convergence study, such as resonance pole positions versus basis size and versus rotation angle, before the resonance claim can be accepted.
  2. [III.D, Table XXV; also Table XXVII] The two prescriptions for decomposing the non-orthogonal wave function yield incompatible structural assignments for some states. For the 12202-i1.0 resonance, Set I gives S = 51.0% and K = 47.7%, so the color-singlet meson-meson component dominates, while Set II gives S = 2.9% and K = 92.3%; the text nevertheless concludes K-type dominance. Similarly, Table XXVII shows the 12251-i1.5 state with Set I K = 99.7% but Set II K = 72.3% and S = 22.0%. Because the abstract and Section IV assert that K-type configurations play a major role, this ambiguity must either be resolved by justifying one prescription or be reported as a systematic uncertainty; otherwise the structural conclusion is not supported by the presented numbers.
  3. [III.A-III.D, Tables V-XXVII] All numerical results are quoted without any uncertainty estimate or sensitivity study. The resonance masses and widths are given to sub-MeV precision, but no test is shown of how the poles respond to variations of the model parameters in Table I or to the basis size. Given that some widths are as small as 0.4 MeV, a robustness check is needed to demonstrate that the narrow resonances are not a fine-tuned consequence of a particular parameter choice.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III.A, Fig. 3 caption] The figure caption contains a typo: it reads "\bar{cc}\bar{d}c" where the context indicates "\bar{b}c\bar{q}c"; please correct this and check similar notation inconsistencies elsewhere.
  2. [Eq. (50)] The antisymmetrizer A = 1 - (24) is introduced without explaining which particles are identical for each quark content; please clarify the labeling convention used in Figure 1.
  3. [Eq. (53)] The left and right generalized eigenvectors c^l and c^r are not defined precisely; please state the generalized eigenvalue equation that they solve.
  4. [Section II.A, Eq. (4)] The omission of Goldstone-boson exchange is justified only by reference to Ref. [47]; since the systems here contain a light quark, a short explanation of why this omission is appropriate for these tetraquarks would be helpful.
  5. [Table XXVIII] The notation for magnetic moments, \mu_{-1/2}(\mu_{1/2}), is explained in the text but the ordering could be made clearer; an explicit example with a numeric value would remove ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circularity: predictions are genuine solutions of a parameter-fixed Hamiltonian; only a non-load-bearing self-citation pattern and a numerical-convergence concern.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained against external benchmarks. All Hamiltonian inputs (Eqs. 2-7, Table I) are fixed from prior fits to ordinary hadron spectra, and Table II explicitly benchmarks the model against experimental D, B, Bs, and Bc meson masses. The tetraquark masses, widths, sizes, magnetic moments, and components in Tables V-XXVIII are eigenvalues and eigenvectors of Eq. (1) obtained with GEM/CSM; no tetraquark datum enters the parameter set, so the central predictions are not fit to the target observables. The self-citations (Refs. 47-64) document the model's previous applications, including the similarly constructed triply heavy tetraquark study in Ref. [47], but the load-bearing content is the externally benchmarked Hamiltonian, not an unverified self-citation. The statement 'As in Ref. [47], the interactions associated with dynamical chiral symmetry breaking... are omitted' is a modeling ansatz inherited from the authors' prior work; it is an input choice, not a result derived from, or equivalent to, the present tetraquark predictions. No equation in the paper reduces by construction to another equation, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The most significant weakness identified by the reviewer, namely the absence of GEM basis-size and convergence information for the sub-MeV widths in Tables V-XXVII, is a numerical-convergence and correctness risk, not circularity: an incomplete basis could make poles unstable, but that is a technical validity concern, not a definitional equivalence between inputs and outputs. Therefore no circular step is identified; the score of 1 reflects only the presence of a minor, non-load-bearing self-citation pattern.

Assumptions & free parameters 12 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central predictions rest entirely on the constituent quark model parameters from Table I, which were fitted to meson spectra in earlier work. The authors supply no numerical convergence data for the GEM basis. No new fundamental entities are introduced; the predicted tetraquark resonances are outputs, not inputs.

free parameters (12)
  • u/d quark mass m_q = 313 MeV
    Constituent quark mass fixed from previous meson spectroscopy fits; affects thresholds and binding energies.
  • strange quark mass m_s = 555 MeV
    Constituent mass from previous fits; relevant for \bar{b}c\bar{s}c and \bar{c}b\bar{s}b systems.
  • charm quark mass m_c = 1752 MeV
    Constituent mass from previous fits.
  • bottom quark mass m_b = 5100 MeV
    Constituent mass from previous fits.
  • OGE coupling alpha0 = 2.118
    Scale-dependent strong coupling parameter in Eq. (7).
  • Lambda0 = 0.113 fm^-1
    QCD scale parameter in the running coupling.
  • mu0 = 36.976 MeV
    Free parameter in the running coupling expression.
  • rhat0 = 28.17 MeV fm
    Regularization scale for the spin-spin contact term.
  • confinement strength a_c = 430 MeV
    Strength parameter in the screened confinement potential.
  • confinement range mu_c = 0.70 fm^-1
    Screening parameter that controls the long-range behavior of confinement.
  • confinement constant Delta = 181.10 MeV
    Constant term in the confinement potential that sets the large-distance threshold value.
  • GEM basis parameters = not specified
    Number of Gaussian basis functions and range of size parameters are not reported, so convergence cannot be assessed.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The four-body system obeys a non-relativistic Schr\"odinger equation with a constituent quark mass Hamiltonian.
    Used in Eq. (2); neglects relativistic corrections that may be non-negligible for light quarks.
  • domain assumption The interaction is given by screened linear confinement plus one-gluon exchange with a regularized contact term; Goldstone boson exchange is omitted.
    Section II.A; based on prior model work, but not derived from QCD and may miss light-quark chiral dynamics.
  • standard math Complex Scaling Method separates resonances from continuum in the complex energy plane, and resonance poles are independent of rotation angle theta.
    Used in Section II.A and Figures 2-13; standard technique, but numerical stability must be demonstrated.
  • domain assumption The variational basis includes all S-wave meson-meson, diquark-antidiquark, and five K-type configurations; no higher orbital excitations are included.
    Section II.B; completeness of the S-wave basis is assumed.
  • domain assumption The antisymmetrizer acts only on the two identical heavy quarks, A = 1 - (24).
    Eq. (50); assumes quarks 2 and 4 are identical, which is correct for the studied systems.
  • ad hoc to paper Wave function components are computed using the non-orthogonal basis with two ad hoc prescriptions (diagonal-only and row-sum).
    Section II.B and Eq. (53); the ambiguity is acknowledged but not resolved, and the two prescriptions can give conflicting results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Triply heavy tetraquarks $\bar{b}c\bar{q}c$ and $\bar{c}b\bar{q}b$ in a constituent quark model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YSOPPKPG

@misc{pith2026250713728,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Triply heavy tetraquarks $\barbc\barqc$ and $\barcb\barqb$ in a constituent quark model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YSOPPKPG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.13728}
}
abstract

A systematic investigation of $S$-wave triply heavy tetraquark systems with quark content $\bar{b}c\bar{q}c$ and $\bar{c}b\bar{q}b$ $(q = u,\,d,\,s)$, spin-parity quantum numbers $J^P=0^+$, $1^+$, $2^+$ and isospin $I=0,\,\frac{1}{2}$, is carried out within the constituent quark model framework. The four-body bound and resonance states are determined by solving the Schr\"odinger equation employing the high-precision and efficient Gaussian Expansion Method (GEM) in conjunction with the powerful Complex Scaling Method (CSM). Besides, a comprehensive coupled-channel analysis of the $S$-wave tetraquark systems is performed, taking into account meson-meson, diquark-antidiquark and K-type configurations, as well as all allowed color structures. Several narrow resonant states are identified in each $I(J^P)$ channel. In particular, resonances for the $\bar{b}c\bar{q}c$ system are found in the mass range of $8.87-9.36$ GeV, while those for the $\bar{c}b\bar{q}b$ system lie between $12.13-12.45$ GeV. Most of the predicted resonances are compact tetraquark states with sizes smaller than $1.0$ fm, although four states exhibit more extended structures with sizes around $1.3$ fm, suggesting a more loosely bound nature. Magnetic moments and dominant wave function components of these exotic states are also analyzed. The results indicate that K-type configurations play a major role in the structure of the observed resonances. Finally, possible strong decay channels (golden modes) for these states are theoretically proposed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.13728 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Complete [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The complete coupled-channels calculation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The complete coupled-channels calculation of ¯c [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The complete coupled-channels calculation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The complete coupled-channels calculation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The complete coupled-channels calculation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The complete coupled-channels calculation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The complete coupled-channels calculation of ¯c [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. The complete coupled-channels calculation of ¯c [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. The complete coupled-channels calculation of ¯c [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. The complete coupled-channels calculation of ¯c [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. The complete coupled-channels calculation of ¯c [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_13.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. Systematic exploration of triply heavy tetraquarks: spectroscopic and decay characteristics

    hep-ph 2026-03 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Triply heavy tetraquarks cc¯c¯q and bb¯b¯q are compact, unstable states with ground masses 5.2–5.5 GeV and 15.0–15.3 GeV; narrow resonances arise from amplitude cancellation and should appear in J/ψDs*/ηcDs and ΥB* channels.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Aaij et al

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

    arXiv 2020

  2. [2]

    Tecnolog ´ ıas avanzadas para la exploraci´ on del universo y sus componentes

    , (28) χ σw4 1,1 (4) = r 3 4 χσ 11χσ 1 2 , 1 2 χσ 1 2 ,− 1 2 − r 1 12 χσ 11χσ 1 2 ,− 1 2 χσ 1 2 , 1 2 − r 1 6 χσ 10χσ 1 2 , 1 2 χσ 1 2 , 1 2 , (29) χ σw5 1,1 (4) = ( r 2 3 χσ 11χσ 1 2 ,− 1 2 − r 1 3 χσ 10χσ 1 2 , 1 2 )χσ 1 2 , 1 2 , (30) χ σw6 1,1 (4) = χσ 00χσ 1 2 , 1 2 χσ 1 2 , 1 2 , (31) for (S, MS) = (1, 1), and by χσ1 2,2(4) = χσ 11χσ 11 , (32) for (...

    2008

  3. [3]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 041902 (2023), arXiv:2212.02716 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 242001 22 (2020), arXiv:2009.00025 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Nature Phys. 18, 751 (2022), arXiv:2109.01038 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. D 108, 012017 (2023), arXiv:2212.02717 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Sci. Bull. 65, 1983 (2020), arXiv:2006.16957 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Nature Commun. 13, 3351 (2022), arXiv:2109.01056 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2022

Show all 85 references
  1. [9]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 151902 (2023), arXiv:2304.08962 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Hayrapetyan et al

    A. Hayrapetyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 111901 (2024), arXiv:2306.07164 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    , (23) χ σu3 0,0 (4) = 1√ 2 ( r 2 3 χσ 11χσ 1 2 ,− 1 2 − r 1 3 χσ 10χσ 1 2 , 1 2 )χσ 1 2 ,− 1 2 − ( r 1 3 χσ 10χσ 1 2 ,− 1 2 − r 2 3 χσ 1,−1χσ 1 2 , 1 2 )χσ 1 2 , 1 2 , (24) χ σu4 0,0 (4) = 1√ 2 (χσ 00χσ 1 2 , 1 2 χσ 1 2 ,− 1 2 − χσ 00χσ 1 2 ,− 1 2 χσ 1 2 , 1 2 ) , (25) for (S...

  4. [12]

    Dong, F.-K

    X.-K. Dong, F.-K. Guo, and B.-S. Zou, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 152001 (2021), arXiv:2011.14517 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  5. [13]

    H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rept. 639, 1 (2016), arXiv:1601.02092 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  6. [14]

    H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, Y.-R. Liu, and S.-L. Zhu, Rept. Prog. Phys. 80, 076201 (2017), arXiv:1609.08928 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  7. [15]

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

    2018 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Liu, H.-X

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

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    G. Yang, J. Ping, and J. Segovia, Symmetry 12, 1869 (2020), arXiv:2009.00238 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Dong, F.-K

    X.-K. Dong, F.-K. Guo, and B.-S. Zou, Commun. Theor. Phys. 73, 125201 (2021), arXiv:2108.02673 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Chen, Phys

    H.-X. Chen, Phys. Rev. D 105, 094003 (2022), arXiv:2103.08586 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Cao, (2023), arXiv:2301.11253 [hep-ph]

    X. Cao, (2023), arXiv:2301.11253 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Mai, U.-G

    M. Mai, U.-G. Meißner, and C. Urbach, Phys. Rept. 1001, 1 (2023), arXiv:2206.01477 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    L. Meng, B. Wang, G.-J. Wang, and S.-L. Zhu, (2022), arXiv:2204.08716 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

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

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    F.-K. Guo, H. Peng, J.-J. Xie, and X. Zhou, (2022), arXiv:2203.07141 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    P. G. Ortega and D. R. Entem, Symmetry13, 279 (2021), arXiv:2012.10105 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Huang, C

    H. Huang, C. Deng, X. Liu, Y. Tan, and J. Ping, Sym- metry 15, 1298 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    R. F. Lebed, PoS FPCP2023, 028 (2023), arXiv:2308.00781 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Zou, Sci

    B.-S. Zou, Sci. Bull. 66, 1258 (2021), arXiv:2103.15273 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    M.-L. Du, V. Baru, F.-K. Guo, C. Hanhart, U.-G. Meißner, J. A. Oller, and Q. Wang, JHEP 08, 157 (2021), arXiv:2102.07159 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Liu, Y.-W

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

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Johnson, I

    D. Johnson, I. Polyakov, T. Skwarnicki, and M. Wang, (2024), 10.1146/annurev-nucl-102422-040628, arXiv:2403.04051 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    D. R. Entem, F. Fern´ andez, P. G. Ortega, and J. Segovia, (2025), arXiv:2504.07897 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Hanhart, (2025), arXiv:2504.06043 [hep-ph]

    C. Hanhart, (2025), arXiv:2504.06043 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    X. Wang, X. Liu, and Y. Gao, (2025), arXiv:2502.15117 [hep-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Wang, (2025), arXiv:2502.11351 [hep-ph]

    Z.-G. Wang, (2025), arXiv:2502.11351 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Francis, Prog

    A. Francis, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 140, 104143 (2025), arXiv:2502.04701 [hep-lat]

    2025 arXiv

  29. [37]

    J.-H. Chen, J. Chen, F.-K. Guo, Y.-G. Ma, C.-P. Shen, Q.-Y. Shou, Q. Shou, Q. Wang, J.-J. Wu, and B.-S. Zou, Nucl. Sci. Tech.36, 55 (2025), arXiv:2411.18257 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  30. [38]

    H¨ usken, E

    N. H¨ usken, E. S. Norella, and I. Polyakov, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 40, 2530002 (2025), arXiv:2410.06923 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Y. Liu, M. A. Nowak, and I. Zahed, Phys. Rev. D 100, 126023 (2019), arXiv:1904.05189 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  32. [40]

    N. Li, Y. Xing, and J.-R. Shi, (2025), arXiv:2503.03555 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Jiang, W

    J.-F. Jiang, W. Chen, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 96, 094022 (2017), arXiv:1708.00142 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Xu, L.-G

    Y.-J. Xu, L.-G. Tian, Y. Li, J.-Y. Wu, Y.-L. Liu, and M.-Q. Huang, (2025), arXiv:2506.14527 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Zhang and L

    W.-S. Zhang and L. Tang, (2024), arXiv:2412.11531 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Zhu, W.-X

    Z.-H. Zhu, W.-X. Zhang, and D. Jia, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 344 (2024), arXiv:2312.01908 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Weng, W.-Z

    X.-Z. Weng, W.-Z. Deng, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 105, 034026 (2022), arXiv:2109.05243 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  38. [46]

    L¨ u, D.-Y

    Q.-F. L¨ u, D.-Y. Chen, Y.-B. Dong, and E. Santopinto, Phys. Rev. D 104, 054026 (2021), arXiv:2107.13930 [hep- ph]

    2021 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Li, Y.-R

    S.-Y. Li, Y.-R. Liu, Z.-L. Man, C.-R. Shu, Z.-G. Si, and J. Wu, Symmetry 17, 170 (2025), arXiv:2501.16105 [hep- ph]

    2025 arXiv

  40. [48]

    H.-M. Yang, Y. Ma, W.-L. Wu, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 111, 074040 (2025), arXiv:2502.10798 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  41. [49]

    G. Yang, J. Ping, and J. Segovia, Phys. Rev. D 110, 054036 (2024), arXiv:2407.14548 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    X. Liu, Y. Tan, D. Chen, H. Huang, and J. Ping, Phys. Rev. D 107, 054019 (2023), arXiv:2205.08281 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Mutuk, Eur

    H. Mutuk, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 358 (2023), arXiv:2305.03358 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Xing, Eur

    Y. Xing, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 57 (2020), arXiv:1910.11593 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  45. [53]

    K. Chen, X. Liu, J. Wu, Y.-R. Liu, and S.-L. Zhu, Eur. Phys. J. A 53, 5 (2017), arXiv:1609.06117 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  46. [54]

    G. Yang, J. L. Ping, and J. Segovia, Phys. Rev. D 101, 014001 (2020)

    2020

  47. [55]

    G. Yang, J. Ping, and J. Segovia, Phys. Rev. D 102, 054023 (2020)

    2020

  48. [56]

    G. Yang, J. Ping, and J. Segovia, Phys. Rev. D 104, 014006 (2021), arXiv:2104.08814 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  49. [57]

    G. Yang, J. Ping, and J. Segovia, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 772 (2023), arXiv:2303.15388 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  50. [58]

    G. Yang, J. Ping, and J. Segovia, Phys. Rev. D 104, 094035 (2021), arXiv:2109.04311 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  51. [59]

    G. Yang, J. Ping, and J. Segovia, Phys. Rev. D 106, 014021 (2022), arXiv:2204.08556 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  52. [60]

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

    2021 arXiv

  53. [61]

    G. Yang, J. Ping, and J. Segovia, Chin. Phys. C 48, 073106 (2024), arXiv:2311.10376 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  54. [62]

    G. Yang, J. Ping, and F. Wang, Phys. Rev. D95, 014010 (2017)

    2017

  55. [63]

    G. Yang, J. Ping, and J. Segovia, Phys. Rev. D 99, 014035 (2019), arXiv:1809.06193 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  56. [64]

    G. Yang, J. L. Ping, and J. Segovia, Phys. Rev. D 101, 074030 (2020)

    2020

  57. [65]

    G. Yang, J. Ping, and J. Segovia, Phys. Rev. D 106, 23 014005 (2022), arXiv:2205.11548 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  58. [66]

    G. Yang, J. Ping, and J. Segovia, Symmetry 16, 354 (2024), arXiv:2311.01044 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  59. [67]

    G. S. Bali, H. Neff, T. Duessel, T. Lippert, and K. Schilling (SESAM), Phys. Rev. D71, 114513 (2005), arXiv:hep-lat/0505012 [hep-lat]

    2005 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Segovia, D

    J. Segovia, D. R. Entem, F. Fernandez, and E. Her- nandez, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E22, 1330026 (2013), arXiv:1309.6926 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Valcarce, F

    A. Valcarce, F. Fernandez, P. Gonzalez, and V. Vento, Phys. Lett. B367, 35 (1996), arXiv:nucl-th/9509009 [nucl-th]

    1996 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Vijande, F

    J. Vijande, F. Fernandez, and A. Valcarce, J. Phys. G31, 481 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0411299 [hep-ph]

    2005 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Segovia, D

    J. Segovia, D. R. Entem, and F. Fernandez, Phys. Lett. B662, 33 (2008)

    2008

  64. [72]

    Segovia, A

    J. Segovia, A. M. Yasser, D. R. Entem, and F. Fernan- dez, Phys. Rev. D78, 114033 (2008)

    2008

  65. [73]

    Segovia, D

    J. Segovia, D. R. Entem, and F. Fernandez, Phys. Rev. D 83, 114018 (2011)

    2011

  66. [74]

    P. G. Ortega, J. Segovia, D. R. Entem, and F. Fern´ andez, Phys. Rev. D94, 114018 (2016), arXiv:1608.01325 [hep- ph]

    2016 arXiv

  67. [75]

    G. Yang, J. Ping, and J. Segovia, Few-Body Syst. 59, 113 (2018), arXiv:1709.09315 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Fernandez, A

    F. Fernandez, A. Valcarce, U. Straub, and A. Faessler, J. Phys. G19, 2013 (1993)

    1993

  69. [77]

    Valcarce, F

    A. Valcarce, F. Fernandez, A. Buchmann, and A. Faessler, Phys. Rev. C50, 2246 (1994)

    1994

  70. [78]

    P. G. Ortega, J. Segovia, D. R. Entem, and F. Fernandez, Phys. Rev. D81, 054023 (2010), arXiv:0907.3997 [hep- ph]

    2010 arXiv

  71. [79]

    P. G. Ortega, J. Segovia, D. R. Entem, and F. Fernandez, Phys. Rev. D94, 074037 (2016), arXiv:1603.07000 [hep- ph]

    2016 arXiv

  72. [80]

    P. G. Ortega, J. Segovia, D. R. Entem, and F. Fern´ andez, Phys. Rev. D95, 034010 (2017), arXiv:1612.04826 [hep- ph]

    2017 arXiv

  73. [81]

    P. G. Ortega, J. Segovia, D. R. Entem, and F. Fern´ andez, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 78 (2019), arXiv:1808.00914 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  74. [82]

    P. G. Ortega, J. Segovia, D. R. Entem, and F. Fernandez, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 223 (2020), arXiv:2001.08093 [hep- ph]

    2020 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Vijande, A

    J. Vijande, A. Valcarce, and K. Tsushima, Phys. Rev. D74, 054018 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0608316 [hep-ph]

    2006 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Yang and J

    G. Yang and J. Ping, Phys. Rev. D97, 034023 (2018), arXiv:1703.08845 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Hiyama, Y

    E. Hiyama, Y. Kino, and M. Kamimura, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 51, 223 (2003). 24 TABLE XXVIII. Summary of resonance structures found in the triply heavy tetraquark systems. The first column shows the isospin, total spin and parity of each singularity. The sec- ond column refers...

    2003

Pith tools

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