Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 2 cited by

A vector-meson-exchange model predicts fourteen molecular pentaquark states near kaon–doubly-heavy-baryon thresholds.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

A model calculation predicts fourteen double-heavy molecular pentaquark states, but their existence and binding energies depend critically on an unconstrained regularization parameter.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection Competent and honest calculation, but the 'fourteen molecular states' claim is over-sold: several poles are virtual states, one has an unphysical subthreshold width, and the bound/virtual classification flips with the regulator μ. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2508.21474 v2 pith:NQ6Y6YRY submitted 2025-08-29 hep-ph

Prediction of $QQqq\bar{s}$ molecular pentaquarks within the extended local hidden gauge approach

Zhong-Yu Wang , Zheng-Wen Long This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords molecular pentaquarksdoubly heavy baryonscoupled-channel Bethe-Salpeter equationlocal hidden gauge approachvector meson exchangehadronic moleculesexotic hadronsnear-threshold states
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 a family of exotic hadrons: pentaquark-like molecules in which a kaon (K or K*) is bound to a doubly heavy baryon (Ξ_cc, Ξ_bb, Ξ_bc, or Ξ'_bc), giving quark contents ccqq\bar{s}, bbqq\bar{s}, and bcqq\bar{s}. Using the extended local hidden gauge approach, where S-wave meson–baryon interactions are dominated by vector-meson exchange, the authors solve the coupled-channel Bethe-Salpeter equation and find poles that they interpret as fourteen molecular states with isospin zero and negative parity. The states sit 0.1 to 33 MeV below their corresponding thresholds, so they are narrow and, for the bound and quasi-bound cases, should show up as narrow structures just below K^(*)Ξ^(*) thresholds. No doubly charmed pentaquark has yet been observed, so the calculation gives concrete masses, quantum numbers, widths, and preferred decay channels to target in experimental searches.

Core claim

The authors calculate S-wave scattering amplitudes for coupled meson–baryon channels with ccqq\bar{s}, bbqq\bar{s}, and bcqq\bar{s} quark content, treating vector-meson exchange as the dominant interaction and solving the on-shell Bethe-Salpeter equation. They find fourteen poles on the second Riemann sheet: four in the ccqq\bar{s} system (mainly coupled to KΞ_cc, KΞ*_cc, K*Ξ_cc, K*Ξ*_cc), four in the bbqq\bar{s} system (KΞ_bb, KΞ*_bb, K*Ξ_bb, K*Ξ*_bb), and six in the bcqq\bar{s} system (KΞ_bc, KΞ'_bc, KΞ*_bc, K*Ξ_bc, K*Ξ'_bc, K*Ξ*_bc). The states carry I(J^P)=0(1/2^-), 0(3/2^-), or 0(5/2^-), with the V B(3/2^+) blocks producing degenerate 1/2^-, 3/2^-, and 5/2^- multiplets. Binding energies

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the S-wave meson–baryon transition potential generated by vector-meson exchange, written as v_ij = -C_ij (p_i^0 + p_j^0)/(4 f_π^2), with coefficient matrices C_ij given in Tables IV–VI; positive entries mean attraction, and they select K^(*)Ξ_cc^(*), K^(*)Ξ_bb^(*), K^(*)Ξ_bc^(*), and K^(*)Ξ'_bc as the attractive channels. This potential is inserted into the on-shell factorized Bethe-Salpeter equation T = [1 - vG]^{-1} v, with the diagonal loop function G regulated by dimensional regularization and subtraction constants a_l(μ) fixed by matching the cutoff-method loop function at threshold. Poles of T on the second Riemann sheet are the predicted molecular states, an

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the free parameter used to tame the infinite loop integrals is correctly set to 800 MeV; the paper itself says this value cannot be fixed from theory, and Table X shows that moving it between 650 and 1050 MeV changes some predicted bound states into virtual states or resonances.

What would settle it

A lattice QCD calculation of S-wave K^(*)-Ξ_cc and related channels at physical quark masses would settle the claim: if no pole appears near the predicted thresholds—for example, no near-threshold structure in KΞ_cc around 4114 MeV and no quasi-bound K*Ξ_cc state around 4486 MeV—then the fourteen-state prediction fails. An experimental invariant-mass search for the K^(*)Ξ^(*) final states that sees neither the predicted bound states nor their decay signatures would likewise falsify the spectrum.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The paper gives fourteen concrete hadron candidates: four from ccqq\bar{s}, four from bbqq\bar{s}, and six from bcqq\bar{s}, each with assigned spin-parity, approximate mass, and dominant coupling channel.
  • Because the binding energies are only 0.1–33 MeV, the states sit extremely close to their K^(*)Ξ^(*) thresholds, so threshold scans and invariant-mass spectra of kaon–doubly-heavy-baryon systems are the direct experimental tests.
  • The K*Ξ_cc state near 4485.7 MeV and the K*Ξ_bb state near 11200.3 MeV are quasi-bound with widths of roughly 12 and 24 MeV, giving distinct signatures through their decays into D_s^*Λ_c and \bar{B}_s^*Λ_b.
  • The V B(3/2^+) blocks predict degenerate J^P = 1/2^-, 3/2^-, 5/2^- states, so finding only one of the three spin-parities would require dynamics beyond vector-meson exchange.
  • Heavy-quark symmetry makes the cc and bb sectors nearly mirror images, so confirming a state in one sector would support the corresponding prediction in the other.
  • The bc sector contains the most channels and the richest spectrum, including two states in the PB(1/2^+) block whose interpretation as bound or virtual states is especially sensitive to the regularization scale.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Table X shows that the μ-dependence is not just a small shift in binding energy: at μ=650 MeV some bb and bc poles become resonances or virtual states, and the bc KΞ_bc pole is a genuine bound state only near μ=1000 MeV. I read the fourteen-state count as a set of candidate near-threshold structures whose confidence level varies; the K*Ξ_cc and K*Ξ_bb quasi-bound states look the most stable, while
  • The spin degeneracy of the V B(3/2^+) states is a direct consequence of the spin-independent effective vertices used here; observing the full degenerate multiplet would be a distinctive fingerprint of the vector-meson-exchange mechanism, while observing only one member would point to missing spin-dependent terms.
  • The same modular machinery could be extended to strange-doubly-heavy pentaquarks built from Ω_cc, Ω_bb, or Ω_bc baryons, or to S=-2 systems, since the coefficient matrices, loop functions, and pole-search setup are already constructed for arbitrary heavy sectors.
  • A lattice or dispersion-relation calculation of the same K^(*)Ξ^(*) scattering amplitudes would provide a μ-independent check; if no poles survive there, the fourteen states would not be robust predictions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies S-wave meson-baryon interactions for the double-heavy quark sectors ccqq\bar{s}, bbqq\bar{s}, and bcqq\bar{s} using the extended local hidden gauge approach. The transition potentials are obtained from vector-meson exchange, and the coupled-channel scattering amplitudes are computed by solving the on-shell Bethe-Salpeter equation. The authors identify poles on complex Riemann sheets and claim a total of fourteen dynamically generated molecular pentaquark states with I(J^P)=0(1/2^-), 0(3/2^-), and 0(5/2^-), with binding energies of about 0.1-33 MeV. The main results are presented in Tables VII-IX for a regularization scale μ=800 MeV.

Significance. If the fourteen predicted states were robust, this would be a valuable contribution to the spectroscopy of double-heavy pentaquarks and could guide LHCb searches. The formalism is standard and the calculations are transparent, with the pole positions and couplings tabulated. However, the central claim is not supported by the paper's own analysis: the pole classification depends strongly on the free parameter μ, and at least one included pole is an unphysical artifact below threshold. The paper itself acknowledges that μ cannot be theoretically established. These issues undermine the claimed existence and number of molecular states.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III, Table X] Table X shows that the nature of several poles changes qualitatively as μ varies between 650 and 1050 MeV. For example, the bb 0(1/2^-) pole is complex at μ=650 MeV (10797.57−42.51i MeV) but becomes real for μ≥750 MeV; the bc PB(1/2^+) pole is a resonance above threshold at μ=650 MeV and a real subthreshold pole for μ≥850 MeV. Since the paper states that the value of μ cannot be theoretically established, the classification of poles as bound, virtual, or resonant is not a robust prediction. The fourteen-state claim depends on the specific choice μ=800 MeV and is not stable under reasonable variations of the free parameter.
  2. [Sec. III C, Table IX] The pole at 7395.21−26.26i MeV in the bc PB(1/2^+) block lies about 22 MeV below the lowest threshold, KΞ_bc at 7417.64 MeV, with all four coupled channels closed. The imaginary part corresponds to Γ≈52 MeV, but with all channels closed this cannot be a physical decay width. It is an artifact of the unphysical Riemann-sheet continuation. The authors note this is 'puzzling' yet still count it among the six bc states. A sheet-by-sheet classification that excludes such unphysical poles is necessary before a state count is claimed.
  3. [Sec. III C] The selection of μ=1000 MeV for the KΞ_bc state is made after observing that this value produces a bound-state interpretation, whereas μ=650 MeV gives a resonance and μ=800 MeV gives an unphysical width below threshold. The sentence 'When we set μ=1000 MeV ... Therefore, we propose that this state is a bound state' shows that the parameter choice is driven by the desired interpretation. This is a circularity in the argument: the pole is not a prediction if the regularization scale is tuned to make it one. The abstract's fourteen-state claim includes this tuned pole.
  4. [Abstract, Tables VII-IX] The abstract and summary count all fourteen poles as 'molecular states,' but several of them are virtual states on unphysical Riemann sheets rather than bound states. Examples include the cc 0(1/2^-) pole at 4113.99 MeV on the (−,+) sheet, the bb 0(1/2^-) pole at 10831.30 MeV, and the bc KΞ'_bc pole at 7443.07 MeV. Virtual states do not correspond to bound molecular pentaquarks, and counting them as such inflates the claimed number of states. The paper should distinguish bound, virtual, and unphysical poles in both the tables and the conclusions.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. I] There is a grammatical error: 'exhibit exotic properties that are cannot be explained' should read 'that cannot be explained.'
  2. [Sec. III, Table X] Table X omits the value μ=800 MeV, which is the scale used for the main results in Tables VII-IX. Adding this column would allow direct comparison and would make the μ-dependence of the claimed states clearer.
  3. [Fig. 6] The labels 'The first Riemann sheet: bound state' and 'The second Riemann sheet: virtual state' in Fig. 6 are terse and potentially confusing. A sentence explaining which sheet corresponds to which label and how the transition occurs would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the fourteen poles are genuine Bethe-Salpeter outputs; the μ-sensitivity and the post-hoc μ=1000 interpretation of the KΞ_bc pole are robustness caveats, not constructional reductions.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—fourteen dynamically generated molecular pentaquark states—is obtained by solving the on-shell Bethe-Salpeter equation T=[1−vG]^{-1}v (Eq. 16) with the S-wave potentials v_{ij} derived from the extended local hidden gauge Lagrangians (Eqs. 1–3) and the coefficient matrices in Tables IV–VI. The poles are located by the condition det(1−vG)=0; they are outputs of the coupled-channel dynamics, not inputs. Nothing in the derivation defines a predicted pole position in terms of the fitted parameters themselves. The free regularization scale μ=800 MeV is taken empirically from Refs. [131,136], and the subtraction constants are matched via Eq. (21); this is a model convention, not a fit to the fourteen target states. The paper explicitly shows in Table X that pole positions and even pole natures change as μ varies from 650 to 1050 MeV, and it states that "the value of the regularization parameter cannot be theoretically established." That is a parameter-stability limitation, not a circular step. The post-hoc proposal that the KΞ_bc pole at μ=1000 is a bound state ("When we set μ=1000 MeV, the pole moves to 7414.54 MeV... Therefore, we propose that this state is a bound state... critically dependent on the free parameter μ") is a selective interpretation of a μ-dependent result, but it does not make the prediction algebraically identical to an input; the BS equation is still solved at each μ. The paper also flags the "puzzling" wide pole below threshold (7395.21−26.26i MeV) and keeps it in Table IX; this is an interpretive weakness of the fourteen-state count, not evidence of a circular derivation. The only self-citations (Refs. [114,120] by Z.Y. Wang) are methodological—the four-block channel decomposition and the subtraction-constant matching procedure—and are not load-bearing evidence for the existence of the poles. The heavy-vector suppression factors λ_c=1/4, λ_cc=1/9, λ_b=1/10 are adopted from prior studies (Refs. [104,129,131]) that are not by the present authors and are not fitted to the states predicted here. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no known empirical result is renamed. Therefore, while the predictions are parameter-sensitive and not robust to μ in several channels, they are not circular in the sense of reducing to their inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The calculation rests on one free regularization parameter μ, imported suppression factors, and unmeasured double-heavy baryon masses. The lack of experimental data for the double-heavy baryons means the thresholds themselves are model-dependent, and the pole predictions inherit a double layer of uncertainty.

free parameters (2)
  • Regularization scale μ = 800 MeV (chosen, then varied 650-1050 MeV)
    Controls the subtraction constants a_l(μ) via Eq. (21). Pole positions and the existence/character of states depend strongly on μ, as shown in Table X. Not derived from first principles.
  • Heavy-vector suppression factors λ_c, λ_cc, λ_b = λ_c=1/4, λ_cc=1/9, λ_b=1/10
    Scale the contributions of D̄*, J/ψ, and B* exchange in the coefficient matrices. Taken from Refs. [104,129,131], not derived in this paper. Directly affect the potential and hence the poles.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption S-wave meson-baryon interactions are dominated by vector meson exchange.
    Section I and II, Fig. 1. This justifies using only VPP, VVV, and VBB vertices and neglecting other exchange mechanisms such as pion exchange.
  • standard math On-shell factorization of the Bethe-Salpeter equation with potential v.
    Section II, Eq. (16). Standard in the chiral unitary approach following Ref. [133].
  • domain assumption Neglect of three-momenta relative to the vector meson mass, γ^μ → γ^0.
    Section II, following Refs. [104,105]. Underlies the contact potential of Eq. (14) and the spin-independent quark-level operator.
  • domain assumption Heavy quarks act as spectators and light-quark wave functions obey SU(3) symmetry with mixed symmetry.
    Section II, Table III. Used to compute VBB vertices through wave-function overlaps.
  • domain assumption Theoretical quark-model masses for Ξ_bb, Ξ_bc, Ξ'_bc and Ξ* states are used for thresholds.
    Section II, Table II. These baryons are not yet experimentally measured; the thresholds and hence binding energies depend on these inputs from Refs. [122-125].

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Prediction of $QQqq\bar{s}$ molecular pentaquarks within the extended local hidden gauge approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NQ6Y6YRY

@misc{pith2026250821474,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Prediction of $QQqq\bars$ molecular pentaquarks within the extended local hidden gauge approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NQ6Y6YRY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.21474}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

We investigate hadronic molecular states with the quark contents $ccqq\bar{s}$, $bbqq\bar{s}$, and $bcqq\bar{s}$ $(q=u,d)$ by employing the extended local hidden gauge approach. Considering that the $S$-wave meson-baryon interactions are dominated by vector meson exchange, the coupled channels scattering amplitudes are obtained by solving the Bethe-Salpeter equation in its on-shell form. We find that the poles appearing on the complex Riemann sheet are potential candidates for dynamically generated molecular pentaquark states. The results suggest the existence of a total of fourteen molecular states with quantum numbers $I(J^{P})=0(1/2^{-})$, $0(3/2^{-})$, and $0(5/2^{-})$, which arise from the interactions of the $K^{(*)}\Xi_{cc}^{(*)}$, $K^{(*)}\Xi_{bb}^{(*)}$, $K^{(*)}\Xi_{bc}^{(*)}$, and $K^{(*)}\Xi_{bc}^{'}$ channels, respectively. Their binding energies are calculated to be about $0.1-33$ MeV, and this range depends on the free parameter of the theory. Our research contributes to the spectroscopic studies of hadronic molecular pentaquark states.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.21474 by Zheng-Wen Long, Zhong-Yu Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: The diagram illustrates the vector meson exchange mech [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: The modulus square of the amplitudes in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: The modulus square of the amplitudes in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The modulus square of the amplitudes in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The modulus square of the amplitudes in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Magnetic moments of open bottom--charm molecular pentaquark octets

    hep-ph 2026-03 conditional novelty 5.5

    Open b¯c and c¯b molecular pentaquark octets have near-universal magnetic moments in the 8_2f pseudoscalar channel and a broad, sign-changing spectrum in 8_1f, encoding heavy-quark flavor symmetry breaking.

  2. Comprehensive Mass Predictions: From Triply Heavy Baryons to Pentaquarks

    hep-ph 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Machine learning models trained on known hadron data and an extended Gürsey-Radicati mass formula predict masses for triply heavy baryons and numerous pentaquark states, agreeing with available data and forecasting un...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

139 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 26 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Liu, Chin

    X. Liu, Chin. Sci. Bull.59, 3815-3830 (2014) [arXiv:1312.7408 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  2. [2]

    Hosaka, T

    A. Hosaka, T. Iijima, K. Miyabayashi, Y . Sakai and S. Yasui, PTEP2016, no.6, 062C01 (2016) [arXiv:1603.09229 [hep- ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  3. [3]

    H. X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rept.639, 1-121 (2016) [arXiv:1601.02092 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    J. M. Richard, Few Body Syst.57, no.12, 1185-1212 (2016) [arXiv:1606.08593 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    R. F. Lebed, R. E. Mitchell and E. S. Swanson, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.93, 143-194 (2017) [arXiv:1610.04528 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    S. L. Olsen, T. Skwarnicki and D. Zieminska, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, no.1, 015003 (2018) [arXiv:1708.04012 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    F. K. Guo, C. Hanhart, U. G. Meißner, Q. Wang, Q. Zhao and B. S. Zou, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, no.1, 015004 (2018) [erratum: Rev. Mod. Phys.94, no.2, 029901 (2022)] [arXiv:1705.00141 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    Y . R. Liu, H. X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.107, 237-320 (2019) [arXiv:1903.11976 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  9. [9]

    Brambilla, S

    N. Brambilla, S. Eidelman, C. Hanhart, A. Nefediev, C. P. Shen, C. E. Thomas, A. Vairo and C. Z. Yuan, Phys. Rept.873, 1-154 (2020) [arXiv:1907.07583 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  10. [10]

    L. Meng, B. Wang, G. J. Wang and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rept. 1019, 1-149 (2023) [arXiv:2204.08716 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    H. X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, Y . R. Liu and S. L. Zhu, Rept. Prog. Phys.86, no.2, 026201 (2023) [arXiv:2204.02649 [hep- ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    M. Z. Liu, Y . W. Pan, Z. W. Liu, T. W. Wu, J. X. Lu and L. S. Geng, Phys. Rept.1108, 1-108 (2025) [arXiv:2404.06399 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    Aaijet al.[LHCb], Phys

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], Phys. Rev. Lett.122, no.22, 222001 (2019) [arXiv:1904.03947 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  14. [14]

    J. J. Wu, R. Molina, E. Oset and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 232001 (2010) [arXiv:1007.0573 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  15. [15]

    J. J. Wu, R. Molina, E. Oset and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. C84, 015202 (2011) [arXiv:1011.2399 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  16. [16]

    R. Chen, Z. F. Sun, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D100, no.1, 011502 (2019) [arXiv:1903.11013 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  17. [17]

    H. X. Chen, W. Chen and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D100, no.5, 051501 (2019) [arXiv:1903.11001 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  18. [18]

    M. Z. Liu, Y . W. Pan, F. Z. Peng, M. S ´anchez S ´anchez, L. S. Geng, A. Hosaka and M. Pavon Valderrama, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, no.24, 242001 (2019) [arXiv:1903.11560 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  19. [19]

    J. He, Eur. Phys. J. C79, no.5, 393 (2019) [arXiv:1903.11872 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  20. [20]

    C. J. Xiao, Y . Huang, Y . B. Dong, L. S. Geng and D. Y . Chen, Phys. Rev. D100, no.1, 014022 (2019) [arXiv:1904.00872 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  21. [21]

    Z. H. Guo and J. A. Oller, Phys. Lett. B793, 144-149 (2019) [arXiv:1904.00851 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  22. [22]

    C. W. Xiao, J. Nieves and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D100, no.1, 014021 (2019) [arXiv:1904.01296 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  23. [23]

    Aaijet al.[LHCb], Sci

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], Sci. Bull.66, 1278-1287 (2021) [arXiv:2012.10380 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2021

  24. [24]

    Aaijet al.[LHCb], Phys

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], Phys. Rev. Lett.131, no.3, 031901 (2023) [arXiv:2210.10346 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    C. W. Xiao, J. J. Wu and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. D103, no.5, 054016 (2021) [arXiv:2102.02607 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  26. [26]

    M. L. Du, Z. H. Guo and J. A. Oller, Phys. Rev. D104, no.11, 114034 (2021) [arXiv:2109.14237 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  27. [27]

    J. T. Zhu, L. Q. Song and J. He, Phys. Rev. D103, no.7, 074007 (2021) [arXiv:2101.12441 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  28. [28]

    J. X. Lu, M. Z. Liu, R. X. Shi and L. S. Geng, Phys. Rev. D 104, no.3, 034022 (2021) [arXiv:2104.10303 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  29. [29]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  30. [30]

    Z. G. Wang and Q. Xin, Chin. Phys. C45, no.12, 123105 (2021) [arXiv:2103.08239 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  31. [31]

    Q. Wu, D. Y . Chen and R. Ji, Chin. Phys. Lett.38, no.7, 10 071301 (2021) [arXiv:2103.05257 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  32. [32]

    M. J. Yan, F. Z. Peng, M. S ´anchez S ´anchez and M. Pavon Valderrama, Phys. Rev. D107, no.7, 7 (2023) [arXiv:2207.11144 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    L. Meng, B. Wang and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D107, no.1, 014005 (2023) [arXiv:2208.03883 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  34. [34]

    T. J. Burns and E. S. Swanson, Phys. Lett. B838, 137715 (2023) [arXiv:2208.05106 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  35. [35]

    P. G. Ortega, D. R. Entem and F. Fernandez, Phys. Lett. B838, 137747 (2023) [arXiv:2210.04465 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  36. [36]

    Aubertet al.[BaBar], Phys

    B. Aubertet al.[BaBar], Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 242001 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ex/0304021 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  37. [37]

    Bessonet al.[CLEO], Phys

    D. Bessonet al.[CLEO], Phys. Rev. D68, 032002 (2003) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D75, 119908 (2007)] [arXiv:hep- ex/0305100 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2003

  38. [38]

    Barnes, F

    T. Barnes, F. E. Close and H. J. Lipkin, Phys. Rev. D68, 054006 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0305025 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  39. [39]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  40. [40]

    F. K. Guo, P. N. Shen, H. C. Chiang, R. G. Ping and B. S. Zou, Phys. Lett. B641, 278-285 (2006) [arXiv:hep-ph/0603072 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  41. [41]

    F. K. Guo, P. N. Shen and H. C. Chiang, Phys. Lett. B647, 133-139 (2007) [arXiv:hep-ph/0610008 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  42. [42]

    Faessler, T

    A. Faessler, T. Gutsche, V . E. Lyubovitskij and Y . L. Ma, Phys. Rev. D76, 114008 (2007) [arXiv:0709.3946 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  43. [43]

    Z. X. Xie, G. Q. Feng and X. H. Guo, Phys. Rev. D81, 036014 (2010)

    2010

  44. [44]

    G. Q. Feng, X. H. Guo and Z. H. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C72, 2033 (2012)

    2033

  45. [45]

    F. S. Navarra, M. Nielsen, E. Oset and T. Sekihara, Phys. Rev. D92, no.1, 014031 (2015) [arXiv:1501.03422 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  46. [46]

    Z. Yang, G. J. Wang, J. J. Wu, M. Oka and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, no.11, 112001 (2022) [arXiv:2107.04860 [hep- ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  47. [47]

    Aaijet al.[LHCb], Phys

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], Phys. Rev. D102, 112003 (2020) [arXiv:2009.00026 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2020

  48. [48]

    Molina and E

    R. Molina and E. Oset, Phys. Lett. B811, 135870 (2020) [er- ratum: Phys. Lett. B837, 137645 (2023)] [arXiv:2008.11171 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  49. [49]

    H. X. Chen, W. Chen, R. R. Dong and N. Su, Chin. Phys. Lett. 37, no.10, 101201 (2020) [arXiv:2008.07516 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  50. [50]

    S. Y . Kong, J. T. Zhu, D. Song and J. He, Phys. Rev. D104, no.9, 094012 (2021) [arXiv:2106.07272 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  51. [51]

    S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi and H. Sundu, J. Phys. G48, no.8, 085012 (2021) [arXiv:2008.13027 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  52. [52]

    He and D

    J. He and D. Y . Chen, Chin. Phys. C45, no.6, 063102 (2021) [arXiv:2008.07782 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  53. [53]

    J. J. Qi, Z. Y . Wang, Z. F. Zhang and X. H. Guo, Eur. Phys. J. C81, no.7, 639 (2021) [arXiv:2101.06688 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  54. [54]

    H. Chen, H. R. Qi and H. Q. Zheng, Eur. Phys. J. C81, no.9, 812 (2021) [arXiv:2108.02387 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  55. [55]

    Wang and S

    B. Wang and S. L. Zhu, Eur. Phys. J. C82, no.5, 419 (2022) [arXiv:2107.09275 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  56. [56]

    Aaijet al.[LHCb], Phys

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], Phys. Rev. Lett.131, no.4, 041902 (2023) [arXiv:2212.02716 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2023

  57. [57]

    Aaijet al.[LHCb], Phys

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], Phys. Rev. D108, no.1, 012017 (2023) [arXiv:2212.02717 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2023

  58. [58]

    Molina, T

    R. Molina, T. Branz and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D82, 014010 (2010) [arXiv:1005.0335 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  59. [59]

    S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi and H. Sundu, J. Phys. G50, no.5, 055002 (2023) [arXiv:2207.02648 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  60. [60]

    S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi and H. Sundu, Phys. Rev. D107, no.9, 094019 (2023) [arXiv:2212.12001 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  61. [61]

    M. Y . Duan, E. Wang and D. Y . Chen, Eur. Phys. J. C84, no.7, 681 (2024) [arXiv:2305.09436 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  62. [62]

    B. Wang, K. Chen, L. Meng and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D109, no.3, 034027 (2024) [arXiv:2309.02191 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  63. [63]

    Aaijet al.[LHCb], [arXiv:2411.03399 [hep-ex]]

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], [arXiv:2411.03399 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv

  64. [64]

    Z. Y . Wang, Y . S. Li and S. Q. Luo, Phys. Rev. D111, no.7, 076009 (2025) [arXiv:2412.06446 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  65. [65]

    Aaijet al.[LHCb], Nature Phys.18, no.7, 751-754 (2022) [arXiv:2109.01038 [hep-ex]]

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], Nature Phys.18, no.7, 751-754 (2022) [arXiv:2109.01038 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2022

  66. [66]

    A. V . Manohar and M. B. Wise, Nucl. Phys. B399, 17-33 (1993) [arXiv:hep-ph/9212236 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  67. [67]

    T. E. O. Ericson and G. Karl, Phys. Lett. B309, 426-430 (1993)

    1993

  68. [68]

    N. A. Tornqvist, Z. Phys. C61, 525-537 (1994) [arXiv:hep- ph/9310247 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 1994

  69. [69]

    Janc and M

    D. Janc and M. Rosina, Few Body Syst.35, 175-196 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0405208 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  70. [70]

    G. J. Ding, J. F. Liu and M. L. Yan, Phys. Rev. D79, 054005 (2009) [arXiv:0901.0426 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  71. [71]

    Exotic mesons with double charm and bottom flavor

    S. Ohkoda, Y . Yamaguchi, S. Yasui, K. Sudoh and A. Hosaka, Phys. Rev. D86, 034019 (2012) [arXiv:1202.0760 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  72. [72]

    N. Li, Z. F. Sun, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D88, no.11, 114008 (2013) [arXiv:1211.5007 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  73. [73]

    H. Xu, B. Wang, Z. W. Liu and X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D99, no.1, 014027 (2019) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D104, no.11, 119903 (2021)] [arXiv:1708.06918 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  74. [74]

    M. Z. Liu, T. W. Wu, M. Pavon Valderrama, J. J. Xie and L. S. Geng, Phys. Rev. D99, no.9, 094018 (2019) [arXiv:1902.03044 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  75. [75]

    L. Tang, B. D. Wan, K. Maltman and C. F. Qiao, Phys. Rev. D 101, no.9, 094032 (2020) [arXiv:1911.10951 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  76. [76]

    Z. M. Ding, H. Y . Jiang and J. He, Eur. Phys. J. C80, no.12, 1179 (2020) [arXiv:2011.04980 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  77. [77]

    Feijoo, W

    A. Feijoo, W. H. Liang and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D104, no.11, 114015 (2021) [arXiv:2108.02730 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  78. [78]

    Aubertet al.[BaBar], Phys

    B. Aubertet al.[BaBar], Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 012001 (2007) [arXiv:hep-ex/0603052 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  79. [79]

    Experimental Constraints on the Spin and Parity of the Lambda_c(2880)

    K. Abeet al.[Belle], Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 262001 (2007) [arXiv:hep-ex/0608043 [hep-ex]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  80. [80]

    Y . B. Liet al.[Belle], Phys. Rev. Lett.130, no.3, 031901 (2023) [arXiv:2206.08822 [hep-ex]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.