pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.05150 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-06 · ✦ hep-ph · hep-ex· hep-lat· nucl-th

Recognition: unknown

The T_{bc} tetraquarks near the Bbar{D} threshold

Halil Mutuk

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 16:56 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph hep-exhep-latnucl-th
keywords tetraquarksT_bcdynamical diquark modelBorn-Oppenheimer potentialheavy quarkslattice QCDopen-flavor thresholdsexotic hadrons
0
0 comments X

The pith

The dynamical diquark model places the scalar T_bc tetraquark at the B D-bar threshold and the axial-vector state 23-28 MeV above the B* D-bar threshold.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper applies the dynamical diquark model to the doubly heavy T_bc tetraquarks, treating them as a heavy antidiquark paired with a light diquark. It solves the radial Schrödinger equation using the lattice-QCD Σ_g^+(1S) Born-Oppenheimer potential and obtains masses of 7.143-7.158 GeV for the scalar state and 7.217-7.222 GeV for the axial-vector state. A sympathetic reader would care because these results position one state exactly at an open-flavor threshold and the other as a nearby resonance, which determines whether such tetraquarks appear as bound states, narrow resonances, or threshold effects in experiments.

Core claim

In the dynamical diquark model the T_bc^(0) scalar tetraquark has mass 7.143-7.158 GeV and lies essentially at the B D-bar threshold, while the T_bc^(1) axial-vector tetraquark has mass 7.217-7.222 GeV and appears as an S-wave resonance 23-28 MeV above the B* D-bar threshold and about 70 MeV below the B D* threshold; the hyperfine splitting of 59-79 MeV is driven mainly by the mass difference between symmetric and antisymmetric heavy-antidiquark configurations.

What carries the argument

The dynamical diquark model, in which the tetraquark is a heavy antidiquark-light diquark pair interacting through the lattice-QCD Σ_g^+(1S) Born-Oppenheimer potential and whose masses follow from solving the radial Schrödinger equation.

If this is right

  • The hyperfine splitting is 59-79 MeV and arises primarily from the heavy-antidiquark mass difference with the chromomagnetic term contributing linearly.
  • The mean separation is 0.45-0.46 fm and the inverse radius 0.33-0.34 fm, both showing weak parameter dependence and supporting a compact diquark-antidiquark picture.
  • The axial-vector state's line shape is strongly shaped by the nearby B* D-bar threshold.
  • The scalar state may manifest either as a weakly decaying bound tetraquark or as a narrow near-threshold resonance.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Confirmation would motivate targeted searches in B-meson decay channels or at hadron colliders for states whose decay patterns reflect the calculated threshold proximities.
  • The same modeling approach could be tested on related systems such as T_bb or T_cc to check consistency of the compact interpretation across doubly heavy tetraquarks.
  • Near-threshold positioning raises the possibility that mixing with molecular configurations affects the observed widths and line shapes.

Load-bearing premise

The dynamical diquark model with the lattice-QCD Σ_g^+(1S) Born-Oppenheimer potential accurately describes the T_bc system near open-flavor thresholds.

What would settle it

An experimental measurement of the T_bc scalar mass significantly below 7.14 GeV or above 7.16 GeV, or of the axial-vector state not lying 23-28 MeV above the B* D-bar threshold, would falsify the predictions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.05150 by Halil Mutuk.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Predicted masses of the doubly-heavy tetraquarks view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We study the doubly heavy open-flavor tetraquarks $T_{bc}^{(0)}$ ($J^{P}=0^{+}$) and $T_{bc}^{(1)}$ ($J^{P}=1^{+}$) in the dynamical diquark model, describing the system as a heavy antidiquark--light diquark pair interacting through the lattice-QCD $\Sigma_g^+(1S)$ Born--Oppenheimer potential. Solving the radial Schr\"odinger equation yields $M(T_{bc}^{(0)}) = 7.143$--$7.158$ GeV and $M(T_{bc}^{(1)}) = 7.217$--$7.222$ GeV, with hyperfine splittings of $\Delta_{HF}\simeq 59$--$79$ MeV. The splitting is driven mainly by the mass difference between symmetric and antisymmetric heavy-antidiquark configurations, while the chromomagnetic interaction contributes linearly with $\partial\Delta_{HF}/\partial\kappa_{\bar b\bar c}=2$, consistent with heavy-antidiquark spin algebra. The mean separation, $\langle r\rangle\simeq 0.45$--$0.46$ fm, and inverse radius, $\langle 1/r\rangle^{-1}\simeq 0.33$--$0.34$ fm, exhibit weak parameter dependence and support a compact diquark--antidiquark interpretation. Relative to open-flavor thresholds, the scalar state lies essentially at the $B\bar D$ threshold and may appear either as a weakly decaying bound tetraquark or as a narrow near-threshold resonance. In contrast, the axial-vector state is consistently predicted as an $S$-wave resonance located $23$--$28$ MeV above $B^{*}\bar D$ and about $70$ MeV below $B\bar D^{*}$, implying a line shape strongly influenced by the nearby $B^{*}\bar D$ threshold.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the doubly heavy open-flavor tetraquarks T_bc^{(0)} (J^P=0^+) and T_bc^{(1)} (J^P=1^+) in the dynamical diquark model, treating the system as a heavy antidiquark-light diquark pair bound by the lattice-QCD Σ_g^+(1S) Born-Oppenheimer potential. Numerical solution of the radial Schrödinger equation produces the mass ranges M(T_bc^{(0)}) = 7.143--7.158 GeV (essentially at the B D-bar threshold) and M(T_bc^{(1)}) = 7.217--7.222 GeV (an S-wave resonance 23--28 MeV above B^* D-bar), with hyperfine splittings Δ_HF ≃ 59--79 MeV driven primarily by symmetric/antisymmetric heavy-antidiquark mass differences and a linear chromomagnetic contribution satisfying ∂Δ_HF/∂κ_barc = 2. The states are found to be compact with ⟨r⟩ ≃ 0.45--0.46 fm.

Significance. If the central results hold, the work supplies concrete, falsifiable mass predictions and threshold placements for T_bc states that can be confronted with future experimental data on near-threshold exotic hadrons. The weak parameter dependence of the mean separation and inverse radius, together with the explicit use of a lattice-derived potential and the spin-algebra consistency of the hyperfine relation, constitute strengths that support a compact diquark-antidiquark picture and distinguish it from purely molecular interpretations.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2 (model and potential)] §2 (model and potential): The Σ_g^+(1S) Born-Oppenheimer potential is transferred from closed heavy-quark systems to the open-flavor T_bc configuration near thresholds without quantitative validation or sensitivity studies. Because the quoted mass intervals are only 15 MeV and 5 MeV wide, any unquantified systematic shift from this assumption directly affects the claimed threshold placements and resonance character.
  2. [Abstract and §3 (numerical results)] Abstract and §3 (numerical results): The reported mass ranges are given without error bars, full tables of the explored parameter space (including the range of κ_barc), or explicit validation against known heavy-quark states. This omission is load-bearing for the central claim that the scalar state lies 'essentially at' the B D-bar threshold.
  3. [§3 (hyperfine splitting)] §3 (hyperfine splitting): While the relation ∂Δ_HF/∂κ_barc = 2 follows from spin algebra, the manuscript does not quantify how variations in the input potential parameters propagate into the overall mass scale, leaving the robustness of the 59--79 MeV splitting and the 23--28 MeV resonance offset untested.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states 'weak parameter dependence' for ⟨r⟩ and ⟨1/r⟩ but does not list the specific parameter intervals that were scanned.
  2. A compact table collecting all numerical outputs (masses, splittings, radii) together with the corresponding input-parameter ranges would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive report on our manuscript. We address each of the major comments below and indicate the revisions we plan to make to strengthen the presentation of our results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The Σ_g^+(1S) Born-Oppenheimer potential is transferred from closed heavy-quark systems to the open-flavor T_bc configuration near thresholds without quantitative validation or sensitivity studies. Because the quoted mass intervals are only 15 MeV and 5 MeV wide, any unquantified systematic shift from this assumption directly affects the claimed threshold placements and resonance character.

    Authors: We note that the Σ_g^+(1S) potential is the lattice-QCD result for the lowest gluonic configuration in the Born-Oppenheimer approximation, which is independent of the specific heavy-quark flavor content in the sense that it describes the gluonic degrees of freedom for a given separation. This potential has been successfully applied in the dynamical diquark model to both closed-flavor (e.g., cc, bb) and open-flavor systems in prior works. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the referee's point regarding the lack of explicit sensitivity studies for this transfer. In the revised version, we will add a paragraph in §2 discussing the applicability of this potential to open-flavor tetraquarks and perform a sensitivity analysis by varying the potential parameters (such as the string tension and Coulomb coefficient) within their lattice uncertainties to assess the impact on the mass ranges. revision: partial

  2. Referee: The reported mass ranges are given without error bars, full tables of the explored parameter space (including the range of κ_barc), or explicit validation against known heavy-quark states. This omission is load-bearing for the central claim that the scalar state lies 'essentially at' the B D-bar threshold.

    Authors: The mass ranges quoted in the abstract and §3 arise from a systematic variation of the model parameters, including the heavy quark masses, the reduced mass, and the chromomagnetic coupling κ_barc over physically reasonable intervals consistent with other heavy hadron spectra. While we did not present a comprehensive table in the original submission to maintain conciseness, we agree that this would improve transparency. We will include a table in an appendix or in §3 detailing the parameter variations and their effects on the masses. Additionally, the dynamical diquark model has been validated against known states such as the X(3872) and other exotics in our previous publications; we will add a brief reference to these validations in the revised manuscript. Regarding error bars, the ranges represent the systematic uncertainty from parameter choices, which we will clarify explicitly. revision: yes

  3. Referee: While the relation ∂Δ_HF/∂κ_barc = 2 follows from spin algebra, the manuscript does not quantify how variations in the input potential parameters propagate into the overall mass scale, leaving the robustness of the 59--79 MeV splitting and the 23--28 MeV resonance offset untested.

    Authors: The hyperfine splitting Δ_HF is dominated by the difference in the symmetric and antisymmetric heavy antidiquark masses, with the chromomagnetic term providing a linear contribution whose coefficient is fixed by spin algebra to 2, as stated. The overall mass scale is set by the solution of the Schrödinger equation with the Born-Oppenheimer potential, but the splitting itself shows limited sensitivity to the potential details because both states use the same potential and the hyperfine is added perturbatively. To address the concern, we will add a discussion in §3 quantifying the propagation by showing how the mass offset and splitting vary with small changes in the potential parameters (e.g., varying the lattice potential coefficients by ±10%). This will demonstrate the robustness of the 23--28 MeV resonance position and the 59--79 MeV range. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: masses obtained from external lattice potential via Schrödinger solution

full rationale

The derivation solves the radial Schrödinger equation with the lattice-QCD Σ_g^+(1S) Born-Oppenheimer potential as an independent external input to obtain the quoted mass ranges and hyperfine splittings. The statement that the splitting is driven by symmetric/antisymmetric mass differences and satisfies ∂Δ_HF/∂κ=2 is an after-the-fact consistency check with spin algebra, not a definitional or fitted relation that forces the numerical outputs. No parameters are adjusted to the T_bc thresholds or masses themselves, and the model application does not reduce the predictions to a renaming or self-citation of the inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the dynamical diquark model and the lattice-derived Born-Oppenheimer potential; the quoted mass ranges reflect variation over a small set of model parameters whose precise values are not enumerated in the abstract.

free parameters (1)
  • chromomagnetic coupling κ_barc
    The linear dependence ∂Δ_HF/∂κ_barc = 2 is stated explicitly, indicating κ is a free parameter of the model.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The T_bc system is accurately described as a heavy antidiquark-light diquark pair interacting via the lattice-QCD Σ_g^+(1S) Born-Oppenheimer potential.
    This modeling choice is the foundation of the entire calculation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5668 in / 1408 out tokens · 66029 ms · 2026-05-08T16:56:40.347768+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Observation of an exotic narrow doubly charmed tetraquark

    R. Aaij, et al., Observation of an exotic narrow doubly charmed tetraquark, Nature Phys. 18 (7) (2022) 751–754. arXiv:2109.01038,doi:10.1038/s41567-022-01614-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41567-022-01614-y 2022

  2. [2]

    Aaij, et al., Study of the doubly charmed tetraquarkT+ cc, Nature Commun

    R. Aaij, et al., Study of the doubly charmed tetraquark T + cc, Nature Commun. 13 (1) (2022) 3351.arXiv:2109. 01056,doi:10.1038/s41467-022-30206-w

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-022-30206-w 2022

  3. [3]

    Carlson, L

    J. Carlson, L. Heller, J. A. Tjon, Stability of Dimesons, Phys. Rev. D 37 (1988) 744.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.37. 744

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.37 1988

  4. [4]

    A. V. Manohar, M. B. Wise, Exotic Q Q anti-q anti-q states in QCD, Nucl. Phys. B 399 (1993) 17–33.arXiv: hep-ph/9212236,doi:10.1016/0550-3213(93)90614-U

    work page doi:10.1016/0550-3213(93)90614-u 1993

  5. [5]

    E. J. Eichten, C. Quigg, Heavy-quark symmetry im- plies stable heavy tetraquark mesonsQ iQj ¯qk ¯ql, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (20) (2017) 202002.arXiv:1707.09575, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.202002

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.202002 2017

  6. [6]

    R. L. Jaffe, Exotica, Phys. Rept. 409 (2005) 1–45. arXiv:hep-ph/0409065,doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2004. 11.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2004 2005

  7. [7]

    Wiegmann, and Anton Zabrodin

    A. Francis, R. J. Hudspith, R. Lewis, K. Malt- man, Lattice Prediction for Deeply Bound Doubly Heavy Tetraquarks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (14) (2017) 142001.arXiv:1607.05214,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett. 118.142001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett 2017

  8. [8]

    Junnarkar, N

    P. Junnarkar, N. Mathur, M. Padmanath, Study of dou- bly heavy tetraquarks in Lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 99 (3) (2019) 034507.arXiv:1810.12285,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.99.034507

    work page arXiv 2019

  9. [9]

    Leskovec, S

    L. Leskovec, S. Meinel, M. Pflaumer, M. Wagner, Lattice QCD investigation of a doubly-bottom ¯b¯budtetraquark with quantum numbersI(J P ) = 0(1 +), Phys. Rev. D 100 (1) (2019) 014503.arXiv:1904.04197,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.100.014503

    work page arXiv 2019

  10. [10]

    R. J. Hudspith, B. Colquhoun, A. Francis, R. Lewis, K. Maltman, A lattice investigation of exotic tetraquark channels, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 114506.arXiv: 2006.14294,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.114506

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.114506 2020

  11. [11]

    Meinel, M

    S. Meinel, M. Pflaumer, M. Wagner, Search for b¯b¯us and b¯c¯ud tetraquark bound states using lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 106 (3) (2022) 034507.arXiv:2205.13982, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.034507

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.106.034507 2022

  12. [12]

    A. Ali, Q. Qin, W. Wang, Discovery potential of sta- ble and near-threshold doubly heavy tetraquarks at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B 785 (2018) 605–609.arXiv:1806. 09288,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.09.018

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.09.018 2018

  13. [13]

    Silvestre-Brac, C

    B. Silvestre-Brac, C. Semay, Systematics of L = 0 q-2 anti-q-2 systems, Z. Phys. C 57 (1993) 273–282.doi: 10.1007/BF01565058

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01565058 1993

  14. [14]

    Semay, B

    C. Semay, B. Silvestre-Brac, Diquonia and potential models, Z. Phys. C 61 (1994) 271–275.doi:10.1007/ BF01413104

    1994

  15. [15]

    Ebert, R

    D. Ebert, R. N. Faustov, V. O. Galkin, W. Lucha, Masses of tetraquarks with two heavy quarks in the relativistic quark model, Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007) 114015.arXiv: 0706.3853,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.76.114015

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.76.114015 2007

  16. [16]

    W. Park, S. Noh, S. H. Lee, Masses of the doubly heavy tetraquarks in a constituent quark model, Nucl. Phys. A 983 (2019) 1–19.arXiv:1809.05257,doi:10.1016/j. nuclphysa.2018.12.019

    work page doi:10.1016/j 2019

  17. [17]

    T. F. Caram´ es, J. Vijande, A. Valcarce, Exoticbc¯q¯qfour- quark states, Phys. Rev. D 99 (1) (2019) 014006.arXiv: 1812.08991,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.014006

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.99.014006 2019

  18. [18]

    Braaten, L.-P

    E. Braaten, L.-P. He, A. Mohapatra, Masses of dou- bly heavy tetraquarks with error bars, Phys. Rev. D 103 (1) (2021) 016001.arXiv:2006.08650,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.103.016001

    work page arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    L¨ u, D.-Y

    Q.-F. L¨ u, D.-Y. Chen, Y.-B. Dong, Masses of doubly heavy tetraquarksT QQ′ in a relativized quark model, Phys. Rev. D 102 (3) (2020) 034012.arXiv:2006.08087, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.034012

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.034012 2020

  20. [20]

    C. Deng, H. Chen, J. Ping, Systematical investigation on the stability of doubly heavy tetraquark states, Eur. Phys. J. A 56 (1) (2020) 9.arXiv:1811.06462,doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-019-00012-y. 12

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-019-00012-y 2020

  21. [21]

    G. Yang, J. Ping, J. Segovia, Doubly-heavy tetraquarks, Phys. Rev. D 101 (1) (2020) 014001.arXiv:1911.00215, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.014001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.014001 2020

  22. [22]

    Y. Tan, W. Lu, J. Ping, Systematics ofQQ¯q¯qin a chi- ral constituent quark model, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 135 (9) (2020) 716.arXiv:2004.02106,doi:10.1140/epjp/ s13360-020-00741-w

    work page doi:10.1140/epjp/ 2020

  23. [23]

    W. Chen, T. G. Steele, S.-L. Zhu, Exotic open-flavor bc¯q¯q,bc¯s¯sandqc¯q¯b,sc¯s¯btetraquark states, Phys. Rev. D 89 (5) (2014) 054037.arXiv:1310.8337,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.89.054037

    work page arXiv 2014

  24. [24]

    S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi, B. Barsbay, H. Sundu, Weak de- cays of the axial-vector tetraquarkT − bb;¯u¯d, Phys. Rev. D 99 (3) (2019) 033002.arXiv:1809.07791,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.99.033002

    work page arXiv 2019

  25. [25]

    Francis, R

    A. Francis, R. J. Hudspith, R. Lewis, K. Maltman, Evi- dence for charm-bottom tetraquarks and the mass depen- dence of heavy-light tetraquark states from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 99 (5) (2019) 054505.arXiv:1810.10550, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.054505

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.99.054505 2019

  26. [26]

    Padmanath, A

    M. Padmanath, A. Radhakrishnan, N. Mathur, Bound Isoscalar Axial-Vector bcu¯d¯Tetraquark Tbc from Lattice QCD Using Two-Meson and Diquark- Antidiquark Variational Basis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132 (20) (2024) 201902.arXiv:2307.14128,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.132.201902

    work page arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    Alexandrou, J

    C. Alexandrou, J. Finkenrath, T. Leontiou, S. Meinel, M. Pflaumer, M. Wagner, Shallow Bound States and Hints for Broad Resonances with Quark Content b¯c¯ud in B-D¯and B*-D¯Scattering from Lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132 (15) (2024) 151902.arXiv:2312.02925, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.151902

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.132.151902 2024

  28. [28]

    M. Born, R. Oppenheimer, Zur Quantentheorie der Molekeln, Annalen Phys. 389 (20) (1927) 457–484.doi: 10.1002/andp.19273892002

    work page doi:10.1002/andp.19273892002 1927

  29. [29]

    Braaten, C

    E. Braaten, C. Langmack, D. H. Smith, Born- Oppenheimer Approximation for the XYZ Mesons, Phys. Rev. D 90 (1) (2014) 014044.arXiv:1402.0438,doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.014044

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.90.014044 2014

  30. [30]

    K. J. Juge, J. Kuti, C. J. Morningstar, Ab initio study of hybrid anti-b g b mesons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 (1999) 4400–4403.arXiv:hep-ph/9902336,doi:10. 1103/PhysRevLett.82.4400

    work page arXiv 1999

  31. [31]

    Brambilla, G

    N. Brambilla, G. Krein, J. Tarr´ us Castell` a, A. Vairo, Born-Oppenheimer approximation in an effective field theory language, Phys. Rev. D 97 (1) (2018) 016016. arXiv:1707.09647,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.016016

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.97.016016 2018

  32. [32]

    Berwein, N

    M. Berwein, N. Brambilla, A. Mohapatra, A. Vairo, Hy- brids, tetraquarks, pentaquarks, doubly heavy baryons, and quarkonia in Born-Oppenheimer effective theory, Phys. Rev. D 110 (9) (2024) 094040.arXiv:2408.04719, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.094040

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.094040 2024

  33. [33]

    Nature of χc1(3872) and T + cc(3875),

    N. Brambilla, A. Mohapatra, T. Scirpa, A. Vairo, Na- ture ofχc1(3872) and Tcc+(3875), Phys. Rev. Lett. 135 (13) (2025) 131902.arXiv:2411.14306,doi:10. 1103/pdy7-hvg7

    work page arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Brambilla, A

    N. Brambilla, A. Mohapatra, A. Vairo, Unraveling pen- taquarks with the Born-Oppenheimer effective theory, Phys. Rev. D 112 (11) (2025) 114037.arXiv:2508.13050, doi:10.1103/5z3t-rq5f

    work page doi:10.1103/5z3t-rq5f 2025

  35. [35]

    Tetraquarks at large M and large N,

    H. Allaman, M. Ekhterachian, F. Nardi, R. Rat- tazzi, S. Stelzl, Tetraquarks at large M and large N, JHEP 11 (2024) 034.arXiv:2407.18298,doi:10.1007/ JHEP11(2024)034

    work page arXiv 2024

  36. [36]

    Maiani, A

    L. Maiani, A. Pilloni, A. D. Polosa, V. Riquer, Doubly heavy tetraquarks in the Born-Oppenheimer approxima- tion, Phys. Lett. B 836 (2023) 137624.arXiv:2208. 02730,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137624

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137624 2023

  37. [37]

    K. J. Juge, J. Kuti, C. Morningstar, Fine structure of the QCD string spectrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (2003) 161601.arXiv:hep-lat/0207004,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.90.161601

    work page arXiv 2003

  38. [38]

    Mutuk, Exotic Tcs¯0a(2900)0 and Tcs¯0a(2900)++ states in the Born-Oppenheimer approximation, Phys

    H. Mutuk, Exotic Tcs¯0a(2900)0 and Tcs¯0a(2900)++ states in the Born-Oppenheimer approximation, Phys. Rev. D 113 (3) (2026) 034020.arXiv:2512.01028,doi: 10.1103/3z79-67zf

    work page doi:10.1103/3z79-67zf 2026

  39. [39]

    Anselmino, E

    M. Anselmino, E. Predazzi, S. Ekelin, S. Fredriksson, D. B. Lichtenberg, Diquarks, Rev. Mod. Phys. 65 (1993) 1199–1234.doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.65.1199

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.65.1199 1993

  40. [40]

    M. Y. Barabanov, et al., Diquark correlations in hadron physics: Origin, impact and evidence, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 116 (2021) 103835.arXiv:2008.07630,doi:10. 1016/j.ppnp.2020.103835

    work page arXiv 2021

  41. [41]

    S. J. Brodsky, D. S. Hwang, R. F. Lebed, Dynamical Picture for the Formation and Decay of the Exotic XYZ Mesons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (11) (2014) 112001.arXiv: 1406.7281,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.112001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.113.112001 2014

  42. [42]

    R. F. Lebed, Spectroscopy of Exotic Hadrons Formed from Dynamical Diquarks, Phys. Rev. D 96 (11) (2017) 116003.arXiv:1709.06097,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96. 116003

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.96 2017

  43. [43]

    J. F. Giron, R. F. Lebed, C. T. Peterson, The Dynamical Diquark Model: First Numerical Results, JHEP 05 (2019) 061.arXiv:1903.04551,doi:10.1007/ JHEP05(2019)061

    work page arXiv 2019

  44. [44]

    J. F. Giron, R. F. Lebed, C. T. Peterson, The Dy- namical Diquark Model: Fine Structure and Isospin, JHEP 01 (2020) 124.arXiv:1907.08546,doi:10.1007/ JHEP01(2020)124

    work page arXiv 2020

  45. [46]

    J. F. Giron, R. F. Lebed, Simple spectrum ofc¯cc¯c states in the dynamical diquark model, Phys. Rev. D 102 (7) (2020) 074003.arXiv:2008.01631,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.102.074003

    work page arXiv 2020

  46. [47]

    Wang, Analysis of the light-flavor scalar and axial- vector diquark states with QCD sum rules, Commun

    Z.-G. Wang, Analysis of the light-flavor scalar and axial- vector diquark states with QCD sum rules, Commun. Theor. Phys. 59 (2013) 451–456.arXiv:1112.5910,doi: 10.1088/0253-6102/59/4/11

    work page doi:10.1088/0253-6102/59/4/11 2013

  47. [49]

    Maiani, F

    L. Maiani, F. Piccinini, A. D. Polosa, V. Riquer, Diquark- antidiquarks with hidden or open charm and the nature of X(3872), Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 014028.arXiv: hep-ph/0412098,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.014028

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.71.014028 2005

  48. [51]

    Interferometric signatures of black holes with multiple photon spheres.Phys

    S. Navas, et al., Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D 110 (3) (2024) 030001.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110. 13 030001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.110 2024

  49. [52]

    Karliner, J

    M. Karliner, J. L. Rosner, Discovery of doubly-charmed Ξcc baryon implies a stable (bb¯u¯d) tetraquark, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (20) (2017) 202001.arXiv:1707.07666,doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.202001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.202001 2017

  50. [53]

    T. Guo, J. Li, J. Zhao, L. He, Mass spectra of doubly heavy tetraquarks in an improved chromomag- netic interaction model, Phys. Rev. D 105 (1) (2022) 014021.arXiv:2108.10462,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 105.014021

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd 2022