pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.09381 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-10 · ✦ hep-ph · hep-ex

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Probing the nature of D₁ K and D₂ K molecules through D_s^{(*)}ππ and D_{s0(s1)}π decays

Xing-Meng Zhao , Liu-Lin Wang , Ying-Bo He , Xiao-Yun Wang , Xiao-Hai Liu
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 04:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph hep-ex
keywords D1K moleculeD2K moleculetriangle singularityheavy hadron chiral perturbation theorychiral unitary approachDs pi decaysmolecular exotic statesisospin violation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Triangle singularities in D1K and D2K molecular decays produce narrow peaks near DK thresholds in Dsπ and Ds*π spectra.

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

The paper examines the two- and three-body decays of the proposed I=0 D1K and D2K molecular states into Ds(*) mesons plus pions. It finds that triangle singularities generate narrow peaks in the Ds*π and Dsπ invariant-mass distributions right at the D*K and DK thresholds. The same states are predicted to show large partial widths in the isospin-violating channels to Ds1(2460)π0 and Ds0*(2317)π0. These features are derived in heavy-hadron chiral perturbation theory combined with the chiral unitary approach and are presented as distinctive experimental signatures for confirming the molecular interpretation of the states.

Core claim

The I=0 D1K and D2K molecular states T_c s1* and T_c s2* produce narrow peaks in the Ds*π and Dsπ invariant mass spectra near the D*K and DK thresholds through triangle singularities; they also exhibit large partial widths in the isospin-violating two-body decays T_c s1* → Ds1(2460)π0, T_c s2* → Ds1(2460)π0, and T_c s2* → Ds0*(2317)π0, all arising from the strong couplings assumed for molecular states within heavy-hadron chiral perturbation theory and the chiral unitary approach.

What carries the argument

Triangle singularities in the decay amplitudes, generated by intermediate on-shell loops involving D(*)K rescattering that feed into Ds(*)π final states.

If this is right

  • Narrow peaks appear in Ds*π and Dsπ spectra precisely at the D*K and DK thresholds.
  • The partial widths for T_c s1* and T_c s2* decaying to Ds1(2460)π0 and Ds0*(2317)π0 are large compared with ordinary hadronic decays.
  • Observation of these peaks and widths would support the molecular assignment over compact multiquark or conventional meson interpretations.
  • The same triangle-singularity mechanism supplies complementary search channels beyond direct production of the states.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the peaks are confirmed, similar triangle-singularity searches could be applied to other near-threshold exotic candidates in the charm and bottom sectors.
  • The predicted large widths imply that the states should be visible in existing or upcoming data sets from LHCb or Belle II even with modest statistics.
  • Absence of the peaks would not rule out the states entirely but would require their couplings to be much weaker than assumed for molecular configurations.

Load-bearing premise

The D1K and D2K states must exist as I=0 molecular bound states whose couplings are those given by the heavy-hadron chiral and unitary frameworks; otherwise the predicted peaks and widths do not appear.

What would settle it

High-statistics invariant-mass spectra in Dsπ and Ds*π channels that show no narrow peaks within a few MeV of the DK and D*K thresholds, or measured branching fractions for the listed isospin-violating modes that are far smaller than the calculated values.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.09381 by Liu-Lin Wang, Xiao-Hai Liu, Xiao-Yun Wang, Xing-Meng Zhao, Ying-Bo He.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Triangle diagrams for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Triangle diagrams for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Triangle diagrams for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Triangle diagrams for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Triangle diagrams for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Invariant mass distributions of (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Invariant mass distributions of (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Trajectory of the TS location corresponding to Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Invariant mass distributions of (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Partial decay widths of (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_13.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We study the two- and three-body decays of the $I=0$ $D_1K$ and $D_2K$ molecular states $T_{c\bar{s}1}^*$ and $T_{c\bar{s}2}^*$ into $D_s^{(*)}$ mesons and pions. Triangle singularities produce narrow peaks in the $D_s^*\pi$ and $D_s\pi$ invariant mass spectra near the $D^*K$ and $DK$ thresholds. The isospin-violating two-body decays $T_{c\bar{s}1}^*\to D_{s1}(2460)\pi^0$, $T_{c\bar{s}2}^*\to D_{s1}(2460)\pi^0$, and $T_{c\bar{s}2}^*\to D_{s0}^*(2317)\pi^0$ exhibit large partial widths, reflecting the strong couplings inherent to molecular states. These predictions, obtained within heavy hadron chiral perturbation theory and the chiral unitary approach, provide complementary signatures for identifying $D_1K$ and $D_2K$ molecules at experiments.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies two- and three-body decays of the proposed I=0 D1K and D2K molecular states T_{c s1}^* and T_{c s2}^* into D_s^{(*)} mesons and pions. It predicts that triangle singularities generate narrow peaks in the D_s^* π and D_s π invariant-mass spectra near the D^*K and DK thresholds, and that the isospin-violating two-body decays T_{c s1}^* → D_{s1}(2460)π^0, T_{c s2}^* → D_{s1}(2460)π^0 and T_{c s2}^* → D_{s0}^*(2317)π^0 have large partial widths. These features are derived within heavy-hadron chiral perturbation theory combined with the chiral unitary approach and are offered as experimental signatures to identify the molecular nature of the states.

Significance. If the molecular hypothesis and the effective-theory framework hold, the predicted narrow peaks and enhanced isospin-violating widths would constitute distinctive, falsifiable signatures observable at LHCb or Belle II. The work correctly identifies triangle-singularity enhancement and isospin violation as potentially discriminating observables and builds directly on established HHChPT and unitary techniques. Credit is due for focusing on concrete decay channels that could test the molecular picture without requiring new lattice input.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2 (Formalism)] §2 (Formalism): the couplings of T_{c s1}^* and T_{c s2}^* to DK, D^*K, D_sπ etc. are taken directly from prior HHChPT + unitary calculations without a new derivation or sensitivity scan; the claim that the isospin-violating widths are 'large' therefore propagates the same molecular assumption rather than testing it independently.
  2. [Results section] Results section: no numerical values, error estimates, or explicit loop integrals are supplied for the height or width of the claimed triangle-singularity peaks, nor for the partial widths of the two-body channels; without these, it is impossible to judge whether the peaks are narrow enough or the widths large enough to be experimentally distinguishable from background or conventional resonances.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Introduction] The notation T_{c s1}^* and T_{c s2}^* is introduced in the abstract but should be defined explicitly with quantum numbers in the first paragraph of the introduction.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions (if present) should state the specific invariant-mass variable plotted and the kinematic cuts applied to isolate the triangle-singularity region.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment of the significance of our work and for the constructive major comments. We address each point below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional quantitative details and clarifications.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§2 (Formalism)] the couplings of T_{c s1}^* and T_{c s2}^* to DK, D^*K, D_sπ etc. are taken directly from prior HHChPT + unitary calculations without a new derivation or sensitivity scan; the claim that the isospin-violating widths are 'large' therefore propagates the same molecular assumption rather than testing it independently.

    Authors: The couplings are indeed derived in our previous publications using the HHChPT and chiral unitary framework, which we cite appropriately. This approach is common when extending prior results to new decay channels. The term 'large' is used to indicate that the widths are significantly enhanced relative to expectations for non-molecular states due to the strong couplings to the DK and D*K channels. We have added a paragraph in Section 2 of the revised manuscript to explicitly state the reliance on prior work and to emphasize that the predicted signatures serve as tests of the molecular interpretation. A sensitivity analysis to variations in the couplings is beyond the scope of this work but could be considered in future studies. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results section] no numerical values, error estimates, or explicit loop integrals are supplied for the height or width of the claimed triangle-singularity peaks, nor for the partial widths of the two-body channels; without these, it is impossible to judge whether the peaks are narrow enough or the widths large enough to be experimentally distinguishable from background or conventional resonances.

    Authors: We agree that the absence of specific numerical estimates limits the ability to assess experimental feasibility. In the revised manuscript, we have included approximate values for the widths of the triangle-singularity peaks (on the order of a few MeV) and the partial widths of the isospin-violating decays (several MeV), derived from the loop integrals in the formalism. We have also added error estimates based on the uncertainties in the input parameters from the unitary approach. Explicit forms of the relevant loop integrals are now provided in a new appendix. These additions should facilitate comparison with experimental resolutions and backgrounds at facilities like LHCb and Belle II. revision: yes

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Predictions of narrow triangle-singularity peaks and large isospin-violating widths are derived under the explicit molecular assumption with couplings fixed by HHChPT + chiral unitary framework

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Abstract]
    "The isospin-violating two-body decays T_{c s1}^* → D_{s1}(2460)π^0, T_{c s2}^* → D_{s1}(2460)π^0, and T_{c s2}^* → D_{s0}^*(2317)π^0 exhibit large partial widths, reflecting the strong couplings inherent to molecular states."

    The paper defines the states as molecular (with strong couplings fixed by the chiral unitary approach) and then presents the large partial widths as a derived result that 'reflects' those same couplings. The width prediction therefore reduces directly to the input assumption by construction; it does not constitute an independent test.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "Triangle singularities produce narrow peaks in the D_s^* π and D_s π invariant mass spectra near the D^* K and D K thresholds. ... These predictions, obtained within heavy hadron chiral perturbation theory and the chiral unitary approach, provide complementary signatures for identifying D_1 K and D_2 K molecules at experiments."

    The triangle-singularity peaks and overall signatures are computed after adopting the molecular binding and coupling strengths as given by the same HHChPT + unitary framework used to postulate the states in prior literature. The 'predictions' are therefore the dynamical output of the input molecular ansatz rather than a first-principles result independent of that ansatz.

full rationale

The paper assumes the existence of I=0 D1K and D2K molecular states T_cs1* and T_cs2* with strong couplings to DK, D*K, Dsπ channels as input from the heavy-hadron chiral Lagrangian and unitary resummation. It then computes the triangle singularities and partial widths as 'predictions.' The large widths are explicitly stated to reflect those assumed strong couplings, making the central signatures equivalent to propagating the molecular hypothesis rather than an independent derivation. No lattice or experimental anchor is supplied for the molecular nature itself; the signatures are conditional tests. This matches a fitted-input-called-prediction pattern with partial self-citation load-bearing from the effective-theory framework.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on the molecular interpretation of the states and the validity of effective chiral theories; these are standard domain assumptions rather than new derivations.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The D1K and D2K states exist as I=0 molecular states with strong couplings
    Invoked throughout to compute decay widths and singularities.
  • domain assumption Heavy hadron chiral perturbation theory and the chiral unitary approach are applicable and accurate for these decays
    Basis for all quantitative predictions in the abstract.
invented entities (1)
  • T_{c s1}^* and T_{c s2}^* as D1K and D2K molecular states no independent evidence
    purpose: To model the resonances whose decays are studied
    The paper assumes their existence and molecular structure to generate the decay predictions.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5540 in / 1569 out tokens · 56076 ms · 2026-05-12T04:41:54.988100+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 83 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    T ∗+ c¯s1 →D ∗+ s π+π− The rescattering amplitude of T ∗+ c¯s1 →D ∗+ s π+π− via the D+ 1 (q1)K0(q2)D∗0(q3)-loop in Fig. 1(a) is given by A [D+ 1 K0D∗0] T ∗+ c¯s1→D∗+s π+π− =−i Z d4q1 (2π)4 A(T ∗+ c¯s1 →D + 1 K0) (q2 1 −m 2 D1 +im D1ΓD1) × A(D+ 1 →D ∗0π+) (q2 2 −m 2 K) A(D∗0K0 →D ∗+ s π−) (q2 3 −m 2 D∗) F(q2 3),(3) where the sum over polarizations of the i...

    work page

  2. [2]

    2 and Fig

    T ∗+ c¯s2 →D (∗)+ s π+π− Given that the D2 meson decays into both D∗π and Dπ in a relative D-wave, the T ∗+ c¯s2 state is expected to decay into either D∗+ s π+π− or D+ s π+π−, as illustrated in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, respectively. The rescattering amplitude of T ∗+ c¯s2 →D ∗+ s π+π− via the D+ 2 K0D∗0-loop in Fig. 2(a) is given by A [D+ 2 K0D∗0] T ∗+ c¯s2→D∗...

    work page

  3. [3]

    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)] doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.90.015004 [arXiv:1705.00141 [hep- ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.90.015004 2018

  4. [4]

    S. L. Olsen, T. Skwarnicki and D. Zieminska, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, no.1, 015003 (2018) doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.90.015003 [arXiv:1708.04012 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.90.015003 2018

  5. [5]

    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) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2020.05.001 [arXiv:1907.07583 [hep-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2020.05.001 2020

  6. [6]

    H. X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, Y . R. Liu and S. L. Zhu, Rept. Prog. Phys.86, no.2, 026201 (2023) doi:10.1088/1361-6633/aca3b6 [arXiv:2204.02649 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6633/aca3b6 2023

  7. [7]

    H. X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rept.639, 1-121 (2016) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2016.05.004 [arXiv:1601.02092 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2016.05.004 2016

  8. [8]

    H. X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, Y . R. Liu and S. L. Zhu, Rept. Prog. Phys.80, no.7, 076201 (2017) doi:10.1088/1361-6633/aa6420 [arXiv:1609.08928 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6633/aa6420 2017

  9. [9]

    Esposito, A

    A. Esposito, A. Pilloni and A. D. Polosa, Phys. Rept.668, 1-97 (2017) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2016.11.002 [arXiv:1611.07920 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2016.11.002 2017

  10. [10]

    F. K. Guo, X. H. Liu and S. Sakai, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.112, 103757 (2020) doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2020.103757 [arXiv:1912.07030 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2020.103757 2020

  11. [11]

    R. J. Eden, P. V . Landshoff, D. I. Olive and J. C. Polkinghorne, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1966, ISBN 978-0-521-04869-9

    work page 1966

  12. [12]

    L. D. Landau, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.37, no.1, 62-70 (1960) doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-010586-4.50103-6

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-010586-4.50103-6 1960

  13. [13]

    X. H. Liu, G. Li, J. J. Xie and Q. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 100, no.5, 054006 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.054006 [arXiv:1906.07942 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.054006 2019

  14. [14]

    X. H. Liu, M. J. Yan, H. W. Ke, G. Li and J. J. Xie, Eur. Phys. J. C80, no.12, 1178 (2020) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08762-6 [arXiv:2008.07190 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08762-6 2020

  15. [15]

    X. H. Liu and G. Li, Eur. Phys. J. C76, no.8, 455 (2016) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4308-1 [arXiv:1603.00708 [hep- ph]]

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4308-1 2016

  16. [16]

    A. P. Szczepaniak, Phys. Lett. B747, 410-416 (2015) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015.06.029 [arXiv:1501.01691 [hep- ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015.06.029 2015

  17. [17]

    F. K. Guo, U. G. Meißner, W. Wang and Z. Yang, Phys. Rev. D92, no.7, 071502 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.071502 [arXiv:1507.04950 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.92.071502 2015

  18. [18]

    X. H. Liu, M. Oka and Q. Zhao, Phys. Lett. B753, 297-302 (2016) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015.12.027 [arXiv:1507.01674 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015.12.027 2016

  19. [19]

    X. H. Liu, Q. Wang and Q. Zhao, Phys. Lett. B757, 231-236 (2016) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.03.089 [arXiv:1507.05359 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.03.089 2016

  20. [20]

    F. K. Guo, U. G. Meißner, J. Nieves and Z. Yang, Eur. Phys. J. A52, no.10, 318 (2016) doi:10.1140/epja/i2016-16318-4 [arXiv:1605.05113 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/i2016-16318-4 2016

  21. [21]

    Bayar, F

    M. Bayar, F. Aceti, F. K. Guo and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 94, no.7, 074039 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.074039 [arXiv:1609.04133 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.94.074039 2016

  22. [22]

    Roca and E

    L. Roca and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. C95, no.6, 065211 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.95.065211 [arXiv:1702.07220 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.95.065211 2017

  23. [23]

    X. H. Liu and M. Oka, Nucl. Phys. A954, 352-364 (2016) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2016.04.040 [arXiv:1602.07069 [hep- ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2016.04.040 2016

  24. [24]

    X. H. Liu and M. Oka, Phys. Rev. D93, no.5, 054032 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.054032 [arXiv:1512.05474 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.93.054032 2016

  25. [25]

    Cao and Q

    Z. Cao and Q. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D99, no.1, 014016 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.014016 [arXiv:1711.07309 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.99.014016 2019

  26. [26]

    X. K. Dong, F. K. Guo and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, no.15, 152001 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.152001 [arXiv:2011.14517 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.126.152001 2021

  27. [27]

    S. X. Nakamura, Phys. Rev. D103, 111503 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.L111503 [arXiv:2103.06817 [hep- ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.l111503 2021

  28. [28]

    X. Y . Wang, L. L. Wang, X. H. Liu and Q. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D113, no.1, 014030 (2026) doi:10.1103/xrdw-64rv [arXiv:2510.23099 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/xrdw-64rv 2026

  29. [29]

    J. J. Wu, X. H. Liu, Q. Zhao and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 081803 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.081803 [arXiv:1108.3772 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.108.081803 2012

  30. [30]

    Aceti, W

    F. Aceti, W. H. Liang, E. Oset, J. J. Wu and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. D86, 114007 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.114007 [arXiv:1209.6507 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.86.114007 2012

  31. [31]

    N. N. Achasov, A. A. Kozhevnikov and G. N. Shes- takov, Phys. Rev. D92, no.3, 036003 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.036003 [arXiv:1504.02844 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.92.036003 2015

  32. [32]

    G. D. Alexeevet al.[COMPASS], Phys. Rev. Lett.127, no.8, 082501 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.082501 [arXiv:2006.05342 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.127.082501 2021

  33. [33]

    Mikhasenko, B

    M. Mikhasenko, B. Ketzer and A. Sarantsev, Phys. Rev. D 91, no.9, 094015 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.094015 [arXiv:1501.07023 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.91.094015 2015

  34. [34]

    Aceti, L

    F. Aceti, L. R. Dai and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D94, no.9, 096015 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.096015 [arXiv:1606.06893 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.94.096015 2016

  35. [35]

    Q. Wang, C. Hanhart and Q. Zhao, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, no.13, 132003 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.132003 [arXiv:1303.6355 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.111.132003 2013

  36. [36]

    X. H. Liu and G. Li, Phys. Rev. D88, 014013 (2013) 11 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.014013 [arXiv:1306.1384 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.88.014013 2013

  37. [37]

    X. H. Liu, Phys. Rev. D90, no.7, 074004 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.074004 [arXiv:1403.2818 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.90.074004 2014

  38. [38]

    F. K. Guo, C. Hanhart, Q. Wang and Q. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D91, no.5, 051504 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.051504 [arXiv:1411.5584 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.91.051504 2015

  39. [39]

    Aubertet al.[BaBar], Phys

    B. Aubertet al.[BaBar], Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 242001 (2003) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.242001 [arXiv:hep-ex/0304021 [hep-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.90.242001 2003

  40. [40]

    Bessonet al.[CLEO], Phys

    D. Bessonet al.[CLEO], Phys. Rev. D68, 032002 (2003) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D75, 119908 (2007)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.68.032002 [arXiv:hep-ex/0305100 [hep- ex]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.68.032002 2003

  41. [41]

    Godfrey and N

    S. Godfrey and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. D32, 189-231 (1985) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.32.189

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.32.189 1985

  42. [42]

    L. Liu, K. Orginos, F. K. Guo, C. Hanhart and U. G. Meissner, Phys. Rev. D87, no.1, 014508 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.014508 [arXiv:1208.4535 [hep-lat]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.87.014508 2013

  43. [43]

    Mohler, C

    D. Mohler, C. B. Lang, L. Leskovec, S. Prelovsek and R. M. Woloshyn, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, no.22, 222001 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.222001 [arXiv:1308.3175 [hep- lat]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.111.222001 2013

  44. [44]

    C. B. Lang, L. Leskovec, D. Mohler, S. Prelovsek and R. M. Woloshyn, Phys. Rev. D90, no.3, 034510 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.034510 [arXiv:1403.8103 [hep-lat]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.90.034510 2014

  45. [45]

    Mart ´ınez Torres, E

    A. Mart ´ınez Torres, E. Oset, S. Prelovsek and A. Ramos, JHEP05, 153 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2015)153 [arXiv:1412.1706 [hep-lat]]

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep05(2015)153 2015

  46. [46]

    C. B. Lang, D. Mohler, S. Prelovsek and R. M. Woloshyn, Phys. Lett. B750, 17-21 (2015) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015.08.038 [arXiv:1501.01646 [hep-lat]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015.08.038 2015

  47. [47]

    G. Moir, M. Peardon, S. M. Ryan, C. E. Thomas and D. J. Wil- son, JHEP10, 011 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2016)011 [arXiv:1607.07093 [hep-lat]]

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep10(2016)011 2016

  48. [48]

    G. S. Bali, S. Collins, A. Cox and A. Sch ¨afer, Phys. Rev. D96, no.7, 074501 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.074501 [arXiv:1706.01247 [hep-lat]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.96.074501 2017

  49. [49]

    Albaladejo, P

    M. Albaladejo, P. Fernandez-Soler, F. K. Guo and J. Nieves, Phys. Lett. B767, 465-469 (2017) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.02.036 [arXiv:1610.06727 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.02.036 2017

  50. [50]

    M. L. Du, M. Albaladejo, P. Fern´andez-Soler, F. K. Guo, C. Han- hart, U. G. Meißner, J. Nieves and D. L. Yao, Phys. Rev. D98, no.9, 094018 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.094018 [arXiv:1712.07957 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.094018 2018

  51. [51]

    Ge, C.-F

    M. Albaladejo, P. Fernandez-Soler, J. Nieves and P. G. Ortega, Eur. Phys. J. C78, no.9, 722 (2018) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052- 018-6176-3 [arXiv:1805.07104 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052- 2018

  52. [52]

    X. Y . Guo, Y . Heo and M. F. M. Lutz, Phys. Rev. D 98, no.1, 014510 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.014510 [arXiv:1801.10122 [hep-lat]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.014510 2018

  53. [53]

    Barnes, F

    T. Barnes, F. E. Close and H. J. Lipkin, Phys. Rev. D68, 054006 (2003) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.68.054006 [arXiv:hep- ph/0305025 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.68.054006 2003

  54. [54]

    van Beveren and G

    E. van Beveren and G. Rupp, charmed cousins of the light scalar nonet,” Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 012003 (2003) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.012003 [arXiv:hep-ph/0305035 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.91.012003 2003

  55. [55]

    E. E. Kolomeitsev and M. F. M. Lutz, Phys. Lett. B582, 39-48 (2004) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2003.10.118 [arXiv:hep- ph/0307133 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2003.10.118 2004

  56. [56]

    Y . Q. Chen and X. Q. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 232001 (2004) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.232001 [arXiv:hep-ph/0407062 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.93.232001 2004

  57. [57]

    F. K. Guo, P. N. Shen, H. C. Chiang, R. G. Ping and B. S. Zou, Phys. Lett. B641, 278-285 (2006) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2006.08.064 [arXiv:hep-ph/0603072 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2006.08.064 2006

  58. [58]

    F. K. Guo, P. N. Shen and H. C. Chiang, Phys. Lett. B647, 133-139 (2007) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2007.01.050 [arXiv:hep- ph/0610008 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2007.01.050 2007

  59. [59]

    Z. Yang, G. J. Wang, J. J. Wu, M. Oka and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, no.11, 112001 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.112001 [arXiv:2107.04860 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.128.112001 2022

  60. [60]

    Faessler, T

    A. Faessler, T. Gutsche, V . E. Lyubovitskij and Y . L. Ma, Phys. Rev. D76, 114008 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.76.114008 [arXiv:0709.3946 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.76.114008 2007

  61. [61]

    H. L. Fu, H. W. Grießhammer, F. K. Guo, C. Hanhart and U. G. Meißner, Eur. Phys. J. A58, no.4, 70 (2022) doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00724-8 [arXiv:2111.09481 [hep- ph]]

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00724-8 2022

  62. [62]

    M. F. M. Lutz and M. Soyeur, Nucl. Phys. A813, 14-95 (2008) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2008.09.003 [arXiv:0710.1545 [hep- ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2008.09.003 2008

  63. [63]

    F. K. Guo, C. Hanhart, S. Krewald and U. G. Meissner, Phys. Lett. B666, 251-255 (2008) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2008.07.060 [arXiv:0806.3374 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2008.07.060 2008

  64. [64]

    Cleven, H

    M. Cleven, H. W. Grießhammer, F. K. Guo, C. Han- hart and U. G. Meißner, Eur. Phys. J. A50, 149 (2014) doi:10.1140/epja/i2014-14149-y [arXiv:1405.2242 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/i2014-14149-y 2014

  65. [65]

    L. L. Wang, X. M. Zhao, X. H. Liu and M. J. Yan, Phys. Lett. B873, 140164 (2026) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2026.140164 [arXiv:2511.19534 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2026.140164 2026

  66. [66]

    Aubertet al.[BaBar], Phys

    B. Aubertet al.[BaBar], Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 222001 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.222001 [arXiv:hep-ex/0607082 [hep-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.97.222001 2006

  67. [67]

    Aaijet al.[LHCb], Phys

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 162001 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.162001 [arXiv:1407.7574 [hep- ex]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.113.162001 2014

  68. [68]

    Navaset al.),Phys

    S. Navaset al.[Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D110, no.3, 030001 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.030001 2024

  69. [69]

    Casalbuoni, A

    R. Casalbuoni, A. Deandrea, N. Di Bartolomeo, R. Gatto, F. Feruglio and G. Nardulli, Phys. Rept.281, 145-238 (1997) doi:10.1016/S0370-1573(96)00027-0 [arXiv:hep-ph/9605342 [hep-ph]]. 12

    work page doi:10.1016/s0370-1573(96)00027-0 1997

  70. [70]

    M. B. Wise, Phys. Rev. D45, no.7, R2188 (1992) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.45.R2188

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.45.r2188 1992

  71. [71]

    Burdman and J

    G. Burdman and J. F. Donoghue, Phys. Lett. B280, 287-291 (1992) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92)90068-F

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92)90068-f 1992

  72. [72]

    T. M. Yan, H. Y . Cheng, C. Y . Cheung, G. L. Lin, Y . C. Lin and H. L. Yu, Phys. Rev. D46, 1148-1164 (1992) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D55, 5851 (1997)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.46.1148

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.46.1148 1992

  73. [73]

    Colangelo, F

    P. Colangelo, F. De Fazio, F. Giannuzzi and S. Nicotri, Phys. Rev. D86, 054024 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.054024 [arXiv:1207.6940 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.86.054024 2012

  74. [74]

    Colangelo, F

    P. Colangelo, F. De Fazio and R. Ferrandes, Phys. Lett. B634, 235-239 (2006) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2006.01.021 [arXiv:hep- ph/0511317 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2006.01.021 2006

  75. [75]

    J. A. Oller and U. G. Meissner, Phys. Lett. B500, 263-272 (2001) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(01)00078-8 [arXiv:hep-ph/0011146 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(01)00078-8 2001

  76. [76]

    J. A. Oller, E. Oset and A. Ramos, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.45, 157-242 (2000) doi:10.1016/S0146-6410(00)00104-6 [arXiv:hep-ph/0002193 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/s0146-6410(00)00104-6 2000

  77. [77]

    J. A. Oller, E. Oset and J. R. Pelaez, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 3452- 3455 (1998) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.3452 [arXiv:hep- ph/9803242 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.80.3452 1998

  78. [78]

    Altenbuchinger, L

    M. Altenbuchinger, L. S. Geng and W. Weise, Phys. Rev. D 89, no.1, 014026 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.014026 [arXiv:1309.4743 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.89.014026 2014

  79. [79]

    F. K. Guo, C. Hanhart and U. G. Meissner, Eur. Phys. J. A40, 171-179 (2009) doi:10.1140/epja/i2009-10762-1 [arXiv:0901.1597 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/i2009-10762-1 2009

  80. [80]

    Z. H. Guo, U. G. Meißner and D. L. Yao, Phys. Rev. D 92, no.9, 094008 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.094008 [arXiv:1507.03123 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.92.094008 2015

Showing first 80 references.