Constituent-quark-model based coupled-channels calculation of the $\mathbf{bb\bar c\bar c}$ and $\mathbf{bc\bar b\bar c}$ tetraquark systems

David R. Entem; Francisco Fern\'andez; Jorge Segovia; Pablo G. Ortega

Constituent-quark-model based coupled-channels calculation of the $\mathbf{bb\bar c\bar c}$ and $\mathbf{bc\bar b\bar c}$ tetraquark systems

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A coupled-channels quark-model calculation predicts broad resonance poles in every spin-parity sector (0±, 1±, 2±) of the bb̄c̄c tetraquark system and no bound, virtual, or resonant states in the bc̄b̄c system.

desk verdict Workmanlike RGM/CQM extension that predicts broad bb̄c̄c resonances and a sharp null result for bc̄b̄c; the null rests on the model's vanishing direct interaction, but the authors state that limitation explicitly. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.05312 v1 pith:DY7Z3YDC submitted 2025-05-08 hep-ph

Pablo G. Ortega , David R. Entem , Francisco Fernández , Jorge Segovia This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-ph

keywords fully-heavytetraquarksconstituentquarkmodelResonatingGroupMethodcoupledchannelsBcmesonsmolecularstatesexotichadronsexchange

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks whether two fully-heavy four-quark systems, $bb\bar c\bar c$ and $bc\bar b\bar c$, can bind as meson molecules built from $B_c$ mesons, and it computes the answer in a coupled-channels constituent quark model. It finds resonance poles in every $J^P = 0^\pm, 1^\pm, 2^\pm$ sector of the $bb\bar c\bar c$ system, with masses between 12622 and 12781 MeV and widths between 82 and 402 MeV. In the $bc\bar b\bar c$ sector it finds no bound states, no virtual states, and no resonances over the same quantum numbers, so molecular configurations of $(c\bar c)(b\bar b)$ or $B_c^{(*)}\bar B_c^{(*)}$ type are predicted not to form. The contrast matters because it traces the existence of fully-heavy tetraquarks to a specific dynamical mechanism: quark exchange, which is active only when two identical heavy quarks are present. If correct, the result tells experiment where to look and which interpretation of fully-heavy tetraquarks—compact versus molecular—is viable for these flavor combinations.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the Resonating Group Method (RGM), a technique in which each meson is treated as a frozen quark-antiquark cluster and the effective force between clusters is derived from the underlying quark dynamics. The decisive element is the exchange kernel. Because two color-singlet mesons made only of heavy quarks have no direct potential, the entire $bb\bar c\bar c$ interaction comes from antisymmetrization—exchanging identical $b$ quarks or identical $\bar c$ quarks between the clusters—and the entire $bc\bar b\bar c$ interaction comes from quark rearrangement between different meson-meson channels. This kernel is non-local and energy-dependent, and the paper continues it analytically to complex momenta so that poles of the $T$-matrix can be classified as bound states, virtual states, or resonances. The model's $B_c$ and $B_c^*$ wave functions and masses enter as the input that fixes the thresholds and the overlap integrals.

What would settle it

A lattice QCD calculation of $B_cB_c$ scattering near the 12550 MeV threshold that finds a pole below threshold, or an experiment finding a narrow peak below 12550 MeV in the $bb\bar c\bar c$ system, would falsify the prediction of only broad above-threshold resonances; a $bc\bar b\bar c$ molecular candidate would falsify the null prediction for that sector.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a dichotomy within one model: the $bb\bar c\bar c$ system sustains molecular resonances in every sector studied, while the $bc\bar b\bar c$ system does not. The poles sit just above the $B_cB_c$, $B_cB_c^*$ and $B_c^*B_c^*$ thresholds at 12550, 12603 and 12657 MeV; the $J^P=0^+$ sector contains two resonances at 12622 MeV (width 171 MeV) and 12711 MeV (width 82 MeV), the $1^+$ sector has one at 12657 MeV (width 215 MeV), and the $2^+$ sector has one at 12718 MeV (width 134 MeV). A degenerate $3P_J$ triplet with $J^P=0^-,1^-,2^-$ appears at 12781 MeV with a width of 402 MeV and shares its $B_cB_c^*$ and $B_c^*B_c^*$ components. The $bc\bar b\bar c$ calculation, connecting $J/\psi\Upsilon$, $\eta_c\eta_b$ and $B_c^{(*)}\bar B_c^{(*)}$ channels through rearrangement, produces no poles on any Riemann sheet. The paper interprets this as evidence that quark exchange between identical heavy quarks is the mechanism that makes fully-heavy molecular tetraquarks possible.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that two color-neutral heavy mesons have zero direct force between them, so every interaction must come from the quarks swapping places; if direct hadron-level interactions exist, the predicted resonance pattern could shift or disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The $bb\bar c\bar c$ sector should contain broad, above-threshold molecular resonances in each spin-parity channel, including a degenerate $0^-$, $1^-$, $2^-$ triplet near 12781 MeV with a width near 402 MeV.
The $bc\bar b\bar c$ sector should show no molecular candidates: neither $(c\bar c)(b\bar b)$ nor $B_c^{(*)}\bar B_c^{(*)}$ configurations should bind or resonate in $J^P=0^\pm,1^\pm,2^\pm$.
Searches for fully-heavy tetraquarks with two bottom and two charm quarks should target the 12.62–12.78 GeV region for broad structures rather than narrow, near-threshold peaks.
The pattern offers a clean discriminator between molecular and compact-tetraquark interpretations, since compact models generally predict states in both flavor sectors while this molecular calculation predicts them only where identical quarks allow exchange.
Because the $B_c^*$ mass is not measured, the use of the theoretical value 6328 MeV sets the thresholds; an updated experimental mass would shift the predicted pole positions and widths.

Reading between the lines

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

The zero direct interaction between color-singlet heavy mesons is a strong simplifying assumption; if direct two-gluon exchange between the color-neutral clusters is non-negligible, the predicted pole pattern could shift or disappear, and a lattice-QCD scattering calculation would settle that question.
The null result in $bc\bar b\bar c$ turns that sector into a sharp diagnostic: a future experimental candidate there would favor compact tetraquark configurations over the molecular picture used here.
All predicted $bb\bar c\bar c$ resonances are wide, with widths from 82 to 402 MeV, so experimental searches in $B_c$ pair invariant-mass spectra would need to tolerate very broad structures to see them.
The degeneracy of the negative-parity triplet at 12781 MeV is a model signature; observing one of those states should prompt a search for its spin partners at nearly the same mass.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

This is a workmanlike extension of the Salamanca RGM/CQM machinery to the mixed heavy tetraquark sectors. What's new is concrete: for bb̄c̄c they find resonance poles in every J^P = 0±, 1±, 2± sector, with masses 12622–12781 MeV and widths 82–402 MeV; for bc̄b̄c they find nothing—no bound, virtual, or resonance poles. That null result is the sharpest thing here, because it contrasts with compact tetraquark models that predict states, and it is a falsifiable distinction between molecular and compact interpretations.

The calculation is honest in the ways that matter. Parameters were fixed by fitting ordinary meson spectra, not tetraquark data, so the predictions are genuine. The pole classification on Riemann sheets is standard and carefully described. The uncertainty estimate via ±10% variation of potential strengths is crude but reasonable. The citations to [46,47] are appropriate—this is a direct continuation of their earlier all-charm and heavy-light RGM studies.

The soft spot is the vanishing direct interaction between color-singlet heavy mesons. Within the CQM's one-gluon exchange and confinement terms, the color singlet–singlet matrix elements are exactly zero, so only exchange (bb̄c̄c) or rearrangement (bc̄b̄c) kernels contribute. That is formally correct for this Hamiltonian. But it excludes any direct hadron-level interaction between colorless clusters, e.g., two-gluon exchange, which is not in the model. The bc̄b̄c null result is precisely a consequence of that vanishing diagonal term; a small attractive direct potential could produce poles. The authors state this limitation explicitly in the abstract and Sec. III B, so it is not hidden, but it is the least secure condition on which the central claims rest.

A second caveat: the bb̄c̄c 'resonances' are broad. The 1−/2− states at 12781 MeV have widths around 400 MeV. These are not clean experimental targets; they are broad enhancements that will be hard to separate from non-resonant background. The narrower S-wave states are more promising.

Who is this for? Any group working on fully-heavy tetraquark phenomenology. It gives a specific set of masses and widths to compare against lattice QCD or future LHCb data.

My recommendation: send it to peer review. It's a serious, coherent calculation with a sharp negative prediction. The referee should press on the direct-interaction assumption and the treatment of decay widths, but the paper is publishable, likely with revision.

Referee Report

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies fully-heavy tetraquark systems with quark content $bb\bar c\bar c$ and $bc\bar b\bar c$ in a molecular framework based on the constituent quark model of Ref. [48] combined with the Resonating Group Method. Since the one-gluon-exchange and confinement potentials are proportional to color factors, the direct interaction between two color-singlet mesons built from heavy quarks vanishes; the dynamics is generated by quark-exchange kernels for $bb\bar c\bar c$ and by rearrangement kernels for $bc\bar b\bar c$. Solving the coupled Lippmann-Schwinger equations with analytic continuation to complex momenta, the authors find resonance poles in every $J^P = 0^\pm, 1^\pm, 2^\pm$ sector of the $bb\bar c\bar c$ system, with masses between 12622 and 12781 MeV and widths between 82 and 402 MeV (Table III). For the $bc\bar b\bar c$ system, they find no bound, virtual, or resonance poles. The model parameters are fixed by a global fit to meson spectra, so the tetraquark predictions are parameter-free in the target sector.

Significance. If correct, these predictions are a useful guide for experimental searches for fully-heavy tetraquarks beyond the $QQ\bar Q\bar Q$ cases, and they discriminate between molecular and compact interpretations. The work extends a well-established CQM/RGM framework to mixed-heavy-flavor sectors and provides explicit masses, widths, and branching ratios, with uncertainties estimated by varying potential strengths by $\pm 10\%$. The null result in the $bc\bar b\bar c$ sector is a nontrivial prediction that contrasts with compact-tetraquark models, and the authors are careful to state that it is a consequence of the model's vanishing direct interaction. The paper is clearly written and the calculations are described in sufficient detail to be reproduced.

minor comments (5)

[Table III] In Table III, several branching-ratio entries appear with a leading minus sign, for example '-54.7' for the $0^-$ state and '-71.5' for the second $0^+$ state; since branching ratios cannot be negative, these likely represent placeholder dashes for zero contributions, and the table should be reformatted so that no ambiguity remains.
[Sec. III A] The authors use the theoretical mass of the $B_c^*$ meson (6328 MeV) without propagating its uncertainty; the quoted pole positions inherit an additional systematic error from this input that is not included in the stated $\pm 10\%$ potential-strength uncertainties, and this limitation should be acknowledged.
[Sec. III B] The concluding sentence of Sec. III B states that $bc\bar b\bar c$ molecular tetraquarks 'cannot exist' under the model assumptions, whereas the abstract says they are 'unlikely to be formed'; these statements should be reconciled to avoid overstating the strength of the conclusion.
[Sec. III B] The central assumption of a vanishing direct interaction between color-singlet heavy mesons is stated explicitly but discussed only briefly; a short paragraph placing this in context, for example why two-gluon exchange or other direct hadron-level interactions might be expected to be negligible, would help the reader assess the robustness of the null result.
[Table III] The notation for the branching ratios in Table III, such as '$B_{B_cB_c}$', is not defined in the caption or in the text; the authors should define these quantities explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the tetraquark masses, widths, and the null bc̄b̄c result emerge from solving coupled Lippmann–Schwinger equations, not from fitting to the target tetraquark data.

full rationale

The paper's central predictions are outputs of a well-defined dynamical calculation. The quark-model parameters (Table I) are fixed by a global fit to ordinary meson spectra, explicitly including charmonium, bottomonium, and B_c mesons, and are not adjusted to any tetraquark observable. The quark–antiquark wave functions are obtained by solving the Schrödinger equation with the Gaussian Expansion Method, and the meson–meson interaction is built through the Resonating Group Method, leading to the coupled Lippmann–Schwinger equations in Eq. (19). The resonance poles of the bb̄c̄c sector and the absence of poles in the bc̄b̄c sector are then found by continuing the T-matrix to complex momenta; they are not equivalent, by construction, to any fitted parameter or input datum. The vanishing direct interaction between two color-singlet heavy mesons (Sec. III) is presented as a consequence of the color structure of the one-gluon-exchange and confinement potentials, and although it is a model assumption that could be challenged — for example, by adding a direct two-gluon-exchange hadron-level potential — it is an explicit dynamical input, not a circular renaming of the conclusion. The self-citations (Refs. [46], [47], [61]) supply the same framework and the theoretical B*_c mass; they are not invoked to forbid alternative mechanisms or to impose the result, and the underlying model is independently constrained by meson spectra. No step in the derivation reduces to its own inputs, so the paper contains no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central predictions rest on a phenomenological model whose free parameters were fixed by fitting ordinary meson spectra. The key additional assumptions are the frozen-cluster RGM approximation, the vanishing of direct interactions between color-singlet heavy mesons, and the restriction to ground-state meson channels. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (11)

charm quark mass m_c = 1763 MeV
Constituent quark mass fitted to meson spectra; sets meson kinematics.
bottom quark mass m_b = 5110 MeV
Constituent quark mass fitted to meson spectra; sets meson kinematics.
OGE coupling constant α0 = 2.118
Scale-dependent strong coupling parameter fitted to meson spectra.
Λ0 = 0.113 fm^-1
Coupling scale parameter fitted to meson spectra.
μ0 = 36.976 MeV
Coupling scale parameter fitted to meson spectra.
r̂0 = 0.181 fm
Regulator for OGE contact term, fitted to meson spectra.
r̂g = 0.259 fm
Regulator for OGE tensor term, fitted to meson spectra.
a_c = 507.4 MeV
Confinement strength parameter fitted to meson spectra; dominates long-range force.
μ_c = 0.576 fm^-1
Confinement screening parameter fitted to meson spectra.
Δ = 184.432 MeV
Confinement constant fitted to meson spectra.
a_s = 0.81
Spin-orbit parameter for confinement, fitted to meson spectra.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Constituent quark model with one-gluon exchange and screened confinement accurately describes heavy meson sectors.
The model's parameters are fitted to a broad set of meson spectra, and the same model is used to generate meson wave functions and the intermeson interaction.
domain assumption Meson internal wave functions are frozen during the interaction (Resonating Group Method approximation).
Sec. II B: 'the degrees of freedom of the particles within a cluster are frozen, resulting in a fixed wave function for the internal degrees of freedom.'
domain assumption Two color-singlet mesons composed solely of heavy quarks have zero direct interaction; only quark exchange or rearrangement kernels contribute.
Sec. III A: 'the only possible interactions between two B_c^(∗) mesons occur through exchange diagrams'; Sec. III B: 'no direct interaction due to the presence of heavy quarks only.'
standard math T-matrix poles on the first and second Riemann sheets correspond to bound states, virtual states, and resonances.
Sec. II B: standard scattering theory classification of S-matrix poles.
domain assumption Only S-wave ground-state mesons (B_c, B_c^*, charmonium, bottomonium) are included as coupled channels.
Sec. III A and III B: 'we only consider molecular systems made by the S-wave ground states'; this omits radial excitations and higher partial waves in the internal meson wave functions.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constituent-quark-model based coupled-channels calculation of the $\mathbf{bb\bar c\bar c}$ and $\mathbf{bc\bar b\bar c}$ tetraquark systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DY7Z3YDC

@misc{pith2026250505312,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constituent-quark-model based coupled-channels calculation of the $\mathbfbb\bar c\bar c$ and $\mathbfbc\bar b\bar c$ tetraquark systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DY7Z3YDC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.05312}
}

abstract

We perform a coupled-channels study of the $bb\bar c\bar c$ and $bc\bar b\bar c$ tetraquark systems in a molecular approach using a constituent quark model which has been widely used to satisfactorily describe a broad range of properties of heavy quark hadron systems, either conventional or exotic. Within a molecular framework, the interaction in the heavy quark sector is governed by gluon exchange or confinement forces that are inherently color-dependent. While the $B_c B_c$ system contains two identical quarks, enabling stronger interactions via exchange diagrams, the forces in the $B_c \bar{B}_c$ and $(c\bar{c})-(b\bar{b})$ systems are expected to be significantly weaker. Consequently, the theoretical and experimental analysis of $B_c^{(*)} B_c^{(*)}$, $B_c^{(*)} \bar{B}_c^{(*)}$, and charmonium-bottomonium bound structures could play a crucial role in clarifying the dominant mechanisms responsible for the formation of fully-heavy tetraquarks. For the $bb\bar c\bar c$ tetraquark sector, we find several resonance states with different spin-parity quantum numbers. These resonances are characterized by their proximity, but not too close, to the $B_c^{(\ast)}B_c^{(\ast)}$ thresholds and their large total decay widths, indicating strong decay channels. In contrast, our analysis of the $bc\bar b\bar c$ tetraquark sector reveals no bound states, virtual states, or resonances; suggesting that tetraquark states of the $(c\bar c)-(b\bar b)$ or $B_c^{(\ast)}\bar B_c^{(\ast)}$ molecular type are unlikely to be formed, within our model assumptions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

[48]

Vijande, F

J. Vijande, F. Fernandez, and A. Valcarce, J. Phys. G 31, 481 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0411299

arXiv 2005
[1]

S. K. Choiet al.(Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 262001 (2003), arXiv:hep-ex/0309032

arXiv 2003
[2]

Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Phys

M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 252001 (2013), arXiv:1303.5949 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2013
[3]

Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Phys

M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 242001 (2013), arXiv:1309.1896 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2013
[4]

Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Phys

M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 102001 (2021), arXiv:2011.07855 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2021
[5]

Aaijet al.(LHCb), Phys

R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 082001 (2021), arXiv:2103.01803 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2021
[6]

Bondaret al.(Belle), Phys

A. Bondaret al.(Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 122001 (2012), arXiv:1110.2251 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2012
[7]

Garmashet al.(Belle), Phys

A. Garmashet al.(Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 212001 (2016), arXiv:1512.07419 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2016

Show all 64 references

[8]

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

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

2022
[9]

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

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

2022
[10]

Aaijet al.(LHCb), Phys

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

2020
[11]

Khachatryanet al.(CMS), JHEP05, 013 (2017), arXiv:1610.07095 [hep-ex]

V. Khachatryanet al.(CMS), JHEP05, 013 (2017), arXiv:1610.07095 [hep-ex]

2017 arXiv
[12]

K. Yi, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A33, 1850224 (2019), arXiv:1806.08398 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[13]

L. C. Blandet al.(ANDY), (2019), arXiv:1909.03124 [nucl-ex]

2019 arXiv
[14]

Aaijet al.(LHCb), JHEP10, 086 (2018), arXiv:1806.09707 [hep-ex]

R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), JHEP10, 086 (2018), arXiv:1806.09707 [hep-ex]

2018 arXiv
[15]

A. M. Sirunyanet al.(CMS), Phys. Lett. B808, 135578 (2020), arXiv:2002.06393 [hep-ex]

2020 arXiv
[16]

Aaijet al.(LHCb), Sci

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

2020
[17]

Iwasaki, Phys

Y. Iwasaki, Phys. Rev. Lett.36, 1266 (1976)

1976
[18]

K.-T. Chao, Z. Phys. C7, 317 (1981)

1981
[19]

J. P. Ader, J. M. Richard, and P. Taxil, Phys. Rev. D 25, 2370 (1982)

1982
[20]

A. M. Badalian, B. L. Ioffe, and A. V. Smilga, Nucl. Phys. B281, 85 (1987)

1987
[21]

V. R. Debastiani and F. S. Navarra, Chin. Phys. C43, 013105 (2019), arXiv:1706.07553 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[22]

Chen, H.-X

W. Chen, H.-X. Chen, X. Liu, T. G. Steele, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Lett. B773, 247 (2017), arXiv:1605.01647 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[23]

G.-J. Wang, L. Meng, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D100, 096013 (2019), arXiv:1907.05177 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[24]

M. A. Bedolla, J. Ferretti, C. D. Roberts, and E. Santopinto, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 1004 (2020), arXiv:1911.00960 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[25]

J. F. Giron and R. F. Lebed, Phys. Rev. D102, 074003 (2020), arXiv:2008.01631 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[26]

X. Jin, Y. Xue, H. Huang, and J. Ping, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 1083 (2020), arXiv:2006.13745 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[27]

C. Deng, H. Chen, and J. Ping, Phys. Rev. D103, 014001 (2021), arXiv:2003.05154 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[28]

R. N. Faustov, V. O. Galkin, and E. M. Savchenko, Universe7, 94 (2021), arXiv:2103.01763 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[29]

Wang, Chin

Z.-G. Wang, Chin. Phys. C44, 113106 (2020), arXiv:2006.13028 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[30]

Mutuk, Eur

H. Mutuk, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 367 (2021), arXiv:2104.11823 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[31]

L¨ u, D.-Y

Q.-F. L¨ u, D.-Y. Chen, and Y.-B. Dong, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 871 (2020), arXiv:2006.14445 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[32]

Karliner and J

M. Karliner and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. D102, 114039 (2020), arXiv:2009.04429 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[33]

Systematics of fully heavy tetraquarks,

X.-Z. Weng, X.-L. Chen, W.-Z. Deng, and S.-L. Zhu, “Systematics of fully heavy tetraquarks,” (2021), arXiv:2010.05163 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[34]

Sonnenschein and D

J. Sonnenschein and D. Weissman, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 25 (2021), arXiv:2008.01095 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[35]

M. C. Gordillo, F. De Soto, and J. Segovia, Phys. Rev. D102, 114007 (2020), arXiv:2009.11889 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[36]

G. Yang, J. Ping, and J. Segovia, Phys. Rev. D104, 014006 (2021), arXiv:2104.08814 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[37]

X.-K. Dong, V. Baru, F.-K. Guo, C. Hanhart, and A. Nefediev, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 132001(E) (2021), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 127, 119901 (2021)], arXiv:2009.07795 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[38]

R. M. Albuquerque, S. Narison, A. Rabemananjara, D. Rabetiarivony, and G. Randriamanatrika, Phys. Rev. D102, 094001 (2020), arXiv:2008.01569 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[39]

Guo and J

Z.-H. Guo and J. A. Oller, Phys. Rev. D103, 034024 (2021), arXiv:2011.00978 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[40]

S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi, B. Barsbay, and H. Sundu, (2023), arXiv:2305.03696 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[41]

P. Niu, Z. Zhang, Q. Wang, and M.-L. Du, Sci. Bull.68, 800 (2023), arXiv:2212.06535 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[42]

Hughes, E

C. Hughes, E. Eichten, and C. T. H. Davies, Phys. Rev. D97, 054505 (2018), arXiv:1710.03236 [hep-lat]

2018 arXiv
[43]

Chen, Eur

X. Chen, Eur. Phys. J. A55, 106 (2019), arXiv:1902.00008 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[44]

Wu, Y.-R

J. Wu, Y.-R. Liu, K. Chen, X. Liu, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D97, 094015 (2018), arXiv:1605.01134 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[45]

A. V. Berezhnoy, A. V. Luchinsky, and A. A. Novoselov, Phys. Rev. D86, 034004 (2012), arXiv:1111.1867 [hep- ph]

2012 arXiv
[46]

P. G. Ortega, D. R. Entem, and F. Fern´ andez, Phys. Rev. D108, 094023 (2023), arXiv:2307.00532 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[47]

P. G. Ortega, D. R. Entem, F. Fernandez, and J. Segovia, Phys. Rev. D110, 054038 (2024), arXiv:2406.01697 [hep- ph]

2024 arXiv
[49]

Segovia, D

J. Segovia, D. R. Entem, F. Fernandez, and E. Her- nandez, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E22, 1330026 (2013), 9 arXiv:1309.6926 [hep-ph]

2013 arXiv
[50]

Hiyama, Y

E. Hiyama, Y. Kino, and M. Kamimura, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.51, 223 (2003)

2003
[51]

J. A. Wheeler, Phys. Rev.52, 1083 (1937)

1937
[52]

Y. C. Tang, M. Lemere, and D. R. Thompson, Phys. Rept.47, 167 (1978)

1978
[53]

P. G. Ortega, D. R. Entem, and F. Fernandez, J. Phys. G40, 065107 (2013), arXiv:1205.1699 [hep-ph]

2013 arXiv
[54]

Diakonov and V

D. Diakonov and V. Y. Petrov, Nucl. Phys. B272, 457 (1986)

1986
[55]

Diakonov, Prog

D. Diakonov, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.51, 173 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0212026

2003 arXiv
[56]

Segovia, D

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

2008
[57]

G. S. Bali, Phys. Rept.343, 1 (2001), arXiv:hep- ph/0001312

2001
[58]

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

2005 arXiv
[59]

Segovia, A

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

2008
[60]

Segovia, P

J. Segovia, P. G. Ortega, D. R. Entem, and F. Fern´ andez, Phys. Rev. D93, 074027 (2016), arXiv:1601.05093 [hep- ph]

2016 arXiv
[61]

P. G. Ortega, J. Segovia, D. R. Entem, and F. Fernandez, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 223 (2020), arXiv:2001.08093 [hep- ph]

2020 arXiv
[62]

Fern´ andez, P

F. Fern´ andez, P. G. Ortega, and D. R. Entem, Front. in Phys.7, 233 (2020)

2020
[63]

Machleidt,Computational Nuclear Physics 2: Nuclear Reactions, edited by k

R. Machleidt,Computational Nuclear Physics 2: Nuclear Reactions, edited by k. langanke, j. a. maruhn, and s. e. koonin ed. (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1993) pp. 1–29

1993
[64]

Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys

S. Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [48]

Vijande, F

J. Vijande, F. Fernandez, and A. Valcarce, J. Phys. G 31, 481 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0411299

arXiv 2005

[2] [1]

S. K. Choiet al.(Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 262001 (2003), arXiv:hep-ex/0309032

arXiv 2003

[3] [2]

Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Phys

M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 252001 (2013), arXiv:1303.5949 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2013

[4] [3]

Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Phys

M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 242001 (2013), arXiv:1309.1896 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2013

[5] [4]

Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Phys

M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 102001 (2021), arXiv:2011.07855 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2021

[6] [5]

Aaijet al.(LHCb), Phys

R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 082001 (2021), arXiv:2103.01803 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2021

[7] [6]

Bondaret al.(Belle), Phys

A. Bondaret al.(Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 122001 (2012), arXiv:1110.2251 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2012

[8] [7]

Garmashet al.(Belle), Phys

A. Garmashet al.(Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 212001 (2016), arXiv:1512.07419 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2016