Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 75 references

Hidden-Strangeness Tetraquarks in the Dynamical Diquark Model

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The dynamical diquark model, applied to strange quarks, assigns $f_2(1950)$ to a 1S $s\bar{s}q\bar{q}$ tetraquark, one of $f_2(2300)$ or $f_2(2340)$ to a 1S $s\bar{s}s\bar{s}$ tetraquark, and predicts exactly three S-wave…

desk verdict A candid, well-scoped extension of the dynamical diquark model to the strange sector; the specific mass assignments should be read as diagnostic rather than definitive because the nonrelativistic approximation is breaking down exactly in the region of interest. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.15704 v3 pith:M553EL4H submitted 2025-05-21 hep-ph nucl-th

Shahriyar Jafarzade , Richard F. Lebed This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phnucl-th
keywords exotichadronsdiquarkshidden-strangenesstetraquarksdynamicaldiquarkmodeltetraquarkspectrumphi(2170)PauliexclusionprincipleBorn-Oppenheimerapproximation
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

Mesons near 2 GeV, such as $\phi(2170)$, $f_2(2340)$, and $X(2370)$, have properties that do not fit the ordinary quark-antiquark picture, and this paper asks whether they are tetraquarks built from strange diquarks. It extends the dynamical diquark model, which has explained hidden-charm and hidden-bottom exotics, to the marginal case in which the 'heavy' quarks are only strange. Using lattice and quark-model potentials and diquark masses, it computes the multiplet-average masses and quantum numbers of $s\bar{s}q\bar{q}$ and $s\bar{s}s\bar{s}$ tetraquarks. It then assigns specific observed states to particular multiplets and derives a distinctive Pauli-forced fingerprint: exactly three S-wave $s\bar{s}s\bar{s}$ states with $J^{PC}=0^{++}$, $1^{+-}$, $2^{++}$, and no $1^{++}$ state. If the assignment is right, the model gives experiments in this mass region a concrete spectrum to confirm or refute.

What carries the argument

The central object is a color-antitriplet diquark $\delta=(ss)$ or $(sq)$ bound to an antidiquark $\bar\delta$ by a gluonic flux tube, described in the Born-Oppenheimer approximation by the lowest potential $\Sigma_g^+$, with the Coulomb-plus-linear form $V(r)=V_0-\alpha/r+\sigma r$. The relative motion obeys the radial Schrödinger equation, whose eigenvalues enter the multiplet-average mass $M_0(nL)=m_\delta+m_{\bar\delta}+E_{nL}$; spin-spin, spin-orbit, and tensor terms then split the multiplet. The load-bearing combinatorial step is the Pauli principle: for $s\bar{s}s\bar{s}$, each diquark must have spin 1, which reduces the six generic S-wave states to exactly three, called here $X'_0$, $Z'$, and $X_2$, with $J^{PC}=0^{++}$, $1^{+-}$, and $2^{++}$.

What would settle it

A high-statistics search for hidden-strangeness tetraquarks between roughly 1.9 and 3.2 GeV that finds an S-wave $1^{++}$ state, or more than the three predicted S-wave $s\bar{s}s\bar{s}$ states ($0^{++}$, $1^{+-}$, $2^{++}$), would disprove the Pauli-forced fingerprint; a lattice-QCD spectrum of the same sector with a different level count would also settle it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that strange-quark tetraquarks can be described as diquark-antidiquark bound states with masses in the 1.8--3.3 GeV range, and that several observed resonances are their ground or orbital excitations. Specifically, $f_2(1950)$ is a good 1S $s\bar{s}q\bar{q}$ candidate, either $f_2(2300)$ or $f_2(2340)$ fits well as a 1S $s\bar{s}s\bar{s}$ candidate, states such as $X(2500)$ are plausible 1P $s\bar{s}q\bar{q}$ candidates, and $\phi(2170)$ is more likely a 1P $s\bar{s}q\bar{q}$ than a 1P $s\bar{s}s\bar{s}$ state. The same Pauli argument that forces each color-triplet diquark to be spin-symmetric leaves exactly three S-wave $s\bar{s}s\bar{s}$ states in every $nS$ multiplet, namely $0^{++}$, $1^{+-}$, and $2^{++}$, with no $1^{++}$. The paper presents the spectrum as a deliberately simple leading-order calculation, with fine-structure splittings left parametric because the spin-dependent couplings in the strange sector are not yet known.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a pair of strange quarks can behave as a compact color-triplet diquark well separated from the antidiquark, even though the strange quark mass is only of order the QCD scale; if strange diquarks are not compact, the spectrum calculation and every candidate assignment lose their foundation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • $f_2(1950)$ should be interpreted as a 1S $s\bar{s}q\bar{q}$ tetraquark rather than a conventional quark-antiquark state; its unusually large width and $K\bar{K}$ decay support that assignment.
  • One of $f_2(2300)$ or $f_2(2340)$ should be identified with the 1S $s\bar{s}s\bar{s}$ tetraquark multiplet, offering an alternative to the pure tensor-glueball interpretation.
  • $\phi(2170)$ is more naturally a 1P $s\bar{s}q\bar{q}$ tetraquark than a 1P $s\bar{s}s\bar{s}$ state, with spin-dependent or continuum corrections able to close the remaining 150--350 MeV gap.
  • Once their $J^{PC}$ values are measured, $X(2370)$, $X(2500)$, and $X(2600)$ can be tested as P-wave tetraquarks; $X(2500)$ is a plausible 1P $s\bar{s}q\bar{q}$ candidate.
  • In the $s\bar{s}s\bar{s}$ sector, every S-wave multiplet should contain exactly three nearly degenerate states, $0^{++}$, $1^{+-}$, $2^{++}$, and no $1^{++}$ state.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 'exactly three S-wave states, no $1^{++}$' pattern follows from color and Pauli antisymmetry alone, not from the potential parameters, so a direct lattice-QCD computation of the $s\bar{s}s\bar{s}$ spectrum would test the model's defining assumption without relying on any particular potential.
  • If strange diquarks are not compact, the predicted states may survive only as broad enhancements in channels such as $K^*\bar{K}^*$ or $\phi\eta'$; line-shape analyses in those channels could distinguish a narrow tetraquark multiplet from continuum-generated structure.
  • By analogy with the charm sector, the $1^{--}$ states such as $\phi(2170)$ are the ones most likely to receive sizable shifts from coupling to di-meson thresholds, so the mass comparison for vectors should be regarded as leading order until a diabatic coupled-channel version of the model is applied.
  • The same enumeration logic, if flavor universality holds, suggests that the poorly understood scalar and tensor mesons below 2 GeV should be re-examined for tetraquark fingerprints involving identical light quarks.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper applies the dynamical diquark model to hidden-strangeness tetraquarks, solving the nonrelativistic Schrödinger equation (Eq. (1)) with Cornell-like Born-Oppenheimer potentials taken from lattice QCD and a relativistic quark model, using diquark masses from lattice and quark-model estimates. It enumerates the allowed JPC multiplets for s¯sq¯q and s¯ss¯s tetraquarks, computes multiplet-average masses for 1S, 2S, 1P, 2P, and 1D states, and identifies several experimental resonances (f2(1950), f2(2300)/f2(2340), X(2500), ϕ(2170)) as possible tetraquark candidates. The authors are explicit that fine-structure couplings and coupled-channel threshold effects are not included, and they present the work as a deliberately simple exploratory model.

Significance. The paper's group-theoretic results are clean and valuable: in particular, the Pauli-forcing argument that S-wave s¯ss¯s tetraquarks consist of exactly three states with JPC = 0++, 1+−, and 2++ is correct, specific, and falsifiable, and the numerical procedure is transparent and reproducible from the published inputs. If a credible error budget could be supplied, the mass assignments would provide a useful diagnostic map for BESIII, JLab, and EIC searches. The main weakness is that the central candidate claims are made without quantifying the relativistic, finite-size, and fine-structure corrections that the paper itself identifies as potentially large in the strange sector; this limits the current strength of the conclusions.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV, Eq. (1) and Table III] Eq. (1) is a nonrelativistic two-body Schrödinger equation, but the strange sector is not in the nonrelativistic regime. For the LQCD 1S s¯ss¯s row of Table III, mδ = 0.950 GeV, μ = 0.475 GeV, EnL = 0.319 GeV, ⟨r⟩ = 0.478 fm, and ⟨1/r⟩^{-1} = 0.359 fm; a virial estimate then gives ⟨T⟩ ≈ 0.34 GeV, p_rms ≈ 0.57 GeV, and p/μ ≈ 1.2 (β ≈ 0.8). The implied relativistic and finite-size corrections are of order 100 MeV or more, which is the same size as the 100–300 MeV gaps that separate the candidate assignments in Sec. V (e.g., M0(1S s¯sq¯q) = 1.842 GeV versus f2(1950) at 1.954 GeV, and M0(1P s¯sq¯q) = 2.311 GeV versus ϕ(2170) at 2.146 GeV). The manuscript provides no estimate of these corrections, so the central candidate claims are not supported at the precision claimed.
  2. [Sec. I and Tables II–III] The Born-Oppenheimer separation requires the diquark size to be much smaller than the δ–δ separation, but the paper notes in Sec. I that for strange quarks ms/ΛQCD = O(1) makes the usual arguments no longer valid. Tables II and III give ⟨r⟩ ≈ 0.35–0.5 fm for the 1S states, which is not obviously larger than the expected size of an (ss) diquark. Without an estimate of the diquark radius or a check of the compact-source condition, the use of a static-source BO potential for (ss)(¯s¯s) is an unverified premise rather than a controlled approximation.
  3. [Eq. (22)] The LQCD-derived (ss) diquark mass in Eq. (22) is obtained by treating the two strange quarks as distinguishable in order to reuse the (sq) 0+/1+ splitting. This is an ad hoc assumption: Pauli antisymmetry forces the (ss) diquark to be 1+, but it does not determine the size of the 0+/1+ splitting for two identical strange quarks. The alternative RQM value, 1.203 GeV, is 253 MeV higher, and because mδ enters Eq. (2) additively, this uncertainty shifts every s¯ss¯s M0 in Table III by roughly that amount. The identification of f2(2300) or f2(2340) as the 1S s¯ss¯s state is therefore contingent on this borrowing assumption.
  4. [Sec. V and Table IV] The Conclusions assign 'good' candidates by comparing experimental masses with the M0 values of Tables II and III, while the fine-structure coefficients needed to resolve the multiplets are stated to be unknown. Table IV and the text give κss ≈ 23 MeV and VLS ≈ 29 MeV as illustrative, which produce splittings of order 30–100 MeV within a multiplet; this is comparable to the 50–150 MeV differences that select among f2(1910), f2(1950), f2(2300), and f2(2340). The paper should either include a range of spin-dependent mass shifts in the candidate assignments or explicitly label the assignments as mass-ordered expectations rather than 'good' candidates.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II] The sentence 'These observations allowed for detailed measurements of the resonance’s properties such as its mass and width' should read 'allowed detailed measurements' or be rephrased.
  2. [Eq. (3) and Table IV] The fine-structure coefficient in Eq. (3) is written as κsq, while Table IV uses κss for the same interaction in the s¯ss¯s sector; the notation should be unified or explicitly defined in the strange sector.
  3. [Table I] The RQM row reports two values of α with the flavor dependence explained in the text, but a sentence stating the numerical values of mq and ms used for each α would make the input choices easier to reproduce.
  4. [References] Ref. [46] is a private data-repository URL rather than a versioned publication; specifying the retrieval date and the exact fitting procedure used to obtain the Cornell parameters would improve verifiability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: all spectral inputs are external, target states are used only for post hoc comparison, and no prediction reduces to a fitted input.

full rationale

The central computation is Eq. (1), solved with the Cornell potential Eq. (16) whose parameters (Table I) are taken from external lattice QCD (Ref. [46]) and a relativistic quark model (Ref. [48]), and with diquark masses from Eqs. (17), (21), and (22)-(23) taken from external lattice and quark-model calculations. No parameter is fitted to the hidden-strange resonances that the paper compares against. The candidate assignments in Section V (f2(1950), f2(2300)/f2(2340), X(2500), phi(2170)) are made by comparing the computed multiplet-average masses M0 with tabulated experimental masses; none of the inputs are adjusted to bring the predictions into agreement with these states. The fine-structure coefficients kappa_ss, VLS, and VT are explicitly stated to be 'currently unknown' and are not fitted in this work; the paper only quotes illustrative values from strange-baryon mass splittings, QCD sum rules, and the authors' earlier charm-sector fits, and uses them only to sketch possible splittings. The Pauli-allowed enumeration of exactly three S-wave ssss states follows from the spin-algebra in Eqs. (10)-(12) together with the symmetric-spatial-diquark assumption, not from the experimental candidates. The model framework and angular-momentum matrix elements are drawn from earlier papers by the same group, but this is ordinary model-building inheritance, not a definitional loop: the cited formal results do not contain the hidden-strange mass predictions. The paper's own caveat that ms/Lambda_QCD = O(1) undermines the usual heavy-quark justification is a validity limitation, not a circular step. No prediction in the paper reduces to its input by construction, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The spectrum depends on externally fitted potential parameters and diquark masses, on the model's diquark and Born-Oppenheimer assumptions, and on one ad hoc extrapolation for the (ss) diquark mass. No new fundamental entities are introduced; the fine-structure couplings are present but unfixed.

free parameters (8)
  • LQCD BO potential parameters (V0, alpha, sigma) = -0.383 GeV, 0.297, 0.216 GeV^2
    Cornell potential in Eq. (16) taken from lattice QCD static potentials [46]; not derived in this paper.
  • RQM BO potential parameters (V0, alpha, sigma) = -0.300 GeV, 0.948/0.975, 0.180 GeV^2
    Cornell potential from the relativistic quark model [48]; the two alpha values correspond to the (sq) and (ss) diquark potentials.
  • Spin-averaged (sq) diquark mass (RQM) = 1.039 GeV
    Eq. (17) averages the S=0 and S=1 masses 0.948 and 1.069 GeV from [48].
  • LQCD-derived (sq) diquark mass = 0.710 GeV
    Obtained from the lattice chiral-limit mass difference Eq. (18) with m_q = 0.4 GeV and the 0+/1+ splitting Eq. (20).
  • LQCD-derived (ss) diquark mass = 0.950 GeV
    Uses Eq. (18) with m_s = 0.5 GeV and applies the (sq) 0+/1+ splitting to strange quarks treated as distinguishable, Eq. (22).
  • RQM (ss) diquark mass = 1.203 GeV
    Input from the relativistic quark model [48], Eq. (23).
  • Constituent quark masses = m_q = 0.33 GeV, m_s = 0.50 GeV; m_q = 0.4 GeV for LQCD estimate
    Used to convert lattice mass differences into absolute diquark masses; the 0.4 GeV value is described as a rough average.
  • Fine-structure couplings kappa_sq, V_LS, V_T = not fixed
    Eq. (3) coefficients are unknown in the strange sector; Table IV gives parametric splittings only. Literature values quoted for illustration are not used in the central masses.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Born-Oppenheimer separation remains valid for strange-quark diquarks.
    Sec. I admits m_s/Lambda_QCD = O(1) makes this the marginal case; Eq. (1) nevertheless assumes it.
  • domain assumption Diquarks are color antitriplets and interact only through the triplet channel.
    Core postulate of the dynamical diquark model [5,6], used for Pauli enumeration and the potential model.
  • ad hoc to paper The (sq) 0+/1+ diquark mass splitting transfers to (ss) by treating two s quarks as distinguishable.
    Eq. (22) parenthetical; physical identical strange quarks forbid a spin-0 ground-state diquark, so the extrapolation is not standard.
  • domain assumption Cornell potential parameters from lattice QCD and RQM apply to strange diquarks.
    Eq. (16) and Table I assume flavor independence of the BO potential.
  • domain assumption Spin-dependent fine structure is a weak perturbation with H = H0 + spin-spin + spin-orbit + tensor.
    Eq. (3) and Table IV; coefficients are unknown, and no convergence check is given.
  • domain assumption Isospin effects can be neglected.
    Sec. III states isospin is neglected; affects s-s q-qbar masses at some level.
  • standard math The radial Schroedinger equation with reduced mass m_delta m_bardelta/(m_delta + m_bardelta) gives the multiplet-average spectrum.
    Eq. (1); standard nonrelativistic quantum mechanics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hidden-Strangeness Tetraquarks in the Dynamical Diquark Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M553EL4H

@misc{pith2026250515704,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hidden-Strangeness Tetraquarks in the Dynamical Diquark Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M553EL4H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.15704}
}
abstract

The dynamical diquark model describes multiquark exotic hadrons in terms of diquark components nucleated by heavy quarks, and successfully explains multiple features of hidden-charm and -bottom exotics. Here we apply the model to the marginally heavy case of hidden-strange states to probe whether mesons near 2 GeV with peculiar properties, such as $\phi(2170)$, $f_2(2340)$, and X(2370), are possible tetraquark candidates. We calculate spin-multiplet average masses using potentials obtained through lattice simulations and quark models, and we also describe the detailed spectra of the expected multiplets as a diagnostic to discern the nature of future hadrons likely to be discovered in this mass region by experiments at facilities such as BESIII, JLab, and the EIC.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.15704 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Spectrum of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Spectrum of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (18) Approximating the (sq) constituent quark mass as mq = 0.4 GeV (roughly averaging mq and ms), Eq

    The mass difference between a 0 + diquark and pair of quarks q in the chiral limit (with inverse lattice spacing a−1 = 2.12 GeV) is given by a· (mS=0 δ − 2mq) =−0.10. (18) Approximating the (sq) constituent quark mass as mq = 0.4 GeV (roughly averaging mq and ms), Eq. (18) yields an estimate for the 0 + (sq) diquark mass: mS=0 δ=(sq) = 0.588 GeV. (19)

    work page

  2. [2]

    bad”) and 0+ (“good

    The mass difference between the 1 + (“bad”) and 0+ (“good”) (sq) diquarks is given by mS=1 δ=(sq)−mS=0 δ=(sq) = 0.162 GeV. (20) Using these values in Eq. (17), we obtain mLQCD δ=(sq) = 0.710 GeV. (21) For the (ss) case, we use ms = 0.50 GeV, and esti- mate the 1+ (ss) diquark mass using the given a−1 value and Eqs. (18), (20) [the latter assumed to be app...

    work page 1910

  3. [3]

    and 3++. V. CONCLUSIONS The dynamical diquark model treats multiquark had- rons as being composed of color-triplet diquark (and triquark) quasiparticle subcomponents that can briefly achieve a static configuration describable in terms of the Born-Oppenheimer approximation. Key in the plausibil- ity of the model is that the diquarks are substantially heavi...

    work page 1950

  4. [4]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  5. [5]

    Aaij et al

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

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Aaij et al

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

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Substructure of Multiquark Hadrons (Snowmass 2021 White Paper)

    N. Brambilla et al. , (2022), arXiv:2203.16583 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Brodsky, D

    S. Brodsky, D. Hwang, and R. Lebed, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 112001 (2014), arXiv:1406.7281 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2014

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    Lebed, Phys

    R. Lebed, Phys. Rev. D 96, 116003 (2017), arXiv:1709.06097 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Lebed, Phys

    R. Lebed, Phys. Lett. B 749, 454 (2015), arXiv:1507.05867 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Jaffe, Phys

    R. Jaffe, Phys. Rev. D 15, 267 (1977)

    1977

  4. [12]

    Jaffe, Phys

    R. Jaffe, Phys. Rept. 409, 1 (2005), arXiv:hep- ph/0409065

    2005

  5. [13]

    Giron, R

    J. Giron, R. Lebed, and C. Peterson, J. High Energy Phys. 05, 061 (2019), arXiv:1903.04551 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Giron, R

    J. Giron, R. Lebed, and C. Peterson, J. High Energy Phys. 01, 124 (2020), arXiv:1907.08546 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Giron and R

    J. Giron and R. Lebed, Phys. Rev. D 101, 074032 (2020), arXiv:2003.02802 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Giron and R

    J. Giron and R. Lebed, Phys. Rev. D 102, 014036 (2020), arXiv:2005.07100 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Giron and R

    J. Giron and R. Lebed, Phys. Rev. D 102, 074003 (2020), arXiv:2008.01631 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Mutuk, Phys

    H. Mutuk, Phys. Lett. B 834, 137404 (2022), arXiv:2208.11048 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Giron, R

    J. Giron, R. Lebed, and S. Martinez, Phys. Rev. D 104, 054001 (2021), arXiv:2106.05883 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Mutuk, Phys

    H. Mutuk, Phys. Rev. D 110, 034025 (2024), arXiv:2401.02788 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Giron and R

    J. Giron and R. Lebed, Phys. Rev. D 104, 114028 (2021), arXiv:2110.05557 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Dudek, R

    J. Dudek, R. Edwards, P. Guo, and C. Thomas (Hadron Spectrum Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 88, 094505 (2013), arXiv:1309.2608 [hep-lat]

    2013 arXiv

  15. [23]

    L.-F. Gui, Y. Liu, P.-L. L¨ u, Y. Chen, M. Gong, Z. Liu, and Y.-B. Yang, Chin. Phys. C 45, 023109 (2021), arXiv:2101.11838 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Aubert et al

    B. Aubert et al. (BaBar Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 74, 091103 (2006), arXiv:hep-ex/0610018

    2006 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BES Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 102003 (2008), arXiv:0712.1143 [hep-ex]

    2008 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Shen et al

    C. Shen et al. (Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 80, 031101 (2009), arXiv:0808.0006 [hep-ex]

    2009 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 108, 032011 (2023), arXiv:2112.13219 [hep-ex]

    2023

  20. [28]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 104, 032007 (2021), arXiv:2104.05549 [hep-ex]

    2021

  21. [29]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 102, 012008 (2020), arXiv:2003.13064 [hep-ex]

    2020

  22. [30]

    Morningstar and M

    C. Morningstar and M. Peardon, Phys. Rev. D 60, 034509 (1999), arXiv:hep-lat/9901004

    1999 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Y. Chen, A. Alexandru, S. Dong, T. Draper, and I. Horvath, Phys. Rev. D 73, 014516 (2006), arXiv:hep- lat/0510074

    2006

  24. [32]

    Athenodorou and M

    A. Athenodorou and M. Teper, J. High Energy Phys. 11, 172 (2020), arXiv:2007.06422 [hep-lat]

    2020 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 105, 072002 (2022), arXiv:2201.09710 [hep-ex]

    2022

  26. [34]

    Vladimirsky et al., Phys

    V. Vladimirsky et al., Phys. Atom. Nucl. 69, 493 (2006)

    2006

  27. [35]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 93, 112011 (2016), arXiv:1602.01523 [hep-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 87, 092009 (2013), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 87, 119901 (2013)], arXiv:1301.0053 [hep-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Yang, L.-C

    Y.-B. Yang, L.-C. Gui, Y. Chen, C. Liu, Y.-B. Liu, J.- P. Ma, and J.-B. Zhang (CLQCD Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 091601 (2013), arXiv:1304.3807 [hep-lat]

    2013 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Vereijken, S

    A. Vereijken, S. Jafarzade, M. Piotrowska, and F. Gia- cosa, Phys. Rev. D 108, 014023 (2023), arXiv:2304.05225 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Giacosa, P

    F. Giacosa, P. Kov´ acs, and S. Jafarzade, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 143, 104176 (2025), arXiv:2407.18348 [hep- ph]

    2025 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 072002 (2011), arXiv:1012.3510 [hep-ex]

    2011 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 746 (2020), arXiv:1912.11253 [hep-ex]

    2020

  34. [42]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 181901 (2024), arXiv:2312.05324 [hep-ex]

    2024

  35. [43]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 042001 (2022), arXiv:2201.10796 [hep-ex]. 11

    2022

  36. [44]

    Bai et al

    J. Bai et al. (BES Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 022001 (2003), arXiv:hep-ex/0303006

    2003 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BES Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 262001 (2005), arXiv:hep-ex/0508025

    2005 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 112003 (2012), arXiv:1112.0942 [hep-ex]

    2012 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 99, 011101 (2019), arXiv:1801.10384 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Maiani, F

    L. Maiani, F. Piccinini, A. Polosa, and V. Riquer, Phys. Rev. D 89, 114010 (2014), arXiv:1405.1551 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  41. [49]

    http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/cmorning/ static potentials/SU3 4D/greet.html

  42. [50]

    Capitani, O

    S. Capitani, O. Philipsen, C. Reisinger, C. Riehl, and M. Wagner, Phys. Rev. D 99, 034502 (2019), arXiv:1811.11046 [hep-lat]

    2019 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Ebert, R

    D. Ebert, R. Faustov, and V. Galkin, Phys. Rev. D 72, 034026 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0504112

    2005 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Wang, Commun

    Z.-G. Wang, Commun. Theor. Phys. 59, 451 (2013), arXiv:1112.5910 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Babich, N

    R. Babich, N. Garron, C. Hoelbling, J. Howard, L. Lel- louch, and C. Rebbi, Phys. Rev. D 76, 074021 (2007), arXiv:hep-lat/0701023

    2007 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Lodha and A

    C. Lodha and A. Rai, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 139, 663 (2024)

    2024

  47. [55]

    Su and H.-X

    N. Su and H.-X. Chen, Phys. Rev. D 106, 014023 (2022), arXiv:2204.13959 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (Belle Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 32, 323 (2003), arXiv:hep-ex/0309077

    2003 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 091803 (2015), arXiv:1506.04807 [hep-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Liu, M.-S

    F.-X. Liu, M.-S. Liu, X.-H. Zhong, and Q. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 103, 016016 (2021), arXiv:2008.01372 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Lodha and A

    C. Lodha and A. Rai, Indian J. Phys. 10.1007/s12648- 024-03524-6 (2025), arXiv:2412.05874 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Wang, Q, D.-K

    N. Wang, Q, D.-K. Lian, and W. Chen, (2025), arXiv:2502.16047 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Zhang, B.-D

    S.-Q. Zhang, B.-D. Wan, L. Tang, and C.-F. Qiao, Phys. Rev. D 106, 074010 (2022), arXiv:2206.13133 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Giacosa, S

    F. Giacosa, S. Jafarzade, and R. Pisarski, Phys. Rev. D 109, L071502 (2024), arXiv:2309.00086 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Agaev, K

    S. Agaev, K. Azizi, and H. Sundu, Phys. Rev. D 101, 074012 (2020), arXiv:1911.09743 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Ke and X.-Q

    H.-W. Ke and X.-Q. Li, Phys. Rev. D 99, 036014 (2019), arXiv:1810.07912 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Xin and Z.-G

    Q. Xin and Z.-G. Wang, Chin. Phys. C48, 033104 (2024), arXiv:2211.14993 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Dong, H.-X

    X.-K. Dong, H.-X. Chen, X. Liu, and S.-L. Zhu, Frontiers in Physics 11, 1184103 (2023)

    2023

  59. [67]

    Wang, Adv

    Z.-G. Wang, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2020, 6438730 (2020), arXiv:1901.04815 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  60. [68]

    H.-X. Chen, X. Liu, A. Hosaka, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 78, 034012 (2008), arXiv:0801.4603 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Karliner and J

    M. Karliner and J. Rosner, Phys. Rev. D 90, 094007 (2014), arXiv:1408.5877 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Maiani and A

    L. Maiani and A. Pilloni, in Frontiers in Nuclear and Hadronic Physics 2022 (2022) arXiv:2207.05141 [hep- ph]

    2022 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Lebed and S

    R. Lebed and S. Martinez, Phys. Rev. D 106, 074007 (2022), arXiv:2207.01101 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Lebed and S

    R. Lebed and S. Martinez, Phys. Rev. D 110, 074002 (2024), arXiv:2404.15186 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Lebed and S

    R. Lebed and S. Martinez, Phys. Rev. D 108, 014013 (2023), arXiv:2305.09146 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Coito, G

    S. Coito, G. Rupp, and E. van Beveren, Phys. Rev. D 80, 094011 (2009), arXiv:0909.0051 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Jude et al

    T. Jude et al. , Phys. Lett. B 820, 136559 (2021), arXiv:2006.12437 [nucl-ex]

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.