Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 106 references

A study on the properties of hidden-charm pentaquarks with double strangeness

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 quark-model calculation predicts five hidden-charm pentaquark resonances with double strangeness, with masses of 4600–4772 MeV and widths of 3–24 MeV.

desk verdict First QDCSM scan of the double-strange hidden-charm pentaquark sector, but the five-resonance claim depends on a channel-coupling choice the paper never justifies. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.08207 v1 pith:NUXT4XZK submitted 2025-05-13 hep-ph hep-th

Xuejie Liu , Yue Tan , Xiaoyun Chen , Dianyong Chen , Hongxia Huang , Jialun Ping This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-th PACS 13.75.Cs12.39.Pn12.39.Jh
keywords hidden-charmpentaquarkdoublestrangenessquarkdelocalizationcolorscreeningmodelresonatinggroupmethodmolecularstateschannelcouplingresonancepredictionexotichadron
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

The paper predicts that the quark system $nssc\bar c$ — two light quarks, two strange quarks, a charm quark, and a charm antiquark — supports five S-wave molecular pentaquark resonances. Using the quark delocalization color screening model with channel coupling, it finds states at 4682–4688 MeV, 4751–4756 MeV, about 4600 MeV, 4749–4755 MeV, and 4771–4772 MeV, with decay widths of a few to a few tens of MeV. These are double-strange analogues of the $P_c$ and $P_{cs}$ states already seen in experiments, filling a missing slot in the hidden-charm pentaquark family. If confirmed, they would show that the same quark-level mechanism producing the observed pentaquarks also produces a strangeness $S=-2$ multiplet, and they give experiments concrete masses and decay channels to search.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the quark delocalization color screening model (QDCSM) solved with the resonating group method. The five quarks are split into a baryon cluster and a meson cluster; the confining interaction between clusters is softened by a color-screening parameter $\mu_{ij}$, and quark orbitals are allowed to delocalize across clusters. The resonating group method reduces the five-body problem to relative-motion equations, giving effective potentials that identify attractive channels and scattering phase shifts that expose resonances. The load-bearing diagnostic is a 180-degree phase-shift jump in a coupled open channel: that jump is what turns a would-be bound state into a predicted resonance with a mass and width.

What would settle it

Recompute the phase shifts with $\mu_{cc}$ set to $10^{-4}$ fm$^{-2}$ instead of $10^{-2}$ fm$^{-2}$: if the 180-degree jumps that define the five resonances vanish or move by more than the quoted mass ranges, the predictions depend critically on the hand-set charm screening parameter. Experimentally, a high-statistics scan of the $J/\psi\Xi$ invariant mass in $\Xi_b$ and $\Lambda_b$ decays that finds no narrow peaks near 4600, 4685, 4753, and 4771 MeV would exclude these states as predicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the low-lying $nssc\bar c$ system contains five S-wave resonances that are meson-baryon molecules: $\Xi_c' \bar D_s^*$ with $J^P = 1/2^-$ (mass 4682–4688 MeV, width 6.4–24.2 MeV), $\Xi_c^* \bar D_s^*$ with $J^P = 1/2^-$ (4751–4756 MeV, width 3.2–18.7 MeV), $\Xi_c^* \bar D_s$ with $J^P = 3/2^-$ (about 4600 MeV, width 21.7 MeV), $\Xi_c^* \bar D_s^*$ with $J^P = 3/2^-$ (4749–4755 MeV, width 16.4 MeV), and $\Omega_c^* \bar D^*$ with $J^P = 3/2^-$ (4771–4772 MeV, width 18.8 MeV). Each appears as a sudden 180-degree jump in the scattering phase shift of at least one open channel, the signature used to classify it as a resonance rather than a bound state or a plain scattering variation. The states are not bound after full channel coupling; they sit above the lowest threshold and decay through channels such as $\Xi\eta_c$, $\Xi J/\psi$, and $\Xi_c \bar D_s^*$.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that the color-screening parameter for charm quarks, which controls how the confining force softens between clusters, can be extrapolated from light-quark values by setting $\mu_{cc}=0.01$ fm$^{-2}$ and scaling $\mu_{sc}^2=\mu_{ss}\mu_{cc}$ and $\mu_{nc}^2=\mu_{nn}\mu_{cc}$; if that extrapolation is wrong, the effective potentials and all five predicted masses and widths shift, and the states could disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the five resonances exist, the hidden-charm pentaquark family extends to strangeness $S=-2$, with molecular states built from a charmed baryon ($\Xi_c'$, $\Xi_c^*$, or $\Omega_c^*$) plus a $\bar D_s$ or $\bar D^*$ meson.
  • The predicted masses and widths give concrete search windows: $J/\psi\Xi$ or $\eta_c\Xi$ mass spectra should show peaks near 4600, 4685, 4753, and 4771 MeV, each narrower than about 25 MeV.
  • Each resonance has a distinctive discovery channel; for example, $\Xi_c^*\bar D_s$ is visible only through the $\Xi_c\bar D_s^*$ open channel, so that one search can confirm or exclude it.
  • Confirmation would support the model's treatment of heavy-quark color screening and channel coupling as a reliable tool for multiquark predictions, extending its success on the observed $P_c$ and $P_{cs}$ states to an unexplored strangeness sector.

Reading between the lines

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

  • My inference: the predicted widths are narrow enough that reanalyzing existing $\Xi_b$ and $\Lambda_b$ decay data, without waiting for new data, could already test the 4600 and 4685 MeV states.
  • My inference: the hand-set charm screening parameter $\mu_{cc}=0.01\,\mathrm{fm}^{-2}$ is the dominant uncertainty; varying it over $10^{-4}$–$10^{-2}$ fm$^{-2}$ in the same calculation would show which of the five states are robust.
  • My inference: since the calculation is S-wave only, tensor-force coupling to higher partial waves could split or shift the $3/2^-$ states, and the line shape of $\Xi_c^*\bar D_s^*$ would be the place to look for such an effect.
  • My inference: the phase-shift method locates resonances from the jump energy rather than from a pole in the complex energy plane, so an analytic continuation of the scattering amplitude would give sharper widths.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies hidden-charm double-strange pentaquark systems with quark content nssc cbar using the quark delocalization color screening model (QDCSM) with the resonating group method. For each of JP=1/2-, 3/2-, and 5/2-, the authors compute effective hadron-hadron potentials, perform single- and multi-channel bound-state calculations, and then examine scattering phase shifts in open channels to identify resonances. The central claim is that five S-wave molecular resonances exist in the JP=1/2- and 3/2- sectors: Xi'_c D*_s and Xi*_c D*_s for 1/2-, and Xi*_c D_s, Xi*_c D*_s, and Omega*_c D* for 3/2-, with predicted masses in the range 4600-4772 MeV and widths of 3-24 MeV. The paper also presents the JP=5/2- sector, where no resonance is found.

Significance. If the five predicted resonances are robust, they would provide concrete, testable predictions for hidden-charm double-strange pentaquark searches at LHCb and CMS, particularly in J/psi Xi and related channels. A strength of the calculation is that the model parameters, including the color-screening parameters for light quarks, are fixed by previous fits to meson and baryon mass spectra and NN scattering, rather than fitted to the target sector. The phase-shift method for identifying resonances is standard, and the authors compare with several existing model results. However, the significance of the central five-state claim is currently undermined by an unresolved dependence on the channel-coupling truncation, as detailed in the major comments.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III.B, Fig. 9, Tables V and VII] The six-channel coupling calculation described in Sec. III.B and shown in Fig. 9 finds no resonant phase-shift jump in the open channels Xi J/psi and Xi* eta_c, and for the open channel Xi_c D*_s finds only the Xi*_c D_s resonance. The text explicitly states that under six-channel coupling 'only bound state Xi*_c D_s transforms into a resonant state, while the others transition to scattering states,' yet Tables V and VII still list Xi*_c D*_s and Omega*_c D* as JP=3/2- resonances, with masses and widths taken from the two-channel coupling results of Figs. 7 and 8. No justification is given for preferring the two-channel result over the more complete six-channel result. This is load-bearing for the central claim, since adopting the six-channel coupling as the primary result reduces the number of claimed JP=3/2- states from three to one.
  2. [Sec. III.A, Figs. 3-4, Table III] For JP=1/2-, the three-channel coupling with open channels Xi* J/psi and Xi_c D*_s removes the Xi*_c D*_s resonance (the text states that 'resonance state Xi*_c D* disappears in the corresponding scattering processes after the three-channel coupling estimation'), yet Table VII lists Xi*_c D*_s as a resonance with a width range 3.2-18.7 MeV. Table III shows that the 3.2 MeV width comes from the two-channel coupling while the 18.7 MeV value comes from the three-channel coupling, so the quoted range mixes two different coupling schemes. The authors should specify which coupling scheme is physical and present a single consistent prediction, or quantify the truncation uncertainty in the resonance parameters.
  3. [Sec. II, after Eq. (6)] The color-screening parameter for charm quarks, mu_cc, is set to 0.01 fm^-2 by hand, and mu_sc and mu_nc are obtained through the geometric-mean relations mu^2_sc = mu_ss mu_cc and mu^2_nc = mu_nn mu_cc. The authors note that a previous study found weak dependence on mu_cc, but no sensitivity analysis is presented for the double-strange sector studied here. Since the existence and properties of all five predicted resonances follow from the effective potentials, some estimate of the uncertainty induced by the mu_cc choice (e.g., varying mu_cc over the range 10^-4 to 10^-2 fm^-2 used in Ref. [89]) is needed to support the quoted precision of the masses and widths.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III.B, text before Table IV] The text says 'Table II lists that lowest eigenvalues estimated for single-channel and all-channel coupling in the sector with a quantum number of 3/2-' but the relevant table is Table IV; Table II is for JP=1/2-.
  2. [Tables II, IV, VI, columns E_cc/EB and E'_cc] The column headers combine two quantities into one column (e.g., '4362/2 4300'); please split these into clearly labeled columns or add an explicit definition in the caption.
  3. [Throughout] The notation for channels is inconsistent in places, with the subscript 's' sometimes omitted from D*_s; please standardize the channel labels to avoid ambiguity.
  4. [Sec. III.B, paragraph after Fig. 9] The sentence 'Table V provides the masses and decay widths of the three obtained resonance states' appears immediately after a description in which only the Xi*_c D_s resonance is found; please revise to clearly separate the six-channel results from the two-channel results.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the five-state predictions are dynamical outputs of an RGM scattering calculation whose parameters were fitted to independent hadron and scattering data, not to the double-strange pentaquark sector.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that five S-wave resonances in the nssc cbar system emerge from RGM/QDCSM phase-shift calculations. The model parameters are taken from Ref. [89], which is the authors' own prior work; however, the paper states these were 'determined by reproducing the mass spectrum of the ground states mesons and baryons in QDCSM,' and the color-screening parameters came from fitting deuteron properties, nucleon-nucleon, and nucleon-hyperon scattering phase shifts (Refs. [85,88]). These are external inputs, not the double-strange pentaquark sector, so using them to predict the pentaquark spectrum is a genuine extrapolation rather than a fit to the target result. The heavy-quark screening parameters mu_cc, mu_sc, and mu_nc are indeed set by an adjustable extrapolation, but this is a stated assumption with acknowledged uncertainty, not a hidden re-injection of the claimed five states. The resonance masses are derived from the open-channel threshold plus the incident energy at a scattering phase shift of pi/2, with a correction from experimental hadron masses; the widths come from phase-shift energy differences. None of these quantities is defined in terms of the claimed masses or widths. The self-citations are load-bearing for the model but are supported by externally fitted data and by the prior successful description of Pc states, so they constitute independent support rather than circularity. A separate internal inconsistency does exist: the six-channel JP=3/2- coupling (Fig. 9) removes the Xi*_c D*_s and Omega*_c D* resonances seen in two-channel coupling, yet Tables V and VII still list them. This is a robustness/correctness concern, not a circularity of the derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central predictions inherit the QDCSM Hamiltonian and its full parameter set from the authors' earlier fits; one parameter, mu_cc, is chosen by hand in this work. The two-cluster S-wave description and the geometric-mean screening relation are stated assumptions. No new fundamental entities are posited; the predicted states are outputs of the model.

free parameters (2)
  • mu_cc (color screening for cc pairs) = 0.01 fm^-2 (chosen by hand; mu_sc, mu_nc derived via geometric mean)
    Section II: no experimental data exist for heavy-quark screening, so mu_cc is taken as an adjustable parameter. It controls the inter-cluster confining interaction involving charm quarks and therefore affects binding energies and resonance masses.
  • QDCSM parameter set from Ref [89] = Quark masses, ac, g_ch, b, etc., fixed to values from Ref [89]
    The paper states 'All model parameters are taken from Ref. [89], which were determined by reproducing the mass spectrum of the ground states mesons and baryons in QDCSM.' These are inherited, not re-fitted here.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The nssc cbar system can be described as two clusters, a baryon and a meson, with the resonating group method and generator-coordinate expansion.
    Used throughout Section III; the two-cluster molecular picture is the basis for all effective potentials and scattering calculations.
  • domain assumption S-wave truncation: spin-orbit and tensor contributions are neglected, restricting quantum numbers to I=1/2 and S=1/2, 3/2, 5/2.
    Stated in Section III and the Summary; higher partial waves could change the resonance pattern.
  • domain assumption The geometric-mean relation for color-screening parameters extends to heavy quarks: mu^2_sc = mu_ss mu_cc and mu^2_nc = mu_nn mu_cc.
    Section II, after Eq. (6); this extrapolation has no direct experimental support.
  • domain assumption A resonance is identified by a rapid 180-degree phase-shift jump in the open-channel scattering calculation.
    Used in Figs. 3-9 and 11; this is standard, but the finite basis and chosen coupling space can affect whether resonances appear.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A study on the properties of hidden-charm pentaquarks with double strangeness." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NUXT4XZK

@misc{pith2026250508207,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A study on the properties of hidden-charm pentaquarks with double strangeness},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NUXT4XZK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.08207}
}
abstract

Motivated by the LHCb observations of $P_c$ and $P_{cs}$ states, we systematically investigate the hidden-charm double-strange pentaquark system ($nssc\bar{c}$) using the resonating group method within the quark delocalization color screening model (QDCSM). By dynamically incorporating channel coupling effects, five resonance states are identified with $J^P = 1/2^-$ and $3/2^-$. Their masses, widths, and dominant decay channels are predicted, providing critical guidance for future experimental searches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.08207 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The hidden-charm pentaquark family with considerin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The e [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The phase shiftes of the open channels with two-chann [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The phase shifts of the open channels with three-chan [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The e [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: The phase shifts of the open channels with two-channe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: The phase shifts of the open channels with two-channe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: The e [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: The phase shifts of the open channels with two-chann [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

106 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [89]

    Huang, C

    H. Huang, C. Deng, J. Ping, and F. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 624 (2016), 1510.04648

    arXiv 2016

  2. [1]

    Gell-Mann, Phys

    M. Gell-Mann, Phys. Lett. 8, 214 (1964)

    1964

  3. [2]

    S. K. Choi et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 262001 (2003), hep-ex/0309032

    arXiv 2003

  4. [3]

    Aubert et al

    B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D 71, 071103 (2005), hep-ex/0406022

    arXiv 2005

  5. [4]

    Acosta et al

    D. Acosta et al. (CDF), Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 072001 (2004), hep-ex/0312021

    arXiv 2004

  6. [5]

    Aaltonen et al

    T. Aaltonen et al. (CDF), Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 152001 (2009), 0906.5218

    arXiv 2009

  7. [6]

    V . M. Abazov et al. (D0), Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 162002 (2004), hep-ex/0405004

    arXiv 2004

  8. [7]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 1972 (2012), 1112.5310

    arXiv 2012

Show all 106 references
  1. [8]

    Chatrchyan et al

    S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS), JHEP 04, 154 (2013), 1302.3968

    2013 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Liu, Chin

    X. Liu, Chin. Sci. Bull. 59, 3815 (2014), 1312.7408

    2014 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Hosaka, T

    A. Hosaka, T. Iijima, K. Miyabayashi, Y . Sakai, and S. Ya sui, PTEP 2016, 062C01 (2016), 1603.09229

    2016 arXiv

  4. [11]

    H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rept. 639, 1 (2016), 1601.02092

    2016 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Richard, Few Body Syst

    J.-M. Richard, Few Body Syst. 57, 1185 (2016), 1606.08593

    2016 arXiv

  6. [13]

    R. F. Lebed, R. E. Mitchell, and E. S. Swanson, Prog. Part . Nucl. Phys. 93, 143 (2017), 1610.04528

    2017 arXiv

  7. [14]

    S. L. Olsen, T. Skwarnicki, and D. Zieminska, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 015003 (2018), 1708.04012. 11 /s48 /s53/s48 /s49/s48/s48 /s49/s53/s48 /s50/s48/s48 /s50/s53/s48 /s51/s48/s48 /s48 /s49/s48/s48 /s50/s48/s48 /s40 /s99 /s41 /s80/s104/s97/s115 /s101 /s32/s115 /s104/s105 /s102 /s11...

    2018 arXiv

  8. [15]

    F.-K. Guo, C. Hanhart, U.-G. Meißner, Q. Wang, Q. Zhao, and B.-S. Zou, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 015004 (2018), [Erratum: Rev.Mod.Phys. 94, 029901 (2022)], 1705.00141

    2018 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Liu, H.-X

    Y .-R. Liu, H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, and S.-L. Zhu, Pro g. Part. Nucl. Phys. 107, 237 (2019), 1903.11976

    2019 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Brambilla, S

    N. Brambilla, S. Eidelman, C. Hanhart, A. Nefediev, C.- P . Shen, C. E. Thomas, A. V airo, and C.-Z. Y uan, Phys. Rept. 873, 1 (2020), 1907.07583

    2020 arXiv

  11. [18]

    L. Meng, B. Wang, G.-J. Wang, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rept. 1019, 1 (2023), 2204.08716

    2023 arXiv

  12. [19]

    H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, Y .-R. Liu, and S.-L. Zhu, Rep t. Prog. Phys. 86, 026201 (2023), 2204.02649

    2023 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 072001 (2015), 1507.03414

    2015 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 082003 (2016), [Addendum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 117, 109902 (2016), Addendum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 118, 119901 (2017)], 1606.06999

    2016 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 222001 (2019), 1904.03947

    2019 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 062001 (2022), 2108.04720

    2022

  17. [24]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. D 102, 112012 (2020), 2007.11292

    2020

  18. [25]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Sci. Bull. 66, 1278 (2021), 2012.10380

    2021

  19. [26]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 031901 (2023), 2210.10346

    2023 arXiv

  20. [27]

    R. Chen, X. Liu, and S.-L. Zhu, Nucl. Phys. A 954, 406 (2016), 1601.03233. 12 /s48 /s53/s48 /s49/s48/s48 /s49/s53/s48 /s50/s48/s48 /s50/s53/s48 /s51/s48/s48 /s48 /s49/s48/s48 /s50/s48/s48 /s51/s48/s48 /s69 /s99/s109 /s32 /s40 /s77 /s101 /s86/s41 /s32 /s74/s47 /s40 /s101 /s41 /...

    2016 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Chen, E.-L

    H.-X. Chen, E.-L. Cui, W. Chen, X. Liu, T. G. Steele, and S.-L. Zhu, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 572 (2016), 1602.02433

    2016 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Azizi, Y

    K. Azizi, Y . Sarac, and H. Sundu, Phys. Rev. D 95, 094016 (2017), 1612.07479

    2017 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Azizi, Y

    K. Azizi, Y . Sarac, and H. Sundu, Phys. Lett. B 782, 694 (2018), 1802.01384

    2018 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Azizi, Y

    K. Azizi, Y . Sarac, and H. Sundu, Chin. Phys. C 45, 053103 (2021), 2011.05828

    2021 arXiv

  25. [32]

    J. He, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 393 (2019), 1903.11872. /s48 /s49 /s50 /s51 /s53/s48 /s50/s53 /s48 /s50/s53 /s53/s48 /s86/s40 /s83/s41 /s40 /s77 /s101 /s86/s41 /s83 /s109 /s40 /s102/s109/s41 /s32 /s42 /s99 /s68 /s42 /s115 /s32 /s42 /s74/s47 /s32 /s42 /s99 /s68 /s42 FIG. 10: The e ff...

    2019 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Zhu, L.-Q

    J.-T. Zhu, L.-Q. Song, and J. He, Phys. Rev. D 103, 074007 (2021), 2101.12441

    2021 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Liu, Y .-W

    M.-Z. Liu, Y .-W. Pan, F.-Z. Peng, M. S´ anchez S´ anchez,L.-S. Geng, A. Hosaka, and M. Pavon V alderrama, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 242001 (2019), 1903.11560

    2019 arXiv

  28. [35]

    C.-J. Xiao, Y . Huang, Y .-B. Dong, L.-S. Geng, and D.-Y . Chen, Phys. Rev. D 100, 014022 (2019), 1904.00872

    2019 arXiv

  29. [36]

    L¨ u and Y .-B

    Q.-F. L¨ u and Y .-B. Dong, Phys. Rev. D 93, 074020 (2016), 1603.00559

    2016 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Hu and J

    X. Hu and J. Ping, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 118 (2022), 2109.09972

    2022 arXiv

  31. [38]

    L. Meng, B. Wang, G.-J. Wang, and S.-L. Zhu, in 18th Inter- national Conference on Hadron Spectroscopy and Structure (2020), pp. 313–317, 1911.09250

    2020 arXiv

  32. [39]

    R. Chen, X. Liu, X.-Q. Li, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 132002 (2015), 1507.03704

    2015 arXiv

  33. [40]

    H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, T. G. Steele, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 172001 (2015), 1507.03717

    2015 arXiv

  34. [41]

    He, Phys

    J. He, Phys. Lett. B 753, 547 (2016), 1507.05200

    2016 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Meißner and J

    U.-G. Meißner and J. A. Oller, Phys. Lett. B 751, 59 (2015), 13 1507.07478

    2015 arXiv

  36. [43]

    L. Roca, J. Nieves, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 92, 094003 (2015), 1507.04249

    2015 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Chen, Chin

    H.-X. Chen, Chin. Phys. C 46, 093105 (2022), 2011.07187

    2022 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Yan, F.-Z

    M.-J. Yan, F.-Z. Peng, M. S´ anchez S´ anchez, and M. Pavon V alderrama, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 574 (2022), 2108.05306

    2022 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Wu, D.-Y

    Q. Wu, D.-Y . Chen, and R. Ji, Chin. Phys. Lett. 38, 071301 (2021), 2103.05257

    2021 arXiv

  40. [47]

    H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, and X.-H. Liu, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 409 (2021), 2011.01079

    2021 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Phumphan, K

    K. Phumphan, K. Xu, W. Ruangyoo, C.-C. Chen, A. Limphi- rat, and Y . Yan (2021), 2105.03150

    2021 arXiv

  42. [49]

    M.-L. Du, V . Baru, F.-K. Guo, C. Hanhart, U.-G. Meißner, J. A. Oller, and Q. Wang, JHEP 08, 157 (2021), 2102.07159

    2021 arXiv

  43. [50]

    Lu, M.-Z

    J.-X. Lu, M.-Z. Liu, R.-X. Shi, and L.-S. Geng, Phys. Rev . D 104, 034022 (2021), 2104.10303

    2021 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Gao and H.-S

    F. Gao and H.-S. Li, Chin. Phys. C 46, 123111 (2022), 2112.01823

    2022 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Yalikun and B.-S

    N. Yalikun and B.-S. Zou, Phys. Rev. D 105, 094026 (2022), 2112.06426

    2022 arXiv

  46. [53]

    M. I. Eides, V . Y . Petrov, and M. V . Polyakov, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 35, 2050151 (2020), 1904.11616

    2020 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Ali and A

    A. Ali and A. Y . Parkhomenko, Phys. Lett. B 793, 365 (2019), 1904.00446

    2019 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Wang, Int

    Z.-G. Wang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 35, 2050003 (2020), 1905.02892

    2020 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Cheng and Y .-R

    J.-B. Cheng and Y .-R. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 100, 054002 (2019), 1905.08605

    2019 arXiv

  50. [57]

    Weng, X.-L

    X.-Z. Weng, X.-L. Chen, W.-Z. Deng, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 100, 016014 (2019), 1904.09891

    2019 arXiv

  51. [58]

    R. Zhu, X. Liu, H. Huang, and C.-F. Qiao, Phys. Lett. B 797, 134869 (2019), 1904.10285

    2019 arXiv

  52. [59]

    Pimikov, H.-J

    A. Pimikov, H.-J. Lee, and P . Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 101, 014002 (2020), 1908.04459

    2020 arXiv

  53. [60]

    Ruangyoo, K

    W. Ruangyoo, K. Phumphan, C.-C. Chen, A. Limphirat, and Y . Yan, J. Phys. G49, 075001 (2022), 2105.14249

    2022 arXiv

  54. [61]

    Fern´ andez-Ram´ ırez, A

    C. Fern´ andez-Ram´ ırez, A. Pilloni, M. Albaladejo, A.Jackura, V . Mathieu, M. Mikhasenko, J. A. Silva-Castro, and A. P . Szczepaniak (JPAC), Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 092001 (2019), 1904.10021

    2019 arXiv

  55. [62]

    S. X. Nakamura, Phys. Rev. D 103, 111503 (2021), 2103.06817

    2021 arXiv

  56. [63]

    T. J. Burns and E. S. Swanson, Phys. Rev. D 106, 054029 (2022), 2207.00511

    2022 arXiv

  57. [64]

    Hayrapetyan et al

    A. Hayrapetyan et al. (CMS), Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 1062 (2024), 2401.16303

    2024 arXiv

  58. [65]

    F.-L. Wang, R. Chen, and X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 103, 034014 (2021), 2011.14296

    2021 arXiv

  59. [66]

    J. A. Mars´ e-V alera, V . K. Magas, and A. Ramos, Phys. Rev . Lett. 130, 091903 (2023), 2210.02792

    2023 arXiv

  60. [67]

    L. Roca, J. Song, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 109, 094005 (2024), 2403.08732

    2024 arXiv

  61. [68]

    J. A. Mars´ e-V alera, V . K. Magas, and A. Ramos (2024), 2410.10682

    2024 arXiv

  62. [69]

    Magas, A

    V . Magas, A. Mars´ e-V alera, and A. Ramos, EPJ Web Conf. 291, 05002 (2024)

    2024

  63. [70]

    P . G. Ortega, D. R. Entem, and F. Fernandez, Phys. Lett. B 838, 137747 (2023), 2210.04465

    2023 arXiv

  64. [71]

    P .-P . Shi, F. Huang, and W.-L. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. A 57, 237 (2021), 2107.08680

    2021 arXiv

  65. [72]

    ¨Ozdem (2024), 2409.09449

    U. ¨Ozdem (2024), 2409.09449

    2024 arXiv

  66. [73]

    Azizi, Y

    K. Azizi, Y . Sarac, and H. Sundu, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 543 (2022), 2112.15543

    2022 arXiv

  67. [74]

    Ferretti and E

    J. Ferretti and E. Santopinto, JHEP 04, 119 (2020), 2001.01067

    2020 arXiv

  68. [75]

    Ferretti and E

    J. Ferretti and E. Santopinto, Sci. Bull. 67, 1209 (2022), 2111.08650

    2022 arXiv

  69. [76]

    E. Oset, L. Roca, and M. Whitehead, Phys. Rev. D 110, 034016 (2024), 2406.16504

    2024 arXiv

  70. [77]

    J.-J. Wu, R. Molina, E. Oset, and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. C 84, 015202 (2011), 1011.2399

    2011 arXiv

  71. [78]

    C. W. Xiao, J. Nieves, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 88, 056012 (2013), 1304.5368

    2013 arXiv

  72. [79]

    De Rujula, H

    A. De Rujula, H. Georgi, and S. L. Glashow, Phys. Rev. D 12, 147 (1975)

    1975

  73. [80]

    Isgur and G

    N. Isgur and G. Karl, Phys. Rev. D 20, 1191 (1979)

    1979

  74. [81]

    Isgur and G

    N. Isgur and G. Karl, Phys. Rev. D 19, 2653 (1979), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 23, 817 (1981)]

    1979

  75. [82]

    Isgur and G

    N. Isgur and G. Karl, Phys. Rev. D 18, 4187 (1978)

    1978

  76. [83]

    Wang, G.-h

    F. Wang, G.-h. Wu, L.-j. Teng, and J. T. Goldman, Phys. Re v. Lett. 69, 2901 (1992), nucl-th /9210002

    1992

  77. [84]

    L. Chen, H. Pang, H. Huang, J. Ping, and F. Wang, Phys. Rev . C 76, 014001 (2007), nucl-th /0703103

    2007

  78. [85]

    M. Chen, H. Huang, J. Ping, and F. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 83, 015202 (2011)

    2011

  79. [86]

    Wu, L.-J

    G.-H. Wu, L.-J. Teng, J. L. Ping, F. Wang, and J. T. Goldma n, Phys. Rev. C 53, 1161 (1996)

    1996

  80. [87]

    Huang, P

    H. Huang, P . Xu, J. Ping, and F. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 84, 064001 (2011), 1109.5607

    2011 arXiv

  81. [88]

    F. Wang, D. Qing, P . Xu, and J.-L. Ping, Nucl. Phys. A 631, 462C (1998)

    1998

  82. [90]

    Huang, J

    H. Huang, J. Ping, and F. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 89, 035201 (2014), 1311.4732

    2014 arXiv

  83. [91]

    X. Liu, D. Chen, H. Huang, J. Ping, X. Chen, and Y . Yang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 66, 221012 (2023), 2204.08104

    2023 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Tanabashi et al

    M. Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 98, 030001 (2018)

    2018

  85. [93]

    Vijande, F

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

    2005 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Fernandez and E

    F. Fernandez and E. Oset, Nucl. Phys. A 455, 720 (1986)

    1986

  87. [95]

    Wu, J.-L

    G.-h. Wu, J.-L. Ping, L.-j. Teng, F. Wang, and J. T. Goldm an, Nucl. Phys. A 673, 279 (2000), nucl-th /9812079

    2000

  88. [96]

    J.-L. Ping, F. Wang, and J. T. Goldman, Nucl. Phys. A 657, 95 (1999), nucl-th/9812068

    1999 arXiv

  89. [97]

    H. R. Pang, J. L. Ping, F. Wang, and J. T. Goldman, Phys. Re v. C 65, 014003 (2002), nucl-th /0106056

    2002

  90. [98]

    Huang and W

    F. Huang and W. L. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 98, 074018 (2018), 1810.02120

    2018 arXiv

  91. [99]

    M. Xu, M. Y u, and L. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 092301 (2008), 0712.1641

    2008 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Z. Xia, S. Fan, X. Zhu, H. Huang, and J. Ping, Phys. Rev. C 105, 025201 (2022), 2105.14723

    2022 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Huang, J

    H. Huang, J. Ping, X. Zhu, and F. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 805 (2022), 2011.00513

    2022 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Kamimura, Prog

    M. Kamimura, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 62, 236 (1977)

    1977

  95. [103]

    J. A. Wheeler, Physical Review 52, 1083 (1937)

    1937

  96. [104]

    D. L. Hill and J. A. Wheeler, Phys. Rev. 89, 1102 (1953)

    1953

  97. [105]

    J. J. Gri ffin and J. A. Wheeler, Phys. Rev. 108, 311 (1957)

    1957

  98. [106]

    X. Liu, Y . Tan, X. Chen, D. Chen, H. Huang, and J. Ping, Phys. Rev. D 108, 094008 (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

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