Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Pole trajectories from $S$- and $P$-wave $D\bar{D}^*$ interactions

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single D-D* interaction, with only the cutoff varied, generates poles that match X(3872), Zc(3900), and G(3900).

desk verdict A systematic pole-trajectory map of D Dbar* that is honest about its single-channel limits, but whose molecular assignments outrun the common-cutoff evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.15534 v2 pith:NWMXEQYD submitted 2025-04-22 hep-ph

Xiao-Xiao Chen , Zuo-Ming Ding , Jun He This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords hadronicmoleculesDD*interactionsquasipotentialBethe-Salpeterequationone-boson-exchangemodelpoletrajectoriesX(3872)Zc(3900)G(3900)
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 tries to establish that a single meson-exchange force between $D$ and $\bar{D}^*$ mesons can account for several observed exotic hadrons as poles of the scattering amplitude, without fitting the input to the masses of those states. Using a quasipotential Bethe-Salpeter equation with one-boson-exchange potentials, the authors vary one cutoff parameter and trace the resulting poles across two Riemann sheets. They find a bound $0^+(1^{++})$ pole matching X(3872), a virtual $1^-(1^{++})$ isovector partner, a $1^+(1^{+-})$ state that can be bound or virtual and is associated with $Z_c(3900)$, and a $P$-wave $0^-(1^{--})$ state associated with G(3900), plus a newly predicted $0^+(0^{-+})$ state. A sympathetic reader would care because these are dynamical consequences of a standard hadronic framework, and the paper also gives a concrete example of how pole trajectories distinguish bound, virtual, and resonance states.

What carries the argument

The engine is the one-boson-exchange potential built from heavy-quark and chiral Lagrangians, with exchanges of $\pi$, $\eta$, $\rho$, $\omega$, $\sigma$, and $J/\psi$, inserted into the quasipotential Bethe-Salpeter equation, a reduction of the two-body scattering equation to a one-dimensional integral equation via the spectator approximation and partial-wave projection. A monopole form factor with a single cutoff $\Lambda$ is the only free parameter, and varying $\Lambda$ moves the poles across the two Riemann sheets; molecular states are located by the condition $|1 - V(z)G(z)| = 0$. The pole trajectories themselves are the core observable, since their sheet structure is what distinguishes bound, virtual, and resonance states.

What would settle it

A coupled-channel calculation that keeps the same one-boson-exchange input but includes channels such as $\pi J/\psi$ and isospin mixing, using a single cutoff for all channels, would falsify the assignments if it cannot place poles within about 50 MeV of the $D\bar{D}^*$ threshold with the correct quantum numbers; equally, an experimental determination that G(3900) has $J^{PC} \neq 1^{--}$ or that the $Z_c(3900)$ peak has no virtual-state pole would break the correspondence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central result is a catalogue of pole trajectories: as the cutoff (and hence the attraction) varies, the $D\bar{D}^*$ amplitude develops poles of definite quantum numbers. In the $S$-wave, the $I^G(J^{PC})=0^+(1^{++})$ channel supports only a bound state, identified with X(3872); its $1^-(1^{++})$ isovector partner exists only as a virtual state on the second Riemann sheet; the $0^-(1^{+-})$ channel gives a bound state; and the $1^+(1^{+-})$ channel moves from bound to virtual as the attraction weakens, offering a natural reading of $Z_c(3900)$. In the $P$-wave, the $0^-(1^{--})$ channel yields bound, virtual, and resonance poles depending on the cutoff and is associated with G(3900), while the $0^+(0^{-+})$ channel behaves the same way and is a new prediction. The paper explicitly notes that these pole assignments are made within a single-channel model, so coupled-channel effects could shift the pole positions.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes the $D\bar{D}^*$ system is isolated, with no coupling to other hadronic channels and no explicit short-range four-point contact terms, so the predicted assignments stand only if that single-channel truncation is adequate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the single-channel picture holds, X(3872) is a genuine $S$-wave $D\bar{D}^*$ bound state with $I^G(J^{PC})=0^+(1^{++})$, not a state that requires new degrees of freedom beyond the standard hadronic framework.
  • The isovector partner of X(3872) must be a virtual state, which can produce observable near-threshold enhancements even though it lies below the threshold on the second Riemann sheet.
  • $Z_c(3900)$ can be accommodated as either a bound or a virtual $1^+(1^{+-})$ state depending on the interaction strength, reconciling its above-threshold peak with a molecular interpretation.
  • G(3900) would be the first established $P$-wave $D\bar{D}^*$ molecular state, with quantum numbers $0^-(1^{--})$.
  • A new isoscalar $P$-wave state with $0^+(0^{-+})$ is predicted, and the $P$-wave channels show all three pole types (bound, virtual, and resonance) as the cutoff varies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next step the paper leaves implicit is a coupled-channel calculation with a single cutoff for all channels; if such a calculation cannot keep all three pole assignments simultaneously, the molecular interpretation as stated would need revision.
  • The $P$-wave branch-point behaviour, where bound and virtual poles meet and turn into a resonance pair, could serve as a general diagnostic for identifying which near-threshold structures are genuinely molecular rather than kinematic effects.
  • The predicted $0^+(0^{-+})$ state gives a concrete experimental target: a charmonium-like state near the $D\bar{D}^*$ threshold whose decay angular distributions would distinguish it from the $1^{--}$ G(3900).
  • If the virtual-state interpretation of $Z_c(3900)$ is right, precise line-shape data for $e^+e^- \to \pi^+\pi^- J/\psi$ should show the characteristic enhancement of a second-sheet pole, a test the single-channel model cannot perform by itself.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper investigates S- and P-wave D\bar{D}^* interactions in a single-channel quasipotential Bethe-Salpeter equation (qBSE) framework with one-boson-exchange (OBE) potentials. The only free parameter is the cutoff Λ, which is scanned up to 5 GeV, and the authors trace the evolution of scattering-amplitude poles on two Riemann sheets. They report S-wave poles in the 0^+(1^{++}), 1^-(1^{++}), 0^-(1^{+-}), and 1^+(1^{+-}) channels, and P-wave poles in the 0^+(0^{-+}) and 0^-(1^{--}) channels. They associate the 0^+(1^{++}) bound state with X(3872), the 1^-(1^{++}) virtual state with its isovector partner, the 1^+(1^{+-}) state (bound or virtual depending on Λ) with Z_c(3900), and the 0^-(1^{--}) state with G(3900); the 0^+(0^{-+}) state is a new prediction. The paper presents these as dynamical consequences of a standard framework rather than fits to the observed masses.

Significance. If a single physically reasonable cutoff could simultaneously produce all the claimed near-threshold states, this would be a significant demonstration that one OBE+qBSE framework can generate several known and predicted XYZ-like states from one interaction kernel. The paper is honest about its main limitations: Section IV explicitly states that the cutoff ranges for different states do not always overlap, that the single-channel truncation may shift poles, and that contact terms are absent. That transparency is a genuine strength, as is the use of coupling constants fixed from external sources rather than fitted to the target masses. However, the paper's significance as a spectrum prediction is substantially weakened by the lack of a common-Λ demonstration; as it stands, the work is best read as a systematic pole-trajectory survey with tentative phenomenological assignments. The P-wave trajectory analysis is the most original part and does provide a useful concrete illustration of the bound/virtual/resonance transitions discussed in Ref. [44].

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, Figs. 1–5 and Section IV] The central claim that the model generates the X(3872), Z_c(3900), and G(3900) candidates is not supported by a single cutoff. The paper scans Λ separately for each channel and reports near-threshold windows, but the window for the 0^+(1^{++}) X(3872) candidate (Λ ≲ 1.1 GeV, Fig. 1) and the window for the 1^+(1^{+-}) Z_c(3900) candidate (Λ ≈ 1.4–2.3 GeV, Fig. 2) are disjoint, so no single Λ places all three proposed states within 50 MeV of threshold. This matters because an attractive single-channel potential with a tunable strength will generically produce some near-threshold pole for some cutoff; the physically nontrivial content of the assignments is that one reasonable Λ reproduces the observed states together. Section IV concedes the point: "the cutoff ranges for which solutions exist in different cases do not always overlap" and "if a single cutoff reproduces the X(3872) but fails to generate the Z_c(3900) or G(3900), this would suggest that these states cannot all be interpreted as molecular states within the same parameter setup." The abstract and title nevertheless frame the assignments as results. The authors should either provide a common-Λ calculation (or at least demonstrate a nonempty common-Λ window) or explicitly reframe the paper as a survey of possible pole trajectories rather than a prediction of the observed spectrum.
  2. [Section III.A, Fig. 1] The association of the 0^+(1^{++}) pole with X(3872) is only qualitative. Experimentally, X(3872) lies within about 0.3 MeV of the D^0\bar{D}^{*0} threshold, whereas the paper only shows that the pole moves from threshold at Λ ≈ 0.4 GeV to about 50 MeV below threshold at Λ ≈ 1.06 GeV. No Λ value is identified that reproduces the actual extremely small binding energy, and there is no discussion of how the computed pole position maps to the measured mass given the model uncertainties. Since Λ is the only free parameter and directly controls the interaction strength in this framework, the claim that the state "corresponds well" to X(3872) needs quantitative support, including at minimum the Λ that gives the physical binding and the positions of the other poles at that same Λ.
  3. [Sections II and IV] The single-channel truncation and the absence of contact terms are acknowledged by the authors, but the implications for the Z_c(3900) and isovector-partner claims are understated. The calculation includes no coupling to πJ/ψ, no isospin-breaking D^0\bar{D}^{*0}/D^+\bar{D}^{*-} mixing, and no short-range four-point interactions. The Z_c(3900) interpretation relies on a virtual-state pole in the 1^+(1^{+-}) channel, and the X(3872) partner relies on a virtual-state pole in the 1^-(1^{++}) channel; both are precisely the kinds of near-threshold features that are known to be sensitive to coupled-channel dynamics. The authors note that "a more complete description would require incorporating contact terms," yet the summary still calls the single-channel results "a solid baseline." Given the well-established sensitivity of near-threshold poles to channel couplings, the baseline claim should be supported by an estimate of the expected shift or by a coupled-channel comparison; otherwise the assignments in the abstract should be more strongly qualified.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II, Table II] The notation [D\bar{D}^*]_T and [D\bar{D}^*]_S in Table II is not defined in the text, and the "···" entries are unclear; please specify which spin/helicity configurations the rows refer to and what the omitted entries mean.
  2. [Eq. (9)] The symbol P is used both for the parity eigenvalue in the definition of η and for the pseudoscalar meson matrix in Eq. (3); this is confusing and should be disambiguated.
  3. [Section III.A] The text describing the isovector 1^{++} virtual state says the pole reaches about 50 MeV below threshold "when the cutoff is reduced to around 1.8 GeV" and then "continues to shift further as the cutoff decreases," which is consistent with Fig. 1 but the caption ordering (threshold at 3.5 GeV moving away as Λ decreases) should be stated more explicitly to avoid confusion.
  4. [Section III] The statement "Only cases that produce bound states, virtual states, or resonances are included" would be more informative with a table listing the channels that were searched and found to have no poles; otherwise the completeness of the scan cannot be assessed by the reader.
  5. [Throughout] There are several typographical issues, including "invovled" in Section II and "can produced solely" in Section IV; the figure captions in the source also contain garbled encoding sequences and should be checked in the compiled PDF.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the pole trajectories are computed from an explicit OBE+qBSE potential with external couplings and a scanned cutoff, not from the target masses.

full rationale

The paper's central quantities, the pole positions and their Riemann-sheet trajectories, are obtained by solving the qBSE, Eq. (7), with potentials constructed from Eqs. (6)-(9) and coupling constants in Table I that are taken from external literature, Refs. [52-55], rather than fitted to reproduce X(3872), Z_c(3900), or G(3900). The only free parameter, the cutoff Lambda, is scanned continuously up to 5 GeV, and the reported states are selected by quantum numbers and threshold proximity; no observed mass enters the kernel or the pole condition. The monopole form factor and single-channel truncation are explicitly stated assumptions, not hidden inputs or results imported from citations. Self-citations to Refs. [29,34,41,43,57] supply the qBSE/OBE framework and an earlier virtual-state interpretation of Z_c(3900), but the present calculation independently produces the virtual state, so those citations are not load-bearing. The Section IV concession that the cutoff ranges for different states do not always overlap weakens the combined-spectrum claim, but this is a scientific limitation rather than circularity: the paper does not redefine its inputs to force the outputs. No step in the derivation reduces by construction to its own inputs, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard but model-dependent ingredients: OBE potentials with literature couplings, a monopole form factor with a free cutoff, the quasipotential approximation, and a single-channel truncation. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced; the molecular states are solutions of the scattering equation rather than invented entities. The dominance of the free cutoff as the strength knob, together with the acknowledged lack of coupled channels and contact terms, means the predictions are qualitative and model-slice dependent.

free parameters (1)
  • cutoff Lambda (Lambda_e = Lambda_r = Lambda) = not fitted; scanned up to 5 GeV
    The monopole form-factor cutoff and the exponential propagator regulator are set equal and treated as the single free parameter that modulates interaction strength. The paper states its physical value is unknown and that variation only partially probes the parameter space (Section II).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Heavy quark effective Lagrangian and chiral symmetry give the OBE vertices with the quoted couplings.
    Section II; the interaction is built from Lagrangians for heavy meson couplings to pseudoscalar, vector, and scalar mesons; these are standard but model-dependent.
  • domain assumption Monopole form factor f(q^2) = Lambda_e^2/(q^2 - Lambda_e^2) at each vertex and exponential regulator in the propagator.
    Section II; the form factor's functional form is not constrained by data or first principles, and the cutoff is a free parameter. This is a standard phenomenological choice but affects the short-range interaction strength.
  • domain assumption Quasipotential (spectator) approximation reduces the 4D Bethe-Salpeter equation to a 1D integral equation with the heavier meson on shell.
    Section II, Eqs. (7)-(8); this is an established approximation but changes the analytic structure and pole positions compared with the full equation.
  • domain assumption Single-channel D\bar{D}^* dynamics without coupled channels or local four-point contact terms is sufficient to locate the poles relevant for X(3872), Z_c(3900), and G(3900).
    Sections I and II; the authors restrict to single channel to reduce complexity and exclude contact terms. Section IV acknowledges that coupled channels may shift poles and that cutoff ranges for different states do not overlap. If this assumption fails, the state assignments break.
  • domain assumption Poles within 50 MeV of threshold on the first and second Riemann sheets correspond to physical bound, virtual, or resonant states.
    Section III; the paper searches only for poles within 50 MeV of the D\bar{D}^* threshold and excludes deeper poles from the analysis, so the classification is restricted to the near-threshold region.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pole trajectories from $S$- and $P$-wave $D\bar{D}^*$ interactions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NWMXEQYD

@misc{pith2026250415534,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pole trajectories from $S$- and $P$-wave $D\barD^*$ interactions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NWMXEQYD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.15534}
}
abstract

In this work, we investigate the $S$- and $P$-wave interactions of the $D\bar{D}^*$ system within the framework of the quasipotential Bethe-Salpeter equation, with the aim of exploring possible molecular states and their corresponding pole trajectories. The interaction potentials are constructed using the one-boson-exchange model, incorporating the exchanges of $\pi$, $\eta$, $\rho$, $\omega$, $\sigma$, and $J/\psi$ mesons, based on heavy quark effective Lagrangians. The poles of the scattering amplitude are analyzed and their evolution on two Riemann sheets is systematically traced as the cutoff parameter increases up to 5 GeV. We identify four molecular states arising from the $S$-wave $D\bar{D}^*$ interaction. Among them, the bound state with quantum numbers $I^G(J^{PC}) = 0^+(1^{++})$ corresponds well to the experimentally observed $X(3872)$, while its isovector partner with $I^G(J^{PC})= 1^-(1^{++})$ is found to exist only as a virtual state. Additionally, a $0^-(1^{+-})$ state appears as a bound state. The isovector $1^{+-}$ state, which may be associated with the $Z_c(3900)$, is observed to evolve from a bound state to a virtual state as the interaction strength decreases. For the $P$-wave $D\bar{D}^*$ interaction, the structure $G(3900)$ recently observed at BESIII is likely connected to a $0^-(1^{--})$ state. A $0^+(0^{-+})$ state is also predicted in this channel. Both can appear as either resonance or bound/virtual state depending on the interaction strength.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.15534 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Pole trajectories for the isoscalar (upper panel) and isovector [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Pole trajectories for the isoscalar bound (upper panel), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4: Pole trajectory of the state with quantum numbers 0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Summary of the pole trajectories as a function of the cuto [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Resonance parameters of the vector charmoniumlike state $G(3900)$

    hep-ph 2025-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A coupled-channel fit to e+e- to D meson pairs finds that G(3900) is a dynamically generated P-wave D Dbar* resonance.

  2. Double-bottom centrifugal-barrier molecules dancing with four quarks

    hep-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A model calculation predicts bound and resonant double-bottom and hidden-bottom molecular tetraquark states, including P-wave molecules near experimental thresholds.

  3. Compositeness relations for near-threshold p-wave bound states

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    The paper derives p-wave compositeness relations a1 = 2(Z-1)/(Z+2) * 1/(2μB)^{3/2} and r1 = 3Z/(1-Z) sqrt(2μB) using a nonrelativistic effective field theory.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [44]

    Remarks on pole trajec- tories for resonances,

    C. Hanhart, J. R. Pelaez and G. Rios, “Remarks on pole trajec- tories for resonances,” Phys. Lett. B 739, 375-382 (2014)

    work page 2014

  2. [1]

    Review of Particle Physics,

    P. A. Zyla et al. [Particle Data Group], “Review of Particle Physics,” PTEP 2020, no.8, 083C01 (2020)

    work page 2020

  3. [2]

    Nonstandard heavy mesons and baryons: Experimental evidence,

    S. L. Olsen, T. Skwarnicki and D. Zieminska, “Nonstandard heavy mesons and baryons: Experimental evidence,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, no.1, 015003 (2018)

    work page 2018

  4. [3]

    The XYZ states revisited,

    C. Z. Yuan, “The XYZ states revisited,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 33, no.21, 1830018 (2018)

    work page 2018

  5. [4]

    Charmonium,

    M. B. V oloshin, “Charmonium,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 61, 455-511 (2008)

    work page 2008

  6. [5]

    Hadroquarkonium from lattice QCD,

    M. Alberti, G. S. Bali, S. Collins, F. Knechtli, G. Moir and W. S¨oldner, “Hadroquarkonium from lattice QCD,” Phys. Rev. D 95, no.7, 074501 (2017)

    work page 2017

  7. [6]

    The hidden- charm pentaquark and tetraquark states,

    H. X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, “The hidden- charm pentaquark and tetraquark states,” Phys. Rept. 639, 1- 121 (2016)

    work page 2016

  8. [7]

    A phenomenological analysis on isospin-violating decay of X(3872),

    Q. Wu, D. Y . Chen and T. Matsuki, “A phenomenological analysis on isospin-violating decay of X(3872),” Eur. Phys. J. C 81, no.2, 193 (2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 67 references
  1. [8]

    Hadronic molecules,

    F. K. Guo, C. Hanhart, U. G. Meißner, Q. Wang, Q. Zhao and B. S. Zou, “Hadronic molecules,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, no.1, 015004 (2018)

    2018

  2. [9]

    Exotics: Heavy Pentaquarks and Tetraquarks,

    A. Ali, J. S. Lange and S. Stone, “Exotics: Heavy Pentaquarks and Tetraquarks,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.97, 123-198 (2017)

    2017

  3. [10]

    Description of heavy exotic resonances as molecular states using phenomeno- logical Lagrangians,

    Y . Dong, A. Faessler and V . E. Lyubovitskij, “Description of heavy exotic resonances as molecular states using phenomeno- logical Lagrangians,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 94, 282-310 (2017)

    2017

  4. [11]

    Threshold cusps and triangle singularities in hadronic reactions,

    F. K. Guo, X. H. Liu and S. Sakai, “Threshold cusps and triangle singularities in hadronic reactions,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 112, 103757 (2020)

    2020

  5. [12]

    Employing spin symmetry to disentangle different models for the XYZ states,

    M. Cleven, F. K. Guo, C. Hanhart, Q. Wang and Q. Zhao, “Employing spin symmetry to disentangle different models for the XYZ states,” Phys. Rev. D92, no.1, 014005 (2015)

    2015

  6. [13]

    Z. G. Wang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 36, no.15, 2150107 (2021) doi:10.1142 /S0217751X21501074 [arXiv:2012.11869 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  7. [14]

    From the deuteron to deusons, an analysis of deuteron - like meson meson bound states,

    N. A. Tornqvist, “From the deuteron to deusons, an analysis of deuteron - like meson meson bound states,” Z. Phys. C 61, 525-537 (1994)

    1994

  8. [15]

    Observation of a narrow charmonium - like state in exclusive B+→ K+π+π− J/ψ decays,

    S. K. Choi et al. [Belle], “Observation of a narrow charmonium - like state in exclusive B+→ K+π+π− J/ψ decays,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 262001 (2003)

    2003

  9. [16]

    X(3872) as a molecular DD* state in a potential model,

    I. W. Lee, A. Faessler, T. Gutsche and V . E. Lyubovitskij, “X(3872) as a molecular DD* state in a potential model,” Phys. Rev. D 80, 094005 (2009)

    2009

  10. [17]

    Isospin breaking of the narrow charmonium state of Belle at 3872-MeV as a deuson,

    N. A. Tornqvist, “Isospin breaking of the narrow charmonium state of Belle at 3872-MeV as a deuson,” Phys. Lett. B 590, 209-215 (2004)

    2004

  11. [18]

    The D∗0 ¯D0 threshold resonance,

    F. E. Close and P. R. Page, “The D∗0 ¯D0 threshold resonance,” Phys. Lett. B 578, 119-123 (2004)

    2004

  12. [19]

    Charmonium options for the X(3872),

    T. Barnes and S. Godfrey, “Charmonium options for the X(3872),” Phys. Rev. D69, 054008 (2004)

    2004

  13. [20]

    Coupled-channel model for charmonium levels and an option for X(3872),

    Y . S. Kalashnikova, “Coupled-channel model for charmonium levels and an option for X(3872),” Phys. Rev. D 72, 034010 (2005)

    2005

  14. [21]

    Isospin breaking, Coupled-channel effects and Diagnosis of X(3872),

    N. Li and S. L. Zhu, “Isospin breaking, Coupled-channel effects and Diagnosis of X(3872),” Phys. Rev. D86, 074022 (2012)

    2012

  15. [22]

    Identification of the G(3900) as the P-wave D ¯D∗/ ¯DD∗ reso- nance,

    Z. Y . Lin, J. Z. Wang, J. B. Cheng, L. Meng and S. L. Zhu, “Identification of the G(3900) as the P-wave D ¯D∗/ ¯DD∗ reso- nance,” Phys. Rev. Lett.133, no.24, 241903 (2024)

    2024

  16. [23]

    Study of e+e− → π+π− J/ψ and Ob- servation of a Charged Charmoniumlike State at Belle,

    Z. Q. Liu et al. [Belle], “Study of e+e− → π+π− J/ψ and Ob- servation of a Charged Charmoniumlike State at Belle,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 252002 (2013) [erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 019901 (2013)]

    2013

  17. [24]

    Observation of the Charged Hadron Z± c (3900) and Evidence for the Neutral Z0 c (3900) in e+e−→ ππJ/ψ at√s = 4170 MeV ,

    T. Xiao, S. Dobbs, A. Tomaradze and K. K. Seth, “Observation of the Charged Hadron Z± c (3900) and Evidence for the Neutral Z0 c (3900) in e+e−→ ππJ/ψ at√s = 4170 MeV ,” Phys. Lett. B 727, 366-370 (2013)

    2013

  18. [25]

    Decoding the riddle of Y(4260) and Zc(3900),

    Q. Wang, C. Hanhart and Q. Zhao, “Decoding the riddle of Y(4260) and Zc(3900),” Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, no.13, 132003 (2013)

    2013

  19. [26]

    Possible assignments of the X(3872), Zc(3900) and Zb(10610) as axial-vector molecular states,

    Z. G. Wang and T. Huang, “Possible assignments of the X(3872), Zc(3900) and Zb(10610) as axial-vector molecular states,” Eur. Phys. J. C 74, no.5, 2891 (2014)

    2014

  20. [27]

    Improved QCD sum rule study of Zc(3900) as a ¯DD∗ molecular state,

    J. R. Zhang, “Improved QCD sum rule study of Zc(3900) as a ¯DD∗ molecular state,” Phys. Rev. D87, no.11, 116004 (2013)

    2013

  21. [28]

    Prediction of an I = 1 D ¯D∗ state and relationship to the claimed Zc(3900), Zc(3885),

    F. Aceti, M. Bayar, E. Oset, A. Martinez Torres, K. P. Khem- chandani, J. M. Dias, F. S. Navarra and M. Nielsen, “Prediction of an I = 1 D ¯D∗ state and relationship to the claimed Zc(3900), Zc(3885),” Phys. Rev. D90, no.1, 016003 (2014)

    2014

  22. [29]

    Study of the B ¯B∗/D ¯D∗ bound states in a Bethe-Salpeter approach,

    J. He, “Study of the B ¯B∗/D ¯D∗ bound states in a Bethe-Salpeter approach,” Phys. Rev. D90, no.7, 076008 (2014)

    2014

  23. [30]

    J. R. Taylor, Scattering Theory: The Quantum Theory on Non- relativistic Collisions (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1972)

    1972

  24. [31]

    The nature of the Lambda(1405) res- onance in chiral dynamics,

    T. Hyodo and D. Jido, “The nature of the Lambda(1405) res- onance in chiral dynamics,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 67, 55-98 (2012)

    2012

  25. [32]

    The octet meson and octet baryon interac- tion with strangeness and theΛ(1405),

    J. He and P. L. Lu, “The octet meson and octet baryon interac- tion with strangeness and theΛ(1405),” Int. J. Mod. Phys. E24, 8 no.11, 1550088 (2015)

    2015

  26. [33]

    Combined analysis of the Zc(3900) and the Zcs(3985) exotic states,

    M. L. Du, M. Albaladejo, F. K. Guo and J. Nieves, “Combined analysis of the Zc(3900) and the Zcs(3985) exotic states,” Phys. Rev. D 105, no.7, 074018 (2022)

    2022

  27. [34]

    Zc(3900)/Zc(3885) as a virtual state from πJ/ψ− ¯D∗D interaction,

    J. He and D. Y . Chen, “Zc(3900)/Zc(3885) as a virtual state from πJ/ψ− ¯D∗D interaction,” Eur. Phys. J. C 78, no.2, 94 (2018)

    2018

  28. [35]

    A survey of heavy- antiheavy hadronic molecules,

    X. K. Dong, F. K. Guo and B. S. Zou, “A survey of heavy- antiheavy hadronic molecules,” Progr. Phys.41, 65-93 (2021)

    2021

  29. [36]

    Precise determination of the properties of X(3872) and of its isovector partner Wc1,

    T. Ji, X. K. Dong, F. K. Guo, C. Hanhart and U. G. Meißner, “Precise determination of the properties of X(3872) and of its isovector partner Wc1,” [arXiv:2502.04458 [hep-ph]]

  30. [37]

    Precise Measurement of Born Cross Sections for e+e− → D ¯D at s=3.80-4.95 GeV ,

    M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII], “Precise Measurement of Born Cross Sections for e+e− → D ¯D at s=3.80-4.95 GeV ,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, no.8, 081901 (2024)

    2024

  31. [38]

    Study of the Exclusive Initial-State Radiation Production of the D ¯D System,

    B. Aubert et al. [BaBar], “Study of the Exclusive Initial-State Radiation Production of the D ¯D System,” Phys. Rev. D 76, 111105 (2007)

    2007

  32. [39]

    Measurement of the near-threshold e+e− → D ¯D cross section using initial-state radiation,

    G. Pakhlova et al. [Belle], “Measurement of the near-threshold e+e− → D ¯D cross section using initial-state radiation,” Phys. Rev. D 77, 011103 (2008)

    2008

  33. [40]

    Direct Evidence for the ¯DD∗/D ¯D∗ Molecular Nature of G(3900) Through Triangular Singularity Mechanisms,

    Y . Huang and X. Chen, “Direct Evidence for the ¯DD∗/D ¯D∗ Molecular Nature of G(3900) Through Triangular Singularity Mechanisms,” [arXiv:2501.10992 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  34. [41]

    Molecular states from D(∗) ¯D(∗)/B(∗) ¯B(∗) and D(∗)D(∗)/ ¯B(∗) ¯B(∗) interactions,

    Z. M. Ding, H. Y . Jiang and J. He, “Molecular states from D(∗) ¯D(∗)/B(∗) ¯B(∗) and D(∗)D(∗)/ ¯B(∗) ¯B(∗) interactions,” Eur. Phys. J. C 80, no.12, 1179 (2020)

    2020

  35. [42]

    A note on the B∗ ¯B, B∗ ¯B∗, D∗ ¯D, D∗ ¯D∗ molecular states,

    Z. F. Sun, Z. G. Luo, J. He, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, “A note on the B∗ ¯B, B∗ ¯B∗, D∗ ¯D, D∗ ¯D∗ molecular states,” Chin. Phys. C36, 194-204 (2012)

    2012

  36. [43]

    The Zc(3900) as a resonance from the D ¯D∗ interaction,

    J. He, “The Zc(3900) as a resonance from the D ¯D∗ interaction,” Phys. Rev. D 92, no.3, 034004 (2015)

    2015

  37. [45]

    Zb(10610)± and Zb(10650)± as the B∗ ¯B and B∗ ¯B∗ molecular states,

    Z. F. Sun, J. He, X. Liu, Z. G. Luo and S. L. Zhu, “ Zb(10610)± and Zb(10650)± as the B∗ ¯B and B∗ ¯B∗ molecular states,” Phys. Rev. D 84, 054002 (2011)

    2011

  38. [46]

    Chiral Lagrangians for radiative decays of heavy hadrons,

    H. Y . Cheng, C. Y . Cheung, G. L. Lin, Y . C. Lin, T. M. Yan and H. L. Yu, “Chiral Lagrangians for radiative decays of heavy hadrons,” Phys. Rev. D47, 1030-1042 (1993)

    1993

  39. [47]

    Heavy quark symmetry and chiral dynamics,

    T. M. Yan, H. Y . Cheng, C. Y . Cheung, G. L. Lin, Y . C. Lin and H. L. Yu, “Heavy quark symmetry and chiral dynamics,” Phys. Rev. D 46, 1148-1164 (1992) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 55, 5851 (1997)]

    1992

  40. [48]

    Chiral perturbation theory for hadrons containing a heavy quark,

    M. B. Wise, “Chiral perturbation theory for hadrons containing a heavy quark,” Phys. Rev. D45, no.7, 2188 (1992)

    1992

  41. [49]

    Union of chiral and heavy quark symmetries,

    G. Burdman and J. F. Donoghue, “Union of chiral and heavy quark symmetries,” Phys. Lett. B 280, 287-291 (1992)

    1992

  42. [50]

    Phenomenology of heavy meson chiral Lagrangians,

    R. Casalbuoni, A. Deandrea, N. Di Bartolomeo, R. Gatto, F. Feruglio and G. Nardulli, “Phenomenology of heavy meson chiral Lagrangians,” Phys. Rept. 281, 145-238 (1997)

    1997

  43. [51]

    Chiral Multiplets of Heavy - Light Mesons,

    W. A. Bardeen, E. J. Eichten and C. T. Hill, “Chiral Multiplets of Heavy - Light Mesons,” Phys. Rev. D68, 054024 (2003)

    2003

  44. [52]

    Strong decays of excited heavy mesons in chiral perturbation theory,

    A. F. Falk and M. E. Luke, “Strong decays of excited heavy mesons in chiral perturbation theory,” Phys. Lett. B 292, 119- 127 (1992)

    1992

  45. [53]

    Charming penguins in B→ K∗π, K(ρ,ω,ϕ ) decays,

    C. Isola, M. Ladisa, G. Nardulli and P. Santorelli, “Charming penguins in B→ K∗π, K(ρ,ω,ϕ ) decays,” Phys. Rev. D 68, 114001 (2003)

    2003

  46. [54]

    X(3872) and Other Possible Heavy Molecular States,

    X. Liu, Z. G. Luo, Y . R. Liu and S. L. Zhu, “X(3872) and Other Possible Heavy Molecular States,” Eur. Phys. J. C 61, 411-428 (2009)

    2009

  47. [55]

    Strong LHCb evi- dence supporting the existence of the hidden-charm molecular pentaquarks,

    R. Chen, Z. F. Sun, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, “Strong LHCb evi- dence supporting the existence of the hidden-charm molecular pentaquarks,” Phys. Rev. D100, no.1, 011502 (2019)

    2019

  48. [56]

    J/ψ absorption by π and ρ mesons in meson exchange model with anomalous parity interactions,

    Y . s. Oh, T. Song and S. H. Lee, “ J/ψ absorption by π and ρ mesons in meson exchange model with anomalous parity interactions,” Phys. Rev. C63, 034901 (2001)

    2001

  49. [57]

    Study of Pc(4457), Pc(4440), and Pc(4312) in a quasipo- tential Bethe-Salpeter equation approach,

    J. He, “Study of Pc(4457), Pc(4440), and Pc(4312) in a quasipo- tential Bethe-Salpeter equation approach,” Eur. Phys. J. C 79, no.5, 393 (2019)

    2019

  50. [58]

    Relativistic one boson exchange model for the nucleon-nucleon interaction,

    F. Gross, J. W. Van Orden and K. Holinde, “Relativistic one boson exchange model for the nucleon-nucleon interaction,” Phys. Rev. C 45 (1992), 2094-2132

    1992

  51. [59]

    Internal structures of the nucleon resonances N(1875) and N(2120),

    J. He, “Internal structures of the nucleon resonances N(1875) and N(2120),” Phys. Rev. C91, no.1, 018201 (2015)

    2015

  52. [60]

    Nucleon resonances N(1875) and N(2100) as strange partners of LHCb pentaquarks,

    J. He, “Nucleon resonances N(1875) and N(2100) as strange partners of LHCb pentaquarks,” Phys. Rev. D 95, no.7, 074031 (2017)

    2017

  53. [61]

    Charge conjugation invariance of the spectator equa- tions,

    F. Gross, “Charge conjugation invariance of the spectator equa- tions,” Few Body Syst. 30, 21-29 (2001)

    2001

  54. [62]

    Determination of the X(3872) meson quantum numbers,

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], “Determination of the X(3872) meson quantum numbers,” Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 222001 (2013)

    2013

  55. [63]

    Short range structure in the X(3872),

    E. S. Swanson, “Short range structure in the X(3872),” Phys. Lett. B 588, 189-195 (2004)

    2004

  56. [64]

    Predicting isovector charmonium-like states from X(3872) properties,

    Z. H. Zhang, T. Ji, X. K. Dong, F. K. Guo, C. Han- hart, U. G. Meißner and A. Rusetsky, “Predicting isovector charmonium-like states from X(3872) properties,” JHEP 08, 130 (2024)

    2024

  57. [65]

    Dispersive anal- ysis of the isospin breaking in the X(3872) → J/ψπ+π− and X(3872) → J/ψπ+π0π− decays,

    J. M. Dias, T. Ji, X. K. Dong, F. K. Guo, C. Hanhart, U. G. Meißner, Y . Zhang and Z. H. Zhang, “Dispersive anal- ysis of the isospin breaking in the X(3872) → J/ψπ+π− and X(3872) → J/ψπ+π0π− decays,” Phys. Rev. D 111, no.1, 014031 (2025)

    2025

  58. [66]

    Charmoniumlike channels 1 + with isospin 1 from lattice and effective field theory,

    M. Sadl, S. Collins, Z. H. Guo, M. Padmanath, S. Prelovsek and L. W. Yan, “Charmoniumlike channels 1 + with isospin 1 from lattice and effective field theory,” Phys. Rev. D111, no.5, 054513 (2025)

    2025

  59. [67]

    Global coupled-channel analysis of e+e− → c¯c processes in√s = 3.75− 4.7 GeV ,

    S. X. Nakamura, X. H. Li, H. P. Peng, Z. T. Sun and X. R. Zhou, “Global coupled-channel analysis of e+e− → c¯c processes in√s = 3.75− 4.7 GeV ,” [arXiv:2312.17658 [hep-ph]]

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.