Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Branching Fractions of the $X(3872)$

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read If the X(3872) is a bound state of charm mesons, its branching fraction into J/ψπ+π− is considerably larger than the roughly 4% measured for the resonance feature, with an upper bound of 33%.

desk verdict A useful conceptual clarification of X(3872) branching fractions, with an honest but model-dependent upper bound that deserves a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02807 v1 pith:VYXTTFVR submitted 2019-08-07 hep-ph

Eric Braaten , Li-Ping He , Kevin Ingles This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph PACS 14.80.Va67.85.Bc31.15.bt
keywords X(3872)exotichadronscharmmesonscharm-mesonmoleculebranchingfractionnear-thresholdresonancelineshapetrianglesingularity
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 argues that the branching fraction of the $X(3872)$ quoted by experiments is not a property of a single particle but of a resonance feature: a near-threshold enhancement in charm-meson production that may include, but is not the same as, a narrow bound state of $D^{*0}\bar{D}^0$ and $D^0\bar{D}^{*0}$. If the $X$ is such a bound state, its true branching fraction into $J/\psi\,\pi^+\pi^-$ should be considerably larger than the roughly 4% measured for the whole feature, and the paper derives an upper bound of 33% at 90% confidence from measured branching ratios of other decay modes. The distinction matters because searches for triangle-singularity peaks in $X\pi$ or $X\gamma$ production need the bound-state branching fraction, not the feature average, to predict how tall those peaks will be.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by pole factorization: near a narrow bound-state pole the scattering amplitude factorizes as $f_{ij}(E)\approx -c_i c_j/(E-E_X+i\Gamma_X/2)$, so production and decay amplitudes separate, and the branching fraction obtained by integrating over the narrow bound-state peak is independent of the production mechanism. The numerical constraints use the simplest plausible line-shape model, $f(E)=1/(-\gamma_X+\sqrt{-2\mu(E+i\Gamma_{*0}/2)})$, a universal near-threshold amplitude with a single complex inverse scattering length $\gamma_X$; its real part controls whether the state is bound or virtual, and its imaginary part encodes short-distance decay modes. The paper also defines the resonance energy as the median of the $J/\psi\,\pi^+\pi^-$ line shape over the interval $E_{\min}=-7.0$ MeV to $E_{\max}=+8.2$ MeV and derives analytic expressions for it in the bound-state, zero-energy, and virtual-state limits.

What would settle it

Measure the $B^+\to K^+ D^0\bar{D}^0\pi^0$ line shape with resolution good enough to resolve a bound-state peak below the $D^{*0}\bar{D}^0$ threshold; if the resolved bound-state peak gives a $J/\psi\,\pi^+\pi^-$ branching fraction equal to or smaller than the roughly 4% resonance-feature value, the claimed enhancement and the bound-state interpretation in this model would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a near-threshold $S$-wave resonance like the $X(3872)$ has two different kinds of branching fractions that should not be confused. The resonance feature seen in $B^+\to K^+$ transitions—a threshold enhancement plus a possible bound-state or virtual-state peak—has a $J/\psi\,\pi^+\pi^-$ branching fraction of about 4%. If the $X$ is a narrow bound state, factorization of the amplitude at the pole guarantees that its own branching fractions are production-independent, and its $J/\psi\,\pi^+\pi^-$ branching fraction is larger than the feature's. Using measured branching ratios into $J/\psi\omega$, $J/\psi\gamma$, $\psi(2S)\gamma$, and $\chi_{c1}\pi^0$, the paper puts an upper bound $\mathrm{Br}[X\to J/\psi\,\pi^+\pi^-]<33\%$ at 90% confidence, and in the simplest line-shape model the bound-state branching fraction exceeds the feature's by a factor of 2.5 to 3.2 within the $1\sigma$ region allowed by the resonance energy.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative constraints assume that the theoretically defined resonance energy—the median of the $J/\psi\,\pi^+\pi^-$ line shape over the chosen interval from $-7.0$ to $+8.2$ MeV—matches the experimental $E_X=(+0.01\pm 0.18)$ MeV, which was extracted with a different fitting procedure; if the two definitions do not correspond, the fitted model parameters and the predicted 2.5 to 3.2 enhancement are unreliable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The measured 4% J/ψπ+π− branching fraction of the resonance feature should not be used as the branching fraction of the X itself; if the X is a bound state, the true rate is larger, with an upper bound of 33%.
  • Triangle-singularity peak heights in Xπ and Xγ production scale with the bound-state branching fraction, so those peaks could be roughly 2.5 to 3.2 times higher than predictions based on the feature-average value.
  • Within the simplest line-shape model, the measured resonance energy and the estimated constituent-decay branching fraction constrain the inverse scattering length; most of the 1σ region corresponds to a virtual state, with narrow bound states allowed only for negative E_X.
  • Without the χc1π0 decay mode the upper bound would be 44%, so the measurement of X→χc1π0 is what tightens the bound to 33%.
  • The same distinction between a resonance feature and a bound state applies to any near-threshold S-wave resonance: feature branching fractions depend on production mechanism, while bound-state branching fractions do not.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extending the paper's logic, other near-threshold exotic candidates may also have quoted 'branching fractions' that mix a threshold enhancement with a possible bound-state peak, so those numbers should be re-examined mode by mode.
  • A decisive testable extension would be high-resolution D0 Dbar0 pi0 line-shape data that resolve a bound-state peak below threshold; such data could confirm or refute the predicted 2.5 to 3.2 enhancement.
  • I would treat the enhancement factor as an estimate from the simplest single-channel line-shape model; coupling to charged charm-meson pairs or to χc1(2P) could shift the numerical factor.
  • Tighter measurements of the D0 Dbar0 gamma component and of absolute B+→K+X bound-state production would turn the loose lower bound into a direct determination of the bound-state branching fraction.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper distinguishes the branching fraction of the X(3872) "resonance feature" observed in B+→K+ transitions from the branching fraction of the X bound state, arguing that they need not be equal for a near-threshold S-wave resonance. After reviewing the factorization argument that a narrow bound state's branching fractions are production-independent (Sec. II), the authors introduce a single-channel model with a complex inverse scattering length (Eq. 10) and define the theoretical resonance energy as the median of the |f(E)|^2 line shape over the chosen interval [Emin, Emax] = [−7.0, +8.2] MeV (Eqs. 14–15). Using the BaBar inclusive recoil measurement, they infer a J/ψπ+π− branching fraction of (4.1 ± 1.3)% for the resonance feature (Eq. 29). Using measured ratios for four short-distance decay modes, they derive an upper bound Br[X→J/ψπ+π−] < 33% (90% C.L.) for the bound state (Eq. 34) and a corresponding 6.7% bound for the feature (Eq. 35). They then use the measured resonance energy EX = (+0.01 ± 0.18) MeV and an estimate of the constituent-decay branching fraction (Eq. 31) to constrain the model parameters, concluding that the bound-state short-distance branching fraction exceeds the feature-level one by a factor 2.5–3.2 (Sec. V.C). A Note Added argues that the contemporaneous Li–Yuan analysis [48] mixes feature-level inputs from different production mechanisms.

Significance. If the central distinction holds, the paper makes an important and practically relevant point: the widely quoted ~4% "branching fraction" of the X(3872) into J/ψπ+π− is a feature-level quantity and should not be used directly, for example, in predictions of triangle-singularity peak heights; the bound-state branching fraction is larger and is bounded by 33%. The conceptual argument in Sec. II is sound and is stated with appropriate conditions. Strengths of the manuscript include the model-independent identity Eq. (33), the transparent and easily auditable arithmetic behind the one-sided upper bounds, the analytic line-shape results in three limits (Sec. IV), the explicit statement of the assumptions (arbitrary Emin/Emax, order-of-magnitude Im[γX] ~ √(μΓ*0), the narrowness criterion), and the correct identification of the earlier 8–10% bounds in Refs. [46] and [9] as feature-level rather than bound-state bounds. The main weaknesses are that the identification of the theoretical resonance-energy prescription with the PDG value is left unquantified, the input ratios entering Eq.

major comments (3)
  1. [§V.B, Eq. (34)] The concern that the 33% bound may apply to the resonance feature rather than to the bound state lands only partially, but it is not addressed. Equation (34) is derived by inserting measured branching ratios (J/ψω, J/ψγ, ψ(2S)γ, χc1π0, each over J/ψπ+π−) into the identity Eq. (33), and its interpretation as a bound on the bound-state branching fraction requires that these measured ratios be bound-state (pole-dominated) ratios rather than feature-level ratios. The paper never states this requirement; a reader is left to wonder why the threshold-enhancement objection that the authors correctly raise against Refs. [46], [9], and [48] does not apply to their own inputs. Within the single-channel model of Eq. (10) the concern is muted, because all short-distance decay modes share the line shape |f(E)|^2 (Eq. 16), making the ratio window-independent, and the paper should say this explicitly and add the empirical observation that the X peak is the same narrow object in all four input modes. If the inputs were feature-level ratios, Eq. (34) would bound the feature branching fraction, which is smaller than the bound-state branching fraction, so the stated claim would not follow. This is fixable by adding one justification paragraph, but as written the target of the 33% bound is not secured.
  2. [§IV, Eq. (14); §V.C, Figs. 6–7] The quantitative constraints in Sec. V.C hinge on identifying the theoretical resonance energy, defined as the median of |f(E)|^2 over the arbitrarily chosen interval [Emin, Emax] = [−7.0, +8.2] MeV (Eqs. 14–15), with the PDG value EX = (+0.01 ± 0.18) MeV, which was extracted by a different data-fitting procedure. The systematic uncertainty from this identification is not estimated. In the bound-state limit the analytic result Eq. (22) contains corrections of order (μΓX²/(16 Re[γX]²)) times logarithmic factors; for representative parameters (Re[γX] ≈ 30 MeV, ΓX ≈ 0.5 MeV) these corrections are of order 0.1 MeV, comparable to the ±0.18 MeV experimental error. The prescription dependence also affects the feature-level branching ratios computed through Eq. (37). A sensitivity analysis varying Emin and Emax and comparing alternative definitions (line-shape maximum, Breit-Wigner fit to the peak region) should be added, and the constraints in Figs. 6–7 and the quoted factor 2.5–3.2 should be presented with the resulting uncertainty. The qualitative claim in the abstract does not depend on this identification, but the quantitative model constraints do.
  3. [§II, §V.C, Eq. (39)] The paper uses different standards for "narrow bound state" in the general argument and in the model application. Section II defines a narrow bound state by |EX| significantly larger than ΓX/2, while the criterion adopted in the model, Eq. (39), is only |Re Epole| > |Im Epole|, which is equivalent to |EX| > ΓX/2 and admits marginal cases. The present data do not establish the stronger condition: at 1σ below the central value in Eq. (7), EX ≈ −0.17 MeV, while the experimental limit ΓX < 1.2 MeV (Ref. [47]) gives ΓX/2 of order or larger than |EX|. Within the model, Im[γX] of order √(μΓ*0) with Re[γX] ≈ 20–30 MeV, as required for a bound state with |EX| ≈ 0.2 MeV, yields ΓX/2 ≈ |EX| ≈ 0.2 MeV, i.e., a marginally narrow state even by the weak criterion. The factor 2.5–3.2 quoted in Sec. V.C and the quantitative force of the "considerably larger" statements rest on this marginal case; the authors should adopt the Sec. II criterion, quantify how the narrow-bound-state regions of Figs. 6–7 shrink under a stricter requirement such as |EX| > 2ΓX, or explicitly label the 2.5–3.2 ratio as an estimate valid only in the marginal-narrowness regime.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§V.A, Fig. 6] The 1σ error ellipse for BF = (25 ± 40)% extends into negative values of a quantity that must be nonnegative; the ellipse, and the claim that the model curves are compatible with Im[γX]/√(μΓ*0) up to about 9, should be truncated at BF = 0.
  2. [§II] In the discussion of narrow bound states, the paper should cite the experimental limit ΓX < 1.2 MeV (Ref. [47]) to make concrete that the condition |EX| ≫ ΓX/2 is not currently established by data.
  3. [§V.B] The statement that Br(X→J/ψγ)/Br(X→J/ψπ+π−) is "determined to be 0.24 ± 0.05 by calculating the ratio of product branching fractions from B+→K+X decays [13]" is too terse; the specific product branching fractions and the error treatment should be spelled out.
  4. [Abstract and §V.A] The value (4.1 ± 1.3)% relies on a preliminary BaBar result from a conference presentation (Ref. [20]); the manuscript should flag that this number is preliminary, and the one-sided Gaussian interpretation of "90% C.L." in Eqs. (34)–(35) should be stated explicitly.
  5. [PACS numbers] The entry "31.15.bt" in the PACS list appears malformed and should be corrected.
  6. [§III, after Eq. (10)] The phrase "allowing the real parameter γX to have a positive imaginary part" is confusingly worded, since γX is then no longer real; consider: "allowing γX, which is real under exact unitarity, to acquire a positive imaginary part."

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 33% bound follows from an exact branching-fraction identity with external measured ratios, and the Sec. V model constraints are parameter fitting, not disguised predictions.

full rationale

The central quantitative claim, Eq. (34), is obtained from the identity Eq. (33) by inserting four measured branching-ratio inputs (J/ψω, J/ψγ, ψ(2S)γ, χc1π0 relative to J/ψπ+π−) and then taking the reciprocal with a 1.28σ upward shift. This is an external-data bound, not a quantity that the paper fits and then re-predicts. The paper explicitly distinguishes the bound-state branching fraction from the resonance-feature branching fraction and acknowledges that some inputs are feature-level (e.g., Eqs. (29)-(32)), so the main numerical result does not reduce to a model assumption by construction. In Sec. V.C, Re γ_X and Im γ_X are constrained using the measured E_X (Eq. (7)) and the CD branching-fraction estimate (Eq. (31)); the subsequent plots in Figs. 6-7 are consequences of those fitted parameters, not independent predictions. The line-shape model Eq. (10) is adopted from the authors' earlier work (Ref. [26]), but it is explicitly called the "simplest plausible model" and is not the source of the 33% upper bound; the self-citation is therefore not load-bearing for the central claim. The theoretical definition of E_X in Eq. (14) and its identification with the PDG value in Eq. (7) is an assumption that could be wrong, but that is a modeling/calibration risk, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces. Its quantitative results rest on a small set of modeling assumptions and on the arbitrary resonance-energy prescription. The free parameters are the model's inverse scattering length and the integration window, which the authors tune or choose to match the measured EX and estimated CD fraction. There is no hidden circularity in the main bound, but the parameter constraints are not parameter-free predictions.

free parameters (3)
  • complex inverse scattering length gamma_X = constrained by EX and BF; Re[gamma_X] ranges over positive (bound) to negative (virtual) values
    The sole undetermined parameter of the simplest model (Eq. 10). In Secs. V-C and Figs. 6-7 it is adjusted to reproduce the measured resonance energy EX and the estimated CD branching fraction.
  • integration limits Emin, Emax = Emin = -7.0 MeV, Emax = +8.2 MeV
    Chosen 'rather arbitrarily' in Sec. III as the nearest kinematic thresholds. The resonance energy formulas (22), (25), (27) and the feature branching fractions depend on these cutoffs, so they act as free prescriptions.
  • Im[gamma_X] scale = assumed of order sqrt(mu Gamma*0) ~ 7.4 MeV
    Used for illustrative parameter choices in Figs. 3-7; an order-of-magnitude assumption stated in Sec. III.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Optical theorem / unitarity of S-matrix and factored pole approximation of scattering amplitudes near a resonance (Eqs. 2-6)
    Invoked in Sec. II to express inclusive production rates and to argue production-independence of narrow bound-state branching fractions.
  • domain assumption Universal low-energy scattering amplitude for short-range interactions with large scattering length (Eq. 8)
    Basis of the model, from Ref [21]; assumes the X(3872) is an S-wave near-threshold charm-meson pair with short-range interactions.
  • ad hoc to paper The simplest plausible model (Eq. 10): replace E + i epsilon by E + i Gamma*0/2 and take gamma_X complex
    Defines the line shapes used for all quantitative constraints; motivated by prior work Ref [26] but not derived from QCD.
  • ad hoc to paper The resonance energy EX is defined as the median of |f(E)|^2 in the J/psi pi+ pi- mode (Eq. 14), and this equals the measured EX from PDG
    Introduced in Sec. IV; the paper does not verify that the PDG fit result corresponds to this theoretical median.
  • domain assumption B+ -> K+ transitions produce the charm-meson pair at short distances, so the inclusive rate is proportional to Im[f(E)] with production-independent Bi
    Used in Secs. IV-V to relate B+ -> K+ data to the model line shapes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Branching Fractions of the $X(3872)$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VYXTTFVR

@misc{pith2026190802807,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Branching Fractions of the $X(3872)$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VYXTTFVR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02807}
}
abstract

The recoil momentum spectrum from the decay $B^+ \to K^+ +\mathrm{anything}$ has recently been measured by the BaBar collaboration. The spectrum has a peak with invariant mass near the mass of the $X(3872)$ meson. The preliminary measurement by the BaBar collaboration implies that its branching fraction into $J/\psi\, \pi^+\pi^-$ is about 4\%. We emphasize that this is the branching fraction for the entire resonance feature from $B^+$-to-$K^+$ transitions, which includes a $D^{*0} \bar D^0$ and $D^0 \bar D^{*0}$ threshold enhancement as well as a possible bound state below the threshold or a virtual state. If the $X$ is a bound state of charm mesons, its branching fraction into $J/\psi\, \pi^+\pi^-$ should be considerably larger than that of the $X$ resonance feature. We use measurements of branching ratios of the $X$ to put an upper bound on this branching fraction of 33\%. We also constrain the parameters of the simplest plausible model for the line shapes of the $X$ using the precise measurement of the resonance energy of the $X$ and an estimate of the branching fraction into $D^0 \bar D^0 \pi^0$ and $D^0 \bar D^0\gamma$ from the $X$ resonance feature from $B^+$-to-$K^+$ transitions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02807 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Line shape Im[ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Analytic features of the scattering amplitude [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Line shapes in the SDD channel (solid blue curve) and in the CD channel (dashed red [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Line shapes in the SDD channel (solid blue curve) and in the CD channel (dashed red [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Line shapes in the SDD channel (solid blue curve) and in the CD channel (dashed red [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Branching fraction for short-distance decays of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Branching fraction for short-distance decays of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Production of $X(3872)$ and a Photon in $e^+e^-$ Annihilation

    hep-ph 2019-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    If X(3872) is a charm-meson molecule, e+e- -> X gamma has a narrow triangle-singularity peak at 2.2 MeV above the D*0 Dbar*0 threshold, with a peak cross section near 0.5 pb.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [46]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII Collaboration], Observation of the decay X(3872)→ π0χc1(1P ), Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 202001 (2019) [arXiv:1901.03992]

    arXiv 2019

  2. [9]

    Karliner, J.L

    M. Karliner, J.L. Rosner and T. Skwarnicki, Multiquark States, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 68, 17 (2018) [arXiv:1711.10626]

    arXiv 2018

  3. [48]

    Choi et al

    S.-K. Choi et al. , Bounds on the width, mass difference and other properties of X(3872)→ π+π−J/ψ decays, Phys. Rev. D 84, 052004 (2011) [arXiv:1107.0163]

    arXiv 2011

  4. [47]

    Guo, U.G

    F.K. Guo, U.G. Meißner, W. Wang and Z. Yang, Production of the bottom analogs and the spin partner of the X(3872) at hadron colliders, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 3063 (2014) [arXiv:1402.6236]

    arXiv 2014

  5. [1]

    H.X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu and S.L. Zhu, The hidden-charm pentaquark and tetraquark states, Phys. Rept. 639, 1 (2016) [arXiv:1601.02092]

    arXiv 2016

  6. [2]

    Determination of the absolute branching fractions ofX(3872) decays

    can be interpreted as the contribution from the constituent decay (CD) channel, which consists of the decay modes whose ultimate final states are D0 ¯D0π0 and D0 ¯D0γ. This simplest model for the X line shapes predicts that the line shapes in the D0 ¯D0π0 and D0 ¯D0γ decay modes differ only by multiplicative constants whose ratio is the branching ratio of D...

    work page

  7. [3]

    Hosaka, T

    A. Hosaka, T. Iijima, K. Miyabayashi, Y. Sakai and S. Yasui, Exotic hadrons with heavy flavors: X, Y , Z, and related states, PTEP 2016, 062C01 (2016) [arXiv:1603.09229]

    arXiv 2016

  8. [4]

    Lebed, R.E

    R.F. Lebed, R.E. Mitchell and E.S. Swanson, Heavy-Quark QCD Exotica, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 93, 143 (2017) [arXiv:1610.04528]

    arXiv 2017

Show all 49 references
  1. [5]

    Esposito, A

    A. Esposito, A. Pilloni and A.D. Polosa, Multiquark Resonances, Phys. Rept. 668, 1 (2016) [arXiv:1611.07920]

    2016 arXiv

  2. [6]

    F.K. Guo, C. Hanhart, U.G. Meißner, Q. Wang, Q. Zhao and B.S. Zou, Hadronic molecules, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 015004 (2018) [arXiv:1705.00141]. 21

    2018 arXiv

  3. [7]

    Ali, J.S

    A. Ali, J.S. Lange and S. Stone, Exotics: Heavy Pentaquarks and Tetraquarks, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 97, 123 (2017) [arXiv:1706.00610]

    2017 arXiv

  4. [8]

    Olsen, T

    S.L. Olsen, T. Skwarnicki and D. Zieminska, Nonstandard heavy mesons and baryons: Exper- imental evidence, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 015003 (2018) [arXiv:1708.04012]

    2018 arXiv

  5. [10]

    Yuan, The XYZ states revisited, Int

    C.Z. Yuan, The XYZ states revisited, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 33, 1830018 (2018) [arXiv:1808.01570]

    2018 arXiv

  6. [11]

    Brambilla, S

    N. Brambilla, S. Eidelman, C. Hanhart, A. Nefediev, C.P. Shen, C.E. Thomas, A. Vairo and C.Z. Yuan, The XYZ states: experimental and theoretical status and perspectives, arXiv:1907.07583 [hep-ex]

    1907 arXiv

  7. [12]

    Choi et al

    S.K. Choi et al. [Belle Collaboration], Observation of a narrow charmonium-like state in ex- clusiveB±→K±π+π−J/ψ decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 262001 (2003) [hep-ex/0309032]

    2003 arXiv

  8. [13]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb Collaboration], Determination of the X(3872) meson quantum numbers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 222001 (2013) [arXiv:1302.6269]

    2013 arXiv

  9. [14]

    Tanabashi et al

    M. Tanabashi et al. [Particle Data Group], Review of Particle Physics, Phys. Rev. D 98, 030001 (2018)

    2018

  10. [15]

    Braaten, L.-P

    E. Braaten, L.-P. He and K. Ingles, Predictive Solution to the X(3872) Collider Production Puzzle, arXiv:1811.08876 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  11. [16]

    Braaten, L.-P

    E. Braaten, L.-P. He and K. Ingles, Production of X(3872) Accompanied by a Pion in B Meson Decay, arXiv:1902.03259 [hep-ph]

    1902 arXiv

  12. [17]

    Braaten, L.-P

    E. Braaten, L.-P. He and K. Ingles, Production of X(3872) Accompanied by a Pion at Hadron Colliders, arXiv:1903.04355 [hep-ph]

    1903 arXiv

  13. [18]

    Dubynskiy and M.B

    S. Dubynskiy and M.B. Voloshin, e+e−→γX(3872) near the D∗ ¯D∗ threshold, Phys. Rev. D 74, 094017 (2006) [hep-ph/0609302]

    2006 arXiv

  14. [19]

    Guo, Novel method for precisely measuring the X(3872) mass, Phys

    F.K. Guo, Novel method for precisely measuring the X(3872) mass, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 202002 (2019) [arXiv:1902.11221]

    2019 arXiv

  15. [20]

    Braaten, L.-P

    E. Braaten, L.-P. He and K. Ingles, Triangle Singularity in the Production of X(3872) and a Photon in e+e− Annihilation, arXiv:1904.12915 [hep-ph]

    1904 arXiv

  16. [21]

    Wormser (on behalf of the BaBar collaboration), presented at Quarkonium 2019 in Torino, May 2019

    G. Wormser (on behalf of the BaBar collaboration), presented at Quarkonium 2019 in Torino, May 2019

    2019

  17. [22]

    Braaten and H.-W

    E. Braaten and H.-W. Hammer, Universality in few-body systems with large scattering length, Phys. Rept. 428, 259 (2006) [cond-mat/0410417]

    2006 arXiv

  18. [23]

    Rosner, Hadronic and radiative D∗ widths, Phys

    J.L. Rosner, Hadronic and radiative D∗ widths, Phys. Rev. D 88, 034034 (2013) [arXiv:1307.2550]

    2013 arXiv

  19. [24]

    Gokhroo et al

    G. Gokhroo et al. [Belle Collaboration], Observation of a Near-threshold D0 ¯D0π0 Enhance- ment in B→D0 ¯D0π0K Decay, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 162002 (2006) [hep-ex/0606055]

    2006 arXiv

  20. [25]

    Voloshin, Interference and binding effects in decays of possible molecular component of X(3872), Phys

    M.B. Voloshin, Interference and binding effects in decays of possible molecular component of X(3872), Phys. Lett. B 579, 316 (2004) [hep-ph/0309307]

    2004 arXiv

  21. [26]

    Voloshin, Isospin properties of the X state near the D ¯D∗ threshold, Phys

    M.B. Voloshin, Isospin properties of the X state near the D ¯D∗ threshold, Phys. Rev. D 76, 014007 (2007) [arXiv:0704.3029]

    2007 arXiv

  22. [27]

    Braaten and M

    E. Braaten and M. Lu, Line shapes of the X(3872), Phys. Rev. D 76, 094028 (2007) [arXiv:0709.2697]

    2007 arXiv

  23. [28]

    Hanhart, Y.S

    C. Hanhart, Y.S. Kalashnikova, A.E. Kudryavtsev and A.V. Nefediev, Reconciling the X(3872) with the near-threshold enhancement in the D0 ¯D∗0 final state, Phys. Rev. D 76, 034007 (2007) [arXiv:0704.0605]. 22

    2007 arXiv

  24. [29]

    Zhang, C

    O. Zhang, C. Meng and H.Q. Zheng, Ambiversion of X(3872), Phys. Lett. B 680, 453 (2009) [arXiv:0901.1553]

    2009 arXiv

  25. [30]

    Kalashnikova and A.V

    Y.S. Kalashnikova and A.V. Nefediev, Nature of X(3872) from data, Phys. Rev. D 80, 074004 (2009) [arXiv:0907.4901]

    2009 arXiv

  26. [31]

    Artoisenet, E

    P. Artoisenet, E. Braaten and D. Kang, Using Line Shapes to Discriminate between Binding Mechanisms for the X(3872), Phys. Rev. D 82, 014013 (2010) [arXiv:1005.2167]

    2010 arXiv

  27. [32]

    Braaten and M

    E. Braaten and M. Lu, The Effects of charged charm mesons on the line shapes of theX(3872), Phys. Rev. D 77, 014029 (2008) [arXiv:0710.5482]

    2008 arXiv

  28. [33]

    Hanhart, Y.S

    C. Hanhart, Y.S. Kalashnikova and A.V. Nefediev, Interplay of quark and meson degrees of freedom in a near-threshold resonance: multi-channel case, Eur. Phys. J. A 47, 101 (2011) [arXiv:1106.1185]

    2011 arXiv

  29. [34]

    Kang and J.A

    X.W. Kang and J.A. Oller, Different pole structures in line shapes of the X(3872), Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 399 (2017) [arXiv:1612.08420]

    2017 arXiv

  30. [35]

    Braaten and D

    E. Braaten and D. Kang, J/ψω Decay Channel of theX(3872) Charm Meson Molecule, Phys. Rev. D 88, no. 1, 014028 (2013) [arXiv:1305.5564]

    2013 arXiv

  31. [36]

    Fleming, M

    S. Fleming, M. Kusunoki, T. Mehen and U. van Kolck, Pion interactions in the X(3872), Phys. Rev. D 76, 034006 (2007) [hep-ph/0703168]

    2007 arXiv

  32. [37]

    Braaten, Galilean-invariant effective field theory for the X(3872), Phys

    E. Braaten, Galilean-invariant effective field theory for the X(3872), Phys. Rev. D 91, 114007 (2015) [arXiv:1503.04791]

    2015 arXiv

  33. [38]

    V. Baru, A. A. Filin, C. Hanhart, Y.S. Kalashnikova, A.E. Kudryavtsev and A.V. Nefediev, Three-body D ¯Dπ dynamics for the X(3872), Phys. Rev. D 84, 074029 (2011) [arXiv:1108.5644]

    2011 arXiv

  34. [39]

    Schmidt, M

    M. Schmidt, M. Jansen and H.-W. Hammer, Threshold Effects and the Line Shape of the X(3872) in Effective Field Theory, Phys. Rev. D 98, 014032 (2018) [arXiv:1804.00375]

    2018 arXiv

  35. [40]

    Aubert et al

    B. Aubert et al. [BaBar Collaboration], Measurements of the absolute branching fractions of B±→K±Xc¯c, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 052002 (2006) [hep-ex/0510070]

    2006 arXiv

  36. [41]

    Kato et al

    Y. Kato et al. [Belle Collaboration], Measurements of the absolute branching fractions ofB+→ Xc¯cK+ and B+→ ¯D(∗)0π+ at Belle, Phys. Rev. D 97, 012005 (2018) [arXiv:1709.06108]

    2018 arXiv

  37. [42]

    Aubert et al

    B. Aubert et al. [BaBar Collaboration], Study of Resonances in Exclusive B Decays to ¯D(∗)D(∗)K, Phys. Rev. D 77, 011102 (2008) [arXiv:0708.1565]

    2008 arXiv

  38. [43]

    Aushev et al

    T. Aushev et al. [Belle Collaboration], Study of the B→ X(3872) (D∗0 ¯D0)K decay, Phys. Rev. D 81, 031103 (2010) [arXiv:0810.0358]

    2010 arXiv

  39. [44]

    Braaten and J

    E. Braaten and J. Stapleton, Analysis of J/ψπ +π− andD0 ¯D0π0 Decays of theX(3872), Phys. Rev. D 81, 014019 (2010) [arXiv:0907.3167]

    2010 arXiv

  40. [45]

    del Amo Sanchez et al

    P. del Amo Sanchez et al. [BaBar Collaboration], Evidence for the decay X(3872)→J/ψω , Phys. Rev. D 82, 011101 (2010) [arXiv:1005.5190]

    2010 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Li and C

    C. Li and C. Z. Yuan, Determination of the absolute branching fractions of X(3872) decays, arXiv:1907.09149 [hep-ex]. 23

    1907 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.