$T_{bc\bar s}$ states in the process $\Upsilon \to D^{-} \bar B^{0} D_s^{+}$

Hua-Xing Chen; Wen-Ying Liu

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 70 references

$T_{bc\bar s}$ states in the process $\Upsilon \to D^{-} \bar B^{0} D_s^{+}$

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A doubly heavy tetraquark molecule should show up as a peak near 7.42 GeV in the B̄⁰D_s⁺ mass spectrum of the weak decay Υ → D⁻ B̄⁰ D_s⁺, with a dip at the vector-vector threshold exposing its molecular nature.

desk verdict A clear, mostly explicit calculation of a new production channel for the T_bcbar_s molecules, but the headline peak/dip is not fixed by the quoted inputs because the relative signs of the two key couplings are never specified. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.19007 v1 pith:XB63YPHE submitted 2025-08-26 hep-ph hep-ex

Wen-Ying Liu , Hua-Xing Chen This is my paper

classification hep-phhep-ex PACS 13.20.Gd

keywords doublyheavytetraquarkhadronicmoleculeT_{bc\bar{s}}statesUpsilonweakdecayfinal-stateinteractionBethe-Salpeterequationcurrentalgebrainvariantmassdistribution

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 aims to show that the rare weak decay Υ → D⁻ B̄⁰ D_s⁺ can serve as a discovery channel for the T_{bc\bar{s}} family of doubly heavy tetraquarks — hadronic molecules with quark content b c \bar{s} \bar{d}. Combining current algebra for the quark-level transition with final-state interactions that regenerate the tetraquarks as molecular poles, the authors compute the B̄⁰D_s⁺ invariant mass distribution and find a stable peak at 7415–7425 MeV, attributed to the spin-2 vector-vector state T^{2,VV}_{bc\bar{s}}, together with a distinctive dip at the B̄*⁰D_s*⁺ threshold. The scalar and spin-0 vector-vector states contribute a possible threshold enhancement and a dip that depend on parameter fine-tuning, but the spin-2 signal survives both regularization schemes. If the prediction is right, experimentalists get a concrete mass window and a specific lineshape to look for in a channel otherwise free of known resonance contamination.

What carries the argument

The machinery has two coupled parts. The T^{J,ab}_{bc\bar{s}} states are molecular poles from a unitarized Bethe-Salpeter equation whose kernel combines hidden-gauge contact and vector-exchange potentials with kaon box diagrams; the box diagrams give the previously bound states finite widths, with spin factors F_J = 5, 0, 2 for J = 0, 1, 2. On the production side, a Fierz rearrangement of the weak current — using the color identity δ_{ab}δ_{ef} = (1/3)δ_{af}δ_{eb} + (1/2)λⁿ_{af}λⁿ_{eb} — matches the quark-level transition onto hadronic matrix elements. The molecular states then enter as Breit–Wigner propagators carrying the pole positions and couplings from the Bethe-Salpeter solution. Loop

What would settle it

Measure the B̄⁰D_s⁺ invariant mass distribution in Υ → D⁻ B̄⁰ D_s⁺ with enough statistics to check the 7415–7425 MeV window and the B̄*⁰D_s*⁺ threshold region: a spectrum with no peak and no dip would rule out the prediction. Independently, a lattice QCD calculation finding no J^P = 2⁺ b c \bar{s} \bar{d} bound state near 7.42 GeV would falsify the molecular input that drives the lineshape.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that the T^{2,VV}_{bc\bar{s}} state — a J^P = 2⁺ hadronic molecule generated from the S-wave interaction of \bar{B}*⁰D_s*⁺ and \bar{B}_s*⁰D*⁺ pairs — is observable, not just a pole in a scattering amplitude. It should appear as a clear peak in the B̄⁰D_s⁺ mass distribution of Υ → D⁻B̄⁰D_s⁺, at 7424.5 MeV (qmax = 450 MeV scheme) or 7413.7 MeV (qmax = 550 MeV), so the 7415–7425 MeV window is stable against the regularization choice. The same state produces a dip at the \bar{B}*⁰D_s*⁺ threshold by interfering with the smooth tree-level background. The T^{0,PP} enhancement and the T^{0,VV} dip are parameter-sensitive; the spin-2 peak is the robust p

Load-bearing premise

The prediction rests on the authors' own Bethe-Salpeter calculation: the T^{2,VV}_{bc\bar{s}} pole near 7.42 GeV, its width, and its couplings are model outputs from a hand-picked cutoff and potential, so if that pole is absent or shifted, the predicted peak and dip vanish with it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A peak in the 7415–7425 MeV window of the B̄⁰D_s⁺ mass distribution in Υ → D⁻B̄⁰D_s⁺, with a dip at the B̄*⁰D_s*⁺ threshold, is the predicted discovery signature of the T^{2,VV}_{bc\bar{s}} molecule.
The B̄⁰D_s⁺ channel is comparatively clean: no established resonances sit in the D⁻B̄⁰ or D⁻D_s⁺ subsystems over the relevant kinematic range, so background structures should not mimic the predicted peak.
The spin-0 features — a near-threshold enhancement from T^{0,PP} and a dip from T^{0,VV} — are secondary predictions whose presence or absence constrains the molecular couplings rather than the molecule's existence.
Because Υ weak decays compete with much stronger strong and electromagnetic channels, clean observation requires high-luminosity future experiments; the predicted lineshape gives those experiments a specific target.

Reading between the lines

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

My inference: the same current-algebra-plus-rescattering machinery could be applied to other weak processes that feed a B̄⁰D_s⁺ pair; if the molecule is real, the same peak mass should appear there with production-strength-dependent height.
My inference: the threshold dip is arguably a sharper diagnostic than the peak itself — a compact tetraquark would produce a peak but not necessarily the coupled-channel dip created here by the vector-vector loop interfering with the tree-level background.
My inference: the authors quote the absolute normalization as arbitrary, so the testable content is the shape and position of structures, not the branching fraction; extracting absolute rates would require going beyond naive factorization.
My inference: a lattice QCD calculation of the bc\bar{s}\bar{d} spectrum with J^P = 2⁺ would directly settle whether a bound state exists near 7.42 GeV, independently of any decay experiment.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The short version: this is a clean, explicit calculation of a new production channel for the T_bcbar_s molecular states, and I think it deserves a serious referee. But the headline peak/dip structure is not actually determined by the inputs as presented, because the relative signs of the couplings are missing.

What is genuinely new: they adapt the current-algebra plus final-state-interaction framework to the weak decay Upsilon -> D- Bbar0 Ds+, compute the tree and loop amplitudes, and produce invariant mass spectra for two cutoff choices. The derivation is readable, the notation is consistent, and the kinematic discussion is sensible. Adding box-diagram widths to the Bethe-Salpeter input is a real improvement over the earlier pole paper. The authors also honestly flag the experimental difficulty and their own theoretical uncertainties.

The problem is the interference. The peak near 7.42 GeV and the dip at the B*0 D*+ threshold come from interference between the tree amplitude and the loop in Fig. 2(f). That loop amplitude is proportional to g'_X3 g_X3, the product of the T^2,VV couplings to the VV and PP channels. In Appendix A, the couplings are extracted from partial widths and tabulated only as absolute values. The relative sign of g'_X3 and g_X3 is never specified. Flip that sign, and the loop flips relative to the tree: the peak becomes a dip and the dip becomes a peak. This is not a minor detail. Until the authors provide signed couplings from the Bethe-Salpeter residue matrix, the central observable signature is a sign convention, not a prediction.

The other soft spots are real but less severe. The peak position is essentially the input pole from their own model, so the calculation is not an independent test of the state's existence. The absolute normalization is unknown (a1 cancels only in arbitrary-unit plots), there are no uncertainty bands, and the T^0,PP and T^0,VV features appear only in one scheme. The authors acknowledge much of this, which is to their credit, but they do not acknowledge the sign ambiguity.

Bottom line: this paper is worth refereeing, and a referee should ask for the signed couplings and the relative phases from the B-S residues. As it stands, the prediction is conditional. For the hadron spectroscopy community it is useful as a concrete roadmap, but the line shape should not yet be treated as robust.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes the weak decay Upsilon -> D- Bbar0 D_s+ as a search channel for doubly heavy tetraquark molecular states T_{bc\bar{s}} with quark content bc\bar{s}\bar{d}. Using current algebra and Fierz rearrangement, the authors construct the tree-level amplitude for Upsilon -> D- Bbar0 D_s+ and then add rescattering contributions through three intermediate molecular states, T^{0,PP}, T^{0,VV}, and T^{2,VV}, in the Bbar0 D_s+ and Bbar*0 D_s*+ channels. Pole positions and couplings are taken from the authors' previous unitarized Bethe-Salpeter model, updated by box-diagram contributions to give finite widths, for two cutoff choices (q_max = 450 and 550 MeV). The computed Bbar0 D_s+ invariant mass distributions show a peak near 7415-7425 MeV attributed to T^{2,VV}, a dip near the Bbar*0 D_s*+ threshold, and (in Scheme II only) a threshold enhancement attributed to T^{0,PP}. The authors conclude that this channel offers a promising way to discover and characterize T_{bc\bar{s}} states.

Significance. If the central prediction were fully determined, the paper would provide a concrete, falsifiable experimental target: a peak-and-dip structure in a specific Upsilon weak decay, with the full amplitude written down explicitly and two regularization schemes showing the same qualitative feature. The calculation is transparent and self-contained, and the paper correctly emphasizes relative line shapes rather than absolute normalization. However, the prediction is conditional in two important ways. First, the existence and pole parameters of T^{2,VV}_{bc\bar{s}} come from the authors' own model with hand-picked cutoffs, with no uncertainty bands. Second, and more seriously, the amplitude of the dominant rescattering diagrams is proportional to products of couplings whose relative signs are not specified. Since the claimed peak and dip arise from interference with the tree amplitude, the sign ambiguity means the line-shape prediction is not actually determined by the quoted inputs. This is a load-bearing issue that must be fixed before the headline claim is robust.

major comments (2)

[Sec. II B, Eqs. (22)-(23); Appendix A, Tables I-II and Eqs. (A16)-(A17)] The amplitudes M_e_loop and M_f_loop are proportional to g'_X2 g_X2 and g'_X3 g_X3. In Appendix A the couplings are extracted from partial widths via Eqs. (A16)-(A17) and listed in Tables I and II as absolute values only. The relative phase between g'_X3 and g_X3 (and between g'_X2 and g_X2) is never specified. The claimed peak near 7415-7425 MeV and the dip at the Bbar*0 D_s*+ threshold arise from interference of these loop amplitudes with M_a_tree; changing the sign of g'_X3 g_X3 changes the sign of the interference term and can turn the peak into a dip and the dip into a peak. The quoted inputs therefore do not determine the central observable. Please provide signed couplings from the Bethe-Salpeter residue matrix, or at least an explicit and justified phase convention, and show the line shapes for both signs.
[Sec. III; Appendix A] The central prediction depends entirely on the existence, mass, and width of T^{2,VV}_{bc\bar{s}} as computed in the authors' own unitarized Bethe-Salpeter model with q_max = 450 and 550 MeV. These inputs are not benchmarked against any external observable, and the two schemes yield peak positions 7425 vs 7415 MeV and widths 5.0 vs 11.6 MeV. The paper should quantify the resulting uncertainty in the invariant mass distribution, e.g., by showing a band over the parameter range or by varying the subtraction point, so that the robustness of the claimed 'clear peak' can be assessed. Without this, the prediction is conditional on a model parameter choice that the present analysis does not justify beyond the two illustrative schemes.

minor comments (5)

[Eq. (29)] The notation |\bar M_total|^2 is ambiguous. Please define explicitly how the spin average over the initial Upsilon polarization and the sum/average over final-state polarizations are performed.
[Tables I and II] The column header '|g_i| (GeV)' is misleading because the couplings entering in different channels have different mass dimensions (e.g., the T^{2,VV} to PP coupling in Eq. (A19) is in MeV^-1). Please specify the dimension of each coupling.
[Eqs. (6), (13), (21)] The index 'l' in the Levi-Civita symbols (e.g., i\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho l}) should be a Greek spacetime index, e.g., \lambda, with summation understood.
[Figs. 3 and 4] Since the overall factor a1 is unconstrained, the vertical scale is arbitrary. The captions already say 'arb. unit', but it would be helpful to state explicitly that only relative shapes, not absolute rates, are predicted.
[References] Reference [52] uses an older PDG edition; it should be updated to the same edition as [48].

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the predicted peak/dip is a model output from stated Bethe-Salpeter inputs, not a fitted or self-referential quantity.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: (i) T_bcbar_s pole positions and couplings are taken from a unitarized Bethe-Salpeter calculation (Ref. [41], recalculated in App. A with box diagrams and cutoffs qmax = 450/550 MeV); (ii) the Upsilon -> D- Bbar0 Ds+ amplitude is built from a current-algebra/Fierz tree term plus loop rescattering terms containing Breit-Wigner propagators at those poles; (iii) the invariant mass distribution is the modulus squared of the sum. The predicted peak position near the input pole mass and the width are direct consequences of the Breit-Wigner inputs, but this is ordinary resonance phenomenology, not circularity: the resonance properties are not defined by or fitted to the predicted spectrum, and the spectrum is not fed back into the B-S equation. The use of the authors' prior work is self-citation, but the load-bearing pieces are re-derived in App. A under stated assumptions (hidden-gauge potentials, box-diagram imaginary parts, cutoff scheme), so the argument does not reduce to an unverified uniqueness claim. One genuine caveat is that Tables I-II list only |g_i| while Eqs. (22)-(23) use signed products g'_X2 g_X2 and g'_X3 g_X3; the relative signs determine whether the T^{2,VV} contribution interferes constructively or destructively with the tree term. This is a completeness/robustness problem in the text as written, but it is not a circularity step: it does not make the predicted observable equal to an input by construction. No circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 3 invented entities

Free parameters are the overall scale a1, the cutoff qmax, and the form-factor/coupling parameters entering the box diagrams. The key axioms are the assumed existence of the T_{bc\bar s} molecular states from the authors' B-S model, the validity of current algebra/naive factorization for Upsilon weak decay, and the neglect of other intermediate resonances. The paper introduces three tetraquark states as hypothetical entities without independent experimental evidence; their predicted signatures are exactly what the paper aims to provide.

free parameters (5)

a1
Overall normalization of the weak amplitude in Eqs. (17)-(24); unknown, cancels only in arbitrary-unit plots, so absolute rates are not predicted.
qmax = 450 MeV (Scheme I), 550 MeV (Scheme II)
Three-momentum cutoff in the B-S equation and loop regularization; chosen by hand to bracket the Tcc-motivated range and controls pole positions, widths, and the presence of the T^{0,PP} threshold enhancement.
Lambda = 1200 MeV
Form-factor cutoff for kaon exchange in box diagrams (Refs. [62,63]); affects the imaginary part of the potential and hence the widths.
g (HGS VPP coupling) = MV/(2f) = 800/(2*93) MeV
Hidden gauge symmetry coupling used in box diagrams; standard but parameter-dependent.
G' (VVP coupling) = 3 g'^2/(4 pi^2 f), g' = -G_V M_rho/(sqrt2 f^2), G_V=55 MeV
Coupling for VVP vertices from Refs. [59,65]; enters the box-diagram imaginary parts and partial widths.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption T_{bc\bar s} states are dynamically generated molecular states from S-wave interactions of \bar B_s^{(*)} D^{(*)} and \bar B^{(*)} D_s^{(*)} pairs.
Central premise from prior work Ref. [41]; no direct experimental evidence. Enters in Section II B and Appendix A.
domain assumption Current algebra with a single process-independent a1 describes Upsilon weak decay.
Section II A-B; naive factorization and 3P0 hadronization, with accuracy expected to be limited as acknowledged in Section IV.
domain assumption The internal emission contribution (Fig. 1(b)) can be neglected.
Section II, after Fig. 1(b); color suppression factor 1/3, but the relative size is not quantified.
domain assumption D-\bar B0 and D-D_s+ intermediate resonances have negligible impact.
Section I; no well-established states, but their contributions are set aside without explicit calculation.
domain assumption The B-S potentials from Ref. [41] and the box-diagram formulas (A1)-(A6) correctly determine the poles.
Appendix A; standard unitarization but model-dependent.
domain assumption Dimensional regularization with matching to the cutoff scheme at threshold (Eq. 27) gives reliable finite loop amplitudes.
Section II B; the scheme choice affects the line shapes, as seen in the qualitatively different features in Scheme I vs II.

invented entities (3)

T^{0,PP}_{bc\bar s}
purpose: Scalar molecular resonance from \bar B_s D and \bar B D_s; produces a near-threshold enhancement in Scheme II.
Postulated from the B-S calculation; no experimental observation. The predicted signature is the paper's handle but is not independent evidence.
T^{0,VV}_{bc\bar s}
purpose: Spin-0 vector-vector molecule; produces a dip near 7420 MeV in Scheme II.
Same status as above; the line shape depends on parameter choices and scheme.
T^{2,VV}_{bc\bar s}
purpose: Spin-2 vector-vector molecule; the main source of the claimed 7415-7425 MeV peak and threshold dip.
Central predicted state; not observed. The predicted spectrum is essentially the state's resonance profile.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of $T_{bc\bar s}$ states in the process $\Upsilon \to D^{-} \bar B^{0} D_s^{+}$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XB63YPHE

@misc{pith2026250819007,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: $T_bc\bar s$ states in the process $\Upsilon \to D^- \bar B^0 D_s^+$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XB63YPHE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.19007}
}

abstract

We perform a theoretical study of the decay process $\Upsilon \to D^{-} \bar{B}^{0} D_s^{+}$ in search of the doubly heavy tetraquark states $T_{bc\bar{s}}$ with quark content $bc\bar{s}\bar{d}$. These $T_{bc\bar{s}}$ states are assumed to be dynamically generated molecular states from the S-wave interactions between $\bar{B}_s^{(*)0} D^{(*)+}$ and $\bar{B}^{(*)0} D_s^{(*)+}$ meson pairs. Based on the total angular momentum and the type of the constituent mesons (pseudoscalars $P$ or vectors $V$), they are labeled as $T_{bc\bar{s}}^{0, PP}$, $T_{bc\bar{s}}^{0, VV}$, and $T_{bc\bar{s}}^{2, VV}$, respectively. The $\bar{B}^{0} D_s^{+}$ invariant mass distribution for this decay is calculated using current algebra, incorporating contributions from $T_{bc\bar{s}}$ states arising from final-state interactions. Our results reveal a clear peak structure in the $7415 - 7425$ MeV region, which is attributed to the $T_{bc\bar{s}}^{2, VV}$ state. Additionally, a distinct dip structure appears near the $\bar{B}^{*0} D_s^{*+}$ threshold, characteristic of the $T_{bc\bar{s}}^{2, VV}$ as a hadronic molecular state. A near-threshold enhancement associated with the $T_{bc\bar{s}}^{0, PP}$ state and a dip arising from the $T_{bc\bar{s}}^{0,\,VV}$ state are also identified, though the manifestation of these features depends sensitively on model parameter fine-tuning. Therefore, with increased experimental statistics, the decay channel $\Upsilon \to D^{-} \bar{B}^{0} D_s^{+}$ offers a promising avenue for discovering and characterizing the $T_{bc\bar{s}}$ states.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.19007 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Feynman diagrams for the process Υ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. (a) The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Box diagrams for the evaluation of the width of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

[1]

We can now construct the Feynman diagrams representing the dom inant contributions to the process Υ →D− ¯B0D+ s , as illustrated in Fig

(16) In the equation, we introduce an overall factor a1, which incorporates contributions from three distinct sources: (a) the coupling between Υ and the curren t JΥ, (b) the coupling strength of the weak interaction process, and (c) the probability of quark-antiquark pair creation from the vacuum via the 3P0 mechanism. We can now construct the Feynman di...

work page
[2]

In this framework we include the states T 0,PP bc¯s , T 0,VV bc¯s , and T 2,VV bc¯s as intermediate resonances. Speciﬁcally, T 0,PP bc¯s denotes the scalar resonance dynamically generated from the S-wave interaction of ¯B0 sD+ – ¯B0D+ s system, while T 0,VV bc¯s and T 2,VV bc¯s correspond to the JP = 0 + and 2 + resonances arising from the S-wave interact...

work page
[3]

Ablikim et al

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

arXiv 2013
[4]

J. Z. Bai et al. (BES), Phys. Lett. B 472, 207 (2000) , arXiv:hep-ex/9909040

work page Pith review arXiv 2000
[5]

Pseudoscalar production at omega omega threshold in J/psi -> gamma omega omega

M. Ablikim et al. (BES), Phys. Rev. D 73, 112007 (2006) , arXiv:hep-ex/0604045

work page Pith review arXiv 2006
[6]

incorporates the Fierz transformation to interchange the qf 6 and bb quarks in Dirac spinor space, thereby placing the quarks into the cu rrent operators corresponding to the appropriate hadronic ﬁnal states. B. Decay Amplitude In the previous subsection we applied Fierz rearrangement to desc ribe the quark-level mechanism corresponding to Fig. 1(a), whic...

work page
[7]

Ablikim et al

M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Chin. Phys. C 44, 040001 (2020) , arXiv:1912.05983 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2020
[8]

Etkin, K

A. Etkin, K. J. Foley, R. S. Longacre, W. A. Love, T. W. Morr is, E. D. Platner, A. C. Saulys, S. J. Lindenbaum, C. S. Chan, and M. A. Kramer, Phys. Lett. B 165, 217 (1985)

work page 1985

Show all 70 references

[9]

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

2003 arXiv
[10]

Ablikim et al

M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Chin. Phys. C 34, 421 (2010) , arXiv:1001.5328 [hep-ex]

2010 arXiv
[11]

Alde et al

D. Alde et al. (IHEP-Brussels-Los Alamos-Annecy(LAPP)), Phys. Lett. B 205, 397 (1988)

1988
[12]

G. S. Adams et al. (E852), Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5760 (1998)

1998
[13]

Kuhn et al

J. Kuhn et al. (E852), Phys. Lett. B 595, 109 (2004) , arXiv:hep-ex/0401004

2004 arXiv
[14]

Ablikim et al

M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. D 106, 072012 (2022) , [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 107, 079901 (2023)], arXiv:2202.00623 [hep-ex]

2022
[15]

Ablikim et al

M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 192002 (2022) , [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 130, 159901 (2023)], arXiv:2202.00621 [hep-ex]

2022
[16]

Ablikim et al

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

2020
[17]

Ablikim et al

M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 151904 (2023) , arXiv:2212.07291 [hep-ex]

2023
[18]

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

2003 arXiv
[19]

Abe et al

K. Abe et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 182002 (2005) , arXiv:hep-ex/0408126

2005 arXiv
[20]

Aaltonen et al

T. Aaltonen et al. (CDF), Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 242002 (2009) , arXiv:0903.2229 [hep-ex]

2009 arXiv
[21]

Aaltonen et al

T. Aaltonen et al. (CDF), Mod. Phys. Lett. A 32, 1750139 (2017) , arXiv:1101.6058 [hep-ex]

2017 arXiv
[22]

Chilikin et al

K. Chilikin et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. D 90, 112009 (2014) , arXiv:1408.6457 [hep-ex]

2014 arXiv
[23]

He et al

Q. He et al. (CLEO), Phys. Rev. D 74, 091104 (2006) , arXiv:hep-ex/0611021

2006 arXiv
[24]

Aubert et al

B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 142001 (2005) , arXiv:hep-ex/0506081

2005 arXiv
[25]

Abe et al

K. Abe et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 082001 (2007) , arXiv:hep-ex/0507019. 16

2007 arXiv
[26]

Ablikim et al

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

2013 arXiv
[27]

Garmash et al

A. Garmash et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. D 91, 072003 (2015) , arXiv:1403.0992 [hep-ex]

2015 arXiv
[28]

Krokovny et al

P. Krokovny et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. D 88, 052016 (2013) , arXiv:1308.2646 [hep-ex]

2013 arXiv
[29]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. D 102, 112003 (2020) , arXiv:2009.00026 [hep-ex]

2020
[30]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 242001 (2020) , arXiv:2009.00025 [hep-ex]

2020
[31]

Aaij et al

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

1983
[32]

Aad et al

G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 151902 (2023) , arXiv:2304.08962 [hep-ex]

2023 arXiv
[33]

Ablikim et al

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

2021
[34]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 072001 (2015) , arXiv:1507.03414 [hep-ex]

2015 arXiv
[35]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 222001 (2019) , arXiv:1904.03947 [hep-ex]

2019 arXiv
[36]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 062001 (2022) , arXiv:2108.04720 [hep-ex]

2022
[37]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Sci. Bull. 66, 1278 (2021) , arXiv:2012.10380 [hep-ex]

2021
[38]

Aaij et al

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

2022
[39]

Aaij et al

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

2022
[40]

Y. Yang, C. Deng, J. Ping, and T. Goldman, Phys. Rev. D 80, 114023 (2009)

2009
[41]

Li, Z.-F

N. Li, Z.-F. Sun, X. Liu, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 88, 114008 (2013) , arXiv:1211.5007 [hep-ph]

2013 arXiv
[42]

Ohkoda, Y

S. Ohkoda, Y. Yamaguchi, S. Yasui, K. Sudoh, and A. Hosak a, Phys. Rev. D 86, 034019 (2012) , arXiv:1202.0760 [hep-ph]

2012 arXiv
[43]

T. Guo, J. Li, J. Zhao, and L. He, Phys. Rev. D 105, 014021 (2022) , arXiv:2108.10462 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[44]

Liu, H.-X

W.-Y. Liu, H.-X. Chen, and E. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 107, 054041 (2023) , arXiv:2301.06785 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[45]

Oset et al., Int

E. Oset et al., Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 25, 1630001 (2016) , arXiv:1601.03972 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[46]

Chen, Phys

H.-X. Chen, Phys. Rev. D 105, 094003 (2022) , arXiv:2103.08586 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[47]

Chen, L.-S

H.-X. Chen, L.-S. Geng, W.-H. Liang, E. Oset, E. Wang, an d J.-J. Xie, Phys. Rev. C 93, 065203 (2016) , arXiv:1510.01803 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[48]

J. P. Lees et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 152001 (2020) , arXiv:1911.11740 [hep-ex]

2020
[49]

Ablikim et al

M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 021901 (2025) , arXiv:2407.12270 [hep-ex]

2025
[50]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), JHEP 10, 106 (2023) , arXiv:2308.00587 [hep-ex]

2023
[51]

Navas et al

S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024) . 17

2024
[52]

Sakai, L

S. Sakai, L. Roca, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 96, 054023 (2017) , arXiv:1704.02196 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[53]

Anastassov et al

A. Anastassov et al. (CLEO), Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 286 (1999) , arXiv:hep-ex/9807031

1999 arXiv
[54]

Ablikim et al

M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), (2025), arXiv:2506.09386 [hep-ex]

2025
[55]

P. A. Zyla et al. (Particle Data Group), PTEP 2020, 083C01 (2020)

2020
[56]

Wang, Eur

Z.-G. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 427 (2015) , arXiv:1506.01993 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[57]

Beˇ cirevi´ c, G

D. Beˇ cirevi´ c, G. Duplanˇ ci´ c, B. Klajn, B. Meli´ c, an d F. Sanﬁlippo, Nucl. Phys. B 883, 306 (2014) , arXiv:1312.2858 [hep-ph]

2014 arXiv
[58]

Beneke, G

M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert, and C. T. Sachrajda, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1914 (1999) , arXiv:hep-ph/9905312

1914 arXiv
[59]

Beneke, G

M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert, and C. T. Sachrajda, Nucl. Phys. B 591, 313 (2000) , arXiv:hep-ph/0006124

2000 arXiv
[60]

Beneke, G

M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert, and C. T. Sachrajda, Nucl. Phys. B 606, 245 (2001) , arXiv:hep-ph/0104110

2001 arXiv
[61]

Feijoo, W

A. Feijoo, W. H. Liang, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 104, 114015 (2021) , arXiv:2108.02730 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[62]

Oset and L

E. Oset and L. Roca, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 882 (2022) , [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 82, 1014 (2022)], arXiv:2207.08538 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[63]

Bando, T

M. Bando, T. Kugo, S. Uehara, K. Yamawaki, and T. Yanagid a, Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 1215 (1985)

1985
[64]

W. H. Liang, C. W. Xiao, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 89, 054023 (2014) , arXiv:1401.1441 [hep-ph]

2014 arXiv
[65]

Molina, T

R. Molina, T. Branz, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 82, 014010 (2010) , arXiv:1005.0335 [hep-ph]

2010 arXiv
[66]

F. S. Navarra, M. Nielsen, and M. E. Bracco, Phys. Rev. D 65, 037502 (2002) , arXiv:hep-ph/0109188

2002 arXiv
[67]

Molina and E

R. Molina and E. Oset, Phys. Lett. B 811, 135870 (2020) , [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 837, 137645 (2023)], arXiv:2008.11171 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[68]

Bramon, A

A. Bramon, A. Grau, and G. Pancheri, Phys. Lett. B 283, 416 (1992) . 18 Appendix A: Pole positions and coupling constants of the possible Tbc¯s states In this section we reﬁne the analysis presented in our previous work [41] by incorporating the exchange of light pseudoscalar ...

1992
[69]

[ 41], setting the three-momentum cutoﬀ to qmax = 450 MeV, to determine the pole positions of the Tbc¯s molecular states

scenario I : qmax = 450 MeV We follow the same procedure as in Ref. [ 41], setting the three-momentum cutoﬀ to qmax = 450 MeV, to determine the pole positions of the Tbc¯s molecular states. The resulting values, along with the corresponding coupling strengths to the rele vant ...
[70]

[ 41], we perform the calculation with a three- momentum cutoﬀ of qmax = 550 MeV

scenario II : qmax = 550 MeV Following the same procedure as in Ref. [ 41], we perform the calculation with a three- momentum cutoﬀ of qmax = 550 MeV. This yields the pole positions of the Tbc¯s molecular states and the corresponding coupling constants to the coupled m eson-me...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

We can now construct the Feynman diagrams representing the dom inant contributions to the process Υ →D− ¯B0D+ s , as illustrated in Fig

(16) In the equation, we introduce an overall factor a1, which incorporates contributions from three distinct sources: (a) the coupling between Υ and the curren t JΥ, (b) the coupling strength of the weak interaction process, and (c) the probability of quark-antiquark pair creation from the vacuum via the 3P0 mechanism. We can now construct the Feynman di...

work page

[2] [2]

In this framework we include the states T 0,PP bc¯s , T 0,VV bc¯s , and T 2,VV bc¯s as intermediate resonances. Speciﬁcally, T 0,PP bc¯s denotes the scalar resonance dynamically generated from the S-wave interaction of ¯B0 sD+ – ¯B0D+ s system, while T 0,VV bc¯s and T 2,VV bc¯s correspond to the JP = 0 + and 2 + resonances arising from the S-wave interact...

work page

[3] [3]

Ablikim et al

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

arXiv 2013

[4] [4]

J. Z. Bai et al. (BES), Phys. Lett. B 472, 207 (2000) , arXiv:hep-ex/9909040

work page Pith review arXiv 2000

[5] [5]

Pseudoscalar production at omega omega threshold in J/psi -> gamma omega omega

M. Ablikim et al. (BES), Phys. Rev. D 73, 112007 (2006) , arXiv:hep-ex/0604045

work page Pith review arXiv 2006

[6] [6]

incorporates the Fierz transformation to interchange the qf 6 and bb quarks in Dirac spinor space, thereby placing the quarks into the cu rrent operators corresponding to the appropriate hadronic ﬁnal states. B. Decay Amplitude In the previous subsection we applied Fierz rearrangement to desc ribe the quark-level mechanism corresponding to Fig. 1(a), whic...

work page

[7] [7]

Ablikim et al

M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Chin. Phys. C 44, 040001 (2020) , arXiv:1912.05983 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2020

[8] [8]

Etkin, K

A. Etkin, K. J. Foley, R. S. Longacre, W. A. Love, T. W. Morr is, E. D. Platner, A. C. Saulys, S. J. Lindenbaum, C. S. Chan, and M. A. Kramer, Phys. Lett. B 165, 217 (1985)

work page 1985