Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Composite nature of the $T_{cc}$ state

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The $T_{cc}$ state carries a large compact-tetraquark component, with a $D^{*}D$ molecular share of only about 0.23.

desk verdict Competent CDD-pole fit to Tcc, but the 'mostly tetraquark' claim leans on an ad hoc production amplitude and a hand-picked local minimum. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19597 v2 pith:XBJ66ZUN submitted 2024-12-27 hep-ph hep-exnucl-th

Xian-Wei Kang , Wen-Shuo Ding This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-exnucl-th
keywords Tcc(3875)compacttetraquarkhadronicmoleculecompositenessCDDpolefinal-stateinteractionline-shapefitnear-thresholdresonance
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 the $T_{cc}$ state reported in the $D^0D^0\pi^+$ mass spectrum is not primarily a $D^{*}D$ hadronic molecule but has a large elementary component, such as a compact tetraquark. The authors fit the observed line shape with a scattering amplitude that contains a CDD pole, a zero of the amplitude that represents an extra degree of freedom beyond the two mesons. The fit reproduces the data and locates one bound-state pole on the physical sheet and one resonance pole on the unphysical sheet, which they read as evidence for an elementary state. From the pole residue they obtain a molecular compositeness of $X=0.23^{+0.40}_{-0.09}$, implying that the non-molecular component is dominant. If this is right, the $T_{cc}$ is best described as a compact tetraquark with a smaller molecular admixture, not as a pure $D^{*}D$ molecule.

What carries the argument

The key object is the CDD-pole-modified production amplitude $d(E)=[1+(E-M_{CDD})(\beta-ik)/\lambda]^{-1}$, derived from the scattering amplitude $t(E)$ by removing the zero factor $E-M_{CDD}$. It encodes the final-state interaction of $D^{*+}D^0$ near the threshold and controls the energy-dependent event distribution. The fitted CDD pole position lies at the threshold within errors ($M_{CDD}-m_{th}=0.47\pm0.38$ MeV), which renders the effective range anomalously large ($r\simeq-77$ fm) and makes the effective-range expansion unreliable. The compositeness is computed from the pole residue through the resonance compositeness formula $X=|\gamma_s^2|\,|dG(s)/ds|$ evaluated at the pole on the second Riemann sheet.

What would settle it

A fit of the same $D^0D^0\pi^+$ spectrum using the full scattering amplitude $t(E)$ as the production amplitude, or using a production form factor derived from a specific production mechanism, that yields a molecular compositeness above about $0.7$ would contradict the claim that the elementary component dominates. A lattice QCD calculation of the $D^{*}D$ scattering amplitude whose near-threshold pole has a residue corresponding to $X>0.5$ would similarly falsify the small-molecule picture.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the near-threshold $T_{cc}$ resonance contains a large portion of elementary degree of freedom, with the $D^{*}D$ molecular component measured by compositeness $X=0.23^{+0.40}_{-0.09}$. The argument proceeds by writing the $D^{*}D$ S-wave scattering amplitude as $t(E)=[\lambda/(E-M_{CDD})+\beta-ik]^{-1}$, where $M_{CDD}$ and $\lambda$ are the position and residue of a CDD pole; near the pole the amplitude develops a zero that distorts the line shape. The authors use the production amplitude $d(E)$, obtained by removing the zero factor $E-M_{CDD}$, to fit the $D^0D^0\pi^+$ spectrum and then search for poles in the complex energy plane. For the central parameters they find a bound-state pole in the physical sheet at $3874.72$ MeV and a resonance pole at $3874.48-i\,1.74$ MeV in the unphysical sheet; the same pattern persists when the finite $D^{*}$ width is included. They interpret the coexistence of both poles through a pole-counting criterion as the signature of an elementary state, and the residue yields the small molecular compositeness.

Load-bearing premise

The result rests on the assumption that the production amplitude is $d(E)$ (the scattering amplitude with the CDD zero removed) rather than the full amplitude $t(E)$ or some other production form factor; since no production operator is derived, the fitted poles, residue, and compositeness can change if this choice is wrong.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Future models of $T_{cc}$ should treat it as a compact tetraquark with a $D^{*}D$ molecular cloud, rather than as a pure two-meson bound state.
  • Analyses of near-threshold charmed hadrons that rely on the effective-range expansion alone can be misleading when the effective range is very large, so a CDD-pole term should be included.
  • The finite $D^{*}$ width shifts the bound-state pole only slightly ($3874.72-i\,0.0098$ MeV), so the very narrow width of $T_{cc}$ is compatible with an unstable bound state.
  • The same line-shape-plus-compositeness method can be applied to other near-threshold resonances to separate molecular from elementary contributions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next step the authors do not take is a full error-propagation study of $X$ that accounts for correlations among the fitted parameters, since their discrete sampling yields one parameter set with $X=0.63$ and drives the large upper uncertainty.
  • If the elementary component really dominates, $T_{cc}$ should also couple to channels other than $D^{*}D$, such as radiative transitions or decays that proceed through the compact core; searching for these modes would test the picture without relying on the production model.
  • The compositeness extraction depends on the unproven choice of $d(E)$ as the production amplitude; a model-independent determination of the production operator from a different production process, or a lattice calculation of the $D^{*}D$ scattering amplitude, could confirm or overturn the small-molecule result.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the nature of the T_{cc}(3875)+ state observed by LHCb in the D^0D^0π^+ mass spectrum. It introduces a non-relativistic D^{*+}D^0 scattering amplitude t(E) containing a Castillejo-Dalitz-Dyson (CDD) pole, Eq. (2), and constructs a production amplitude d(E), Eq. (5), by removing the CDD-zero factor from t(E). The model is fitted to the LHCb spectrum with seven parameters including a background polynomial, yielding χ^2/dof=0.93 (Table I). The fitted parameters are then used to locate poles in the complex energy plane: a bound-state pole at 3874.72 MeV in the physical sheet and a resonance pole at 3874.48−i1.74 MeV in the second Riemann sheet. Using the compositeness formalism of Guo and Oller, the molecular compositeness is reported as X=0.23^{+0.40}_{−0.09}, from which the authors conclude that T_{cc} contains a large elementary (compact tetraquark) component.

Significance. If the extraction were robust, the conclusion that T_{cc} is not predominantly a D^*D molecule would be a valuable contribution to the ongoing debate on the internal structure of this near-threshold state. The paper has several strengths: it gives a good description of the LHCb line shape, explicitly accounts for the experimental energy resolution and the finite D^{*+} width, and it follows a standard pole-searching procedure. The wide 1σ interval for X and the paper's own admission that an alternative 1σ parameter set gives X=0.63 are important honesty checks. However, the headline value of X is not a parameter-free prediction; it is a highly nonlinear function of the fitted parameters, and it depends directly on the model choice for the production amplitude d(E). These issues make the central claim of elementary dominance not yet established, although they are addressable with additional analysis.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II, Eq. (5)] The production amplitude d(E) is introduced without derivation from a production operator; the text only states that the production process is mediated by d(E) 'but not t(E)' by removing the zero factor E−M_CDD. The unitarity condition Im d = d k t* is satisfied by any d(E)=α(E)t(E) with real and nonsingular α(E), so the choice α(E)=λ/(E−M_CDD) is an assumption. Because the fitted parameters λ, β, M_CDD feed into the residue γ_s^2 through Eqs. (15)–(17), the extracted compositeness X=0.23 and the conclusion that the non-molecular component dominates are contingent on this ansatz. The authors should either justify d(E) from a specific production mechanism or test the stability of X against alternative choices of α(E) (e.g., α=constant or a smooth polynomial) by refitting the data.
  2. [Section III, after Eq. (23)] The paper states that within 1σ of Table I the parameter set (λ, β, M_CDD)=(19.8, 33.0, 0.47 MeV) gives X=0.63, yet it does not report the χ² of this solution and only says the Table I solution is 'prefer[red]'. Given the acknowledged highly nonlinear propagation from parameters to X, the quoted interval X=0.23^{+0.40}_{−0.09} includes a molecule-dominated value X=0.63. To support the abstract's claim that the non-molecular component 'takes a non-negligible or even dominant portion', the authors should report the χ² for the X=0.63 solution, state the confidence level at which X≥0.5 is disfavored, or soften the conclusion accordingly.
  3. [Section III and Section IV] The claim that finding both a physical-sheet bound-state pole at 3874.72 MeV and an unphysical-sheet resonance pole at 3874.48−i1.74 MeV indicates, via the Morgan criterion, that T_{cc} is elementary is not an independent confirmation: this two-pole pattern is a property of the amplitude in Eqs. (2)–(3) with a CDD pole near threshold, and the same fitted input drives the small X. The paper notes that a constrained fit with the LHCb pole position also yields both poles, but it does not provide the compositeness for that case. A quantitative pole-counting comparison with a purely molecular (no-CDD) scenario is needed before the two-sheet structure can be used as evidence for elementary dominance.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors: 'Reimann' should be 'Riemann' (page 1), 'constitues' should be 'constitutes' (Section II), 'equavalent' should be 'equivalent' (after Eq. (19)), and 'dozen of sets' should be 'dozens of sets' (Section III).
  2. [Eq. (14)] The sign convention for the complex momentum k with the finite D* width should be stated explicitly; the branch of the square root matters for the pole positions in the two Riemann sheets.
  3. [Section III, first and later paragraphs] Two different 1σ alternative parameter sets are quoted: (λ, β)=(19.8, 108.0) for the scattering lengths a=−3.0 fm, r=−18.3 fm, and (λ, β)=(19.8, 33.0) for X=0.63. The text should clarify which parameter set is actually at the 1σ boundary and why both are consistent with Table I.
  4. [Table I] The units for the background coefficients a, b, c and for Yconst should be defined clearly in the table caption, and it should be stated whether Yconst is the yield before or after the resolution convolution.
  5. [Abstract and Conclusion] The word 'predicted' for X=0.23 is misleading because X is an output of the fit; 'extracted' or 'determined' would be more accurate.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Headline X=0.23 is a fitted-output called a prediction, and the production ansatz d(E) that determines it is introduced by citation rather than derived.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract; Sec. III (text after Table I, Eqs. 15-17)]
    "The compositeness as a measure of molecule component in its wave function is predicted to be 0.23+0.40−0.09. ... For the bound state pole, we have the residue γ2 s = 5.04 GeV2, and the corresponding compositeness X = 0.23."

    X is not measured or predicted before the fit. Eq. (15) defines X from γ_s^2, and Eq. (17) expresses γ_s^2 in terms of the fitted parameters λ, M_CDD and the pole position E_P obtained from the same fit. The line shape Eq. (13) is built on |d(E)|^2, so the fitted λ, M_CDD, β determine γ_E and hence X. Calling the resulting X=0.23 a 'prediction' presents a postdicted algebraic transform of the fitted parameters as an independent test. The paper's own alternative parameter set at 1σ giving X=0.63 further shows that the central value is not a robust prediction but a fit-dependent output.

  2. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Sec. II, Eq. (5)]
    "The production process is mediated by the following d(E) (but not t(E)) by removing the extra E − MCDD factor in t(E) [30]: d(E) = [1 + (E − MCDD)/λ (β − ik)]^{-1}"

    Eq. (5) is introduced as the production amplitude 'but not t(E)' simply by deleting the zero factor; no production operator is derived. Since any F(E)=α(E)t(E) with real α(E) satisfies the same unitarity relation Im F = F k t*, the choice α(E)=λ/(E−M_CDD) is one of infinitely many allowed forms. The fit of |d(E)|^2 fixes λ, M_CDD, β, and through Eqs. (15)-(17) the pole residue and compositeness X. Thus the central claim of elementary dominance is contingent on an unproven, citation-backed ansatz rather than being an inference forced by the data.

full rationale

The paper is not self-citation-circular: the production form d(E) is attributed to Guo-Oller [30], not to the present authors, and the compositeness formula and Morgan criterion are external. The circularity is narrower but real. The headline X=0.23 is not an independent prediction; it is a function of the same λ, M_CDD, β fitted to the LHCb line shape, via Eqs. (15)-(17). Moreover, Eq. (5) is an assumed production amplitude, and the paper's own 1σ alternative parameter set (λ=19.8, β=33.0, M_CDD=0.47) yields X=0.63, showing the central value is not robust to the chosen fit solution. The model does reproduce the data and the pole positions are nontrivial outputs, so this is partial circularity rather than a fully definitional equivalence; nevertheless, the central quantitative claim reduces to a fitted output under a non-unique production ansatz.

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

The central result rests on a 7-parameter fit, three of which (lambda, M_CDD, beta) govern the CDD amplitude. The compositeness X is computed entirely from these fitted parameters; no external prediction or machine-checked derivation is provided. The CDD pole location is fitted to be within 0.47 MeV of threshold, and this proximity is what drives r to -77.2 fm and the small X. The production amplitude d(E) is an ansatz, and the interpretation via Morgan pole counting is an added model assumption.

free parameters (5)
  • lambda (CDD pole residue) = 83.6 +/- 63.8 MeV^2
    Strength of the CDD pole; enters the amplitude in Eq. (2) and the residue-to-compositeness relation in Eq. (17).
  • M_CDD - m_th (CDD pole position relative to threshold) = 0.47 +/- 0.38 MeV
    Fitted near threshold; through Eq. (4) this proximity drives r=-77.2 fm and is the main driver of the small compositeness X.
  • beta (inverse-amplitude constant) = 70.5 +/- 37.6 MeV
    Non-CDD scattering part; participates in the scattering length and line shape.
  • a, b, c (background polynomial coefficients) = a=-81.4 MeV^-2, b=-99.2 MeV^-3, c=1653.5 MeV^-4
    Background parameterization in Eq. (11); affects the normalization but not the central pole structure strongly.
  • Yconst (signal yield) = 10.8 +/- 8.0 MeV^-2
    Overall normalization of the signal in Eq. (13).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The D*+D0 interaction is non-relativistic S-wave and the inverse amplitude satisfies unitarity as Im t^{-1}=-k.
    Used in Eqs. (2)-(3); the near-threshold Tcc justifies the non-relativistic treatment, but the exact two-body treatment with a finite-width D* is an approximation.
  • ad hoc to paper The production amplitude d(E) is obtained by removing the zero (E-M_CDD) from t(E), and this d(E) describes the final-state interaction in production.
    Eq. (5) is stated without derivation; all line-shape results and the extracted parameters depend on this choice.
  • domain assumption The Guo-Oller compositeness formula (Eq. (15)) and its analytic continuation to the second Riemann sheet apply to this state.
    Taken from Ref. [20]; its applicability to a bound state with a large CDD pole nearby is assumed.
  • domain assumption Morgan pole counting: the presence of both a physical-sheet bound-state pole and an unphysical-sheet resonance pole implies an elementary component.
    Used in Sec. III to conclude that Tcc is elementary; the criterion is model-dependent for states with finite width and a CDD pole.
  • standard math The dimensional regularization of G(s) in Eq. (18) is adequate, and the unspecified subtraction constant alpha(mu^2) does not affect X because X uses dG/ds.
    G(s) from dimensional regularization; the compositeness calculation uses the derivative, which is scale-independent in this setup.
invented entities (1)
  • Compact tetraquark (elementary) component of Tcc
    purpose: To account for the non-molecular fraction Z=1-X inferred from the CDD pole; the paper identifies this component with a compact tetraquark.
    No new quantum number or direct observable is introduced. The component is inferred from a fitted parameter combination and is not independently falsifiable within this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Composite nature of the $T_{cc}$ state." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XBJ66ZUN

@misc{pith2026241219597,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Composite nature of the $T_cc$ state},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XBJ66ZUN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19597}
}
abstract

In 2021, LHCb collaboration reported a very narrow state in the $D^0D^0\pi^+$ mass spectrum just below the $D^{*+}D^0$ mass threshold. We consider the influence of the Castillejo-Dalitz-Dyson (CDD) pole in the scattering amplitude to derive a general treatment for the two-body final state interaction near its threshold. The line shape (or the energy dependent event distribution) are then obtained, where the parameters can be fixed by fitting to the experimental data on the $D^0D^0\pi^+$ mass spectrum. Within our method the data are quite well reproduced. The pole structure in the complex energy plane indicates that the $T_{cc}$ state has a large portion of elementary degree of freedom (e.g., the compact tetraquark component) inside its hadron wave function. The compositeness as a measure of molecule component in its wave function is predicted to be $0.23_{-0.09}^{+0.40}$. Clearly, the non-molecular component takes a non-negligible or even dominant portion.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.19597 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Mass spectrum for the D0D0π + decay channel. The data are from the LHCb collaboration [2]. The solid line represents our total result, with dotted line showing the background and dashed line corresponding to without the Gaussian resolution. The definition of compositeness for a bound state is well defined by the Weinberg formula [35, 36]. However, for resonance case, the compositeness calculated in that way will bec… view at source ↗

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. Composite nature of exotic states from data analysis

    hep-ph 2025-09 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

    Compositeness values for X(3872), Zb(10610), Zb(10650), and Tcc are extracted from CDD-pole fits to published spectra; X(3872) is unconstrained (0 to 1), Tcc is found at 0.23 with large errors.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], ‘Observation of an exotic narrow doubly charmed tetraquark,” Nature Phys. 18, no.7, 751-754 (2022) [arXiv:2109.01038 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    Study of the doubly charmed tetraquark T + cc ,

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], “Study of the doubly charmed tetraquark T + cc ,” Nature Commun. 13, no.1, 3351 (2022) [arXiv:2109.01056 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    D0D0 π+ mass distribution in the production of the Tcc exotic state,

    A. Feijoo, W. H. Liang and E. Oset, “D0D0 π+ mass distribution in the production of the Tcc exotic state,” Phys. Rev. D 104, no.11, 114015 (2021) [arXiv:2108.02730 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Tcc+ coupled channel analysis and predictions,

    M. Albaladejo, “Tcc+ coupled channel analysis and predictions,” Phys. Lett. B 829, 137052 (2022) [arXiv:2110.02944 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Internal structure of the Tcc(3875)+ from its light-quark mass dependence,

    M. Abolnikov, V. Baru, E. Epelbaum, A. A. Filin, C. Hanhart and L. Meng, “Internal structure of the Tcc(3875)+ from its light-quark mass dependence,” [arXiv:2407.04649 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  6. [6]

    Coupled-channel approach to Tcc+ including three-body effects,

    M. L. Du, V. Baru, X. K. Dong, A. Filin, F. K. Guo, C. Hanhart, A. Nefediev, J. Nieves and Q. Wang, “Coupled-channel approach to Tcc+ including three-body effects,” Phys. Rev. D 105, no.1, 014024 (2022) [arXiv:2110.13765 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    The isospin and compositeness of the Tcc(3875) state,

    L. R. Dai, L. M. Abreu, A. Feijoo and E. Oset, “The isospin and compositeness of the Tcc(3875) state,” Eur. Phys. J. C 83, no.10, 983 (2023) [arXiv:2304.01870 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Evolution of genuine states to molecular ones: The Tcc(3875) case,

    L. R. Dai, J. Song and E. Oset, “Evolution of genuine states to molecular ones: The Tcc(3875) case,” Phys. Lett. B 846, 138200 (2023) [arXiv:2306.01607 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2023

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Doubly heavy tetraquarks in an extended chromomagnetic model *,

    X. Z. Weng, W. Z. Deng and S. L. Zhu, “Doubly heavy tetraquarks in an extended chromomagnetic model *,” Chin. Phys. C 46, no.1, 013102 (2022) [arXiv:2108.07242 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Doubly heavy tetraquarks in a chiral-diquark picture,

    Y. Kim, M. Oka and K. Suzuki, “Doubly heavy tetraquarks in a chiral-diquark picture,” Phys. Rev. D 105, no.7, 074021 (2022) [arXiv:2202.06520 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Discovery of doubly-charmed Ξ cc baryon implies a stable (bb¯u ¯d) tetraquark,

    M. Karliner and J. L. Rosner, “Discovery of doubly-charmed Ξ cc baryon implies a stable (bb¯u ¯d) tetraquark,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, no.20, 202001 (2017) [arXiv:1707.07666 [hep- ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Hunting for the prospective Tcc family based on the diquark-antidiquark configuration,

    W. C. Dong and Z. G. Wang, “Hunting for the prospective Tcc family based on the diquark-antidiquark configuration,” [arXiv:2407.19383 [hep-ph]]. 11

    arXiv

  5. [13]

    DO NARROW HEA VY MULTI - QUARK STATES EXIST?,

    J. P. Ader, J. M. Richard and P. Taxil, “DO NARROW HEA VY MULTI - QUARK STATES EXIST?,” Phys. Rev. D 25, 2370 (1982)

    1982

  6. [14]

    On the Existence of Stable Dimesons,

    L. Heller and J. A. Tjon, “On the Existence of Stable Dimesons,” Phys. Rev. D 35, 969 (1987)

    1987

  7. [15]

    Pole analysis on the doubly charmed meson in D0D0 π+ mass spectrum,

    L. Y. Dai, X. Sun, X. W. Kang, A. P. Szczepaniak and J. S. Yu, “Pole analysis on the doubly charmed meson in D0D0 π+ mass spectrum,” Phys. Rev. D 105, no.5, L051507 (2022) [arXiv:2108.06002 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Triangle singularities in the Tcc → D∗+D0 → π+D0D0 decay width,

    N. N. Achasov and G. N. Shestakov, “Triangle singularities in the Tcc → D∗+D0 → π+D0D0 decay width,” Phys. Rev. D 105, no.9, 096038 (2022) [arXiv:2203.17100 [hep- ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Near-threshold states in coupled DD∗ − D∗D∗ scattering from lattice QCD,

    T. Whyte, D. J. Wilson and C. E. Thomas, “Near-threshold states in coupled DD∗ − D∗D∗ scattering from lattice QCD,” [arXiv:2405.15741 [hep-lat]]

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    An updated review of the new hadron states,

    H. X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, Y. R. Liu and S. L. Zhu, “An updated review of the new hadron states,” Rept. Prog. Phys. 86, no.2, 026201 (2023) [arXiv:2204.02649 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Compositeness of Tcc and X(3872) by considering decay and coupled-channels effects,

    T. Kinugawa and T. Hyodo, “Compositeness of Tcc and X(3872) by considering decay and coupled-channels effects,” Phys. Rev. C 109, no.4, 045205 (2024) [arXiv:2303.07038 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Probabilistic interpretation of compositeness relation for resonances,

    Z. H. Guo and J. A. Oller, “Probabilistic interpretation of compositeness relation for resonances,” Phys. Rev. D 93, no.9, 096001 (2016) [arXiv:1508.06400 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Evidence that the a(0)(980) and f(0)(980) are not elementary particles,

    V. Baru, J. Haidenbauer, C. Hanhart, Y. Kalashnikova and A. E. Kudryavtsev, “Evidence that the a(0)(980) and f(0)(980) are not elementary particles,” Phys. Lett. B 586, 53-61 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0308129 [hep-ph]]

    2004 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Comprehensive analysis of the wave function of a hadronic resonance and its compositeness,

    T. Sekihara, T. Hyodo and D. Jido, “Comprehensive analysis of the wave function of a hadronic resonance and its compositeness,” PTEP2015, 063D04 (2015) [arXiv:1411.2308 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Meson-baryon components in the states of the baryon decuplet,

    F. Aceti, L. R. Dai, L. S. Geng, E. Oset and Y. Zhang, “Meson-baryon components in the states of the baryon decuplet,” Eur. Phys. J. A 50, 57 (2014) [arXiv:1301.2554 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Low’s scattering equation for the charged and neutral scalar theories,

    L. Castillejo, R. H. Dalitz and F. J. Dyson, “Low’s scattering equation for the charged and neutral scalar theories,” Phys. Rev. 101, 453-458 (1956)

    1956

  17. [25]

    Nature of X(3872) from recent BESIII data: Considering the universal feature of an S-wave threshold resonance,

    X. W. Kang, J. Z. Zhang and X. H. Guo, “Nature of X(3872) from recent BESIII data: Considering the universal feature of an S-wave threshold resonance,” [arXiv:2410.14521 12 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  18. [26]

    Different pole structures in line shapes of the X(3872),

    X. W. Kang and J. A. Oller, “Different pole structures in line shapes of the X(3872),” Eur. Phys. J. C 77, no.6, 399 (2017) [arXiv:1612.08420 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  19. [27]

    General considerations on the nature of Zb(10610) and Zb(10650) from their pole positions,

    X. W. Kang, Z. H. Guo and J. A. Oller, “General considerations on the nature of Zb(10610) and Zb(10650) from their pole positions,” Phys. Rev. D 94, no.1, 014012 (2016) [arXiv:1603.05546 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Composite nature of Zb states from data anal- ysis,

    L. Zhang, X. W. Kang and X. H. Guo, “Composite nature of Zb states from data anal- ysis,” Eur. Phys. J. C 82, no.4, 375 (2022) [arXiv:2203.02301 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Analysis on the composite nature of the light scalar mesons f0(980) and a0(980),

    Z. Q. Wang, X. W. Kang, J. A. Oller and L. Zhang, “Analysis on the composite nature of the light scalar mesons f0(980) and a0(980),” Phys. Rev. D 105, no.7, 074016 (2022) [arXiv:2201.00492 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Resonance on top of thresholds: the Λ c(2595)+ as an extremely fine-tuned state,

    Z. H. Guo and J. A. Oller, “Resonance on top of thresholds: the Λ c(2595)+ as an extremely fine-tuned state,” Phys. Rev. D 93, no.5, 054014 (2016) [arXiv:1601.00862 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Effective-range-expansion study of near threshold heavy-flavor resonances,

    R. Gao, Z. H. Guo, X. W. Kang and J. A. Oller, “Effective-range-expansion study of near threshold heavy-flavor resonances,” Adv. High Energy Phys. 2019, 4651908 (2019) [arXiv:1812.07323 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Analysis of J/psi pi+ pi- and D0 anti-D0 pi0 Decays of the X(3872),

    E. Braaten and J. Stapleton, “Analysis of J/psi pi+ pi- and D0 anti-D0 pi0 Decays of the X(3872),” Phys. Rev. D 81, 014019 (2010) [arXiv:0907.3167 [hep-ph]]

    2010 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Review of particle physics,

    S. Navas et al. [Particle Data Group], “Review of particle physics,” Phys. Rev. D 110, no.3, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    MINUIT C Function Minimization and Error Analysis

    F. James,“MINUIT C Function Minimization and Error Analysis”, CERN Program Li- brary Long Writeup D506, Version 94.1

  27. [35]

    Elementary particle theory of composite particles,

    S. Weinberg, “Elementary particle theory of composite particles,” Phys. Rev. 130, 776- 783 (1963)

    1963

  28. [36]

    Evidence That the Deuteron Is Not an Elementary Particle,

    S. Weinberg, “Evidence That the Deuteron Is Not an Elementary Particle,” Phys. Rev. 137, B672-B678 (1965)

    1965

  29. [37]

    P -wave coupled-channel scattering ofBsπ, B∗ s π, BK, B∗K and the puzzling X(5568),

    X. W. Kang and J. A. Oller, “P -wave coupled-channel scattering ofBsπ, B∗ s π, BK, B∗K and the puzzling X(5568),” Phys. Rev. D 94, no.5, 054010 (2016) [arXiv:1606.06665 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  30. [38]

    On the strangeness -1 S-wave meson-baryon scattering,

    J. A. Oller, “On the strangeness -1 S-wave meson-baryon scattering,” Eur. Phys. J. A 13 28, 63-82 (2006) [arXiv:hep-ph/0603134 [hep-ph]]

    2006 arXiv

  31. [39]

    T + cc and χc1(3872) with the complex scaling method and DDπ three-body effect,

    Z. Y. Lin, J. B. Cheng and S. L. Zhu, “T + cc and χc1(3872) with the complex scaling method and DDπ three-body effect,” Phys. Rev. D 110, no.5, 5 (2024) [arXiv:2205.14628 [hep- ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Pole counting and resonance classification,

    D. Morgan, “Pole counting and resonance classification,” Nucl. Phys. A 543, 632-644 (1992)

    1992

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.