Emergence of charm-strange dibaryons with negative parity via baryon-baryon interactions

Qi Huang; Rui Chen; Xiao-Mei Tang; Yu-Yue Cui

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 77 references

Emergence of charm-strange dibaryons with negative parity via baryon-baryon interactions

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper predicts ten negative-parity charm-strange dibaryon molecular candidates and several shape- and Feshbach-type resonances by solving coupled-channel Schrödinger equations with one-boson-exchange potentials.

desk verdict Systematic P-wave OBE catalog of negative-parity charm-strange dibaryons, but two headline states only bind at cutoffs near 1.9 GeV, so treat the spectrum as model-dependent. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.12958 v1 pith:YE5CSCKK submitted 2025-07-17 hep-ph

Yu-Yue Cui , Xiao-Mei Tang , Qi Huang , Rui Chen This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-ph

keywords charm-strangedibaryonshadronicmoleculesone-boson-exchangemodelP-waveinteractionscoupled-channelSchrödingerequationsnegativeparityFeshbachresonanceshape-type

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper predicts a family of charm-strange dibaryons—states made of a charmed baryon and a light baryon—that carry negative parity because their relative orbital motion is a P-wave. The authors derive baryon-baryon forces from one-boson-exchange effective potentials and solve the coupled-channel Schrödinger equation, obtaining ten weakly bound molecular candidates with binding energies from a few to tens of MeV. They also identify shape-type and Feshbach-type resonances in the same systems, some of which are not independent states but the unbound counterparts of the predicted molecules. The value of the claim is that it extends the hadronic-molecule picture, so far concentrated on S-wave states, into P-wave channels where a centrifugal barrier makes binding harder and resonances more likely.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the coupled-channel Schrödinger equation fed with one-boson-exchange (OBE) effective potentials. These potentials come from effective Lagrangians for charmed-baryon–light-baryon interactions and are regulated by a monopole form factor whose cutoff $\Lambda$ is the only free parameter, varied from 0.80 to 2.00 GeV. In a P-wave the two baryons have one unit of relative orbital angular momentum, and the resulting centrifugal barrier can trap the system long enough to produce shape resonances, while coupling between channels with different thresholds produces Feshbach resonances. Bound states are identified by binding energy and RMS radius, while resonances are located from phase shifts crossing $\delta(E_r)=(n+1/2)\pi$, with widths $\Gamma_r=2/(d\delta/dE)$.

What would settle it

A lattice QCD calculation of the $I=0$ $\Xi_c^*N$ P-wave channel at physical quark masses that finds no shallow bound state near the $\Xi_c^*N$ threshold, or an experimental search that sees no resonance at the predicted energy in charm-strange dibaryon production, would falsify the molecular prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the P-wave interactions between charm-strange baryons ($\Xi_c$, $\Xi_c'$, $\Xi_c^*$, $\Sigma_c$, $\Sigma_c^*$) and light baryons ($N$, $\Lambda$, $\Sigma$), described by one-boson-exchange potentials, produce weakly bound molecular states with negative parity. In detail, the paper predicts a $\Xi_c'N$ molecule with $I(J^P)=0(1^-)$, $\Xi_c^*N$ molecules with $0(0^-,1^-,2^-)$, $\Sigma_c\Sigma$ molecules with $0(1^-)$ and $1(1^-)$, and $\Sigma_c^*\Sigma$ molecules with $0(0^-,1^-,2^-)$ and $1(2^-)$. Coupled-channel effects are decisive for the $\Sigma_c\Sigma$ molecule with $1(1^-)$, which does not bind as a single channel but does when the $\Sigma_c^*\Sigma$ channel is included. Phase-shift analysis adds a $\Sigma_c\Sigma$ shape-type resonance with $1(1^-)$, a $\Sigma_c^*\Sigma$ shape-type resonance with $1(0^-)$, and coupled Feshbach-type resonances in $\Lambda_c\Sigma/\Sigma_c\Sigma$ with $1(1^-)$ and in $\Lambda_c\Sigma/\Sigma_c^*\Sigma$ with $1(0^-,2^-)$.

Load-bearing premise

The predictions stand or fall on the assumption that the meson-exchange force between a charmed baryon and a light baryon, with a single adjustable cutoff near 1 GeV, accurately describes their P-wave interaction; the paper notes binding energies are highly sensitive to this cutoff.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the central prediction is right, charm-strange dibaryons would be the first family of negative-parity hadronic molecules built from a charmed baryon and a light baryon.
The $\Sigma_c\Sigma$ state with $I(J^P)=1(1^-)$ shows that a molecule can appear only after coupled-channel effects are included, so single-channel estimates would miss it.
Several predicted resonances sit at or near the $\Xi_c^*N$ and $\Sigma_c^*\Sigma$ thresholds, implying that future searches should see threshold enhancements that trace back to the same molecular states.
The binding energies of a few to tens of MeV and RMS radii near 1 fm distinguish these objects from compact multiquark states, giving experiments a size-and-binding discriminant.

Reading between the lines

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

If the OBE pattern holds, analogous P-wave charm-bottom or doubly charmed dibaryons should be examined, where heavier masses may change which channels bind.
The predicted Feshbach resonances imply that inclusive production of charm-strange pairs could show cusps at the $\Sigma_c\Sigma$ and $\Sigma_c^*\Sigma$ thresholds even if the bound molecules are difficult to reconstruct.
A future measurement of the cutoff dependence of any one of these states would provide a sharp test of whether the same meson-exchange couplings transfer from S-wave to P-wave charmed-baryon systems.

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

Colleague,

This paper is a systematic OBE coupled-channel study of P-wave charmed-baryon–light-baryon interactions, extending the authors' earlier S-wave work to negative parity. The new output is a catalog of predicted molecules and resonances: Ξ'_cN 0(1^-), Ξ*_cN 0(0^-,1^-,2^-), Σ_cΣ 0(1^-), Σ*_cΣ 0(0^-,1^-,2^-), plus shape-type and Feshbach-type resonances. The machinery is presented in enough detail to reproduce—potentials, matrix elements, tables of binding energies, radii, and channel probabilities—and the authors are honest about which coupled-channel solutions have RMS radii too small to count as molecules. That transparency earns credit. Also, the predictions are not fitted to the target states; the couplings come from NN and heavy-quark symmetry, so the circularity concern is minimal.

The soft spots are about the regulator, and they are not all equal. Some states bind at defensible cutoffs: Σ_cΣ 0(1^-) around 1.1 GeV, Σ*_cΣ 0(0^-,1^-,2^-) around 1.05–1.15 GeV, Ξ*_cN isoscalars around 1.28–1.35 GeV. Those are above the nominal 1.0 GeV benchmark but within the scanned range and not alarming by OBE standards. The problem is two isovector states in the abstract and summary: Σ_cΣ 1(1^-) only binds at Λ = 1.85–1.95 GeV and Σ*_cΣ 1(2^-) only at Λ = 1.80–1.90 GeV, per Tables XI and XII. The paper calls both 'molecular candidates' without flagging that they sit at the far edge of the cutoff range, far from the 'reasonable cutoff around 1.00 GeV' stated in Section II. That is a real overreach. The phase-shift analysis in Section III.B is also not independent confirmation—it uses the same potentials and the same cutoff logic, so it can only show the model is self-consistent. There is no form-factor variation or uncertainty estimate, so shallow bindings at high cutoff should be read as regulator artifacts until shown otherwise.

The stress-test note says the spectrum is regulator-driven. That is too strong for the low-cutoff isoscalars, which are robust within the model, but it is exactly right for the two isovector headline states. The paper also does not discuss whether monopole vs dipole regulators would remove shallow P-wave states; that omission matters.

Who is this for: practitioners of OBE hadron spectroscopy who want a prediction catalog to compare with future searches. It deserves a serious referee—the calculation is detailed, reproducible, and the literature context is adequate. The referee should push for a cutoff-variation table for each candidate and an explicit caveat for the high-cutoff states. I would not cite it in my own work next year, but I would send it to review.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper uses a one-boson-exchange (OBE) model with monopole form factors to study P-wave interactions between charmed baryons (Xi_c, Xi'_c, Xi*_c, Lambda_c, Sigma_c, Sigma*_c) and light baryons, solving coupled-channel Schrodinger equations and analyzing phase shifts. It predicts several negative-parity charm-strange dibaryon molecular candidates, including Xi'_c N with I(J^P)=0(1^-), Xi*_c N with 0(0^-,1^-,2^-), Sigma_c Sigma with 0(1^-) and 1(1^-), and Sigma*_c Sigma with 0(0^-,1^-,2^-) and 1(2^-). It also identifies shape-type and Feshbach-type resonances in coupled-channel phase shifts. The paper carefully reports binding energies, RMS radii, channel probabilities, and cutoff sensitivity, and it explicitly declines to promote several small-radius coupled-channel bound states to molecular candidates.

Significance. If the predictions are robust, the paper provides a systematic extension of molecular dibaryon studies to negative-parity P-wave systems, complementing the authors' earlier S-wave analysis (Ref. [49]) and giving concrete states and resonance patterns that could be tested by future experiments or lattice QCD. The derivation is transparent: the effective Lagrangians and coupling constants are specified, all potential terms are tabulated, and the numerical results include a full set of bound-state and phase-shift tables. The authors are also honest about two important limitations: the binding energies are highly sensitive to the cutoff, and several coupled-channel states have RMS radii around 0.5 fm that are inconsistent with typical molecular sizes. That transparency is a genuine strength. The central weakness is that some headline states exist only at cutoffs far above the paper's own 'reasonable' value, and no form-factor or uncertainty test is provided.

major comments (3)

[Section III A, Tables XI and XII] The abstract's headline states Sigma_c Sigma with 1(1^-) and Sigma*_c Sigma with 1(2^-) bind only at cutoffs far above the value that Section II declares reasonable ('around 1.00 GeV'). Table XI shows the Sigma_c Sigma 1(1^-) state only for Lambda = 1.85, 1.90, 1.95 GeV, and Table XII shows Sigma*_c Sigma 1(2^-) only for Lambda = 1.80, 1.85, 1.90 GeV. These values sit near the upper edge of the scanned range 0.80 <= Lambda <= 2.00 GeV. Because the scan stops at 2.00 GeV, the appearance of bound states at these large cutoffs is a generic consequence of an attractive OBE potential and does not by itself discriminate physical molecules from regulator-driven artifacts. The paper needs a criterion, or an additional constraint, that explains why these high-cutoff states should be regarded as predictions rather than as an artifact of the chosen regulator range.
[Section III B] The phase-shift analysis uses the same OBE potentials and the same cutoff selection as the bound-state calculation, so it cannot independently 'confirm the existence of the predicted molecules' as claimed in the text and in the conclusions. The statement that resonances correspond to the previously predicted molecules is a self-consistency check, not a validation of the model: with the same potential and the same free cutoff, the phase shifts will necessarily reflect whatever bound or virtual states the potential produces. To make the confirmation meaningful, the authors would need to show that the resonance positions and widths are stable under changes of the regulator shape, or that they are constrained by some external input such as scattering data.
[Section II and Section III] No uncertainty quantification or alternative form-factor shape is considered. The monopole form factor F(q^2,m_E^2) = (Lambda^2 - m_E^2)/(Lambda^2 - q^2) is the only regulator used, and Lambda is stated in Section III to be the only free parameter. The paper does not test a dipole form factor or any other shape, even though shallow P-wave bound states are known to be sensitive to the short-range part of the potential. Since several predicted states have binding energies of only a few MeV and appear only for Lambda near 1.8-2.0 GeV, a different regulator shape could easily remove them. The authors should either perform such a test or explicitly restrict the claims to the monopole form factor and discuss the resulting uncertainty in the predicted spectrum.

minor comments (4)

[Section II] The text states that 'the reasonable cutoff value is taken around 1.00 GeV' based on nucleon-nucleon experience, but Tables XI and XII later quote binding at Lambda = 1.85-1.95 GeV. This tension should be addressed directly in the text, not only through tables.
[Section III A] There are several typographical errors: 'agian' should be 'again', 'unites' in table captions should be 'units', and the sentence 'we can see that that the numerical results' has a duplicated 'that'. The manuscript should be proofread.
[Figure 1] The axis labels and legends in Figure 1 appear garbled in the manuscript text, with strings such as '/s51/s53/s48/s48' where mathematical notation should appear. The figure needs to be regenerated or the encoding fixed.
[Section IV] The summary text contains 'Ξ(′,)' where it should presumably read 'Ξ'_c and Ξ*_c' or similar; this typo makes the sentence 'the ΞcN/Ξ′cN/Ξ∗cN coupled resonances with 0(1−) is close to the Ξ(′,)c molecules' unclear.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the negative-parity dibaryon and resonance predictions are genuine outputs of externally fixed OBE inputs, with only minor non-load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The OBE potentials are built from effective Lagrangians fixed by heavy-quark and chiral symmetry (Ref. [62]) with coupling constants taken from external nucleon-nucleon sources (Refs. [63-65]); the only free parameter, the monopole-form-factor cutoff Lambda, is scanned over 0.80-2.00 GeV and anchored near 1.00 GeV by NN experience (Refs. [60,61]). The predicted negative-parity dibaryons are genuine outputs of the coupled-channel Schrodinger equation: no parameter is fitted to the predicted states, and the target states do not enter any input. The self-citation to the group's S-wave study (Ref. [49]) is motivational (extending positive-parity Xi_c^((',*))N studies to P-waves) and is not load-bearing, since the potentials used here are derived and tabulated in this paper. The phase-shift analysis uses the same potentials, so its 'confirmation' of the molecules is a model-internal consistency check rather than an independent benchmark; this weakens the epistemic value of the confirmation but does not make the prediction circular by construction. The authors state that Lambda is the only free parameter and that binding energies are highly sensitive to it, and several states bind only at large cutoffs (for example, Sigma_cSigma 1(1-) in Table XI requires Lambda = 1.85-1.95 GeV, and Sigma*_cSigma 1(2-) in Table XII requires Lambda = 1.80-1.90 GeV, well above the 1.00 GeV benchmark). This regulator sensitivity is a genuine shortcoming, meaning the states' existence is conditional on an unconstrained modeling choice, but it is a correctness or robustness risk, not circularity: the paper never fits a parameter to the target results, never defines the molecules in terms of the potentials' inputs, and reports the required cutoffs explicitly. No circular step meets the evidentiary bar, so the circularity score is 1 (minor, non-load-bearing self-citation only).

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper's central claim rests on a single free parameter, the OBE cutoff Λ, plus a set of domain assumptions about the validity of the OBE model, the form factor, and the Schrödinger equation framework. No new fundamental entities are introduced; the predicted dibaryons are composite states of known baryons.

free parameters (1)

monopole form factor cutoff Λ = varied 0.80 to 2.00 GeV; states reported near 1.0 GeV
Only free parameter; binding energies and resonance widths are highly sensitive to it; 'reasonable' value chosen from NN experience (Sec. II).

assumptions (4)

domain assumption One-boson-exchange model with the given effective Lagrangians describes P-wave charmed baryon-light baryon interactions.
Entered in Sec. II; no validation against data for these systems; couplings imported from Refs [62-65].
domain assumption Monopole form factor F(q^2,m_E^2) with cutoff Λ is a valid off-shell regulator.
Introduced in Sec. II; cutoff range 0.8 to 2.0 GeV chosen by analogy to NN interactions, not derived.
domain assumption Non-relativistic coupled-channel Schrödinger equation is adequate for these two-baryon systems.
Used throughout Sec. III; relativistic corrections and three-body effects are neglected.
standard math Phase shift δ(E_r)=(n+1/2)π identifies resonances.
Standard scattering theory; applied in Sec. III B.

invented entities (1)

Predicted negative-parity charm-strange dibaryon molecules and resonances (Ξ'_c N, Ξ*_c N, Σ_c Σ, Σ*_c Σ states) independent evidence
purpose: New hadronic states beyond the conventional quark model; predicted as molecular bound states and scattering resonances.
The paper assigns each candidate specific I(J^P) and approximate mass via binding energy, which future experiments (e.g., LHCb, PANDA) could search for; no experimental evidence is currently available.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Emergence of charm-strange dibaryons with negative parity via baryon-baryon interactions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YE5CSCKK

@misc{pith2026250712958,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Emergence of charm-strange dibaryons with negative parity via baryon-baryon interactions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YE5CSCKK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.12958}
}

abstract

Within the framework of the one-boson-exchange model, we systematically perform a coupled channel analysis of the $P-$wave interactions between a charm baryon and light baryon, the involved channels include $\Xi_cN$, $\Lambda_c\Sigma$, $\Xi_c^{\prime}N$, $\Sigma_c\Lambda$, $\Xi_c^*N$, $\Sigma_c^*\Lambda$, $\Sigma_c\Sigma$, and $\Sigma_c^*\Sigma$. Our results can predict several possible molecular candidates, such as a $\Xi_c^{\prime}N$ molecule with $I(J^P)=0(1^-)$, $\Xi_c^{*}N$ molecules with $0(0^-, 1^-, 2^-)$, $\Sigma_c\Sigma$ molecules with $0(1^-)$ and $1(1^-)$, and $\Sigma_c^*\Sigma$ molecules with $0(0^-, 1^-, 2^-)$, and $1(2^-)$. The coupled channel effects significantly influence the formation of the $\Sigma_c\Sigma$ molecule with $1(1^-)$. Furthermore, we analyze the phase shifts for these coupled channel systems. Our analysis not only confirms the existence of the predicted molecules but also identifies potential resonant dibaryons, including a $\Sigma_c\Sigma$ shape-type resonance with $1(1^-)$, a $\Sigma_c^*\Sigma$ shape-type resonance with $1(0^-)$, a $\Lambda_c\Sigma/\Sigma_c\Sigma$ coupled Feshbach-type resonance with $1(1^-)$, and $\Lambda_c\Sigma/\Sigma_c^*\Sigma$ coupled Feshbach-type resonances with $1(0^-, 2^-)$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.12958 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: Predictions of the possible charm-strange molecula [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: A summary of the possible charm-strange resonant dib [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages

[49]

Ohkoda, Y

S. Ohkoda, Y . Yamaguchi, S. Yasui, K. Sudoh and A. Hosaka , Exotic mesons with double charm and bottom ﬂavor, Phys. Rev. D 86, 034019 (2012)

work page 2012
[1]

As the cuto ﬀ value increases, the OBE interactions be- come stronger, which leads to a deeper binding and re- duces the mass of the resonance below the Ξ∗ cN thresh- old

ΞcN/Ξ∗ cN interactions with 0(0−): A resonance ap- pears with a mass above the Ξ∗ cN threshold, and the decay width is on the order of several tens of MeV . As the cuto ﬀ value increases, the OBE interactions be- come stronger, which leads to a deeper binding and re- duces the mass of the resonance below the Ξ∗ cN thresh- old. Compared to the bound state ...

work page
[2]

The superﬁeld Sµ = − √ 1 3 (γµ+ vµ)γ5B6 + B∗ 6µ is expressed as a combination of heavy baryon ﬁelds B6 with JP = 1/2+ and B∗ 6 with JP = 3/2+. For the interactions between the light baryons and the light mesons, the relevant e ﬀective Lagrangians are constructed in S U(3) symmetry, which read as LBBσ = gBBσ ¯BσB, (4) LBBP = gBBP mP ¯Bγ5γµ∂µPB, (5) LBBV = ...

work page
[3]

Ξ∗ cN/Σ∗ cΣ coupled interactions with 0(0−): A reso- nance is obtained with a mass near the Σ∗ cΣ threshold, where the cuto ﬀ is approximately 1.00 GeV . The cutoﬀ dependence of the resonant parameters mirrors that of 11 /s51/s52/s48/s48 /s51/s53/s48/s48 /s51/s54/s48/s48 /s48 /s50/s48 /s52/s48 /s54/s48 /s76 /s61/s49/s46/s48/s49/s71/s101/s86 /s88 /s42 /s67...

work page
[4]

ΞcN/Ξ′ cN/Ξ∗ cN coupled interactions with 0(1−): Two resonances can be observed at a cutoﬀ of 1.01 GeV . The broad resonance, with a width exceeding one hundred MeV , is located near the Ξ∗ cN threshold, while the nar- row resonance, with a width around ﬁfty MeV , is near the Ξ′ cN threshold. The cuto ﬀ dependence of the de- cay widths indicates that the ...

work page
[5]

The decay width is on the order of one hundred MeV

ΞcN/Ξ∗ cN coupled interactions with 0(2−): A reso- nance appears in the reasonable cuto ﬀ region, and this state is closely related to the Ξ∗ cN molecular state with 0(2−) predicted in Table IX. The decay width is on the order of one hundred MeV

work page
[6]

This state is closely re- lated to the Σ∗ cΣ molecular state with 0(2 −), as predicted in Table XII

Ξ∗ cN/Σ∗ cΣ coupled interactions with 0(2−): A reso- nance emerges with a mass near the Σ∗ cΣ threshold when the cuto ﬀ is around 1.00 GeV . This state is closely re- lated to the Σ∗ cΣ molecular state with 0(2 −), as predicted in Table XII

work page
[7]

Here, the unites for the cuto ﬀ Λ, the binding energy E, and the root-mean-square radius rRMS are GeV , MeV , and fm, respectively

ΛcΣ/Σ∗ cΛ/Σ∗ cΣ coupled interactions with 1(0−): A res- onance can be obtained with a mass around the Σ∗ cΣ 12 TABLE XI: The bound state solutions (the binding energy E, the root-mean-square radius rRMS , and the probabilities pi for all the discussed channels) for the ΣcΣ systems with I(JP) = 0(0−), 0(1 −), 0(2 −), 1(0 −), 1(1 −), and 1(2 −). Here, the u...

work page

Show all 77 references

[8]

Σ∗ cΛ/Σ∗ cΣ coupled interactions with 1(0−): The re- sults are similar to those in the ΛcΣ/Σ∗ cΛ/Σ∗ cΣ cou- pled interactions with 1(0 −), and we predict the exis- tence of a shape-type Σ∗ cΣ resonance with 1(0 −). The slightly larger cuto ﬀ value compared to that in the ΛcΣ/Σ...
[9]

The inﬂection point of the decay width occurs near the ΣcΣ thresh- old

ΛcΣ/ΣcΛ/ΣcΣ coupled interactions with 1(1−): A res- onance appears in a reasonable cuto ﬀ region, with the ΣcΣ channel playing an important role. The inﬂection point of the decay width occurs near the ΣcΣ thresh- old. A further check of the phase shifts of the ΛcΣ/ΣcΣ 13 coupl...
[10]

ΣcΛ/ΣcΣ coupled interactions with 1(1−): A reso- nance appears in a reasonable cuto ﬀ region, with the ΣcΣ channel playing a crucial role. The phase shift anal- ysis for the single ΣcΣ channel with 1(1 −) shows a reso- nance near the ΣcΣ threshold, and the obtained resonant pa...
[11]

ΛcΣ/Σ∗ cΛ/Σ∗ cΣ coupled interactions with 1(2−): A res- onance appears in the reasonable cuto ﬀ region. After comparing the phase shifts under the ΛcΣ/Σ∗ cΣ coupled interactions, the single ΣcΣ channel interactions, and the ΛcΣ/Σ∗ cΛ/Σ∗ cΣ coupled interactions with 1(2 −), we ...
[12]

This state is closely related to the Σ∗ cΣ molecule with 1(2 −)

Σ∗ cΛ/Σ∗ cΣ coupled interactions with 1(2−): A reso- nance is obtained with a cuto ﬀ around 1.00 GeV . This state is closely related to the Σ∗ cΣ molecule with 1(2 −). Since the cuto ﬀ here is slightly smaller than that for the molecular state predicted in Table XII, the coupl...
[13]

Liu, An overview of XYZ new particles, Chin

X. Liu, An overview of XYZ new particles, Chin. Sci. Bull. 59, 3815 (2014)

2014
[14]

Hosaka, T

A. Hosaka, T. Iijima, K. Miyabayashi, Y . Sakai, and S. Yas ui, Exotic hadrons with heavy ﬂavors: X, Y, Z, and related states, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2016, 062C01 (2016)

2016
[15]

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

2016
[16]

J. M. Richard, Exotic hadrons: review and perspectives, Few Body Syst. 57, 1185-1212 (2016)

2016
[17]

R. F. Lebed, R. E. Mitchell and E. S. Swanson, Heavy-Quark QCD Exotica, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 93, 143-194 (2017)

2017
[18]

S. L. Olsen, T. Skwarnicki, and D. Zieminska, Nonstan- dard heavy mesons and baryons: Experimental evidence, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 015003 (2018)

2018
[19]

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

2018
[20]

Y . R. Liu, H. X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, and S. L. Zhu, Pentaquark and tetraquark states, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 107, 237 (2019)

2019
[21]

Brambilla, S

N. Brambilla, S. Eidelman, C. Hanhart, A. Nefediev, C. P . Shen, C. E. Thomas, A. V airo, and C. Z. Y uan, The XYZ states: Experimental and theoretical status and perspecti ves, Phys. Rep. 873, 1 (2020)

2020
[22]

L. Meng, B. Wang, G. J. Wang and S. L. Zhu, Chiral perturba - tion theory for heavy hadrons and chiral e ﬀective ﬁeld theory for heavy hadronic molecules, Phys. Rept. 1019, 1-149 (2023)

2023
[23]

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, 026201 (2023)

2023
[24]

C. Y . Wong, Molecular states of heavy quark mesons, Phys. Rev. C 69, 055202 (2004)

2004
[25]

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

2004
[26]

Suzuki, The X(3872) boson: Molecule or charmonium, Phys

M. Suzuki, The X(3872) boson: Molecule or charmonium, Phys. Rev. D 72, 114013 (2005)

2005
[27]

Y . R. Liu, X. Liu, W. Z. Deng, and S. L. Zhu, Is X(3872) really a molecular state?, Eur. Phys. J. C 56, 63 (2008)

2008
[28]

C. E. Thomas and F. E. Close, Is X(3872) a molecule?, Phys. Rev. D 78, 034007 (2008)

2008
[29]

X. Liu, Z. G. Luo, Y . R. Liu, and S. L. Zhu, X(3872) and other possible heavy molecular states, Eur. Phys. J. C 61, 411 (2009)

2009
[30]

I. W. Lee, A. Faessler, T. Gutsche, and V . E. Lyubovit- skij, X(3872) as a molecular DD∗ state in a potential model, Phys. Rev. D 80, 094005 (2009)

2009
[31]

J. J. Wu, R. Molina, E. Oset and B. S. Zou, Prediction of na r- row N∗ and Λ∗ resonances with hidden charm above 4 GeV , Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 232001 (2010)

2010
[32]

W. L. Wang, F. Huang, Z. Y . Zhang and B. S. Zou,Σc ¯D and Λc ¯D states in a chiral quark model, Phys. Rev. C 84, 015203 (2011)

2011
[33]

Z. C. Yang, Z. F. Sun, J. He, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, The possib le hidden-charm molecular baryons composed of anti-charmed meson and charmed baryon, Chin. Phys. C 36, 6 (2012)

2012
[34]

Uchino, W

T. Uchino, W. H. Liang and E. Oset, Baryon states with hidden charm in the extended local hidden gauge approach, Eur. Phys. J. A 52, 43 (2016)

2016
[35]

Karliner and J

M. Karliner and J. L. Rosner, New Exotic Meson and Baryon Resonances from Doubly-Heavy Hadronic Molecules, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 122001 (2015)

2015
[36]

R. Chen, Z. F. Sun, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, Strong LHCb evi- dence supporting the existence of the hidden-charm molecul ar pentaquarks, Phys. Rev. D 100, no.1, 011502 (2019)

2019
[37]

M. Z. Liu, Y . W. Pan, F. Z. Peng, M. S´ anchez S´ anchez, L. S. Geng, A. Hosaka and M. Pavon V alderrama, Emergence 15 of a complete heavy-quark spin symmetry multiplet: seven molecular pentaquarks in light of the latest LHCb analysis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, no.24, 242001 (2019)

2019
[38]

Yamaguchi, H

Y . Yamaguchi, H. Garc´ ıa-Tecocoatzi, A. Giachino, A. Hosaka, E. Santopinto, S. Takeuchi and M. Takizawa, Pc pentaquarks with chiral tensor and quark dynamics, Phys. Rev. D 101, 091502 (2020)

2020
[39]

He, Study of Pc(4457), Pc(4440), and Pc(4312) in a quasipotential Bethe-Salpeter equation approach, Eur

J. He, Study of Pc(4457), Pc(4440), and Pc(4312) in a quasipotential Bethe-Salpeter equation approach, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 393 (2019)

2019
[40]

T. J. Burns and E. S. Swanson, Molecular in- terpretation of the Pc(4440) and Pc(4457) states, Phys. Rev. D 100, no.11, 114033 (2019)

2019
[41]

H. X. Chen, W. Chen and S. L. Zhu, Possible in- terpretations of the Pc(4312), Pc(4440), and Pc(4457), Phys. Rev. D 100, 051501 (2019)

2019
[42]

C. W. Xiao, J. Nieves and E. Oset, Heavy quark spin symmetric molecular states from ¯D(∗)Σ(∗) c and other cou- pled channels in the light of the recent LHCb pentaquarks, Phys. Rev. D 100, 014021 (2019)

2019
[43]

L. Meng, B. Wang, G. J. Wang and S. L. Zhu, The hidden charm pentaquark states and Σc ¯D(∗) interaction in chiral perturbation theory, Phys. Rev. D 100, 014031 (2019)

2019
[44]

Pavon V alderrama, One pion exchange and the quan- tum numbers of the P c(4440) and P c(4457) pentaquarks, Phys

M. Pavon V alderrama, One pion exchange and the quan- tum numbers of the P c(4440) and P c(4457) pentaquarks, Phys. Rev. D 100, 094028 (2019)

2019
[45]

M. L. Du, V . Baru, F. K. Guo, C. Hanhart, U. G. Meißner, J. A. Oller and Q. Wang, Interpretation of the LHCb Pc States as Hadronic Molecules and Hints of a Narrow Pc(4380), Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 072001 (2020)

2020
[46]

B. Wang, L. Meng and S. L. Zhu, Hidden-charm and hidden- bottom molecular pentaquarks in chiral e ﬀective ﬁeld theory, J. High Energy Phys. 11 108 (2019)

2019
[47]

Yamaguchi, S

Y . Yamaguchi, S. Ohkoda, S. Yasui and A. Hosaka, Exotic baryons from a heavy meson and a nucleon - Positive parity states -, Phys. Rev. D 85, 054003 (2012)

2012
[48]

Shimizu, Y

Y . Shimizu, Y . Yamaguchi and M. Harada, Heavy quark spin multiplet structure of Pc-like pentaquark as P-wave hadronic molecular state, PTEP 2019, 123D01 (2019)

2019
[50]

Ohkoda, Y

S. Ohkoda, Y . Yamaguchi, S. Yasui, K. Sudoh and A. Hosaka, Exotic Mesons with Hidden Bottom near Thresh- olds, Phys. Rev. D 86, 014004 (2012)

2012
[51]

J. Z. Wang, Z. Y . Lin, B. Wang, L. Meng and S. L. Zhu, Double pole structures of X1(2900) as the P−wave ¯D∗K∗ resonances, Phys. Rev. D 110, 114003 (2024)

2024
[52]

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

2024
[53]

J. L. Lu, M. Song, P . Wang, J. Y . Guo, G. Li and X. Luo, The bound and resonant states of D(∗)D(∗) and D(∗) ¯D(∗) with the com- plex scaling method, arXiv:2503.05131 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[54]

Sakai and Y

M. Sakai and Y . Yamaguchi, Analysis of bound and reso- nant states of doubly heavy tetraquarks with spin J ≤ 2, arXiv:2503.11134 [hep-ph]
[55]

X. X. Chen, Z. M. Ding and J. He, Pole trajectories from S- and P-wave D ¯D∗ interactions, Phys. Rev. D 111, 11 (2025)

2025
[56]

Z. Y u, M. Song, J. Y . Guo, Y . Zhang and G. Li, Probing double hadron resonances by the complex scaling method, Phys. Rev. C 104, 035201 (2021)

2021
[57]

Ablikim et al

M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII], Precise Measurement of Born Cross Sections for e+e− → D ¯D at √s =3.80-4.95 GeV , Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 081901 (2024)

2024
[58]

Aubert et al

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

2007
[59]

Aubert et al

B. Aubert et al. [BaBar], Study of the Exclusive Initial-State-Radiation Production of the D ¯D System, arXiv:0710.1371 [hep-ex]

arXiv
[60]

Pakhlova et al

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

2008
[61]

J. Y . Huo, L. C. Sheng, R. Chen and X. Liu, Predicting possible molecular states of nucleons with Ξc, Ξ∗ c, and Ξ′ c, Phys. Rev. D 110, 054040 (2024)

2024
[62]

S. Y . Kong, J. T. Zhu and J. He, Possible charmed-strange molecular dibaryons, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 834 (2022)

2022
[63]

B. Wang, K. Chen, L. Meng and S. L. Zhu, Spectrum of molec- ular hexaquarks, Phys. Rev. D 110, 014038 (2024)

2024
[64]

Y . Cui, Y . Wu, H. Huang, J. Ping and X. Zhu, Search for singly charmed dibaryons in baryon-baryon scattering, Phys. Rev. D 110, 114055 (2024)

2024
[65]

R. Chen, X. Liu, X. Q. Li and S. L. Zhu, Identifying exotic hidden-charm pentaquarks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 132002 (2015)

2015
[66]

Chen and X

R. Chen and X. Liu, Is the newly reported X(5568) a B ¯K molec- ular state?, Phys. Rev. D 94, 034006 (2016)

2016
[67]

K. Chen, R. Chen, Z. F. Sun and X. Liu, ¯KΛ molec- ular explanation to the newly observed Ξ(1620)0, Phys. Rev. D 100, 074006 (2019)

2019
[68]

R. Chen, Q. Huang, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, Predict- ing another doubly charmed molecular resonance T ′ cc(3876), Phys. Rev. D 104, 114042 (2021)

2021
[69]

Chen, Can the newly reported Pcs(4459) be a strange hidden-charm Ξc ¯D∗ molecular pentaquark?, Phys

R. Chen, Can the newly reported Pcs(4459) be a strange hidden-charm Ξc ¯D∗ molecular pentaquark?, Phys. Rev. D 103, 054007 (2021)

2021
[70]

Chen and Q

R. Chen and Q. Huang, Zcs(3985)−: A strange hidden-charm tetraquark resonance or not?, Phys. Rev. D 103, 034008 (2021)

2021
[71]

Chen and Q

R. Chen and Q. Huang, Charmoniumlike reso- nant explanation on the newly observed X(3960), Phys. Lett. B 846, 138254 (2023)

2023
[72]

N. A. Tornqvist, From the Deuteron to Deusons, an Analysis of Deuteron-like Meson Meson Bound States, Z. Phys. C 61, 525 (1994)

1994
[73]

N. A. Tornqvist, On Deusons or Deuteron-like Meson Meso n Bound States, Nuovo Cim. A 107, 2471 (1994)

1994
[74]

Y . R. Liu and M. Oka, ΛcN bound states revisited, Phys. Rev. D 85, 014015 (2012)

2012
[75]

Machleidt, The High precision, charge depen- dent Bonn nucleon-nucleon potential (CD-Bonn), Phys

R. Machleidt, The High precision, charge depen- dent Bonn nucleon-nucleon potential (CD-Bonn), Phys. Rev. C 63, 024001 (2001)

2001
[76]

Machleidt, K

R. Machleidt, K. Holinde and C. Elster, The Bonn Me- son Exchange Model for the Nucleon Nucleon Interaction, Phys. Rept. 149, 1 (1987)

1987
[77]

X. Cao, B. S. Zou and H. S. Xu, Phenomenological analysis of the double pion production in nucleon-nucleon collisions u p to 2.2 GeV ,Phys. Rev. C 81, 065201 (2010)

2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [49]

Ohkoda, Y

S. Ohkoda, Y . Yamaguchi, S. Yasui, K. Sudoh and A. Hosaka , Exotic mesons with double charm and bottom ﬂavor, Phys. Rev. D 86, 034019 (2012)

work page 2012

[2] [1]

As the cuto ﬀ value increases, the OBE interactions be- come stronger, which leads to a deeper binding and re- duces the mass of the resonance below the Ξ∗ cN thresh- old

ΞcN/Ξ∗ cN interactions with 0(0−): A resonance ap- pears with a mass above the Ξ∗ cN threshold, and the decay width is on the order of several tens of MeV . As the cuto ﬀ value increases, the OBE interactions be- come stronger, which leads to a deeper binding and re- duces the mass of the resonance below the Ξ∗ cN thresh- old. Compared to the bound state ...

work page

[3] [2]

The superﬁeld Sµ = − √ 1 3 (γµ+ vµ)γ5B6 + B∗ 6µ is expressed as a combination of heavy baryon ﬁelds B6 with JP = 1/2+ and B∗ 6 with JP = 3/2+. For the interactions between the light baryons and the light mesons, the relevant e ﬀective Lagrangians are constructed in S U(3) symmetry, which read as LBBσ = gBBσ ¯BσB, (4) LBBP = gBBP mP ¯Bγ5γµ∂µPB, (5) LBBV = ...

work page

[4] [3]

Ξ∗ cN/Σ∗ cΣ coupled interactions with 0(0−): A reso- nance is obtained with a mass near the Σ∗ cΣ threshold, where the cuto ﬀ is approximately 1.00 GeV . The cutoﬀ dependence of the resonant parameters mirrors that of 11 /s51/s52/s48/s48 /s51/s53/s48/s48 /s51/s54/s48/s48 /s48 /s50/s48 /s52/s48 /s54/s48 /s76 /s61/s49/s46/s48/s49/s71/s101/s86 /s88 /s42 /s67...

work page

[5] [4]

ΞcN/Ξ′ cN/Ξ∗ cN coupled interactions with 0(1−): Two resonances can be observed at a cutoﬀ of 1.01 GeV . The broad resonance, with a width exceeding one hundred MeV , is located near the Ξ∗ cN threshold, while the nar- row resonance, with a width around ﬁfty MeV , is near the Ξ′ cN threshold. The cuto ﬀ dependence of the de- cay widths indicates that the ...

work page

[6] [5]

The decay width is on the order of one hundred MeV

ΞcN/Ξ∗ cN coupled interactions with 0(2−): A reso- nance appears in the reasonable cuto ﬀ region, and this state is closely related to the Ξ∗ cN molecular state with 0(2−) predicted in Table IX. The decay width is on the order of one hundred MeV

work page

[7] [6]

This state is closely re- lated to the Σ∗ cΣ molecular state with 0(2 −), as predicted in Table XII

Ξ∗ cN/Σ∗ cΣ coupled interactions with 0(2−): A reso- nance emerges with a mass near the Σ∗ cΣ threshold when the cuto ﬀ is around 1.00 GeV . This state is closely re- lated to the Σ∗ cΣ molecular state with 0(2 −), as predicted in Table XII

work page

[8] [7]

Here, the unites for the cuto ﬀ Λ, the binding energy E, and the root-mean-square radius rRMS are GeV , MeV , and fm, respectively

ΛcΣ/Σ∗ cΛ/Σ∗ cΣ coupled interactions with 1(0−): A res- onance can be obtained with a mass around the Σ∗ cΣ 12 TABLE XI: The bound state solutions (the binding energy E, the root-mean-square radius rRMS , and the probabilities pi for all the discussed channels) for the ΣcΣ systems with I(JP) = 0(0−), 0(1 −), 0(2 −), 1(0 −), 1(1 −), and 1(2 −). Here, the u...

work page