Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 42 references

Determination of the binding and $DK$ probability of the $D^{*}_{s0}(2317)$ from the $(\bar{D}\bar K)^-$ mass distributions in $\Lambda_{b}\to \Lambda_{c} (\bar{D}\bar K)^-$ decays

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that the near-threshold $\bar{D}^0K^-$ and $D^-\bar{K}^0$ mass distributions in $\Lambda_b \to \Lambda_c \bar{D}^0K^-$ and $\Lambda_b \to \Lambda_c D^-\bar{K}^0$ decays can determine the $D^*_{s0}(2317)$ pole mass to…

desk verdict Useful within-model feasibility study showing threshold DK mass distributions could pin the D*_s0(2317) pole to ~4 MeV, but the claimed precision is conditional on the production model and the abstract overstates the effective-range results. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17098 v2 pith:6EGNMBMA submitted 2024-11-26 hep-ph

Hai-Peng Li , Wei-Hong Liang , Chu-Wen Xiao , Ju-Jun Xie , Eulogio Oset This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords D*_s0(2317)DKmolecularstateLambda_bdecaysinvariantmassdistributioncoupled-channelunitarizationlocalhiddengaugeapproachresamplingmethodcompositeness
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 sets out to show that the invariant mass distributions of $\bar{D}^0K^-$ and $D^-\bar{K}^0$ close to threshold in the decays $\Lambda_b \to \Lambda_c \bar{D}^0 K^-$ and $\Lambda_b \to \Lambda_c D^- \bar{K}^0$ carry enough information to pin down the properties of the $D^*_{s0}(2317)$ resonance. The authors compute these distributions from a coupled-channel model in which the resonance is a $\bar{D}\bar{K}$ bound state, finding a strong enhancement relative to phase space at threshold. They then solve the inverse problem: assuming the distributions are measured with 5% relative errors, they fit a flexible potential to the pseudodata using a resampling method. The recovered $I=0$ bound-state pole lies at the right mass with an uncertainty of about 4 MeV, and the summed $\bar{D}\bar{K}$ molecular probability comes out with an uncertainty of about 11%. If the actual experiment delivers data of this quality, the method would give a tighter, experiment-driven determination of the binding and composition of the $D^*_{s0}(2317)$ than current correlation-function analyses.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a coupled-channel unitarized amplitude $T = [1 - VG]^{-1}V$, with a vector-meson-exchange potential $V$ from the local hidden gauge approach, diagonal loop functions $G_i$ regulated by a cutoff $q_{\rm max}$ tuned to reproduce the $D^*_{s0}(2317)$ mass, and decay amplitudes built from a tree-level hadronization vertex followed by rescattering through the coupled channels. For the inverse problem, the paper replaces the model potential by a general isospin-symmetric matrix with constant and linearly energy-dependent entries, where the $\alpha,\beta,\gamma$ terms are meant to absorb possible genuine nonmolecular components. The resampling method—generating many Gaussian-perturbed copies of the pseudodata and refitting each—propagates data uncertainties into derived observables: scattering lengths and effective ranges from the effective-range expansion, the pole position of the amplitude, and channel probabilities $P_i = -g_i^2\, \partial G_i/\partial s$ evaluated at the pole.

What would settle it

Measure the $\bar{D}^0K^-$ and $D^-\bar{K}^0$ invariant mass distributions in the observed $\Lambda_b \to \Lambda_c \bar{D}^0K^-$ decay and the companion $\Lambda_b \to \Lambda_c D^- \bar{K}^0$ decay: if the sharp near-threshold enhancement over phase space is absent, or if fitting the inverse procedure to data generated by a different production model shifts the recovered pole by much more than 4 MeV, the central precision claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that the $D^*_{s0}(2317)$ is coupled strongly enough to the $\bar{D}\bar{K}$ channels to leave a sharp, measurable fingerprint in the $\bar{D}^0K^-$ and $D^-\bar{K}^0$ mass distributions, even though the resonance sits about 42 MeV below the $\bar{D}\bar{K}$ threshold and cannot decay into it. Using the local hidden gauge approach with three coupled channels ($\bar{D}^0K^-$, $D^-\bar{K}^0$, $D^-_s\eta$), the authors build the decay amplitudes from a tree-level hadronization vertex followed by rescattering, and obtain distributions that rise steeply at threshold. Treating these model distributions as pseudodata with 5% relative errors, they fit a general energy-dependent potential with free parameters; despite strong correlations among the parameters, the physical observables come out stable. Averaging over resampled data sets yields a pole at $2319.3 \pm 3.9$ MeV, scattering lengths for the two $\bar{D}\bar{K}$ channels with uncertainties around 14–27%, and a summed $\bar{D}\bar{K}$ probability $P_1+P_2 \approx 0.70$ with about 11% error.

Load-bearing premise

The quoted 4 MeV and 11% uncertainties assume that the pseudodata generated by the authors' local hidden gauge model, with 5% relative errors and a fitting window of 50 MeV above threshold, faithfully represent what the actual experiment will measure for these decay distributions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the $\bar{D}^0K^-$ and $D^-\bar{K}^0$ mass distributions are measured with roughly 5% differential-width errors over about 50 MeV above threshold, the $D^*_{s0}(2317)$ pole mass is recovered to about 4 MeV even though the pole lies about 42 MeV below threshold.
  • The same fit determines the summed $\bar{D}\bar{K}$ molecular probability of the state to about 11%, a substantial improvement over the roughly 60% uncertainty quoted for correlation-function analyses.
  • The data fix the $\bar{D}^0K^-$ and $D^-\bar{K}^0$ scattering lengths with 14–27% uncertainties; the effective ranges come out with larger errors, and the distant $D^-_s\eta$ channel is only poorly constrained.
  • Because the inverse-analysis potential includes energy-dependent terms, a pure molecular state and a state with a genuine nonmolecular component would be accommodated differently; the size of the threshold enhancement in the data is what tells whether the resonance is coupled to $\bar{D}\bar{K}$.
  • The decay $\Lambda_b \to \Lambda_c \bar{D}^0K^-$ has already been observed, so only the measurement of the mass distribution, rather than the discovery of a new decay mode, is needed to apply the method.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct experimental test follows: the $\bar{D}^0K^-$ and $D^-\bar{K}^0$ spectra from the observed decay should show a pronounced threshold peak; if it is absent or far weaker than the model prediction, the predominantly molecular picture of the $D^*_{s0}(2317)$ would be in doubt.
  • The same inverse-problem strategy could be transferred to other putatively molecular states near heavy-flavor thresholds, such as the $T_{cc}(3875)$ or $X(3872)$, where production mass distributions might give comparable compositeness precision.
  • The authors find that the energy-dependent parameters $\alpha,\beta,\gamma$ are poorly determined, which suggests the data alone cannot cleanly separate a genuine nonmolecular component from a purely dynamical bound state; the claimed model independence applies to the extracted observables, not to the underlying production mechanism.
  • A natural extension would be to fold a more realistic error model—backgrounds, normalization, detector resolution—into the resampling, since the quoted 4 MeV and 11% uncertainties assume 5% point-to-point statistical errors.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a method to extract properties of the D*_{s0}(2317) from future measurements of the \bar D^0 K^- and D^- \bar K^0 invariant mass distributions in \Lambda_b \to \Lambda_c (\bar D \bar K)^- decays. The authors first compute these distributions using a unitarized coupled-channel formalism (channels \bar D^0 K^-, D^- \bar K^0, D_s^- \eta) based on the local hidden gauge approach, finding a strong threshold enhancement due to the subthreshold pole. They then generate pseudodata from this model with 5% relative Gaussian errors, fit them with a more general energy-dependent potential within a 50 MeV window above threshold, and use the resampling method to estimate uncertainties. They report that this procedure recovers the scattering lengths, an I=0 bound state at 2319.3 \pm 3.9 MeV, and a \bar D \bar K molecular probability P1+P2 = 0.70 \pm 0.08, and conclude that LHCb data could determine the nature of the D*_{s0}(2317) with better precision than correlation-function analyses.

Significance. If the claimed precision survived contact with real data, the paper would provide a valuable and timely method for extracting hadronic observables from decay mass distributions, improving on the much larger uncertainties quoted for femtoscopic correlation functions. The internal consistency of the inverse problem is a genuine strength: the fit potential in Eqs. (23)-(26) is more general than the local hidden gauge potential that generated the pseudodata, and the pole position is an output rather than a fitted input. The resampling procedure is also appropriate for the correlated parameter sets. However, the numerical claims are established only for one generating model, and the paper does not quantify the leading systematics (production amplitude, regulator scheme, possible nonmolecular component). Since the headline result is a precision claim, this model dependence is the central issue.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III, Tables IV and VI] The quoted uncertainties of \pm 3.9 MeV on the pole and \pm 0.08 on P1+P2 are resampling dispersions for pseudodata generated by the local hidden gauge model. The abstract and conclusions state these as the precision obtainable from the data, but the data window lies entirely above threshold and the extrapolation to a pole 42 MeV below rests on the assumed unitarized form T=[1-VG]^{-1}V and the loop function in Eq. (5). A different but equally plausible unitarization or regulator could shift the pole and probability by more than the quoted errors while reproducing the in-window distributions. The authors should perform a closure test using pseudodata generated from an alternative model (e.g., a different loop regulator or a potential with an explicit genuine-state term) and report the resulting shifts in the extracted observables. The paper itself in Sec. II C acknowledges that the fit freedom could in principle render the method useless, but it does not address this particular source of systematic error.
  2. [Section II B, Eqs. (18)-(19)] The production amplitude is taken as a single energy-independent constant A with equal weights for \bar D^0 K^- and D^- \bar K^0. Real LHCb data will contain momentum-dependent production vertices and possibly unequal weights; because the unitarized amplitude is linear in A, such effects can be absorbed into the fitted potential parameters and bias the extracted pole and compositeness. The authors should test the inversion with A_1 \neq A_2 or with a smooth form factor in the production vertex, and show how the extracted pole position and P1+P2 change.
  3. [Section II C, Eq. (14)] The compositeness extracted from Eq. (14) depends on the derivative of the loop function G with respect to s, not only on the on-shell amplitude. Although qmax is a fitted parameter, the functional form of G in Eq. (5) is fixed; a different regularization (for instance dimensional regularization, as commonly used in chiral unitary approaches) would give a different dG/ds and hence different P_i for the same in-window data. The paper should quantify this sensitivity before presenting 11% uncertainty on P1+P2.
  4. [Section III, resampling procedure] The paper does not report any goodness-of-fit measure or the number of converged fits in the resampling procedure. With eight parameters and sixty data points, the stability of the quoted dispersions should be demonstrated, for example by showing the distribution of \chi^2 and checking that the results are stable when the number of resampled fits is increased beyond 50.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III, Fig. 3] The phase-space comparison mentioned in the text is not identified in the caption; please specify how the phase-space curve is normalized and whether it includes the same kinematic prefactors as the full distributions.
  2. [Section II B, Eq. (20)] The symbols \sum\sum in Eq. (20) are not defined; please state the spin sums and whether a spin average is included.
  3. [Section III, Table V] The entry r_{0,3} is effectively undetermined; please mark it explicitly in the table (e.g., as unconstrained) rather than only noting this in the text.
  4. [Section II C] The phrase "model independent analysis" is too strong; the analysis still fixes the unitarization form and the isospin structure of the potential. A more precise term would be "minimal model" analysis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction; the inverse fit is a non-tautological self-consistency check, though precision claims rest on the authors' own pseudodata and a self-cited parameterization.

full rationale

The paper's central extraction is not circular in the strict sense. The pseudodata (Sec. II C: 'we take as pseudodata the values obtained with the local hidden gauge approach') are generated from the potential of Sec. II A, while the inverse fit uses the more general energy-dependent potential of Eqs. (23)-(26) with free parameters V', alpha, beta, gamma, qmax and A. The fitted pole position, 2319.32 +/- 3.92 MeV, differs from the generator pole 2317.85 MeV, and the fitted DK probability P1+P2 = 0.70 differs from the generator value 0.63, so the output is not equal to the input by construction. The compositeness is evaluated from Eq. (14) at the fitted pole and not used as a fit parameter. The main caveat is that the pseudodata are produced by the authors' own local hidden gauge model, with qmax fixed to reproduce the D_s0(2317), and the quoted uncertainties are only the resampling spread within that model class; real-data effects such as production form factors, backgrounds, and nonmolecular components are not modeled. This limits the external validity of the claimed 4 MeV and 11% precision, but it is a limitation rather than a demonstration that a prediction reduces to its input. The self-citations (notably Ref. [34] for the potential parameterization) are present but not load-bearing as an argument: the numerical fits and extracted observables are computed in this paper, and no uniqueness theorem or prior result is being invoked to forbid alternatives. Therefore no specific circular step can be exhibited, and the score reflects only minor self-citation and the internal pseudodata validation, not circular reasoning.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a fitted cutoff, a set of free potential parameters in the inverse fit, and an assumed error model. No new fundamental entities are postulated.

free parameters (8)
  • qmax = 706 MeV (forward model); 688.38 ± 32.87 MeV (inverse fit)
    Regulator of the loop function G; fixed to reproduce the experimental D*_s0(2317) mass in the forward model and refit as a free parameter in the inverse analysis.
  • V'_11 = -89.71 ± 31.50
    Threshold potential matrix element for the Dbar0 K- channel in the model-independent inverse fit.
  • V'_12 = -130.48 ± 27.73
    Threshold transition potential between Dbar0 K- and D- Kbar0 in the inverse fit.
  • V'_13 = 98.15 ± 10.03
    Threshold transition potential to the D_s- eta channel in the inverse fit.
  • alpha = 38.41 ± 128.72
    Dimensionless coefficient of energy dependence for V11, introduced to absorb missing channels or a possible genuine-state component.
  • beta = -103.88 ± 120.34
    Dimensionless coefficient of energy dependence for V12.
  • gamma = 7.28 ± 33.75
    Dimensionless coefficient of energy dependence for V13.
  • A = 0.95 ± 0.09 (inverse fit); 1 (forward model)
    Overall normalization of the decay amplitude; scales the mass distributions and is refit to pseudodata.
assumptions (9)
  • domain assumption The D*_s0(2317) has I=0 and the Dbar Kbar potential is isospin symmetric, so V11=V22 and V13=V23.
    Used to build the coupled-channel potential in Eq. (23); justified by PDG quantum numbers, but isospin is broken by physical meson masses in the unitarization.
  • domain assumption The sbar c pair hadronizes with equal weights for u, d, s quark-antiquark insertions, an implicit SU(3) symmetry.
    Gives the tree-level combination Dbar0 K- plus D- Kbar0 minus D_s- eta divided by sqrt(3) in Section II B; a different weight would change the production amplitudes.
  • domain assumption External emission is the dominant Cabibbo and N_c favored weak mechanism for Lambda_b into Lambda_c Dbar Kbar.
    The whole amplitude in Eqs. (18) and (19) is built on this single mechanism; internal emission or W-exchange contributions are neglected.
  • domain assumption The local hidden gauge approach extended to the charm sector, with vector meson exchange, gives the Dbar Kbar interaction.
    Used for the forward model in Section II A; the resulting threshold enhancement and pole position depend on this interaction.
  • ad hoc to paper Pseudodata points carry an assumed 5% relative Gaussian error.
    Chosen in Section II C to simulate experimental uncertainties; the quoted precision of extracted observables scales directly with this number.
  • ad hoc to paper Fits are performed only from threshold up to 50 MeV above threshold.
    This window in Section III determines how much information is available to the inverse problem; no sensitivity study to the window size is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The energy-dependent terms alpha, beta, gamma absorb missing channels or a possible genuine, nonmolecular component.
    Introduced in Eqs. (24) to (26) to make the inverse fit minimum model dependent; their fitted values have large uncertainties, showing strong correlations.
  • domain assumption The loop function G is regularized by a sharp cutoff qmax.
    Used in Eq. (5); the value of qmax is fitted, and the dependence of observables on the regularization scheme is not explored.
  • domain assumption The isospin-violating D_s+ pi0 decay channel is omitted, so the generated bound state has zero width.
    Mentioned in Section III; the tiny experimental width below 3.8 MeV is irrelevant for the mass distributions near the Dbar Kbar threshold but is an approximation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Determination of the binding and $DK$ probability of the $D^{*}_{s0}(2317)$ from the $(\bar{D}\bar K)^-$ mass distributions in $\Lambda_{b}\to \Lambda_{c} (\bar{D}\bar K)^-$ decays." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6EGNMBMA

@misc{pith2026241117098,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Determination of the binding and $DK$ probability of the $D^*_s0(2317)$ from the $(\barD\bar K)^-$ mass distributions in $\Lambda_b\to \Lambda_c (\barD\bar K)^-$ decays},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6EGNMBMA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17098}
}
abstract

We study the $\Lambda_{b}\to\Lambda_{c}\bar{D}^{0}K^{-}$ and $\Lambda_{b}\to \Lambda_{c}D^{-}\bar{K}^{0}$ decays which proceed via a Cabibbo and $N_c$ favored process of external emission, and we determine the $\bar{D}^{0}K^{-}$ and $D^{-}\bar{K}^{0}$ mass distributions close to the $\bar{D} \bar{K}$ threshold. For this, we use the tree level contribution plus the rescattering of the meson-meson components, using the extension of the local hidden gauge approach to the charm sector that produces the $D^*_{s0}(2317)$ resonance. We observe a large enhancement of the mass distributions close to threshold due to the presence of this resonance below threshold. Next we undertake the inverse problem of extracting the maximum information on the interaction of the $\bar{D} \bar{K}$ channels from these distributions, and using the resampling method we find that from these data one can obtain precise values of the scattering lengths and effective ranges, the existence of an $I=0$ bound state with a precision of about $4 \;\rm MeV$ in the mass, plus the $\bar{D} \bar{K}$ molecular probability of this state with reasonable precision. Given the fact that the $\Lambda_{b}\to\Lambda_{c}\bar{D}^{0}K^{-}$ decay is already measured by the LHCb collaboration, it is expected that in the next runs with more statistics of the decay, these mass distributions can be measured with precision and the method proposed here can be used to determine the nature of the $D^*_{s0}(2317)$, which is still an issue of debate.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17098 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Decay mechanism for Λ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The invariant mass distributions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Pseudodata taken from the local hidden gauge ap [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Results of the fit from the resampling procedure with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [34]

    Albaladejo, D

    M. Albaladejo, D. Jido, J. Nieves, and E. Oset, D∗ s0(2317) and DK scattering in B decays from BaBar and LHCb data, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 300 (2016) , arXiv:1604.01193 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2016

  2. [1]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  3. [2]

    Aubert et al

    B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Observation of a narrow meson decaying to D+ s π 0 at a mass of 2.32-GeV/c 2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 242001 (2003) , arXiv:hep-ex/0304021

    arXiv 2003

  4. [3]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Measurement of the absolute branching fraction of D∗± s0 (2317) → π 0D± s , Phys. Rev. D 97, 051103 (2018) , arXiv:1711.08293 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2018

  5. [4]

    Gutsche, C

    T. Gutsche, C. Hanhart, and R. Mitchell, Heavy Non- q ¯q Mesons, review paper in the PDG [ 1]

    work page

  6. [5]

    van Beveren and G

    E. van Beveren and G. Rupp, Observed Ds(2317) and tentative D(2100–2300) as the charmed cousins of the light scalar nonet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 012003 (2003) , arXiv:hep-ph/0305035

    arXiv 2003

  7. [6]

    Barnes, F

    T. Barnes, F. E. Close, and H. J. Lipkin, Implications of a DK molecule at 2.32-GeV, Phys. Rev. D 68, 054006 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0305025

    arXiv 2003

  8. [7]

    Chen and X.-Q

    Y.-Q. Chen and X.-Q. Li, A Comprehensive four- quark interpretation of D(s)(2317), D (s)(2457) and D(s)(2632), Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 232001 (2004) , arXiv:hep-ph/0407062

    arXiv 2004

Show all 42 references
  1. [8]

    E. E. Kolomeitsev and M. F. M. Lutz, On Heavy light meson resonances and chiral symmetry, Phys. Lett. B 582, 39 (2004) , arXiv:hep-ph/0307133

    2004 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Gamermann, E

    D. Gamermann, E. Oset, D. Strottman, and M. J. Vi- cente Vacas, Dynamically generated open and hidden charm meson systems, Phys. Rev. D 76, 074016 (2007) , arXiv:hep-ph/0612179

    2007 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Guo, P.-N

    F.-K. Guo, P.-N. Shen, and H.-C. Chiang, Dynamically generated 1 + heavy mesons, Phys. Lett. B 647, 133 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0610008

    2007 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Guo, P.-N

    F.-K. Guo, P.-N. Shen, H.-C. Chiang, R.-G. Ping, and B.-S. Zou, Dynamically generated 0 + heavy mesons in a heavy chiral unitary approach, Phys. Lett. B 641, 278 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0603072

    2006 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Yang, G.-J

    Z. Yang, G.-J. Wang, J.-J. Wu, M. Oka, and S.- L. Zhu, Novel Coupled Channel Framework Connect- ing the Quark Model and Lattice QCD for the Near- threshold Ds States, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 112001 (2022), arXiv:2107.04860 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Liu, X.-Z

    M.-Z. Liu, X.-Z. Ling, L.-S. Geng, E. Wang, and J.-J. Xie, Production of D∗ s0(2317) and Ds1(2460) in B decays as D(∗ )K and Ds(*)η molecules, Phys. Rev. D 106, 114011 (2022), arXiv:2209.01103 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Godfrey, Testing the nature of the D∗ sJ (2317)+ and DsJ (2463)+ states using radiative transitions, Phys

    S. Godfrey, Testing the nature of the D∗ sJ (2317)+ and DsJ (2463)+ states using radiative transitions, Phys. Lett. B 568, 254 (2003) , arXiv:hep-ph/0305122

    2003 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Colangelo and F

    P. Colangelo and F. De Fazio, Understanding DsJ (2317), Phys. Lett. B 570, 180 (2003) , arXiv:hep-ph/0305140

    2003 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Dmitrasinovic, D+ s0(2317)-D0(2308) mass difference as evidence for tetraquarks, Phys

    V. Dmitrasinovic, D+ s0(2317)-D0(2308) mass difference as evidence for tetraquarks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 162002 (2005)

    2005

  10. [17]

    Dmitrasinovic, Chiral symmetry of heavy-light scalar mesons with UA(1) symmetry breaking, Phys

    V. Dmitrasinovic, Chiral symmetry of heavy-light scalar mesons with UA(1) symmetry breaking, Phys. Rev. D 86, 016006 (2012)

    2012

  11. [18]

    Colangelo, F

    P. Colangelo, F. De Fazio, F. Giannuzzi, and S. Nicotri, New meson spectroscopy with open charm and beauty, Phys. Rev. D 86, 054024 (2012) , arXiv:1207.6940 [hep- -ph]

    2012 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Guo, Exotic hadrons from an effective field theory perspective, PoS LATTICE2022, 232 (2023)

    F.-K. Guo, Exotic hadrons from an effective field theory perspective, PoS LATTICE2022, 232 (2023)

    2023

  13. [20]

    L. Liu, K. Orginos, F.-K. Guo, C. Hanhart, and U.-G. Meißner, Interactions of charmed mesons with light pseu- doscalar mesons from lattice QCD and implications on the nature of the D∗ s0(2317), Phys. Rev. D 87, 014508 (2013), arXiv:1208.4535 [hep-lat]

    2013 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Mohler, C

    D. Mohler, C. B. Lang, L. Leskovec, S. Prelovsek, and R. M. Woloshyn, D∗ s0(2317) Meson and D-Meson-Kaon Scattering from Lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 222001 (2013) , arXiv:1308.3175 [hep-lat]

    2013 arXiv

  15. [22]

    C. B. Lang, L. Leskovec, D. Mohler, S. Prelovsek, and R. M. Woloshyn, Ds mesons with DK and D∗ K scat- tering near threshold, Phys. Rev. D 90, 034510 (2014) , arXiv:1403.8103 [hep-lat]

    2014 arXiv

  16. [23]

    G. S. Bali, S. Collins, A. Cox, and A. Sch¨ afer, Masses and decay constants of the D∗ s0(2317) and Ds1(2460) from Nf = 2 lattice QCD close to the physical point, Phys. Rev. D 96, 074501 (2017) , arXiv:1706.01247 [hep-lat]

    2017 arXiv

  17. [24]

    G. K. C. Cheung, C. E. Thomas, D. J. Wilson, G. Moir, M. Peardon, and S. M. Ryan (Hadron Spectrum), DK I = 0 , D ¯K I = 0 , 1 scattering and the D∗ s0(2317) from lattice QCD, JHEP 02, 100, arXiv:2008.06432 [hep- -lat]

    2008 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Mart ´ ınez Torres, E

    A. Mart ´ ınez Torres, E. Oset, S. Prelovsek, and A. Ramos, Reanalysis of lattice QCD spectra lead- ing to the D∗ s0(2317) and D∗ s1(2460), JHEP 05, 153 , arXiv:1412.1706 [hep-lat]

    arXiv

  19. [26]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Observation of Λ 0 b → Λ + c D(∗ )0K − and Λ 0 b → Λ + c D∗− s decays, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 575 (2024) , arXiv:2311.14088 [hep-ex]

    2024

  20. [27]

    We observe that the uncertainties in the parameters are not small, particularly for α, β, γ

    that we have an I = 0 state. We observe that the uncertainties in the parameters are not small, particularly for α, β, γ. This is a reflec- tion of the existence of correlations between the param- eters, but, as mentioned, what matters is not the values of the parameters but th...

    2020

  21. [28]

    Bando, T

    M. Bando, T. Kugo, and K. Yamawaki, Nonlinear Real- ization and Hidden Local Symmetries, Phys. Rept. 164, 217 (1988)

    1988

  22. [29]

    Harada and K

    M. Harada and K. Yamawaki, Hidden local symmetry at loop: A New perspective of composite gauge boson and chiral phase transition, Phys. Rept. 381, 1 (2003) , arXiv:hep-ph/0302103

    2003 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Meißner, Low-Energy Hadron Physics from Effec- tive Chiral Lagrangians with Vector Mesons, Phys

    U.-G. Meißner, Low-Energy Hadron Physics from Effec- tive Chiral Lagrangians with Vector Mesons, Phys. Rept. 161, 213 (1988)

    1988

  24. [31]

    Nagahiro, L

    H. Nagahiro, L. Roca, A. Hosaka, and E. Oset, Hidden gauge formalism for the radiative decays of axial-vector mesons, Phys. Rev. D 79, 014015 (2009), arXiv:0809.0943 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Press, S

    W. Press, S. Teukolsky, W. Vetterling, and B. Flannery, Numerical recipes in FORTRAN: The art of scientific computing (1992)

    1992

  26. [33]

    Efron and R

    B. Efron and R. Tibshirani, An introduction to the boot- strap, Statist. Sci. 57, 54 (1986)

    1986

  27. [35]

    Ikeno, G

    N. Ikeno, G. Toledo, and E. Oset, Model independent analysis of femtoscopic correlation functions: An applica - tion to the D∗ s0(2317), Phys. Lett. B 847, 138281 (2023) , 9 arXiv:2305.16431 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Gamermann, J

    D. Gamermann, J. Nieves, E. Oset, and E. Ruiz Arriola, Couplings in coupled channels versus wave functions: ap- plication to the X(3872) resonance, Phys. Rev. D 81, 014029 (2010) , arXiv:0911.4407 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  29. [37]

    J. Song, L. R. Dai, and E. Oset, How much is the compos- iteness of a bound state constrained by a and r0? The role of the interaction range, Eur. Phys. J. A 58, 133 (2022), arXiv:2201.04414 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Hyodo, Structure and compositeness of hadron res- onances, Int

    T. Hyodo, Structure and compositeness of hadron res- onances, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 28, 1330045 (2013) , arXiv:1310.1176 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Hyodo, D

    T. Hyodo, D. Jido, and A. Hosaka, Compositeness of dy- namically generated states in a chiral unitary approach, Phys. Rev. C 85, 015201 (2012) , arXiv:1108.5524 [nu- cl-th]

    2012 arXiv

  32. [40]

    W. H. Liang, C. W. Xiao, and E. Oset, Baryon states with open beauty in the extended local hidden gauge ap- proach, Phys. Rev. D 89, 054023 (2014) , arXiv:1401.1441 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  33. [41]

    J. M. Dias, Q.-X. Yu, W.-H. Liang, Z.-F. Sun, J.-J. Xie, and E. Oset, Ξ bb and Ω bbb molecular states, Chin. Phys. C 44, 064101 (2020) , arXiv:1912.04517 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Aceti, L

    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

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.