Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 2 cited by

Discovery potential of charmonium $2P$ states through the $e^+e^- \to \gamma D\bar{D}$ processes

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · 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 that $e^+e^-\to \gamma D\bar D$ at $\sqrt{s}=4.23$ GeV is a discovery channel for both $\chi_{c0}(2P)$ and $\chi_{c2}(2P)$, with a measurable $\chi_{c2}$ signal and a photon angular distribution that separates the two…

desk verdict A testable proposal with one clean observable (the chi_c0 vs chi_c2 angular distribution), but the preprint's central cross-section claim swings by an order of magnitude with the ad hoc coupling g_psiD1D. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.06400 v2 pith:VEO33GOV submitted 2024-12-09 hep-ph hep-ex

Tian-Le Gao , Ri-Qing Qian , Xiang Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords charmonium2Pstatese+e−annihilationγD\barDproductionhadronicloopmechanismχc0(2P)χc2(2P)ψ(4230)radiativetransitions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that the radiative process $e^+e^-\to \gamma D\bar D$ at $\sqrt{s}=4.23$ GeV should be a discovery channel for the two missing charmonium $2P$ states, $\chi_{c0}(2P)$ and $\chi_{c2}(2P)$. Its strategy is to scale from the measured $e^+e^-\to \gamma X(3872)$ cross section, treating $X(3872)$ as the $\chi_{c1}(2P)$ partner, and to fix the relative production rates with a hadronic-loop calculation of $\psi(4230)\to \gamma \chi_{cJ}(2P)$. The predicted $e^+e^-\to \gamma \chi_{c2}(2P)$ cross section is comparable in size to the measured $\gamma X(3872)$ reference and therefore within reach of BESIII and Belle II. Because both $2P$ states decay predominantly to $D\bar D$, their production would show up as a bump in the $D\bar D$ invariant mass spectrum, with a photon angular distribution that separates the two states even though their masses differ by less than 1 MeV.

What carries the argument

The central object is the hadronic-loop amplitude for $\psi(4230)\to \gamma \chi_{cJ}(2P)$: triangle diagrams with virtual $D$, $D^*$, and $D_1(2420)$ meson loops plus contact diagrams whose strength is fixed by the Ward-Takahashi identity. A dipole form factor $F(q^2)=\left((m_E^2-\Lambda^2)/(q^2-\Lambda^2)\right)^2$ with $\Lambda=m_E+\alpha\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ regularises the loops, and the couplings of the $\chi_{cJ}(2P)$ multiplet to charmed mesons share a universal constant $g_p$ that cancels in the width ratios. The result is a prediction that depends only on the cutoff parameter $\alpha\in[3,5]$ and on the $\psi(4230)\to D_1\bar D$ coupling $g_{\psi D_1 D}$.

What would settle it

Measure the $e^+e^-\to\gamma D\bar D$ cross section near $\sqrt{s}=4.23$ GeV and look for a $D\bar D$ invariant-mass enhancement around 3.922 GeV whose photon polar-angle distribution in the $e^+e^-$ center-of-mass frame matches $1+\cos^2\theta$ (for $\chi_{c0}$) or the nearly flat shape with $\beta_2\approx 0.11$ (for $\chi_{c2}$); absence of such an enhancement would falsify the prediction. A separate decisive check is a precise measurement of $\psi(4230)\to\pi^+ D^{*-}D^0$, which fixes $g_{\psi D_1 D}$ and determines whether the claimed cross sections survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Treating $X(3872)$ as $\chi_{c1}(2P)$, the BESIII data on $e^+e^-\to \gamma X(3872)$ fix the cross section for $e^+e^-\to \psi(4230)\to \gamma \chi_{c1}(2P)$, and the paper's hadronic-loop calculation yields the quoted width ratios $\Gamma_{\gamma\chi_{c0}}:\Gamma_{\gamma\chi_{c1}}:\Gamma_{\gamma\chi_{c2}} = (0.07\text{--}0.13):1:(0.47\text{--}0.64)$ for cutoff $\alpha=3\text{--}5$. From these ratios the paper predicts that $\sigma[e^+e^-\to \gamma \chi_{c2}(2P)]$ is slightly below but of the same order as $\sigma[\gamma \chi_{c1}(2P)]$, while $\sigma[\gamma \chi_{c0}(2P)]$ is smaller but still favourably detectable; both are large enough for the next round of BESIII and Belle II data. With $\chi_{c0}(2P)\to D\bar D$ treated as 100\% and $\chi_{c2}(2P)\to D\bar D$ as about 60\%, the process $e^+e^-\to \gamma D\bar D$ should show two overlapping 3.9 GeV structures in the $D\bar D$ mass distribution, and the angular distribution of the photon ($\beta_0=1$ for $\chi_{c0}$ versus $\beta_2\approx 0.11$ for $\chi_{c2}$) offers a kinematic handle to tell them apart.

Load-bearing premise

The size of the predicted cross sections rests on the assumed value $g_{\psi D_1 D}=g_{\rm max}/4\approx 2.55$ GeV$^{-1/2}$ for the $\psi(4230)$ coupling to the $D_1(2420)\bar D$ channel, chosen because $g_{\rm max}$ overestimates the coupling; if the true coupling were closer to $g_{\rm max}$, the ratio $\Gamma_{\gamma\chi_{c2}}:\Gamma_{\gamma\chi_{c1}}$ would shrink from about 0.5 to below 0.05 and the measurable signal would largely disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The $e^+e^-\to \gamma D\bar D$ channel would let $\chi_{c0}(2P)$ and $\chi_{c2}(2P)$ be observed simultaneously in one production process at BESIII or Belle II.
  • The $D\bar D$ invariant mass spectrum should contain a two-peak structure near 3.9 GeV whose relative size is set by the computed width ratios.
  • The photon angular distribution distinguishes $\chi_{c0}(2P)$ and $\chi_{c2}(2P)$ even though their masses are almost equal.
  • A $\chi_{c2}(2P)$ signal at the predicted level would corroborate the treatment of $\psi(4230)$ as an unquenched charmonium state and support the hadronic-loop description of its radiative decays.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the prediction holds, the same scaling method could be applied to other hidden-charm states whose $\gamma X$ production through $\psi(4230)$ is kinematically open and whose branching ratios are known.
  • The near-flat photon distribution predicted for $\chi_{c2}$ means a modest number of events may distinguish the two states by fitting the photon polar angle alone, without resolving their sub-MeV mass gap.
  • A precise measurement of $\psi(4230)\to \pi^+ D^{*-}D^0$ would pin down the one coupling that currently dominates the uncertainty and would turn the prediction from a range into a sharp number.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes e+e− → γ D Dbar at √s = 4.23 GeV as a discovery channel for the charmonium 2P states χc0(2P) and χc2(2P). The production is assumed to proceed through ψ(4230) → γχcJ(2P), with the radiative transition computed in a hadronic-loop model that includes D(∗)D(∗) and D1(2420)Dbar loops plus gauge-invariant contact terms. Using the measured BESIII cross section for e+e− → γX(3872) as a reference and identifying X(3872) with χc1(2P), the authors derive cross sections for e+e− → γχc0(2P) and e+e− → γχc2(2P), then predict the D Dbar invariant mass spectrum of e+e− → γD Dbar and the photon angular distribution for the two states. The central quantitative outputs are the partial-width ratios in Eq. (28), the scaled cross sections in Fig. 2(b), the invariant-mass spectra in Fig. 3, and the angular parameter β2 in Table III.

Significance. If the predictions are robust, the paper gives a concrete, testable production mechanism for two poorly established charmonium states and provides phenomenological guidance for BESIII and Belle II. The hadronic-loop amplitudes are presented in enough detail to be reproduced, and the contact terms are fixed by the Ward-Takahashi identity rather than fitted, which is a genuine strength. The predicted β0 = 1 for ψ → γχc0(2P) is essentially model-independent, and the differential spectra and angular distributions are falsifiable. However, the headline conclusion that e+e− → γD Dbar is an ideal discovery channel is not yet supported with quantified uncertainties, because the predicted χc2(2P) signal is controlled by an unconstrained coupling choice.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III, Eq. (28) and Table II] The stress-test concern is borne out. The central claim that σ[γχc2(2P)] is measurable rests on the ratio Γγχc2/Γγχc1, and the quoted range 0.47–0.64 in Eq. (28) is obtained only for gψD1D = gmax/4. Table II shows that at gψD1D = gmax/2 the ratio is 0.118–0.168 and at gψD1D = gmax it is 0.029–0.042, i.e. a drop by more than an order of magnitude at the upper end of the plausible interval. Since σ[γχc2(2P)] is obtained in Fig. 2(b) by multiplying the BESIII-extracted σ[γχc1(2P)] by exactly this ratio (Eq. (2)), the predicted χc2 signal—and therefore the "ideal process" conclusion in the abstract—is not robust to the choice of gψD1D. The authors acknowledge the dependence in the text, but no uncertainty band is propagated into Fig. 2(b), Fig. 3, or the conclusions. This is load-bearing and should be fixed by either constraining gψD1D with a data-driven error estimate or by presenting the cross-section predictions as functions of gψD1D and softening the abstract and conclusions accordingly.
  2. [§III, Eq. (24)] The derivation of gmax assumes that the measured quantity Rψ(4230) = 2.70 eV is saturated by a single D1(2420)Dbar loop, and the subsequent reduction gψD1D = gmax/4 is introduced as an order-of-magnitude guess to absorb other intermediate channels. The factor 1/4 is not obtained from any fit or independent constraint, and it is the single parameter that most strongly controls the final cross sections. The manuscript should either derive a range for this factor from the coupled-channel results it cites, or explicitly present the central predictions as conditional on gψD1D = gmax/4 rather than as unconditional discovery potentials.
  3. [§III, Eq. (29) and Fig. 2(b)] The absolute normalization of σ[γχc0(2P)] and σ[γχc2(2P)] is obtained by dividing the measured e+e− → γX(3872) → γπ+π−J/ψ cross section by BR(X(3872) → π+π−J/ψ) = 3.5% and identifying X(3872) with χc1(2P). This introduces an external systematic uncertainty that is not propagated into the figures, and the comparison with data is made "ignoring background contributions" without reporting a fit quality or an uncertainty on the extracted σ[γχc1(2P)]. The absolute scale of the predictions therefore carries an additional unquantified systematic error beyond the α and gψD1D variations. The authors should quote this uncertainty or explicitly state in the conclusions that the absolute cross sections are uncertain at this level.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§III, Eq. (30)] The notation "dN/Nd cosθ" should be written as dN/(N d cosθ) for clarity.
  2. [§III, Fig. 2(b)] The caption says "The data points are obtained by dividing the original BESIII experiment data [23] by the branching fraction of X(3872)→π+π−J/ψ," but the curve labeled σ[γX(3872)] appears to be the reference cross section before this division; the relation between the displayed curves and the data should be stated explicitly.
  3. [§IV] The abstract and concluding paragraph state that e+e− → γD Dbar is an ideal process without repeating the caveat, stated in §III, that a precise determination of gψD1D requires additional experimental measurements; a one-sentence qualification in the conclusions would make the paper internally consistent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: predicted σ[γχc0,2(2P)] are measured σ[γX(3872)] rescaled by model-computed partial-width ratios, and the ratios are not fitted to the target e+e−→γD Dbar data.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is a reference-scaling estimate, not a first-principles prediction that folds its own target data back in. Equation (2) gives σ[γχc0,2]/σ[γχc1] = Γγχc0,2/Γγχc1, a consequence of the common Breit-Wigner production via ψ(4230). The normalization σ[γχc1(2P)] is extracted from the measured BESIII e+e−→γX(3872) cross section (after dividing by BR(X→π+π−J/ψ)), and the width ratios are computed from a hadronic-loop model whose parameters come from prior fits to other channels (e.g., Ref. [8]) and from the measured Rψ(4230) for e+e−→π+D*−D0. No equation in the paper forces the predicted σ[γχc2] to match the e+e−→γD Dbar data; no parameter is fitted to the target process. The paper itself flags the main weakness in Sec. III: 'a precise determination of gψD1D necessitates additional experimental measurements.' Table II confirms that the quoted Γγχc2/Γγχc1 range 0.47–0.64 is tied to the unshown gψD1D=gmax/4 choice, while gmax and gmax/2 give values an order of magnitude smaller; this is a robustness/correctness concern, not circularity, because the ratio remains an independently computed model input rather than a fit to the predicted channel. Self-citations (Refs. [8,14,15,34,42,46,52]) supply input couplings, hadronic-loop machinery, and the χcJ(2P) identifications, but these are anchored to external experimental data and are not used as an unverified uniqueness proof. The cross-section claim is therefore self-contained and falsifiable by future BESIII/Belle II measurements, so no circular step meets the evidentiary bar.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The calculation rests on several external inputs and modeling choices: a debated identification of X(3872) as chi_c1(2P), a resonant dominance assumption for e+e- -> gamma X(3872), and an ad hoc value for g_psiD1D. The most fragile input is the g_psiD1D choice, because Table II shows order-of-magnitude variation of the predicted ratios when it is varied.

free parameters (5)
  • Cutoff parameter alpha in dipole form factor = 3 to 5 (chosen range)
    Alpha controls the form factor F(q^2) with Lambda = m_E + alpha*Lambda_QCD. It is not fitted to data; the range 3 to 5 is chosen to avoid an artificial branch cut, and the computed width ratios vary smoothly over this range.
  • psi(4230)-D1-D coupling g_psiD1D = gmax/4 = 2.55 GeV^-1/2
    gmax=10.19 GeV^-1/2 is extracted from the measured e+e- -> pi+ D*- D0 rate, then divided by 4 by hand to account for additional intermediate channels. Table II shows that the predicted ratios depend strongly on this choice.
  • Branching fraction BR(X(3872)->pi+pi-J/psi) = 3.5% (PDG input)
    Used to convert the measured e+e- -> gamma X(3872) -> gamma pi+pi-J/psi cross section into sigma[gamma X(3872)]. It is an external input rather than a fit in this paper, but any error in it propagates linearly into all predicted cross sections.
  • Branching fraction BR(chi_c0(2P)->D Dbar) = 100% (assumed)
    Assumed because D Dbar is the only open-charm decay mode for chi_c0(2P); used to convert the production cross section into the D Dbar signal size.
  • Branching fraction BR(chi_c2(2P)->D Dbar) = 60% (from Refs. [10,14,15,19,20])
    Taken from earlier literature and used to scale the chi_c2(2P) contribution to the D Dbar invariant mass spectrum.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption X(3872) is identified with the charmonium state chi_c1(2P)
    The paper sets sigma[gamma X(3872)] equal to sigma[gamma chi_c1(2P)] in Eq. (29) and Fig. 2(b). The text explicitly conditions on this in Sec. II: 'if we treat the X(3872) as the charmonium state chi_c1(2P)'.
  • domain assumption e+e- -> gamma X(3872) is dominated by the psi(4230) intermediate state with negligible background
    The cross section is modeled as e+e- -> psi(4230) -> gamma X(3872) via the Breit-Wigner formula in Eq. (1), and the paper states 'Ignoring background contributions' when describing the BESIII data.
  • domain assumption The hadronic loop mechanism with charmed-meson loops and contact diagrams gives realistic radiative widths psi(4230)->gamma chi_cJ(2P)
    The paper uses effective Lagrangians from Refs. [40,42] and restores gauge invariance through contact amplitudes. This is a phenomenological model assumption, not a derivation from QCD.
  • ad hoc to paper The D1(2420) Dbar channel is important and can be included with coupling g_psiD1D estimated from e+e- -> pi+ D*0 D-
    The value g_psiD1D = gmax/4 is introduced to account for competing intermediate states. This choice strongly affects the central width ratios, as shown in Table II.
  • domain assumption The PDG values for psi(4230) mass, width, and leptonic width, and the branching fractions used for X, chi_c0, and chi_c2 are correct
    The paper fixes m_psi=4222.1 MeV, Gamma_psi=49 MeV, Gamma_e+e-=0.290 keV, and uses BR(X->pi+pi-J/psi)=3.5%, BR(chi_c0->D Dbar)=100%, and BR(chi_c2->D Dbar)=60%.
  • domain assumption Gauge invariance is fully restored by the contact amplitudes determined through the Ward-Takahashi identity
    Eqs. (15)-(22) construct contact terms to enforce p1*M=0. If this enforcement is incomplete or the truncated Lorentz structures miss terms, the computed partial widths change.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Discovery potential of charmonium $2P$ states through the $e^+e^- \to \gamma D\bar{D}$ processes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VEO33GOV

@misc{pith2026241206400,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Discovery potential of charmonium $2P$ states through the $e^+e^- \to \gamma D\barD$ processes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VEO33GOV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.06400}
}
abstract

In this work, we investigate the production of charmonium $2P$ states via the $e^+e^-\to \gamma D\bar{D}$ process at $\sqrt{s} = 4.23$ GeV. Using the measured cross-section data for $e^+e^-\to \gamma X(3872)$ as a reference, we calculate the cross sections for $e^+e^-\to \gamma \chi_{c0}(2P)$ and $e^+e^-\to \gamma \chi_{c2}(2P)$. Since the $\chi_{c0}(2P)$ and $\chi_{c2}(2P)$ states predominantly decay into $D\bar{D}$ final states, we also predict the corresponding $D\bar{D}$ invariant mass spectrum for the $e^+e^-\to \gamma D\bar{D}$ process. Our results indicate that $e^+e^-\to \gamma D\bar{D}$ is an ideal process for identifying the $\chi_{c0}(2P)$ and $\chi_{c2}(2P)$ states, analogous to the $\gamma\gamma\to D\bar{D}$ and $B^+\to D^+D^-K^+$ processes. This study highlights the discovery potential of charmonium $2P$ states at BESIII and Belle II.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.06400 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic diagram of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) The ratios of the partial widths for the three decay chan [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a)-(c) The predicted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Medium modifications of $1P$-wave charmonia $\chi_{cJ}(1P)$ in cold nuclear matter

    hep-ph 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    χcJ(1P) masses drop by 34–97 MeV in nuclear matter in the QMC+unquenched-loop model, with the D*D̄* loop dominating χc2 and no D-D̄ threshold crossing below 3ρ0.

  2. Unquenched Charmonium and Beyond

    hep-ph 2026-02 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

    This Lanzhou-group review argues that coupled-channel (unquenched) effects, not exotic constituents, are the common thread explaining charmonium anomalies from the rho-pi puzzle to the Y-problem states.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    (2𝑃) ③ 𝜓→𝛾𝜒!#(2𝑃) 𝛾∗ 𝛾 𝜒

    are introduced to account for the o ff-shell effects of the exchanged charmed mesons and to regulate the ultraviolet (UV) divergences in the loop integrals. For F (q2), we adopt the dipole form factor F (q2) =  m2 E− Λ2 q2− Λ2  2 , (5) where mE and q represent the mass and four-momentum of the exchanged charmed mesons, respectively. The cut-of...

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

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

    arXiv 2003

  3. [3]

    Barnes, S

    T. Barnes, S. Godfrey, and E. S. Swanson, Higher charmonia, Phys. Rev. D 72, 054026 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0505002

    arXiv 2005

  4. [4]

    Maiani, F

    L. Maiani, F. Piccinini, A. D. Polosa, and V . Riquer, Diquark- antidiquarks with hidden or open charm and the nature of X(3872), Phys. Rev. D 71, 014028 (2005), arXiv:hep- ph/0412098

    arXiv 2005

  5. [5]

    Hogaasen, J

    H. Hogaasen, J. M. Richard, and P. Sorba, A Chromomagnetic mechanism for the X(3872) resonance, Phys. Rev. D73, 054013 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0511039

    arXiv 2006

  6. [6]

    Cui, X.-L

    Y . Cui, X.-L. Chen, W.-Z. Deng, and S.-L. Zhu, The Possi- ble Heavy Tetraquarks qQ ¯q ¯Q, qq ¯Q ¯Q and qQ ¯Q ¯Q, HEPNP 31, 7 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0607226

    arXiv 2007

  7. [7]

    Wong, Molecular states of heavy quark mesons, Phys

    C.-Y . Wong, Molecular states of heavy quark mesons, Phys. Rev. C 69, 055202 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0311088

    arXiv 2004

  8. [8]

    M. T. AlFiky, F. Gabbiani, and A. A. Petrov,X(3872): Hadronic molecules in e ffective field theory, Phys. Lett. B 640, 238 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0506141

    arXiv 2006

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Wang, D.-Y

    J.-Z. Wang, D.-Y . Chen, X. Liu, and T. Matsuki, Constructing J/ψ family with updated data of charmoniumlikeY states, Phys. Rev. D 99, 114003 (2019), arXiv:1903.07115 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Uehara et al

    S. Uehara et al. (Belle), Observation of aχ′ c2 candidate inγγ→ D ¯D production at BELLE, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 082003 (2006), arXiv:hep-ex/0512035

    2006 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Liu, Z.-G

    X. Liu, Z.-G. Luo, and Z.-F. Sun, X(3915) and X(4350) as new members in P-wave charmonium family, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 122001 (2010), arXiv:0911.3694 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Beringer et al

    J. Beringer et al. (Particle Data Group), Review of Particle Physics (RPP), Phys. Rev. D 86, 010001 (2012)

    2012

  5. [13]

    Guo and U.-G

    F.-K. Guo and U.-G. Meissner, Where is the χc0(2P)?, Phys. Rev. D 86, 091501 (2012), arXiv:1208.1134 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  6. [14]

    S. L. Olsen, Is the X(3915) the χc0(2P)?, Phys. Rev. D 91, 057501 (2015), arXiv:1410.6534 [hep-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  7. [15]

    D.-Y . Chen, J. He, X. Liu, and T. Matsuki, Does the enhance- ment observed in γγ→ D ¯D contain two P-wave higher char- monia?, Eur. Phys. J. C72, 2226 (2012), arXiv:1207.3561 [hep- ph]

    2012 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Duan, S.-Q

    M.-X. Duan, S.-Q. Luo, X. Liu, and T. Matsuki, Possibility of charmoniumlike state X(3915) as χc0(2P) state, Phys. Rev. D 101, 054029 (2020), arXiv:2002.03311 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Amplitude analysis of the B+ → D+D−K+ decay, Phys. Rev. D 102, 112003 (2020), arXiv:2009.00026 [hep-ex]

    2020

  10. [18]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), A model-independent study of reso- nant structure in B+→ D+D−K+ decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 242001 (2020), arXiv:2009.00025 [hep-ex]

    2020

  11. [19]

    Uehara et al

    S. Uehara et al. (Belle), Observation of a charmonium-like en- hancement in the γγ → ωJ/ψ process, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 092001 (2010), arXiv:0912.4451 [hep-ex]

    2010 arXiv

  12. [20]

    D.-Y . Chen, X. Liu, and T. Matsuki, Hidden-charm decays of X(3915) and Z(3930) as the P-wave charmonia, PTEP 2015, 043B05 (2015), arXiv:1311.6274 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Duan, J.-Z

    M.-X. Duan, J.-Z. Wang, Y .-S. Li, and X. Liu, Role of the newly measured B→ KD ¯D process to establish χc0(2P) state, Phys. Rev. D 104, 034035 (2021), arXiv:2104.09132 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Ji, X.-K

    T. Ji, X.-K. Dong, M. Albaladejo, M.-L. Du, F.-K. Guo, J. Nieves, and B.-S. Zou, Understanding the 0 ++ and 2 ++ charmonium(-like) states near 3.9 GeV, Sci. Bull. 68, 688 (2023), arXiv:2212.00631 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Observation ofe+e−→γX(3872) at BESIII, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 092001 (2014), arXiv:1310.4101 [hep-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Study of e+e−→ γωJ/ψ and Ob- servation of X(3872)→ ωJ/ψ, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 232002 (2019), arXiv:1903.04695 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  17. [25]

    He, D.-Y

    L.-P. He, D.-Y . Chen, X. Liu, and T. Matsuki, Prediction of a missing higher charmonium around 4.26 GeV in J/ψ family, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 3208 (2014), arXiv:1405.3831 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Li and K.-T

    B.-Q. Li and K.-T. Chao, Higher Charmonia and X, Y, Z states with Screened Potential, Phys. Rev. D79, 094004 (2009), arXiv:0903.5506 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  19. [27]

    D.-Y . Chen, X. Liu, and T. Matsuki, Interference effect as reso- nance killer of newly observed charmoniumlike states Y(4320) and Y(4390), Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 136 (2018), arXiv:1708.01954 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  20. [28]

    F.-K. Guo, C. Hanhart, U.-G. Meißner, Q. Wang, and Q. Zhao, Production of the X(3872) in charmonia radiative decays, Phys. Lett. B 725, 127 (2013), arXiv:1306.3096 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Ding, Are Y(4260) and Z+ 2 (4250) are D1D or D0D∗ Hadronic Molecules?, Phys

    G.-J. Ding, Are Y(4260) and Z+ 2 (4250) are D1D or D0D∗ Hadronic Molecules?, Phys. Rev. D 79, 014001 (2009), arXiv:0809.4818 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Li, W.-L

    M.-T. Li, W.-L. Wang, Y .-B. Dong, and Z.-Y . Zhang, A Study of P-wave Heavy Meson Interactions in A Chiral Quark Model, (2013), arXiv:1303.4140 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Q. Wang, C. Hanhart, and Q. Zhao, Decoding the riddle of Y(4260) and Zc(3900), Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 132003 (2013), arXiv:1303.6355 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Precise measurement of the e+e− → π+π− J/ψ cross section at center-of-mass energies from 3.77 to 4.60 GeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 092001 (2017), arXiv:1611.01317 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Wang, R.-Q

    J.-Z. Wang, R.-Q. Qian, X. Liu, and T. Matsuki, Are the Y states around 4.6 GeV from e+e− annihilation higher charmo- nia?, Phys. Rev. D101, 034001 (2020), arXiv:2001.00175 [hep- ph]

    2020 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Y . Lu, M. N. Anwar, and B.-S. Zou, X(4260) Revisited: A Coupled Channel Perspective, Phys. Rev. D96, 114022 (2017), arXiv:1705.00449 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Man, S.-Q

    Z.-L. Man, S.-Q. Luo, Z.-Y . Bai, and X. Liu, Unraveling char- monium mixing scheme for the ψ(4220) and ψ(4380) by a coupled-channel approach, (2025), arXiv:2502.08072 [hep- ph]

    2025 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BES), Precise measurement of spin-averaged χcJ(1P) mass using photon conversions inψ(2S )→γχcJ, Phys. Rev. D 71, 092002 (2005), arXiv:hep-ex/0502031

    2005 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Artuso et al

    M. Artuso et al. (CLEO), Photon transitions in Υ(2S ) and Υ(3S ) decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 032001 (2005), arXiv:hep- ex/0411068

    2005

  30. [38]

    Liu, X.-Q

    X. Liu, X.-Q. Zeng, and X.-Q. Li, Study on contribu- tions of hadronic loops to decays of J/ψ → vector + pseudoscalar mesons, Phys. Rev. D 74, 074003 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0606191

    2006 arXiv

  31. [39]

    X. Liu, B. Zhang, and X.-Q. Li, The puzzle of exces- sive non- D ¯D component of the inclusive ψ(3770) decay and the long-distant contribution, Phys. Lett. B 675, 441 (2009), arXiv:0902.0480 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Zhang, G

    Y .-J. Zhang, G. Li, and Q. Zhao, Towards a dynamical under- standing of the non-D ¯D decay ofψ(3770), Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 172001 (2009), arXiv:0902.1300 [hep-ph]. 10

    2009 arXiv

  33. [41]

    D.-Y . Chen, X. Liu, and T. Matsuki, Anomalous radiative tran- sitions between hb(nP) and ηb(mS ) and hadronic loop e ffect, Phys. Rev. D 87, 094010 (2013), arXiv:1304.0372 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Cheng, C.-K

    H.-Y . Cheng, C.-K. Chua, and A. Soni, Final state interac- tions in hadronic B decays, Phys. Rev. D 71, 014030 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0409317

    2005 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Duan, Role of the short-distance interaction in e+e−→ γX(3872), Phys

    M.-X. Duan, Role of the short-distance interaction in e+e−→ γX(3872), Phys. Rev. D110, 034027 (2024), arXiv:2403.06440 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Casalbuoni, A

    R. Casalbuoni, A. Deandrea, N. Di Bartolomeo, R. Gatto, F. Feruglio, and G. Nardulli, Phenomenology of heavy meson chiral Lagrangians, Phys. Rept. 281, 145 (1997), arXiv:hep- ph/9605342

    1997

  37. [45]

    Colangelo, F

    P. Colangelo, F. De Fazio, and T. N. Pham, Nonfactorizable contributions in B decays to charmonium: The Case of B−→ K−hc, Phys. Rev. D 69, 054023 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0310084

    2004 arXiv

  38. [46]

    H. Xu, X. Liu, and T. Matsuki, Understanding B− → X(3823)K− via rescattering mechanism and predicting B− → ηc2(1D2)/ψ3(3D3)K−, Phys. Rev. D 94, 034005 (2016), arXiv:1605.04776 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Wang and X

    J.-Z. Wang and X. Liu, Identifying a characterized energy level structure of higher charmonium well matched to the peak struc- tures in e+e−→ π+D0D∗−, Phys. Lett. B 849, 138456 (2024), arXiv:2306.14695 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Evidence of a resonant structure in the e+e− → π+D0D∗− cross section between 4.05 and 4.60 GeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 102002 (2019), arXiv:1808.02847 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Liu, X.-Z

    M.-Z. Liu, X.-Z. Ling, and L.-S. Geng, Productions of X(3872) /Zc(3900) and X2(4013) /Zc(4020) in Y(4220) and Y(4360) decays, Phys. Rev. D 110, 054035 (2024), arXiv:2404.07681 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    R. L. Workman et al. (Particle Data Group), Review of Particle Physics, PTEP 2022, 083C01 (2022)

    2022

  43. [51]

    Chen, Y .-B

    D.-Y . Chen, Y .-B. Dong, and X. Liu, Long-distant contribution andχc1 radiative decays to light vector meson, Eur. Phys. J. C 70, 177 (2010), arXiv:1005.0066 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Godfrey and K

    S. Godfrey and K. Moats, Properties of Excited Charm and Charm-Strange Mesons, Phys. Rev. D 93, 034035 (2016), arXiv:1510.08305 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Li, Z.-Y

    Y .-S. Li, Z.-Y . Bai, Q. Huang, and X. Liu, Hidden-bottom hadronic decays of Υ(10753) with a η(′) or ω emission, Phys. Rev. D 104, 034036 (2021), arXiv:2106.14123 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

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