$T_{cc}$ and Hidden Charm Tetraquarks $1^+$ and $0^+$in QCD sum rules and Heavy-Quark Spin Symmetry

Altug Ozpineci; Semra Sari Ferah

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 23 references

$T_{cc}$ and Hidden Charm Tetraquarks $1^+$ and $0^+$in QCD sum rules and Heavy-Quark Spin Symmetry

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

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

Pith's one-line read QCD sum rules, usually limited to 100 MeV per mass, can determine related tetraquark masses to about 10 MeV once one measured mass is used as input; the measured $T_{cc}$ mass yields $m(1^+) = 3887.3 \pm 7.5$ MeV, matching…

desk verdict Clean heavy-quark symmetry argument, but the O(10 MeV) scalar mass claim omits the annihilation diagrams the authors themselves say are required. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.06003 v1 pith:KAQYBMZ4 submitted 2025-02-09 hep-ph

Semra Sari Ferah , Altug Ozpineci This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-ph

keywords QCDsumrulestetraquarksTccheavy-quarkspinsymmetryexotichadronshiddencharmlimit

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 QCD sum rules, a method whose individual hadron-mass predictions carry roughly $100$ MeV uncertainties, can still determine the mass differences among related exotic tetraquarks to better than $10$ MeV, because the inputs that drive the large errors are common to all three calculations and cancel when differences are taken. In the heavy-quark limit the two hidden-charm states with light degrees of freedom in spin $s=0$ — the $1^+$ and $0^+$ tetraquarks — are degenerate, and their splitting is a controlled $1/m_c$ effect protected by heavy-quark spin symmetry. Using the measured $T_{cc}$ mass as the single input, the paper predicts $m(1^+) = 3887.3 \pm 7.5$ MeV and $m(0^+) = 3901.9 \pm 12.5$ MeV, with the $1^+$ value coinciding with the observed $T_{c\bar{c}1}(3900)$. If correct, this turns sum rules from a coarse estimator into a precision tool for identifying exotic candidates by mass.

What carries the argument

The central objects are three interpolating tetraquark currents — $J^T_\mu$ for the doubly charmed $T_{cc}$ and $J_\mu$, $J$ for the hidden-charm $1^+$ and $0^+$ — with correlation functions evaluated twice, in a hadronic representation with a pole of mass $m_h$ and in an operator product expansion of quark and gluon condensates, matched through the Borel-transformed spectral sum $m_h^2 = \int_0^{s_0} ds\, s\, \rho_h(s) e^{-s/M^2} / \int_0^{s_0} ds\, \rho_h(s) e^{-s/M^2}$. In the heavy-quark limit the two hidden-charm currents differ only in the Dirac matrix of the heavy-quark bilinear, $\gamma_\mu$ versus $\gamma_5$, so their correlation functions collapse to the same scalar function $R(p^2)$ up to overall constants and the poles sit at the same position, proving $1^+$–$0^+$ degeneracy. The mechanism carrying the precision claim is the Monte Carlo error analysis: 1000 draws over the charm mass, condensates, Borel parameter, and continuum threshold produce histograms in which the spread of each individual mass is about $100$ MeV while the spread of each difference collapses to about $10$ MeV, because the same correlated inputs enter every member of a difference.

What would settle it

Compute the isovector scalar sum rule with annihilation diagrams included: if their effect moves the $0^+$ mass by more than the quoted $\pm 12.5$ MeV, the scalar prediction fails, while a shift below that confirms it. Complementarily, measure the mass of an $I=1$ hidden-charm scalar tetraquark: a value outside $3901.9 \pm 12.5$ MeV would falsify the central claim, as would an observed $1^+$ partner inconsistent with $3887.3 \pm 7.5$ MeV.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that although the QCD sum rule computation of each tetraquark mass has an uncertainty of order $100$ MeV — $m_{1^+} = 3.93 \pm 0.09$ GeV, $m_{0^+} = 3.95 \pm 0.09$ GeV, $m_{T_{cc}} = 3.92 \pm 0.09$ GeV — the differences between them come out an order of magnitude sharper: $\delta m_{10} = 14.8 \pm 6.5$ MeV, $\delta m_{T1} = 12.5 \pm 7.4$ MeV, $\delta m_{T0} = 27.1 \pm 12.4$ MeV. Because the three interpolating currents share the same light-quark structure, the charm quark mass, condensates, Borel parameter, and continuum threshold enter in correlated ways, and a Monte Carlo propagation of all inputs shows the errors cancelling in the differences, with the heavy-quark-symmetry-protected splitting cleanest of all. Attaching these differences to the precisely measured mass $m_{T_{cc}} = 3874.84 \pm 0.11$ MeV yields $m(1^+) = 3887.3 \pm 7.5$ MeV, which coincides with the observed $T_{c\bar{c}1}(3900)$ at $3887.1 \pm 2.6$ MeV, and $m(0^+) = 3901.9 \pm 12.5$ MeV for an isovector scalar that has no firmly identified experimental counterpart. The paper is explicit that the scalar prediction neglects annihilation diagrams, which split $I=0$ from $I=1$ and would need to be included at the ten-MeV level.

Load-bearing premise

The ten-MeV precision rests on the assumption that the roughly $100$ MeV uncertainties of the three separate sum rules are strongly correlated so that they nearly cancel in the mass differences — demonstrated only through Monte Carlo histograms, not derived — and, for the scalar, on the additional assumption that the neglected annihilation diagrams shift the isovector mass by less than the quoted $\pm 12.5$ MeV.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The $1^+$ isovector hidden-charm tetraquark should be found at $3887.3 \pm 7.5$ MeV, in agreement with the already observed $T_{c\bar{c}1}(3900)$ at $3887.1 \pm 2.6$ MeV; the sum rules and the measurement independently point to the same state.
An isovector $0^+$ hidden-charm tetraquark is predicted at $3901.9 \pm 12.5$ MeV, a concrete target for experimental searches; the closest reported particle, $X(3915)$ at $3922.1 \pm 1.8$ MeV, is isoscalar and therefore not the predicted state.
The splitting $m(0^+) - m(1^+) = 14.8 \pm 6.5$ MeV is protected by heavy-quark spin symmetry, making it the most reliable of the three differences; the differences involving $T_{cc}$ are not symmetry-protected but still come out at about ten MeV through the same error cancellation.
The three predictions are locked together by the relations $m(0^+) - m(1^+) = 14.8 \pm 6.5$ MeV and $m(1^+) - m(T_{cc}) = 12.5 \pm 7.4$ MeV, so measuring any two of the three states fixes the third at the stated precision.
More generally, the paper concludes that QCD sum rules can turn any precisely measured exotic-hadron mass into a benchmark from which symmetry-related partners are determined to about $10$ MeV, with heavy-quark-symmetry-protected differences reaching a few MeV.

Reading between the lines

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

The difference-cancellation strategy should transfer directly to bottom analogues such as $T_{bb}$: with the heavier quark the $1/m_Q$ expansion is more convergent, so the heavy-quark-symmetry protection of $\delta m_{10}$ would be even stronger than in charm, and a high-precision $T_{bb}$ mass would pin its hidden-bottom partners to a few MeV.
The cancellation of errors is shown numerically, not proven analytically; a one-parameter-at-a-time scan that maps how each input's uncertainty flows into each mass difference would reveal whether the cancellation survives outside the chosen Borel window, which the histograms average over.
The scalar prediction is the fragile link: if the neglected annihilation diagrams shift the isovector $0^+$ by more than the quoted $\pm 12.5$ MeV, the method's precision would still hold for the $1^+$ state, but the scalar mass would need revision once those diagrams are included.
A future $I=1$ scalar found far from $3901.9$ MeV, with the $1^+$ still matching, would quantify exactly how large the dropped annihilation contribution is, effectively measuring the isovector-isoscalar splitting the paper left out.

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

Two things to know. The paper has a genuinely useful idea: in QCD sum rules, compute mass differences rather than individual masses, use a measured exotic mass as anchor, and the Monte Carlo error on the difference shrinks to O(10 MeV). Second, the paper does not actually support that precision claim for the scalar state, and its own text says so. In Section 4 they state that for mass differences of O(10 MeV) the annihilation diagrams 'have to be included in the computations,' and that these diagrams are what split I=0 and I=1. Then they compute the 0+ mass difference without them. The quoted m0+ = 3901.9 ± 12.5 MeV only covers the sampled parameter spread; it does not cover a contribution the authors themselves identify as necessary at that precision. The abstract's blanket statement that masses can be determined to O(10 MeV) is therefore unsupported for the scalar. The same concern applies, less directly, to the 1+ prediction, since Tcc is I=0 and the 1+ is I=1.

What is solid: the heavy-quark symmetry derivation in Eqs. 14–15 is clean and explicit, and the degeneracy of the 1+ and 0+ states in the infinite-mass limit follows transparently. The spectral densities are given in the appendix, the analysis is self-contained, and no parameter is fitted to the target masses; the measured Tcc mass is used only as an input anchor. The resulting prediction m1+ = 3887.3 ± 7.5 MeV matching the observed Tcbar1(3900) at 3887.1 ± 2.6 MeV is striking and worth checking. The Monte Carlo approach to error propagation is standard, though the cancellation is demonstrated numerically, not analytically.

The soft spot is the mismatch between the stated requirement and the actual calculation. The error-cancellation strategy is plausible and may well work for the 1+ state, but the paper cannot claim O(10 MeV) precision for the 0+ mass without estimating the annihilation diagrams. A referee should ask for those diagrams to be included or bounded, or for the scalar prediction to be presented with an explicit caveat. This is a major revision issue, not a desk-reject matter.

Who gets value from this: QCD sum rules practitioners studying exotic tetraquarks, and experimentalists hunting for the isovector scalar. The symmetry argument alone is worth citing. Send it to peer review, but be clear the precision claim needs to be reined in or the missing diagrams supplied.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper studies the doubly charmed tetraquark Tcc and hidden charm 1+ and 0+ tetraquarks within QCD sum rules. The authors exploit heavy-quark spin symmetry to show that the 1+ and 0+ hidden charm states are degenerate in the heavy-quark limit, with a mass difference that is a 1/mc effect. They compute the three correlation functions, extract the mass differences via Monte Carlo error propagation, and use the measured Tcc mass as an anchor to predict m1+ = 3887.3 ± 7.5 MeV and m0+ = 3901.9 ± 12.5 MeV. The former is identified with the observed Tcbar1(3900), while the latter is a prediction for an isovector scalar. The central claim is that the mass-difference method reduces uncertainties from O(100 MeV) to O(10 MeV).

Significance. If the claim holds, the paper offers a practical strategy for predicting exotic hadron masses with O(10 MeV) precision from one measured input mass, a valuable step beyond the typical O(100 MeV) accuracy of QCD sum rules. The heavy-quark symmetry argument in Eqs. (14)-(15) is clean and self-contained, the spectral densities are given explicitly in the appendix, and the Monte Carlo procedure is clearly described. The agreement of the 1+ prediction with Tcbar1(3900) is a nontrivial success. However, the 0+ prediction is undermined by the omission of annihilation diagrams, which the authors themselves state are required for O(10 MeV) mass differences, so the general claim requires revision.

major comments (3)

[Section 4, Eq. (24) and Eq. (23)] The paper states in the paragraph before Eq. (23) that for mass differences of O(10 MeV), annihilation diagrams 'have to be included in the computations,' and that these diagrams generate the I=0 versus I=1 splitting. Yet the spectral density ρ0(s) in Eq. (24) contains no annihilation-diagram contributions, and the Monte Carlo error estimate in Fig. 5 samples only the parameters of Table 1 and the auxiliary choices of M^2 and s0. The quoted uncertainty m0+ = 3901.9 ± 12.5 MeV in Eq. (23) therefore does not include the systematic effect from the very diagrams the authors identify as necessary at the claimed precision scale. Because the omitted physics is of the same order as the quoted uncertainty, the 0+ mass is not actually determined to O(10 MeV) by this analysis. The authors should either include the annihilation diagrams in the OPE for the scalar channel or explicitly restrict the O(10 MeV) precision claim to quantities where these diagrams are negligible.
[Abstract and Eq. (22)] The abstract claims that 'when the mass differences are studied, the uncertainty is reduced to less than O(10 MeV),' but Eq. (22) reports δmT0 = 27.1 ± 12.4 MeV and Eq. (23) gives m0+ with a ±12.5 MeV uncertainty, both above 10 MeV. The wording overstates the achieved precision. The text should be corrected to say 'of the order of 10 MeV' or should explicitly identify the 0+ and δmT0 entries as exceptions to the 'less than' claim.
[Section 4, Figs. 4-5] The central quantitative claim that uncertainties cancel in the mass differences rests entirely on the Monte Carlo histograms shown in Fig. 5. The paper would be substantially strengthened by an analytic error budget showing how the dominant input uncertainties (mc, ⟨gs^2 G^2⟩, and the continuum threshold s0) enter the mass-difference formulas and why they cancel, or, failing that, by reporting the correlation matrix obtained from the 1000-point sample. Without this, the reader cannot judge whether the observed cancellation is robust or an artifact of the particular parameter sampling.

minor comments (4)

[Section 4 heading] The heading 'Numerical Analysis and Conlusions' contains a typo; it should read 'Conclusions'.
[Section 2, first paragraph] The word 'repectively' should be 'respectively'.
[Section 4, text after Eq. (22)] The statement that the uncertainty in δm10 is 'much smaller' than the uncertainties in the other two mass differences is not strongly supported by the numbers: δm10 = 14.8 ± 6.5 MeV, while δmT1 = 12.5 ± 7.4 MeV. The difference is modest, not large. Please rephrase or justify the claim.
[Section 2 and Appendix A] The paper relies on the prior analysis of [10] for the general framework and for the spin-1 light-diquark currents, but the extent to which the spectral densities in Eqs. (24)-(26) are new is not stated. A sentence clarifying which OPE contributions are newly computed here would help the reader evaluate the novelty.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the mass differences are computed from the OPE, and the measured Tcc mass is used transparently as an external anchor.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained. The mass differences in Eq. (22) are obtained directly from the OPE spectral densities in Eqs. (24)-(26) through the standard sum-rule formula Eq. (11); no parameter is fitted to the 1+ or 0+ masses. The heavy-quark degeneracy of the 1+ and 0+ states is shown inside the paper by the trace identities in Eqs. (14)-(17), which produce the same function R(p^2) for both correlation functions; the citation of [15] is background and not load-bearing. The measured Tcc mass enters only as the transparent external anchor in Eq. (23), and the 1+ prediction is checked against the independent observed Tcbar1(3900) mass, not used to tune the sum rules. The authors' own caveat in Section 4 that annihilation diagrams should be included for O(10 MeV) mass differences, yet are omitted, is a genuine limitation on the quoted 0+ uncertainty budget, but it is a completeness and accuracy concern rather than an input-output identity. The choice of s0 through Eq. (19) uses the hadron mass only to set a conventional auxiliary range, with stability verified over M^2 and s0 variations; this is standard sum-rule practice, not a circular reduction. The self-citation [10] is an ordinary reference to prior analysis and does not carry the central claim. No circular step can be quoted from the paper.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard QCD sum rules inputs (quark masses, condensates) and on the heavy-quark symmetry structure of the correlation functions. No parameter is fitted to the target masses; the auxiliary parameters M^2 and s0 are chosen by standard criteria. The main unproven ingredient is the correlation of uncertainties underlying the mass-difference precision.

free parameters (2)

Borel parameter M^2 = 2.5-3.5 GeV^2 (working window)
Chosen by requiring OPE convergence and pole contribution above 30%; sampled uniformly in the Monte Carlo.
Continuum threshold s0 = 19 ± 1 GeV^2
Chosen from (m_h + 0.3 GeV)^2 ≤ s0 ≤ (m_h + 0.5 GeV)^2; sampled uniformly in the Monte Carlo.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Quark-hadron duality: the continuum of excited states is approximated by the OPE above s0.
Standard QCD sum rules input, invoked in Eq. 10 and Section 2.
domain assumption Heavy-quark spin symmetry: in the mc → ∞ limit, the 1+ and 0+ correlation functions share the same function R(p^2).
Eqs. 14-15 in Section 3; central to the degeneracy argument.
domain assumption The interpolating currents Jμ, J, and Jμ^T have non-zero overlap with the physical tetraquark states under study.
Standard assumption of the sum rules method; invoked in Section 2.
ad hoc to paper Pole contribution above 30% and OPE convergence ensure the reliability of the sum rule window.
Section 4 criteria used to fix the working region.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of $T_{cc}$ and Hidden Charm Tetraquarks $1^+$ and $0^+$in QCD sum rules and Heavy-Quark Spin Symmetry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KAQYBMZ4

@misc{pith2026250206003,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: $T_cc$ and Hidden Charm Tetraquarks $1^+$ and $0^+$in QCD sum rules and Heavy-Quark Spin Symmetry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KAQYBMZ4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.06003}
}

abstract

In this work, $T_{cc}$ double charm tetraquark and $1^{+}$ and $0^{+}$ hidden charm tetraquarks are studied within the QCD sum rules framework. In the heavy-quark limit, the $1^+$ and $0^+$ tetraquarks are degenerate and the difference in their masses is an $1/m_c$ effect. It is shown that, although the uncertainty in the mass predictions of each of these hadrons is ${\cal O}(100\;\mathrm{MeV})$, when the mass differences are studied, the uncertainty is reduced to less than ${\cal O}(10\;\mathrm{MeV})$. Hence, it is concluded that if one of the exotic hadrons is observed and its mass is used as input, the masses of the other hadrons can be determined with a precision of ${\cal O}(10\;\mathrm{MeV})$ using the QCD sum rules method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.06003 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The convergence of the contribution of each dimension separately [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** M2 dependence of masses of 1+, 0+ and Tcc tetraquarks for s0 = 18, 19 and 20 GeV2 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Histograms for the predicted masses of the 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Histograms for the predicted mass differences. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

[1]

Observation of an exotic narrow doubly charmed tetraquark,

R. Aaij et al., “Observation of an exotic narrow doubly charmed tetraquark,” Nature Phys., vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 751–754, 2022. doi: 10.1038/s41567- 022-01614-y. arXiv: 2109.01038 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2022
[2]

Observation of a narrow charmonium-like state in exclusive B± → K ±π+π−J/ψ decays,

S. K. Choi et al., “Observation of a narrow charmonium-like state in exclusive B± → K ±π+π−J/ψ decays,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 91, p. 262 001, 2003. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.262001. arXiv: hep- ex/0309032

arXiv 2003
[3]

Establishing the heavy quark spin and light flavor molecular multi- plets of the X(3872), Zc(3900), and X(3960),

T. Ji, X.-K. Dong, M. Albaladejo, M.-L. Du, F.-K. Guo, and J. Nieves, “Establishing the heavy quark spin and light flavor molecular multi- plets of the X(3872), Zc(3900), and X(3960),” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 106, no. 9, p. 094 002, 2022. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.094002 . arXiv: 2207.08563 [hep-ph]. 15

arXiv 2022
[4]

Remarks on study of X(3872) from effective field theory with pion-exchange interaction,

V. Baru, E. Epelbaum, A. A. Filin, et al., “Remarks on study of X(3872) from effective field theory with pion-exchange interaction,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 91, no. 3, p. 034 002, 2015.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD. 91.034002. arXiv: 1501.02924 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2015
[5]

QCD Sum Rules for the production of the X(3872) as a mixed molecule-charmonium state in B meson decay

C. M. Zanetti, M. Nielsen, and R. D. Matheus, “QCD Sum Rules for the production of the X(3872) as a mixed molecule-charmonium state in B meson decay,” Phys. Lett. B, vol. 702, pp. 359–363, 2011. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2011.07.018. arXiv: 1105.1343 [hep-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2011
[6]

Semileptonic $B_c$ decays to $P-$wave charmonium and the nature of $\chi_{c1}(3872)$

P. Colangelo, F. De Fazio, N. Losacco, F. Loparco, and M. Novoa- Brunet, “Semileptonic Bc decays to P-wave charmonium and the nature of χc1(3872),” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 106, no. 9, p. 094 005, 2022. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.094005. arXiv: 2208.13398 [hep-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2022
[7]

Heavy quark symmetry,

M. Neubert, “Heavy quark symmetry,” Phys. Rept., vol. 245, pp. 259– 396, 1994. doi: 10.1016/0370- 1573(94)90091- 4. arXiv: hep- ph/ 9306320

doi:10.1016/0370- 1994
[8]

Heavy quark spin symmetry partners of the x (3872),

J. Nieves and M. Pav´ on Valderrama, “Heavy quark spin symmetry partners of the x (3872),” Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Grav- itation, and Cosmology, vol. 86, no. 5, p. 056 004, 2012

work page 2012

Show all 23 references

[9]

Radiative decays of the heavy-quark-spin molecular partner of Tcc+,

Z.-S. Jia, Z.-H. Zhang, G. Li, and F.-K. Guo, “Radiative decays of the heavy-quark-spin molecular partner of Tcc+,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 108, no. 9, p. 094 038, 2023. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.094038 . arXiv: 2307.11047 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[10]

X (3872) and its heavy quark spin symmetry partners in QCD sum rules,

H. Mutuk, Y. Sara¸ c, H. G¨ um¨ u¸ s, and A.¨Ozpineci, “X (3872) and its heavy quark spin symmetry partners in QCD sum rules,”The European Physical Journal C, vol. 78, pp. 1–11, 2018

2018
[11]

QCD and resonance physics. i. theoretical foundations.[matrix elements],

M. Shifman, A. Vainshtein, and V. Zakharov, “QCD and resonance physics. i. theoretical foundations.[matrix elements],”Nucl. Phys., B;(Netherlands), vol. 147, no. 5, 1979

1979
[12]

Calculation of baryon masses in quantum chromodynamics,

B. Ioffe, “Calculation of baryon masses in quantum chromodynamics,” Nuclear Physics B, vol. 188, no. 2, pp. 317–341, 1981

1981
[13]

QCD sum rules study of QQ¯u ¯d mesons,

F. S. Navarra, M. Nielsen, and S. H. Lee, “QCD sum rules study of QQ¯u ¯d mesons,” Physics Letters B, vol. 649, no. 2-3, pp. 166–172, 2007

2007
[14]

Newly observed exotic doubly charmed meson Tcc+,

S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi, and H. Sundu, “Newly observed exotic doubly charmed meson Tcc+,” Nucl. Phys. B, vol. 975, p. 115 650, 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2022.115650. arXiv: 2108.00188 [hep-ph]. 16

2022
[15]

Light flavor and heavy quark spin symmetry in heavy meson molecules,

C. Hidalgo-Duque, J. Nieves, and M. P. Valderrama, “Light flavor and heavy quark spin symmetry in heavy meson molecules,” Physical Re- view D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology, vol. 87, no. 7, p. 076 006, 2013

2013
[16]

QCD sum rules and applications to nuclear physics,

T. Cohen, R. Furnstahl, D. Griegel, and X. Jin, “QCD sum rules and applications to nuclear physics,” Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, vol. 35, pp. 221–298, 1995

1995
[17]

Quark-hadron duality,

M. Shifman, “Quark-hadron duality,” in At The Frontier of Particle Physics: Handbook of QCD (In 3 Volumes), World Scientific, 2001, pp. 1447–1494

2001
[18]

Heavy-meson form factors from QCD sum rules,

M. Neubert, “Heavy-meson form factors from QCD sum rules,” Phys- ical Review D, vol. 45, no. 7, p. 2451, 1992

1992
[19]

Review of particle physics,

P. D. Group, R. Workman, V. Burkert, et al., “Review of particle physics,” Progress of theoretical and experimental physics, vol. 2022, no. 8, p. 083C01, 2022

2022
[20]

Gluon condensates and c, b quark masses from quarkonia ratios of moments,

S. Narison, “Gluon condensates and c, b quark masses from quarkonia ratios of moments,” Physics Letters B, vol. 693, no. 5, pp. 559–566, 2010

2010
[21]

Review of particle physics,

S. Navas et al., “Review of particle physics,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 110, no. 3, p. 030 001, 2024. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001

2024 doi
[22]

QCD sum rules for skeptics,

D. B. Leinweber, “QCD sum rules for skeptics,” Annals Phys., vol. 254, pp. 328–396, 1997. doi: 10 . 1006 / aphy . 1996 . 5641. arXiv: nucl - th/9510051

1997
[23]

Predicting isovector charmonium- like states from X(3872) properties,

Z.-H. Zhang, T. Ji, X.-K. Dong, et al., “Predicting isovector charmonium- like states from X(3872) properties,” JHEP, vol. 08, p. 130, 2024. doi: 10.1007/JHEP08(2024)130. arXiv: 2404.11215 [hep-ph]. 17 A Explicit Expressions of the Spectra Densi- ties ρ0(s) = m6 c 29π6 I4,2,2,...

2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Observation of an exotic narrow doubly charmed tetraquark,

R. Aaij et al., “Observation of an exotic narrow doubly charmed tetraquark,” Nature Phys., vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 751–754, 2022. doi: 10.1038/s41567- 022-01614-y. arXiv: 2109.01038 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2022

[2] [2]

Observation of a narrow charmonium-like state in exclusive B± → K ±π+π−J/ψ decays,

S. K. Choi et al., “Observation of a narrow charmonium-like state in exclusive B± → K ±π+π−J/ψ decays,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 91, p. 262 001, 2003. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.262001. arXiv: hep- ex/0309032

arXiv 2003

[3] [3]

Establishing the heavy quark spin and light flavor molecular multi- plets of the X(3872), Zc(3900), and X(3960),

T. Ji, X.-K. Dong, M. Albaladejo, M.-L. Du, F.-K. Guo, and J. Nieves, “Establishing the heavy quark spin and light flavor molecular multi- plets of the X(3872), Zc(3900), and X(3960),” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 106, no. 9, p. 094 002, 2022. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.094002 . arXiv: 2207.08563 [hep-ph]. 15

arXiv 2022

[4] [4]

Remarks on study of X(3872) from effective field theory with pion-exchange interaction,

V. Baru, E. Epelbaum, A. A. Filin, et al., “Remarks on study of X(3872) from effective field theory with pion-exchange interaction,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 91, no. 3, p. 034 002, 2015.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD. 91.034002. arXiv: 1501.02924 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2015

[5] [5]

QCD Sum Rules for the production of the X(3872) as a mixed molecule-charmonium state in B meson decay

C. M. Zanetti, M. Nielsen, and R. D. Matheus, “QCD Sum Rules for the production of the X(3872) as a mixed molecule-charmonium state in B meson decay,” Phys. Lett. B, vol. 702, pp. 359–363, 2011. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2011.07.018. arXiv: 1105.1343 [hep-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2011

[6] [6]

Semileptonic $B_c$ decays to $P-$wave charmonium and the nature of $\chi_{c1}(3872)$

P. Colangelo, F. De Fazio, N. Losacco, F. Loparco, and M. Novoa- Brunet, “Semileptonic Bc decays to P-wave charmonium and the nature of χc1(3872),” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 106, no. 9, p. 094 005, 2022. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.094005. arXiv: 2208.13398 [hep-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2022

[7] [7]

Heavy quark symmetry,

M. Neubert, “Heavy quark symmetry,” Phys. Rept., vol. 245, pp. 259– 396, 1994. doi: 10.1016/0370- 1573(94)90091- 4. arXiv: hep- ph/ 9306320

doi:10.1016/0370- 1994

[8] [8]

Heavy quark spin symmetry partners of the x (3872),

J. Nieves and M. Pav´ on Valderrama, “Heavy quark spin symmetry partners of the x (3872),” Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Grav- itation, and Cosmology, vol. 86, no. 5, p. 056 004, 2012

work page 2012