Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 99 references

Exploring the spectroscopic features of double-strangeness tetraquark states

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper predicts a bound $ss\bar{n}\bar{n}$ tetraquark with $I(J^P)=0(1^+)$ at about 1310 MeV, plus a resonance near 1783 MeV, arising from coupling meson-meson and diquark-antidiquark configurations.

desk verdict Solid quark-model calculation with a genuinely new 1310 MeV tetraquark candidate, undermined by a 17 vs 5.6 MeV resonance-width inconsistency between the abstract and Section III.B. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.12828 v1 pith:O5MWZ4Y4 submitted 2025-05-19 hep-ph nucl-th

Xuejie Liu , Haoming Zheng , Dianyong Chen , Hongxia Huang , Jialun Ping This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phnucl-th PACS 13.75.Cs12.39.Pn12.39.Jh
keywords double-strangetetraquarkQDCSMquarkdelocalizationcolorscreeningresonatinggroupmethodrealscalinglight-quarkexotichadron
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 predicts that a four-quark combination of two strange quarks and two light antiquarks ($ss\bar{n}\bar{n}$) has a bound state with quantum numbers $I(J^P)=0(1^+)$ at about 1310 MeV, sitting roughly 76.5 MeV below the $\bar{K}^0 K^{*-}$ threshold. It also finds a resonance near 1783 MeV. The calculation couples two structural pictures within the Quark Delocalization Color Screening Model: color-singlet meson pairs such as $\bar{K}^*\bar{K}$ and $\bar{K}^*\bar{K}^*$, and a compact diquark-antidiquark cluster. If the result holds, these are double-strange analogues of the doubly charmed tetraquark $T_{cc}^+$, giving experiments concrete light-quark exotics to search for in weak decays of $B$ mesons. The same calculation finds no bound or resonance states when the isospin is 1.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the Quark Delocalization Color Screening Model (QDCSM): quarks are allowed to spread between two cluster centers through a delocalization parameter, and the confining interaction between quarks in different clusters is screened by a color-screening function. Working with the Resonating Group Method (RGM), the paper solves a generalized eigenvalue problem for the relative motion of two clusters, and builds the four-quark wave function from five flavor-spin-color channels: three meson-meson channels ($\bar{K}^0 K^{*-}$, $\bar{K}^{*0} K^-$, $\bar{K}^{*0} K^{*-}$) and two diquark-antidiquark color structures ($6_c\otimes\bar{6}_c$ and $\bar{3}_c\otimes 3_c$). Delocalization plus color screening creates effective hidden-color channel coupling that mixes color-octet meson clusters with the physical color-singlet channels; this coupling is what lowers the $0(1^+)$ energy by about 76 MeV below the $\bar{K}^0 K^{*-}$ threshold. The real-scaling method, which monitors eigenvalue behavior as a basis scale parameter grows, identifies resonances through avoided crossings, and a width formula extracts the resonance width from the slopes at the crossing.

What would settle it

A lattice QCD calculation of the $I=0$, $J^P=1^+$ $ss\bar{n}\bar{n}$ scattering amplitude below 1.5 GeV would settle the bound-state claim: if the $\bar{K}^0 K^{*-}$ phase shift contains no pole near 1310 MeV, or a pole at a significantly different energy, the predicted bound state is ruled out. For the resonance, a high-statistics search in weak decays of $B$ mesons looking for a narrow peak near 1783 MeV with a width of roughly 5 to 17 MeV would provide a direct experimental test.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that the $I(J^P)=0(1^+)$ $ss\bar{n}\bar{n}$ system supports a compact tetraquark bound state at approximately 1310 MeV, with binding energy about $-76.5$ MeV relative to the $\bar{K}^0 K^{*-}$ threshold, once the meson-meson and diquark-antidiquark configurations are coupled. Single-channel estimates give shallow bound states in $\bar{K}^0 K^{*-}$, $\bar{K}^{*0} K^-$ and $\bar{K}^{*0} K^{*-}$ with binding energies near $-1.5$, $-1.5$ and $-4.4$ MeV respectively; channel coupling within the meson-meson sector deepens the binding to about $-61.4$ MeV, and the full coupling brings it to $-76.5$ MeV. The resulting state is about 59% $\bar{K}^0 K^{*-}/\bar{K}^{*0} K^-$, 38% $\bar{K}^{*0} K^{*-}$, and 3% diquark-antidiquark, with an RMS radius near 0.81 fm, which the authors read as a compact tetraquark rather than a loosely bound molecule. Using the real-scaling (stabilization) method, the paper also identifies a resonance at about 1783 MeV with an RMS radius near 0.58 fm and a composition dominated by $\bar{K}^{*0} K^{*-}$ and diquark-antidiquark components; the abstract and summary quote its width as about 17 MeV, while the detailed avoided-crossing estimate gives about 5.6 MeV. For isospin 1, all quantum numbers considered ($1(0^+)$, $1(1^+)$, $1(2^+)$) show no bound states and no resonances.

Load-bearing premise

The deepest binding depends on the model assumption that quark delocalization and color screening generate effective hidden-color attraction strong enough to lower the energy by about 76 MeV; that mechanism is fitted to nucleon-nucleon and nucleon-hyperon scattering and to ground meson masses, but is not benchmarked against any independent calculation of a compact four-quark system.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 1310 MeV state lies below the $\bar{K}^0 K^{*-}$ threshold, so strong decay to two kaons is kinematically forbidden; it should decay weakly or electromagnetically and appear as a narrow peak.
  • The 1783 MeV resonance, if confirmed, should show up in $\bar{K}^* \bar{K}^*$ and $\bar{K} \bar{K}^*$ channels with a width of order 5 to 17 MeV depending on which estimate is used.
  • The $I=1$ channels are predicted to have no bound states or resonances, matching earlier findings of repulsive $\bar{K}\bar{K}$ interactions.
  • Single-channel $\bar{K}^*\bar{K}$ and $\bar{K}^*\bar{K}^*$ bound states are shallow and molecular-like, but full channel coupling converts the ground state into a compact object, so the two pictures are complementary pieces of one state.
  • Searches for light-quark exotics in $B$-meson weak decays should target the $0(1^+)$ channel at roughly 1.31 GeV and near 1.78 GeV.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the 1310 MeV state is confirmed, it would demonstrate that hidden-color coupling, not just meson-exchange attraction, can bind a light-quark tetraquark, distinguishing quark-model compact tetraquarks from purely molecular interpretations.
  • The difference between the 17 MeV width quoted in the abstract and summary and the 5.6 MeV stabilization estimate deserves clarification; until then the resonance width should be treated as uncertain.
  • A natural next step would be to recompute the same $0(1^+)$ system with a different method, such as complex scaling or lattice QCD, to test whether the 76 MeV binding survives outside the Gaussian-basis RGM implementation.
  • The composition analysis suggests the 1783 MeV resonance is predominantly $\bar{K}^{*0}K^{*-}$ plus diquark-antidiquark; this could be tested by comparing partial widths into $\bar{K}K^*$ versus $\bar{K}^*K^*$ final states.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript applies the quark delocalization color screening model (QDCSM) with the resonating group method (RGM) to study double-strange ss nbar nbar tetraquark systems in the S-wave with quantum numbers I(J^P) = 0(1+), 1(0+), 1(1+), and 1(2+). Both meson-meson and diquark-antidiquark configurations are considered, with channel coupling within and between the configurations. The authors report single-channel bound states for the Kbar0K*-, Kbar*0K-, and Kbar*0K*- channels, and a deeply bound state at approximately 1310 MeV with binding energy -76.5 MeV relative to the KbarK* threshold after full channel coupling. They also report a resonance near 1783 MeV identified by the real-scaling method, with the abstract and summary quoting a decay width of about 17 MeV while Section III B quotes about 5.6 MeV. For isospin I=1 systems, no bound or resonance states are found.

Significance. If the central predictions hold, the 1310 MeV I(J^P)=0(1+) state would be a new double-strange tetraquark candidate in the light-quark sector, complementing the double-charm T_cc(3875) and earlier one-boson-exchange and chiral quark model predictions for KbarK* and Kbar*K* molecules. A notable strength is that the model parameters are fixed from meson spectra, deuteron properties, and NN/NY scattering rather than fitted to the target ss nbar nbar states, so the predictions are not circular. The paper also provides a systematic survey of all allowed quantum numbers and explicitly constructs the color, flavor, and spin bases in the appendix. However, the significance is limited by the absence of convergence and sensitivity studies, the tiny single-channel binding energies, and an unresolved internal inconsistency in the quoted resonance width, so the quantitative predictions are not yet fully established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III B, Eq. (20), and Section IV] The resonance decay width is reported as approximately 5.6 MeV in Section III B, but the abstract and Section IV quote approximately 17 MeV. Since Eq. (20) depends on V_min, k_r, and k_c, none of which are tabulated or extracted numerically in the text or Fig. 6, a reader cannot determine which value actually follows from the calculation. This is a direct internal inconsistency in one of the two headline quantitative results and must be resolved before publication.
  2. [Section III A, Table II, and Eq. (16)] The single-channel binding energies of -1.5 MeV for Kbar0K*- and Kbar*0K- are of the same order as typical variational truncation errors, yet the paper gives no convergence study with respect to the number of Gaussian basis functions n and no estimate of numerical uncertainty. The subsequent channel coupling amplifies these tiny bindings to -76.5 MeV, so the existence and depth of the 1310 MeV bound state must be shown to be stable against parameter variations (mu_ij, V0, b) within the ranges allowed by the NN/NY scattering and meson-spectrum fits described in Section II A. Without such a sensitivity analysis, the central bound-state claim is not fully supported.
  3. [Section III B and Fig. 6] The resonance identification at approximately 1783 MeV is made from avoided crossings in the real-scaling method, but the figure does not provide numerical values of the slopes k_r and k_c or the energy gap V_min(S), and no stabilization table is given. Consequently the extracted mass and width cannot be independently checked. The text also states that the width stabilizes with increasing spatial range, yet no sequence of width estimates versus S_m is reported.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that single-channel estimations indicate the presence of two bound states, Kbar*K and Kbar*K*, whereas Section III A and Table II list three bound channels (Kbar0K*-, Kbar*0K-, and Kbar*0K*-). Please reconcile the wording.
  2. [Eq. (20)] There is a stray 'bv' immediately before Eq. (20), presumably intended as 'by'.
  3. [Throughout] There are numerous typos, including 'double-strangene' in the title, 'tetaquark' in the Introduction, 'Additionaly' in the Introduction, 'theoretical esmations' in Section II A, and 'Squark brackets' in the caption of Table I.
  4. [Fig. 6 caption] In the caption of Fig. 6, 'bule' should be 'blue' and 'solpe' should be 'slope'.
  5. [Section III A] The phrase 'the lowest eigenenergy of approximately -100 MeV less than the lowest single-channel theoretical threshold' is ambiguous; please state the actual numerical energy and threshold.
  6. [Table II] The column header 'Eth' is not defined in the text; please state explicitly that it denotes the theoretical threshold energy.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No derivation step reduces to its own inputs: QDCSM parameters are fixed from independent meson and NN/NY data, and the bound-state and resonance claims emerge from solving the RGM equations, though the abstract and summary width of 17 MeV contradicts the 5.6 MeV reported in Section III B.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Model parameters entering Eqs. (1)-(8) are fixed externally to the target ss-bar-n-bar-n states: the color-screening parameter mu_ij is "determined by fitting the deuteron properties, NN and NY scattering phase shifts [62-64]", the quark-gluon couplings are "fixed by reproducing the mass difference of the low-lying mesons with S = 0 and S = 1", and the remaining parameters are "the same as the ones in Ref. [65], which were determined by reproducing the mass spectrum of the ground mesons" (Section II A). No parameter of the calculation is fitted to the double-strange tetraquark states themselves, so the 1309.7 MeV bound state (Emix, Table II) and the approximately 1783 MeV resonance are emergent outputs of solving the RGM eigenvalue problem (Eq. 19), not inputs by construction; the binding energy is defined relative to the model's own threshold (E_b = E_i - E_4(infinity)), which is a standard cancellation, not a circular fit. The self-citations (Refs. [65], [74], [71]-[73]) are methodological: they supply parameter values validated on the ground meson spectrum and prior applications of the real-scaling method, and neither the binding energy nor the resonance energy is imported from those papers, so the self-citation is minor and not load-bearing. One separate issue is flagged as a correctness/presentation problem rather than circularity: the abstract and Section IV quote a resonance "decay width of approximately 17 MeV", while Section III B states "The estimated decay width is approximately 5.6 MeV" from Eq. (20), and the inputs to Eq. (20) (V_min, k_r, k_c) are not tabulated; the paper therefore does not currently support both numbers, but this inconsistency does not make either prediction equivalent to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central results rest on the QDCSM Hamiltonian and the real-scaling resonance identification. No parameters were refit to the predicted states, but the predictive power is bounded by how well the model's fitted potentials extrapolate to a compact four-quark system; the paper provides no sensitivity tests for that extrapolation.

free parameters (7)
  • Constituent quark masses m_u,d and m_s
    Inputs to the nonrelativistic Hamiltonian in Eq. (1); taken from the parameter set of Ref. [65], fitted to ground-state meson spectra.
  • Confinement strength a_c and constant V0_q_i_q_j
    Parameters of V_CON in Eq. (4); V0 is flavor-dependent and determined by matching theoretical and experimental meson masses; values come from Ref. [65].
  • Color screening parameters mu_ij
    Appear in f(r_ij) in Eq. (5); the paper states they are fixed by fitting deuteron properties and NN/NY scattering phase shifts, Refs [62-64].
  • Quark-gluon coupling alpha_s^(q_i q_j)
    In the OGE potential Eq. (3); fixed by reproducing S=0 versus S=1 meson mass differences for each flavor pair.
  • Chiral coupling g_ch, cutoff Lambda_chi, mixing angle theta_P
    Goldstone-boson potential Eq. (7); g_ch from piNN coupling Eq. (8), other values from Ref. [65].
  • Gaussian width parameter b
    Width of single-particle orbitals in Eq. (9); part of the model parameter set from Ref. [65].
  • Number of Gaussian basis functions n
    Basis size in Eq. (16) is chosen by stability, but no convergence table is given in the paper.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Nonrelativistic constituent quark model with two-body potentials is an adequate approximation for low-lying tetraquarks.
    The Hamiltonian in Eq. (1) and the potential decomposition in Eq. (2) assume this, as stated in Section II A.
  • domain assumption Clusters are frozen in their internal ground states inside the tetraquark (RGM two-cluster approximation).
    The wave function in Eq. (11) and the RGM equation in Eq. (15) rely on this approximation.
  • domain assumption Only S-wave positive parity states are considered, so spin-orbit and tensor interactions vanish.
    Stated in Section II A before Eq. (3); this restricts the spectrum to low-lying positive-parity states.
  • domain assumption The real-scaling/stabilization method reliably separates genuine resonances from continuum by avoided-crossing behavior.
    Section III B uses this method and Eq. (20) to identify the resonance and its width.
  • domain assumption Quark delocalization parameter epsilon(S_i) is variationally determined in a two-Gaussian Hilbert space, effectively simulating hidden-color channel coupling.
    Eq. (10) defines the delocalized orbitals; the paper uses this to justify compact bound states.
  • standard math Color antisymmetrization with A = 1 - P13 - P24 + P13P24 correctly handles identical quarks and antiquarks.
    Eq. (12) and the Pauli-principle exclusions in Section II B use this operator.
invented entities (2)
  • Bound ss-bar-n-bar-n tetraquark state with I(JP)=0(1+), mass about 1310 MeV independent evidence
    purpose: Predicted ground-state double-strange tetraquark; main result of the paper.
    The paper gives a predicted mass, quantum numbers, and decay composition, which could be searched for in B-meson weak decays at LHCb or Belle II; no experimental confirmation exists.
  • Resonance ss-bar-n-bar-n state near 1783 MeV independent evidence
    purpose: Predicted excited tetraquark resonance; second main result.
    Predicted mass and width provide a falsifiable experimental handle, although the width is quoted inconsistently as 17 MeV in the abstract and 5.6 MeV in Section III B.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring the spectroscopic features of double-strangeness tetraquark states." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O5MWZ4Y4

@misc{pith2026250512828,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring the spectroscopic features of double-strangeness tetraquark states},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O5MWZ4Y4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.12828}
}
abstract

Since the discovery of the $T_{cc}$ double-charm tetaquark by the LHCb collaboration, the field of the theoretical research on heavy quarks has advanced rapidly, with increasing interest in exploring the light quark sector. In this study, the quark model is employed to systematically analyze the double-strange tetraquark system. Both the meson-meson configuration and diquark-antidiquark configuration are considered. The interactions between hadron pairs under various quantum numbers, as well as the possibilities of bound states and resonances, are evaluated. The results indicate the presence of two bound states, $ \bar{K}^{\ast }\bar{K}$ and $\bar{K}^{\ast }\bar{K}^{\ast}$, with quantum number $I(J^{P})=0(1^{+})$ in single-channel estimations. Additionally, by considering the channel coupling between the two configurations, a bound state with quantum numbers $I(J^{P})=0(1^{+})$ and a mass of approximately $1310$ MeV is obtained. Moreover, through the application of Resonance Ground Method, a resonance state is identified in the $I(J^{P})=0(1^{+})$ $\ssqq$ system, with an estimated mass of around 1783 MeV and a decay width of approximately 17 MeV.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.12828 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The meson-meson configuration [diagram (a)] and diqu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The e [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4: A sketch diagram of the resonance shape in the real-sc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The stabilization plots of the energies of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: The stabilization plots of the energies of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: The stabilization plots of the energies of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    [σ] = [222] gives the total color symmetry. The symbols I, S , L, and J represent flavor, spin, orbit angular momentum, and total angular mo- mentum of ss ¯q ¯q system, respectively.ψA andψB are the wave functions of the two-quark cluster, which are, ψA = ( 1 2πb2 ) 3/4 e−ρ 2 A/(4b2)ηIA S Aχc A, ψB = ( 1 2πb2 ) 3/4 e−ρ 2 B/(4b2)ηIB S Bχc B, (13) whereηI, S...

    1982

  2. [2]

    In this section, the goal is to construct the colorless wave function of a 4-quark system

    The color wave function Plenty of color structures in multiquark systems will be available with respect to those of conventional hadrons suc h as q ¯q mesons and qqq baryons. In this section, the goal is to construct the colorless wave function of a 4-quark system. For the meson-meson configurations, the color wave func- tions of a q ¯q cluster are listed. C1

  3. [3]

    All of them are considered

    The spin wave function For the spin, the total spin S of tetraquark states ranges from 0 to 2. All of them are considered. The wave functions of two body clusters are χ11 = αα, χ10 = √ 1 2 (αβ +βα) χ1−1 = ββ χ00 = √ 1 2 (αβ −βα) (A6) Then, the total spin wave functions S i s are obtained by con- sidering the coupling of two subcluster spin wave functions ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    C. A. Meyer and E. S. Swanson, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 82, 21 (2015), 1502.07276

    arXiv 2015

  5. [5]

    = √ 1 6 (−r¯r − g ¯g + 2b¯b), (A1) where the subscript [111] and [21] stand for color-singlet (1c) and color-octet (8c), respectively. So, the S U(3)color wave functions of color-singlet (two color-singlet cluters, 1c ⊗ 1c) and hidden-color (two color-octet clusters, 8c ⊗ 8c) channels are given, respectively, χc 1 = C1 [111]C1 [111], χc 2 = √ 1 8 (C2 [21]C7

  6. [6]

    − C3 [21]C6 [21] + C8 [21]C8

  7. [7]

    + C9 [21]C9 [21] − C5 [21]C4

  8. [8]

    (A2) For the diquark-antidiquark structure, the color wave func - tions of the diquark clusters are given, C1

    + C7 [21]C2 [21]). (A2) For the diquark-antidiquark structure, the color wave func - tions of the diquark clusters are given, C1

Show all 99 references
  1. [9]

    = √ 1 2 (rg + gr), C3

  2. [10]

    = √ 1 2 (rb + br), C5

  3. [11]

    = √ 1 2 (gb + bg), C6

  4. [12]

    = √ 1 2 (rg − gr), C8

  5. [13]

    = √ 1 2 (rb − br), C9

  6. [14]

    (A3) While the color wave functions of the antidiquark clusters c an be writen as: C1

    = √ 1 2 (gb − bg). (A3) While the color wave functions of the antidiquark clusters c an be writen as: C1

  7. [15]

    Aaltonen et al

    T. Aaltonen et al. (CDF), Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 152001 (2009), 0906.5218

    2009 arXiv

  8. [16]

    = √ 1 2 (¯r ¯b + ¯b¯r), C5

  9. [17]

    = − √ 1 2 ( ¯g¯b + ¯b ¯g), C6

  10. [18]

    Chatrchyan et al

    S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS), JHEP 04, 154 (2013), 1302.3968

    2013 arXiv

  11. [19]

    = − √ 1 2 (¯r ¯b − ¯b¯r), C9

  12. [20]

    = √ 1 2 ( ¯g¯b − ¯b¯g). (A4) The color-singlet wave functions of the diquark-antidiqua rk configuration can be the product of color sextet and antisext et clusters (6c ⊗ ¯6c) or the product of color-triplet and antitriplet cluster (3c ⊗ ¯3c), which read, χc 3 = √ 1 6 (C1 [2]C1

  13. [21]

    = √ 1 2 (r¯r − g ¯g), C9

  14. [22]

    = − √ 1 2 (¯r ¯g + ¯g¯r), C3

  15. [23]

    + C3 [2]C3 [22] + C4 [2]C4

  16. [24]

    + C6 2C6 22), χc 4 = √ 1 3 (C7 [11]C7

  17. [25]

    + C9 [11]C9 [211]). (A5)

  18. [26]

    From the Table 1, the ss ¯q ¯q tetraquark flavor wave function can be cat- egorized as Fi I , the superscript ”I” means the total isospin of ss ¯q ¯q tetraquark states

    The flavor wave function For the flavor degree of freedom, the di fferent coupling methods generate di fferent flavor wave function. From the Table 1, the ss ¯q ¯q tetraquark flavor wave function can be cat- egorized as Fi I , the superscript ”I” means the total isospin of ss ¯q ¯q ...

  19. [27]

    Gell-Mann, Phys

    M. Gell-Mann, Phys. Lett. 8, 214 (1964)

    1964

  20. [28]

    D. B. Lichtenberg and S. P . Rosen, eds., DEVELOPMENTS IN THE QUARK THEORY OF HADRONS. VOL. 1. 1964 - 1978 (1980)

    1980

  21. [29]

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

    2022

  22. [30]

    H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rept. 639, 1 (2016), 1601.02092

    2016 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Clement, Prog

    H. Clement, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 93, 195 (2017), 1610.05591

    2017 arXiv

  24. [32]

    F.-K. Guo, C. Hanhart, U.-G. Meißner, Q. Wang, Q. Zhao, and B.-S. Zou, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 015004 (2018), [Erratum: Rev.Mod.Phys. 94, 029901 (2022)], 1705.00141

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Liu, H.-X

    Y .-R. Liu, H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, and S.-L. Zhu, Prog . Part. Nucl. Phys. 107, 237 (2019), 1903.11976

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Brambilla, S

    N. Brambilla, S. Eidelman, C. Hanhart, A. Nefediev, C.-P . Shen, C. E. Thomas, A. V airo, and C.-Z. Y uan, Phys. Rept.873, 1 (2020), 1907.07583

    2020 arXiv

  27. [35]

    H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, Y .-R. Liu, and S.-L. Zhu, Rep t. Prog. Phys. 86, 026201 (2023), 2204.02649

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Liu, Y .-W

    M.-Z. Liu, Y .-W. Pan, Z.-W. Liu, T.-W. Wu, J.-X. Lu, and L.-S. Geng, Phys. Rept. 1108, 1 (2025), 2404.06399

    2025 arXiv

  29. [37]

    S. K. Choi et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 262001 (2003), hep-ex/0309032

    2003 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Aubert et al

    B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D 71, 071103 (2005), hep- ex/0406022

    2005

  31. [39]

    Acosta et al

    D. Acosta et al. (CDF), Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 072001 (2004), hep-ex/0312021

    2004 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Y . Ma, L. Meng, Y .-K. Chen, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 109, 074001 (2024), 2309.17068

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    V . M. Abazov et al. (D0), Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 162002 (2004), hep-ex/0405004

    2004 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 1972 (2012), 1112.5310

    2012 arXiv

  35. [43]

    L. Qiu, C. Gong, and Q. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 109, 076016 (2024), 2311.10067

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 242001 (2013), 1309.1896

    2013 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Z. Q. Liu et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 252002 (2013), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 111, 019901 (2013)], 1304.0121

    2013 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Wang, X.-D

    F.-L. Wang, X.-D. Yang, R. Chen, and X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 104, 094010 (2021), 2103.04698

    2021 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Liu, Chin

    X. Liu, Chin. Sci. Bull. 59, 3815 (2014), 1312.7408

    2014 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Hosaka, T

    A. Hosaka, T. Iijima, K. Miyabayashi, Y . Sakai, and S. Ya sui, PTEP 2016, 062C01 (2016), 1603.09229

    2016 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Richard, Few Body Syst

    J.-M. Richard, Few Body Syst. 57, 1185 (2016), 1606.08593

    2016 arXiv

  42. [50]

    R. F. Lebed, R. E. Mitchell, and E. S. Swanson, Prog. Part . Nucl. Phys. 93, 143 (2017), 1610.04528

    2017 arXiv

  43. [51]

    S. L. Olsen, T. Skwarnicki, and D. Zieminska, Rev. Mod. P hys. 90, 015003 (2018), 1708.04012

    2018 arXiv

  44. [52]

    L. Meng, B. Wang, G.-J. Wang, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rept. 1019, 1 (2023), 2204.08716

    2023 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Nature Phys. 18, 751 (2022), 2109.01038

    2022

  46. [54]

    Zhang, H

    W.-X. Zhang, H. Xu, and D. Jia, Phys. Rev. D 104, 114011 (2021), 2109.07040

    2021 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Weng, W.-Z

    X.-Z. Weng, W.-Z. Deng, and S.-L. Zhu, Chin. Phys. C 46, 013102 (2022), 2108.07242

    2022 arXiv

  48. [56]

    T. Guo, J. Li, J. Zhao, and L. He, Phys. Rev. D 105, 014021 (2022), 2108.10462

    2022 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Liu, W.-X

    X.-Y . Liu, W.-X. Zhang, and D. Jia, Phys. Rev. D 108, 054019 (2023), 2303.03923

    2023 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Q. Meng, E. Hiyama, M. Oka, A. Hosaka, and C. Xu, Phys. Lett. B 846, 138221 (2023), 2308.05466

    2023 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Noh and W

    S. Noh and W. Park, Phys. Rev. D 108, 014004 (2023), 2303.03285

    2023 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Mutuk, Eur

    H. Mutuk, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 395 (2024), 2312.13383

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Wang, K.-R

    D. Wang, K.-R. Song, W.-L. Wang, and F. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 109, 074026 (2024), 2403.15187

    2024 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Park and S

    D. Park and S. H. Lee (2024), 2406.00756

    2024 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Li, Y .-R

    S.-Y . Li, Y .-R. Liu, Z.-L. Man, Z.-G. Si, and J. Wu, Phys. Rev. D 110, 094044 (2024), 2401.00115

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Meng, Y .-K

    L. Meng, Y .-K. Chen, Y . Ma, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 108, 11 114016 (2023), 2310.13354

    2023 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Y . Xue, X. Jin, H. Huang, and J. Ping, Phys. Rev. D103, 054010 (2021), 2008.09516

    2021 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Asanuma, Y

    T. Asanuma, Y . Yamaguchi, and M. Harada, Phys. Rev. D 110, 074030 (2024), 2311.04695

    2024 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Sakai and Y

    M. Sakai and Y . Yamaguchi, Phys. Rev. D 109, 054016 (2024), 2312.08663

    2024 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Hiyama, M

    E. Hiyama, M. Kamimura, A. Hosaka, H. Toki, and M. Yahiro , Phys. Lett. B 633, 237 (2006), hep-ph /0507105

    2006

  61. [69]

    Zhao, Z.-Y

    M.-J. Zhao, Z.-Y . Wang, C. Wang, and X.-H. Guo, Phys. Rev . D 105, 096016 (2022), 2112.12633

    2022 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Ke, X.-H

    H.-W. Ke, X.-H. Liu, and X.-Q. Li, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 144 (2022), 2112.14142

    2022 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Padmanath and S

    M. Padmanath and S. Prelovsek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 032002 (2022), 2202.10110

    2022 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Y . Lyu, S. Aoki, T. Doi, T. Hatsuda, Y . Ikeda, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 161901 (2023), 2302.04505

    2023 arXiv

  65. [73]

    L.-Y . Dai, X. Sun, X.-W. Kang, A. P . Szczepaniak, and J.-S. Y u, Phys. Rev. D 105, L051507 (2022), 2108.06002

    2022 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Y . Liu, M. A. Nowak, and I. Zahed, Phys. Rev. D 105, 054021 (2022), 1909.02497

    2022 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Wang, S.-Q

    F.-L. Wang, S.-Q. Luo, R.-Q. Qian, and X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 110, 114041 (2024), 2410.15339

    2024 arXiv

  68. [76]

    J. Ji, Y . Xing, X. Wu, N. Xu, and Y . Tan, Chin. Phys. C 49, 013101 (2025), 2409.08933

    2025 arXiv

  69. [77]

    S. R. Beane, T. C. Luu, K. Orginos, A. Parreno, M. J. Savag e, A. Torok, and A. Walker-Loud (NPLQCD), Phys. Rev. D 77, 094507 (2008), 0709.1169

    2008 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Kanada-En’yo and D

    Y . Kanada-En’yo and D. Jido, Phys. Rev. C 78, 025212 (2008), 0804.3124

    2008 arXiv

  71. [79]

    N. V . Shevchenko and J. Haidenbauer, Phys. Rev. C 92, 044001 (2015), 1507.08839

    2015 arXiv

  72. [80]

    R. Y . Kezerashvili, S. M. Tsiklauri, I. N. Filikhin, V . M. Suslov, and B. Vlahovic, EPJ Web Conf. 113, 07005 (2016)

    2016

  73. [81]

    Marri, S

    S. Marri, S. Z. Kalantari, and J. Esmaili, Eur. Phys. J. A 52, 361 (2016), 1612.00685

    2016 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Barnea, A

    N. Barnea, A. Gal, and E. Z. Liverts, Phys. Lett. B 712, 132 (2012), 1203.5234

    2012 arXiv

  75. [83]

    De Rujula, H

    A. De Rujula, H. Georgi, and S. L. Glashow, Phys. Rev. D 12, 147 (1975)

    1975

  76. [84]

    Isgur and G

    N. Isgur and G. Karl, Phys. Rev. D 18, 4187 (1978)

    1978

  77. [85]

    Isgur and G

    N. Isgur and G. Karl, Phys. Rev. D 19, 2653 (1979), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 23, 817 (1981)]

    1979

  78. [86]

    Isgur and G

    N. Isgur and G. Karl, Phys. Rev. D 20, 1191 (1979)

    1979

  79. [87]

    M. Chen, H. Huang, J. Ping, and F. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 83, 015202 (2011)

    2011

  80. [88]

    J. L. Ping, F. Wang, G. H. Wu, L. J. Teng, and J. T. Goldman, in 13th International Conference on Particles and Nuclei (1993), pp. 526–528

    1993

  81. [89]

    F. Wang, D. Qing, P . Xu, and J.-L. Ping, Nucl. Phys. A 631, 462C (1998)

    1998

  82. [91]

    Kamimura, Nucl

    M. Kamimura, Nucl. Phys. A 351, 456 (1981)

    1981

  83. [92]

    Kamimura, Prog

    M. Kamimura, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 62, 236 (1977)

    1977

  84. [94]

    Hiyama, A

    E. Hiyama, A. Hosaka, M. Oka, and J.-M. Richard, Phys. Re v. C 98, 045208 (2018), 1803.11369

    2018 arXiv

  85. [95]

    Z. Xia, S. Fan, X. Zhu, H. Huang, and J. Ping, Phys. Rev. C 105, 025201 (2022), 2105.14723

    2022 arXiv

  86. [96]

    X. Jin, Y . Xue, H. Huang, and J. Ping, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 1083 (2020), 2006.13745

    2020 arXiv

  87. [97]

    X. Liu, H. Huang, J. Ping, D. Chen, and X. Zhu, Eur. Phys. J . C 81, 950 (2021), 2103.12425

    2021 arXiv

  88. [98]

    X. Liu, D. Chen, H. Huang, J. Ping, X. Chen, and Y . Yang, Sc i. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 66, 221012 (2023), 2204.08104

    2023 arXiv

  89. [99]

    Huang, P

    H. Huang, P . Xu, J. Ping, and F. Wang, Phys. Rev. C84, 064001 (2011), 1109.5607

    2011 arXiv

  90. [111]

    = √ 1 3 (r¯r + g ¯g + b¯b), C2

  91. [211]

    = √ 1 2 (¯r ¯g − ¯g¯r), C8

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.