Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 78 references

Hidden-Charm Tetraquarks in a Mixture Model: Coupled-Channel Analysis with $c\bar{c}$ and Hadronic Molecular Components

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single transition coupling predicts X(3860) at 3866–3869 MeV.

desk verdict A clean, systematic extension of the mixture model with a genuine third-state prediction, but the X(3860) mass is built on a bound-state calculation that omits the open S-wave D Dbar channel, so the prediction is not yet solid. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.16219 v1 pith:IET7TK7Z submitted 2025-05-22 hep-ph nucl-th

Kotaro Miyake , Yasuhiro Yamaguchi This is my paper
classification hep-phnucl-th
keywords X(3860)X(3872)Z(3930)hidden-charmtetraquarkscoupled-channelmodelhadronicmoleculetransitionpotentialcharmonium
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that three hidden-charm exotic states—X(3860), X(3872), and Z(3930)—are described by one mixture model in which a bare $c\bar{c}$ charmonium core, the $\chi_{cJ}(2P)$ state, is coupled to $D^{(*)}\bar{D}^{(*)}$ hadronic-molecule channels through a single transition potential. With the coupling strength and range fixed to reproduce the measured masses of X(3872) and Z(3930), the model predicts a $0^{++}$ bound state at 3866–3869 MeV, matching the Belle candidate X(3860). The resulting wave functions place X(3872) mostly in the molecular component (about 80–85 percent $D^0\bar{D}^{*0}$), while X(3860) and Z(3930) are mostly bare charmonium core (about 93–95 percent and 91–95 percent, respectively). If correct, this supports the mixture picture and shows that one core–molecule coupling can generate states of very different internal structure.

What carries the argument

The central object is the coupled-channel Hamiltonian $H = \begin{pmatrix} H_0 + V_{\rm OBE} & U \\ U^\dagger & m_{\chi_{cJ}} - m_{\rm threshold} \end{pmatrix}$, in which the molecular block contains one-boson-exchange potentials (pseudoscalar $\pi,\eta,K$ and vector $\rho,\omega,K^*,\phi$ exchanges) derived from the heavy-meson chiral Lagrangian, and the off-diagonal transition potential $U$ couples the bare charmonium core to the S-wave meson-meson channels. The transition potential has the form $\langle \chi_{cJ}(2P)|U|HM\rangle = \int d^3x\, \sqrt{2\pi}\, f_{\rm spin}\, g_{c\bar{c}}\, \Lambda_q^{3/2}\, \frac{e^{-\Lambda_q r}}{r}\, Y_l^m(\Omega)\,\langle x|HM\rangle$, with spin factor $f_{\rm spin}$ and two free parameters, the coupling $g_{c\bar{c}}$ and range $\Lambda_q$, fitted to the X(3872) and Z(3930) masses. In the $0^{++}$ and $2^{++}$ channels this $U$ drives the binding, with expectation values ($-88$ to $-107$ MeV) exceeding the kinetic term; the meson-exchange potentials play a secondary role.

What would settle it

A precise measurement of the X(3860) mass that falls outside the predicted 3866–3869 MeV window, or a lattice QCD computation of the $\chi_{c0}(2P)$–$D^*\bar{D}^*$ vertex showing a qualitatively different momentum dependence than the adopted $e^{-\Lambda_q r}/r$ form, would falsify the central prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Treating X(3872), X(3860), and Z(3930) as bound states in a coupled-channel Schrödinger equation with $D^{(*)}$ and $D_s$ meson-meson channels, the authors fix the two free parameters of a Yukawa-type transition potential between the bare $\chi_{cJ}(2P)$ core and the hadronic molecule so that the model reproduces the central masses of X(3872) and Z(3930). With no further adjustment, the model yields a $J^{PC}=0^{++}$ bound state with mass 3866.07–3868.62 MeV for the three choices of the cutoff parameter $\alpha$, consistent with the Belle measurement of X(3860). The internal structure is markedly different across the three states: X(3872) is 80–85 percent $D^0\bar{D}^{*0}$ molecule with a 10–14 percent charmonium core, whereas X(3860) is 93–95 percent bare $\chi_{c0}(2P)$ and Z(3930) is 91–95 percent bare $\chi_{c2}(2P)$. The transition potential supplies the dominant attraction in the $0^{++}$ and $2^{++}$ solutions, with expectation values larger in magnitude than the kinetic term, while for $1^{++}$ the meson-exchange interactions also contribute substantially.

Load-bearing premise

The prediction rests on the assumed specific Yukawa-like form of the transition coupling between the charmonium core and the meson-molecule channels—a form not derived from QCD—whose strength and range are fitted to only two masses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the prediction is right, X(3860) is primarily a $\chi_{c0}(2P)$ charmonium state (over 90 percent) rather than a hadronic molecule, and its mass is set mainly by the core–molecule coupling.
  • X(3872) emerges as a predominantly $D^0\bar{D}^{*0}$ hadronic molecule with a 10–14 percent charmonium admixture, which reconciles its proximity to the $D^0\bar{D}^{*0}$ threshold with its observed production and radiative-decay behavior.
  • The same fitted coupling accounts for Z(3930) as a mostly bare $\chi_{c2}(2P)$ state, implying that one transition mechanism can generate states of very different composition across the $J=0,1,2$ spin partners.
  • The predicted spread of the $0^{++}$ mass is less than 3 MeV across the three cutoff choices, giving a sharp target for future experiments to confirm or exclude the Belle X(3860) signal.
  • The model can be extended to resonant channels such as X(3915) and X(4010) with the same coupled-channel machinery, as the authors note.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test would compute the momentum dependence of the core–molecule transition vertex from lattice QCD; if the true vertex falls off differently than the adopted $e^{-\Lambda_q r}/r$ form, the fitted $g_{c\bar{c}}$ and $\Lambda_q$ would shift and the X(3860) mass would move.
  • Because the model makes X(3860) nearly pure charmonium, its radiative decay width to $\gamma J/\psi$ should resemble that of a conventional $\chi_{c0}(2P)$; measuring this width would discriminate the mixture picture from a purely molecular interpretation.
  • The strong transition attraction in the $0^{++}$ and $2^{++}$ sectors implies sizable coupled-channel corrections to the bare quark-model masses, so two-photon widths or other charmonium observables could show deviations from the input quark-model predictions that are testable with existing data.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a coupled-channel Schrödinger equation model in which the physical χcJ(2P) charmonium states are superpositions of bare constituent-quark-model χcJ(2P) states (masses taken from the Godfrey-Isgur model) and D(∗)D̄(∗) hadronic-molecule channels. The meson-meson interaction is modeled by one-boson-exchange potentials derived from heavy-meson chiral Lagrangians, and the bare-core–molecule coupling is a phenomenological Yukawa/Gaussian transition potential U of Eq. (25) with two free parameters, g_cbar and Λ_q, plus an OBE cutoff parameter α. For each of α = 0.7, 1.0, 1.3, the two parameters are fitted to reproduce the masses of X(3872) (J^PC = 1++) and Z(3930) (2++), with open channels neglected so that all states are bound. The model then predicts a J^PC = 0++ bound state at 3866–3869 MeV, dominated (over 93%) by the bare χc0(2P) component, and identifies it with X(3860). The X(3872) is found to be predominantly D0D̄*0 molecular (80–85%), while Z(3930) is predominantly bare χc2(2P).

Significance. If the prediction is robust, the model achieves a genuine third-state result: after fitting two parameters to two masses, it yields a 0++ state whose mass is consistent with the Belle X(3860) measurement, and it provides a concrete microscopic picture in which the same core–molecule transition interaction produces three states with different compositions. The paper is transparent about its inputs and provides detailed numerical tables (masses, mixing ratios, potential expectation values), which makes the calculation reproducible in principle. The main limitations are also stated by the authors: the transition potential is phenomenological, and open channels are omitted. The significance of the X(3860) prediction nevertheless depends on whether the neglected D-D̄ S-wave channel, which is open at the predicted mass, would shift the pole and produce the observed large width.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II A, footnote 2; Table II; Table VII] The neglect of the S-wave D-D̄ channel for 0++ is not justified by the argument given. The footnote claims that the mass difference between the D-D̄ threshold and the bare χc0(2P) state is large, but the predicted physical state in Table VII sits at 3866–3869 MeV, only ~135 MeV above the D0D̄0 threshold (~3730 MeV) and ~130 MeV above D+D−. For J^PC = 0++, D-D̄ with L = 0 couples directly to the bare χc0(2P) through the transition potential U of Eq. (25); there is no angular-momentum suppression. Treating the system as a bound state in a truncated space that excludes this open channel is therefore a strong approximation that can both shift the real part of the pole and generate a width. Since the Belle X(3860) has a width of order 200 MeV, the model’s zero-width bound-state mass cannot be claimed as a prediction of the observed state without either including the D-D̄ channel in a coupled-channel resonance calculation or quantitatively demonstrating that its coupling is negligible (for example, via a small spin factor or a strong short-distance suppression). This issue is load-bearing for the paper’s central claim.
  2. [Section III, Eq. (25) and Table V] The transition potential U is a phenomenological Yukawa/Gaussian ansatz whose coupling g_cbar and range Λ_q are fitted to the X(3872) and Z(3930) masses for each α. Because only two masses are used to fix two parameters, the X(3872) and Z(3930) results are inputs rather than tests, and the X(3860) prediction inherits the specific functional form of U. The paper reports only the spread of the predicted mass over the three α values (Table VII) as an indication of dependence; it does not estimate the sensitivity to the shape of U (e.g., monopole vs dipole momentum-space form factors, or different radial behaviour). The authors should either justify the form of Eq. (25) from the underlying quark model or quantify how the predicted X(3860) mass and composition change under reasonable variations of the transition-potential form.
  3. [Section III, Table VII and Table I] The claim that the calculated masses are “consistent with the Belle data for X(3860)” is based only on the central mass. The Belle measurement has large uncertainties (3862+50−35 MeV) and a width of about 200 MeV, and the state has not been confirmed by LHCb. The model predicts a stable bound state with zero width, which is qualitatively different from the experimental object. The paper should discuss whether the omitted D-D̄ channel is expected to produce the width and whether the bound-state condition can be reconciled with the observed broad resonance. Without this discussion, the agreement of the central mass is suggestive but does not establish the mixture interpretation for X(3860).
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (24)] Equation (24) as printed, F(q,m) = ((Λ − m)/(Λ + q^2))^2, has inconsistent dimensions (Λ has mass dimension, q^2 has mass-squared). Please check whether the intended form is (Λ^2 − m^2)/(Λ^2 + q^2) or a similar standard dipole form, and correct the notation throughout.
  2. [Section III, first paragraph] There is a typo: “resutls” should be “results.”
  3. [Eq. (25) and Table III] The normalization factor √(2π) and the definition of fspin in Eq. (25) are not explained; please clarify the convention so that the transition potential can be reproduced unambiguously.
  4. [Figure 1 caption] The green inverted triangle is said to have an error indicating the distribution over α, but the text does not state whether this spread is the only uncertainty considered; please clarify in the caption or in Section III.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

The X(3860) prediction is a genuine out-of-sample result; the only self-reference is the transparently adopted transition-potential ansatz, so no construction-level circularity.

full rationale

The central claim is a genuine out-of-sample prediction. X(3872) and Z(3930) are used to fix the free parameters g_cbar and Lambda_q for each alpha, and the 0++ mass is computed only after these fits. The paper explicitly states: 'we use the central masses of X(3872) and Z(3930) as input' and 'By using the parameters, we compute the mass of the 0++ bound state that may correspond to X(3860).' X(3860) is not used to determine any parameter; its Belle value is only compared at the end, so there is no fitted-input-renamed-prediction. The transition-potential form in Eq. (25) is an ansatz imported from the literature (Refs. [5,41]), and Ref. [5] includes one of the present authors, but it is transparently presented as a model assumption with free parameters, not as a uniqueness theorem or a claim that its validity is guaranteed by the citation. The prediction therefore does not reduce to its inputs by construction. The skeptical concern that the 0++ calculation ignores the S-wave D-Dbar channel is a physics-correctness issue about width and pole shifts, not a circularity issue; it does not make the output equivalent to the input. Overall, the model is not parameter-free, but the X(3860) mass is a legitimate third-state test, so the circularity burden is low and limited to a minor, non-load-bearing self-citation in the adopted transition-potential framework.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central prediction is obtained after tuning two parameters (g_cbar, Lambda_q) to two input masses, with the cutoff parameter alpha scanned over three values. The main external inputs are the Godfrey-Isgur bare charmonium masses and the OBE coupling constants. No new particles or forces are introduced. The model's main burden is the phenomenological transition-potential ansatz.

free parameters (3)
  • alpha = 0.7, 1.0, 1.3 (scanned)
    Controls the OBE cutoffs Lambda_meson = 220 MeV * alpha + m_meson; not fitted, but varied to test sensitivity. The predicted X(3860) mass changes by only 2.6 MeV across this range.
  • g_cbar = 0.0448, 0.0427, 0.0409 for alpha = 0.7, 1.0, 1.3
    Coupling of the transition potential U in Eq. (25); tuned to reproduce the masses of X(3872) and Z(3930).
  • Lambda_q = 2260, 3089, 4647 MeV for alpha = 0.7, 1.0, 1.3
    Spatial range parameter of the transition potential; tuned together with g_cbar to the two input masses.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Bare chi_cJ(2P) masses from the Godfrey-Isgur quark model enter as the diagonal ccbar masses (3916, 3953, 3979 MeV).
    Section II.A and Table IV: these are inputs from Refs. [39,40]; if they are wrong, the fitted transition strength and all predictions shift.
  • ad hoc to paper The transition potential between the ccbar core and molecular channels has the Yukawa/Gaussian form of Eq. (25) with fitted g_cbar and Lambda_q.
    Section II.D: this is a phenomenological ansatz, not derived from QCD, and it dominates the binding in the 0++ and 2++ solutions (Tables XI and XIII).
  • domain assumption Open channels are neglected so the X and Z states are treated as stable bound states: D Dbar is dropped for 0++, and D Dbar and D Dbar* for 2++.
    Section II.A and footnote 2: justified by threshold gaps and partial waves; if these couplings matter, the states would have widths and the bound-state interpretation would change.
  • domain assumption The OBE potentials are built from heavy quark spin and hidden local symmetry Lagrangians in the static approximation, omitting delta-function terms.
    Section II.B-II.C: standard effective field theory choices, with the static approximation and delta-function omission following Refs. [72,73].
  • ad hoc to paper The OBE cutoff is parametrized as Lambda_meson = 220 MeV times alpha plus m_meson, with alpha scanned over 0.7, 1.0, and 1.3.
    Section II.C after Eq. (24): this form is taken from Ref. [73] and is not determined by the present data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hidden-Charm Tetraquarks in a Mixture Model: Coupled-Channel Analysis with $c\bar{c}$ and Hadronic Molecular Components." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IET7TK7Z

@misc{pith2026250516219,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hidden-Charm Tetraquarks in a Mixture Model: Coupled-Channel Analysis with $c\barc$ and Hadronic Molecular Components},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IET7TK7Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.16219}
}
abstract

The nature of the $X(3872)$ and other exotic hadrons has been a subject of extensive investigation since the first observation of the $X(3872)$ in 2003. While various theoretical models have been proposed, including hadronic molecular and compact tetraquark interpretations, some experimental evidence suggests that the $X(3872)$ may be a mixture state of a hadronic molecule and a $c\bar{c}$ core. In this work, we perform a systematic study of the hidden-charm tetraquark candidates $X(3860)$, $X(3872)$, and $Z(3930)$ using a coupled-channel model that incorporates both $c\bar{c}$ states and $D^{(*)}\bar{D}^{(*)}$ hadronic molecular components. The $c\bar{c}$ sector is described based on the constituent quark model predictions for the $\chi_{cJ}(2P)$ ($J = 0, 1, 2$) states, while the meson-meson interactions are modeled using pseudoscalar and vector meson exchange potentials. The model parameters are fixed to reproduce the masses of the $X(3872)$ and $Z(3930)$, and the resulting framework is used to predict the mass and structure of the $J^{PC} = 0^{++}$ state associated with the $X(3860)$. Our results support the mixture interpretation of these exotic hadrons, exhibiting strong attractions from the transition potential between $c\bar{c}$ and $D^{(*)}\bar{D}^{(*)}$ components. The molecular component is found to dominate in the $X(3872)$, while the $c\bar{c}$ component plays a more prominent role in the $X(3860)$ and $Z(3930)$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.16219 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Calculated mass of bound state of 0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Wave functions of the 0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Wave functions of the 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Wave functions of the 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    In the case of 1++ Vπ = 1 3 g 2fπ 2   Cπ 2Cπ − √ 2Tπ −2 √ 2Tπ − √ 6Tπ −2 √ 6Tπ 2Cπ Cπ −2 √ 2Tπ − √ 2Tπ −2 √ 6Tπ − √ 6Tπ − √ 2Tπ −2 √ 2Tπ Cπ + Tπ 2Cπ + 2Tπ − √ 3Tπ −2 √ 3Tπ −2 √ 2Tπ − √ 2Tπ 2Cπ + 2Tπ Cπ + Tπ −2 √ 3Tπ − √ 3Tπ − √ 6Tπ −2 √ 2Tπ − √ 3Tπ −2 √ 3Tπ Cπ − Tπ 2Cπ − 2Tπ −2 √ 6Tπ − √ 6Tπ −2 √ 3Tπ − √ 3Tπ 2Cπ − 2Tπ Cπ − Tπ   , (A1) Vη =...

    work page

  2. [2]

    In the case of 2++ Vπ = 1 3 g 2fπ 2   0 −2 p 6/5TK −2 p 6/5TK 2 √ 3CK 2 √ 3CK 2 p 12/7TK 2 p 12/7TK −2 p 6/5TK Cπ 2Cπ − p 2/5Tπ −2 p 2/5Tπ p 14/5Tπ 2 p 14/5Tπ −2 p 6/5TK 2Cπ Cπ −2 p 2/5Tπ − p 2/5Tπ 2 p 14/5Tπ p 14/5Tπ 2 √ 3CK − p 2/5Tπ −2 p 2/5Tπ −2Cπ −4Cπ p 4/7Tπ 2 p 4/7Tπ 2 √ 3CK −2 p 2/5Tπ − p 2/5Tπ −42Cπ −2Cπ 2 p 4/7Tπ p 4/7Tπ 2 p 12/7TK p ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Gell-Mann, A Schematic Model of Baryons and Mesons, Phys

    M. Gell-Mann, A Schematic Model of Baryons and Mesons, Phys. Lett. 8, 214 (1964)

    1964

  4. [4]

    Zweig, An SU(3) model for strong interaction symmetry and its breaking

    G. Zweig, An SU(3) model for strong interaction symmetry and its breaking. Version 1, Tech. Rep. (CERN, 1964)

    work page 1964

  5. [5]

    Zweig, An SU(3) model for strong interaction symmetry and its breaking

    G. Zweig, An SU(3) model for strong interaction symmetry and its breaking. Version 2, in DEVELOPMENTS IN THE QUARK THEORY OF HADRONS. VOL. 1. 1964 - 1978, edited by D. B. Lichtenberg and S. P. Rosen (Hadronic Press,

    work page 1964

  6. [6]

    Brambilla, S

    N. Brambilla, S. Eidelman, C. Hanhart, A. Nefediev, C.-P. Shen, C. E. Thomas, A. Vairo, and C.-Z. Yuan, The XY Z states: experimental and theoretical status and perspectives, Phys. Rept. 873, 1 (2020), arXiv:1907.07583 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Yamaguchi, A

    Y. Yamaguchi, A. Hosaka, S. Takeuchi, and M. Takizawa, Heavy hadronic molecules with pion exchange and quark core couplings: a guide for practitioners, J. Phys. G 47, 053001 (2020), arXiv:1908.08790 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, Y.-R. Liu, and S.-L. Zhu, An updated review of the new hadron states, Rept. Prog. Phys. 86, 026201 (2023), arXiv:2204.02649 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    Navas et al

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

    2024

  2. [10]

    M. B. Voloshin and L. B. Okun, Hadron Molecules and Charmonium Atom, JETP Lett. 23, 333 (1976)

    1976

  3. [11]

    De Rujula, H

    A. De Rujula, H. Georgi, and S. L. Glashow, Molecular Charmonium: A New Spectroscopy?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 317 (1977)

    1977

  4. [12]

    N. A. Tornqvist, From the deuteron to deusons, an analysis of deuteron - like meson meson bound states, Z. Phys. C 61, 525 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9310247

    1994 arXiv

  5. [13]

    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

    2003 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Acosta et al

    D. Acosta et al. (CDF), Observation of the narrow state X(3872) → J/ψπ +π− in ¯pp collisions at √s = 1.96 TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 072001 (2004), arXiv:hep-ex/0312021

    2004 arXiv

  7. [15]

    V. M. Abazov et al. (D0), Observation and properties of the X(3872) decaying to J/ψπ +π− in p¯p collisions at √s = 1.96 TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 162002 (2004), arXiv:hep-ex/0405004. 12

    2004 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Aubert et al

    B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Study of the B → J/ψK −π+π− decay and measurement of the B → X(3872)K − branching fraction, Phys. Rev. D 71, 071103 (2005), arXiv:hep-ex/0406022

    2005 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Aaij et al.(LHCb), Observation of X(3872) production in pp collisions at √s = 7 TeV, Eur

    R. Aaij et al.(LHCb), Observation of X(3872) production in pp collisions at √s = 7 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 1972 (2012), arXiv:1112.5310 [hep-ex]

    2012 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Chatrchyan et al.(CMS), Measurement of the X(3872) Production Cross Section Via Decays toJ/ψπ +π− in pp collisions at √s = 7 TeV, JHEP 04, 154, arXiv:1302.3968 [hep-ex]

    S. Chatrchyan et al.(CMS), Measurement of the X(3872) Production Cross Section Via Decays toJ/ψπ +π− in pp collisions at √s = 7 TeV, JHEP 04, 154, arXiv:1302.3968 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  11. [19]

    Ablikim et al

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

    2014 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS), Measurements of ψ(2S) and X(3872) → J/ψπ +π− production in pp collisions at √s = 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP 01, 117, arXiv:1610.09303 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  13. [21]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Determination of the X(3872) meson quantum numbers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 222001 (2013), arXiv:1302.6269 [hep-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Quantum numbers of the X(3872) state and orbital angular momentum in its ρ0J ψdecay, Phys. Rev. D 92, 011102 (2015), arXiv:1504.06339 [hep-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  15. [23]

    del Amo Sanchez et al

    P. del Amo Sanchez et al. (BaBar), Evidence for the decay X(3872) → J/ψω , Phys. Rev. D 82, 011101 (2010), arXiv:1005.5190 [hep-ex]

    2010 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Ablikim et al

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

    2019 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Observation of sizeable ω contribution to χc1(3872) → π+π − J/ψ decays, Phys. Rev. D 108, L011103 (2023), arXiv:2204.12597 [hep-ex]

    2023

  18. [26]

    M. B. Voloshin, Interference and binding effects in decays of possible molecular component of X(3872), Phys. Lett. B 579, 316 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0309307

    2004 arXiv

  19. [27]

    F. E. Close and P. R. Page, The D*0 anti-D0 threshold resonance, Phys. Lett. B 578, 119 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0309253

    2004 arXiv

  20. [28]

    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

    2004 arXiv

  21. [29]

    E. S. Swanson, Short range structure in the X(3872), Phys. Lett. B 588, 189 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0311229

    2004 arXiv

  22. [30]

    N. A. Tornqvist, Isospin breaking of the narrow charmonium state of Belle at 3872-MeV as a deuson, Phys. Lett. B 590, 209 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0402237

    2004 arXiv

  23. [31]

    E. S. Swanson, Diagnostic decays of the X(3872), Phys. Lett. B 598, 197 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0406080

    2004 arXiv

  24. [32]

    M. B. Voloshin, Heavy quark spin selection rule and the properties of the X(3872), Phys. Lett. B 604, 69 (2004), arXiv:hep- ph/0408321

    2004

  25. [33]

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

    M. Suzuki, The X(3872) boson: Molecule or charmonium, Phys. Rev. D 72, 114013 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0508258

    2005 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Esposito, A

    A. Esposito, A. L. Guerrieri, L. Maiani, F. Piccinini, A. Pilloni, A. D. Polosa, and V. Riquer, Observation of light nuclei at ALICE and the X(3872) conundrum, Phys. Rev. D 92, 034028 (2015), arXiv:1508.00295 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Esposito, A

    A. Esposito, A. Pilloni, and A. D. Polosa, Multiquark Resonances, Phys. Rept. 668, 1 (2017), arXiv:1611.07920 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  28. [36]

    S. L. Olsen, T. Skwarnicki, and D. Zieminska, Nonstandard heavy mesons and baryons: Experimental evidence, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 015003 (2018), arXiv:1708.04012 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Aubert et al

    B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Evidence for X(3872) → ψ2Sγ in B± → X3872K ± decays, and a study of B → c¯cγK , Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 132001 (2009), arXiv:0809.0042 [hep-ex]

    2009 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Bhardwaj et al

    V. Bhardwaj et al. (Belle), Observation of X(3872) → J/ψγ and search for X(3872) → ψ′γ in B decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 091803 (2011), arXiv:1105.0177 [hep-ex]

    2011 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Aaij et al.(LHCb), Evidence for the decay X(3872) → ψ(2S)γ, Nucl

    R. Aaij et al.(LHCb), Evidence for the decay X(3872) → ψ(2S)γ, Nucl. Phys. B 886, 665 (2014), arXiv:1404.0275 [hep-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Study of Open-Charm Decays and Radiative Transitions of the X(3872), Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 242001 (2020), arXiv:2001.01156 [hep-ex]

    2020

  33. [41]

    Godfrey and N

    S. Godfrey and N. Isgur, Mesons in a Relativized Quark Model with Chromodynamics, Phys. Rev. D 32, 189 (1985)

    1985

  34. [42]

    Barnes, S

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

    2005 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Takizawa and S

    M. Takizawa and S. Takeuchi, X(3872) as a hybrid state of charmonium and the hadronic molecule, PTEP 2013, 093D01 (2013), arXiv:1206.4877 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  36. [44]

    R. D. Matheus, F. S. Navarra, M. Nielsen, and C. M. Zanetti, QCD Sum Rules for the X(3872) as a mixed molecule- charmoniun state, Phys. Rev. D 80, 056002 (2009), arXiv:0907.2683 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  37. [45]

    I. V. Danilkin and Y. A. Simonov, Dynamical origin and the pole structure of X(3872), Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 102002 (2010), arXiv:1006.0211 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Coito, G

    S. Coito, G. Rupp, and E. van Beveren, Delicate interplay between the D0-D*0, rho0-J/psi, and omega-J/psi channels in the X(3872) resonance, Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1762 (2011), arXiv:1008.5100 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Coito, G

    S. Coito, G. Rupp, and E. van Beveren, X(3872) is not a true molecule, Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2351 (2013), arXiv:1212.0648 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  40. [48]

    P. G. Ortega, D. R. Entem, and F. Fernandez, Molecular Structures in Charmonium Spectrum: The XY ZPuzzle, J. Phys. G 40, 065107 (2013), arXiv:1205.1699 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Ferretti, G

    J. Ferretti, G. Galat` a, and E. Santopinto, Interpretation of the X(3872) as a charmonium state plus an extra component due to the coupling to the meson-meson continuum, Phys. Rev. C 88, 015207 (2013), arXiv:1302.6857 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Chen, H.-y

    W. Chen, H.-y. Jin, R. T. Kleiv, T. G. Steele, M. Wang, and Q. Xu, QCD sum-rule interpretation of X(3872) with J P C= 1++ mixtures of hybrid charmonium and DD∗ molecular currents, Phys. Rev. D 88, 045027 (2013), arXiv:1305.0244 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Takeuchi, K

    S. Takeuchi, K. Shimizu, and M. Takizawa, On the origin of the narrow peak and the isospin symmetry breaking of the X(3872), PTEP 2014, 123D01 (2014), [Erratum: PTEP 2015, 079203 (2015)], arXiv:1408.0973 [hep-ph]. 13

    2014 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Kinugawa and T

    T. Kinugawa and T. Hyodo, Compositeness of Tcc and X(3872) by considering decay and coupled-channels effects, Phys. Rev. C 109, 045205 (2024), arXiv:2303.07038 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Terashima and T

    I. Terashima and T. Hyodo, Hadron-hadron potentials coupled to quark degrees of freedom for exotic hadrons, Phys. Rev. C 108, 035204 (2023), arXiv:2305.10689 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  46. [54]

    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

    2005 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Ebert, R

    D. Ebert, R. N. Faustov, and V. O. Galkin, Masses of heavy tetraquarks in the relativistic quark model, Phys. Lett. B 634, 214 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0512230

    2006 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Terasaki, A New tetra-quark interpretation of X(3872), Prog

    K. Terasaki, A New tetra-quark interpretation of X(3872), Prog. Theor. Phys. 118, 821 (2007), arXiv:0706.3944 [hep-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Dubnicka, A

    S. Dubnicka, A. Z. Dubnickova, M. A. Ivanov, and J. G. Korner, Quark model description of the tetraquark state X(3872) in a relativistic constituent quark model with infrared confinement, Phys. Rev. D 81, 114007 (2010), arXiv:1004.1291 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  50. [58]

    H. Kim, K. S. Kim, M.-K. Cheoun, D. Jido, and M. Oka, Testing the tetraquark structure for the X resonances in the low-lying region, Eur. Phys. J. A 52, 184 (2016), arXiv:1602.07540 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Y.-B. Yang, Y. Chen, L.-C. Gui, C. Liu, Y.-B. Liu, Z. Liu, J.-P. Ma, and J.-B. Zhang (CLQCD), Lattice study on ηc2 and X(3872), Phys. Rev. D 87, 014501 (2013), arXiv:1206.2086 [hep-lat]

    2013 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Prelovsek and L

    S. Prelovsek and L. Leskovec, Evidence for X(3872) from DD* scattering on the lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 192001 (2013), arXiv:1307.5172 [hep-lat]

    2013 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Padmanath, C

    M. Padmanath, C. B. Lang, and S. Prelovsek, X(3872) and Y(4140) using diquark-antidiquark operators with lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 92, 034501 (2015), arXiv:1503.03257 [hep-lat]

    2015 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Chilikin et al

    K. Chilikin et al. (Belle), Observation of an alternative χc0(2P ) candidate in e+e− → J/ψD ¯D, Phys. Rev. D 95, 112003 (2017), arXiv:1704.01872 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  55. [63]

    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

  56. [64]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (Belle), Observation of a near-threshold omega J/psi mass enhancement in exclusive B — > K omega J/psi decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 182002 (2005), arXiv:hep-ex/0408126

    2005 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Observation of New Charmonium or Charmoniumlike States in B+ →D*±D∓K+ Decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 131902 (2024), arXiv:2406.03156 [hep-ex]

    2024

  58. [66]

    Uehara et al

    S. Uehara et al. (Belle), Observation of a chi-prime(c2) candidate in gamma gamma — > D anti-D production at BELLE, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 082003 (2006), arXiv:hep-ex/0512035

    2006 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Aubert et al.(BaBar), Observation of the χc2(2p) Meson in the Reaction γγ → D ¯D at BaBar, Phys

    B. Aubert et al.(BaBar), Observation of the χc2(2p) Meson in the Reaction γγ → D ¯D at BaBar, Phys. Rev. D 81, 092003 (2010), arXiv:1002.0281 [hep-ex]

    2010 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Near-threshold D ¯D spectroscopy and observation of a new charmonium state, JHEP 07, 035, arXiv:1903.12240 [hep-ex]

    1903 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Neubert, Heavy quark symmetry, Phys

    M. Neubert, Heavy quark symmetry, Phys. Rept. 245, 259 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9306320

    1994 arXiv

  62. [70]

    M. B. Wise, Chiral perturbation theory for hadrons containing a heavy quark, Phys. Rev. D 45, R2188 (1992)

    1992

  63. [71]

    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 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Bando, T

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

    1988

  65. [73]

    Harada and K

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

    2003 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Ohkoda, Y

    S. Ohkoda, Y. Yamaguchi, S. Yasui, K. Sudoh, and A. Hosaka, Exotic mesons with double charm and bottom flavor, Phys. Rev. D 86, 034019 (2012), arXiv:1202.0760 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Cheng, C.-K

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

    2005 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Detmold, K

    W. Detmold, K. Orginos, and M. J. Savage, BB Potentials in Quenched Lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 76, 114503 (2007), arXiv:hep-lat/0703009

    2007 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Isola, M

    C. Isola, M. Ladisa, G. Nardulli, and P. Santorelli, Charming penguins in B — > K* pi, K(rho, omega, phi) decays, Phys. Rev. D 68, 114001 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0307367

    2003 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Hiyama, Y

    E. Hiyama, Y. Kino, and M. Kamimura, Gaussian expansion method for few-body systems, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 51, 223 (2003)

    2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.