Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 53 references

Hydrogen-like structures in the strong interaction

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 The paper treats doubly heavy hadrons as hydrogen-like systems and concludes that T_cc+ is a compact color-sextet tetraquark, not a meson molecule.

desk verdict Systematic BO calculation with credible baryon spectra, but the T_cc+ assignment is a post-hoc fit: R0 is tuned to the measured mass in each color channel, so the preference for the 6 configuration is circular. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22177 v1 pith:J3UVFUSC submitted 2025-05-28 hep-ph

Lei Liu , Yanmei Xiao , Tao Guo This is my paper
classification hep-ph PACS 12.38.-t12.39.-x
keywords Born-OppenheimerapproximationdoublyheavytetraquarksT_cc+baryonscolor-spinhyperfineinteractionflavorhadronstetraquarkmassspectra
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 doubly heavy hadrons—baryons with two heavy quarks and tetraquarks with two heavy quarks plus two light antiquarks—can be treated as hydrogen-like systems in which the slow heavy quarks create a potential that fast light quarks feel. Working in the Born-Oppenheimer approximation and adding a color-spin hyperfine interaction, the authors reproduce the known doubly charmed baryon spectrum and then compute the masses of S-wave doubly heavy tetraquarks. Their central result is that the LHCb resonance T_cc+ is best described as a compact tetraquark with the charm pair in a color sextet and the light antidiquark in an antisextet, with quantum numbers (I,J^P)=(0,1^+), rather than as a loosely bound $D^{0}$ $D^{{*+}}$ molecule. The same calculation predicts several stable tetraquark states below all meson-meson thresholds that should appear as very narrow peaks.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Born-Oppenheimer approximation transplanted from molecular physics to QCD: the heavy quark pair is treated as nearly static, and the light quark(s) move in the color Coulomb field of the heavy sources plus a linear confinement term $V_{\mathrm{conf}}=k(r_{AB}-R_0)\,\theta(r_{AB}-R_0)$, with a running coupling $\alpha_s(\mu)$. The light-quark Schrödinger equation is solved variationally with a single exponential radial wave function, giving a Born-Oppenheimer potential $V_{BO}(r_{AB})=E_l+V(x_A,x_B)$; the heavy pair then obeys a two-body Schrödinger equation whose ground-state energy enters the hadron mass formula together with the color-spin hyperfine term $H_{ss}=\sum 2\kappa_{ij}\mathbf{s}_i\cdot\mathbf{s}_j$. The parameter $R_0$, which sets where linear confinement switches on, is fixed by fitting the $\Xi_{cc}^{++}$ mass in the baryon sector and the T_cc+ mass in the tetraquark sector.

What would settle it

A first-principles calculation of the $cc\bar u\bar d$ spectrum that resolves the color composition of the lowest $J^P=1^+$ state would settle the claim: if the lowest $1^+$ state is dominated by a $D^0 D^{*+}$ molecule or by a color-antitriplet diquark, the assignment of T_cc+ to $|(cc)_0^6(\bar u\bar d)_1^{\bar 6}\rangle$ is ruled out; observing one of the predicted narrow states, such as the $bb\bar n\bar n$ state with $(I,J^P)=(0,1^+)$ near 10413 MeV, would support it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the observed T_cc+ fits naturally as the tetraquark $|(cc)_0^6(\bar u \bar d)_1^{\bar 6}\rangle$ with $(I,J^P)=(0,1^+)$. In the authors' calculation, when the charm diquark is in the color antitriplet, the $cc\bar u\bar d$ system has a positive ground-state energy of 75.6 MeV, meaning it is not bound; when the charm diquark is in the color sextet, the ground-state energy is -54.9 MeV, a shallow bound state sitting just below the $D^0 D^{*+}$ threshold. This sign difference is what selects the compact color-sextet assignment. The authors also find that the same framework, with the parameter $R_0$ fixed by the T_cc+ mass, yields stable S-wave tetraquarks in the $bb\bar q\bar q$ and $cb\bar q\bar q$ systems below all corresponding meson-meson thresholds.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that each tetraquark lives in one fixed color configuration—either a color-antitriplet heavy diquark with a color-triplet light antidiquark, or a color-sextet heavy diquark with a color-antisextet light antidiquark—and explicitly ignores any mixing between these two channels.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • T_cc+ is a compact doubly charmed tetraquark with a color-sextet $cc$ diquark and a color-antisextet $\bar u\bar d$ antidiquark, not a meson molecule, if the calculation's color-channel separation holds.
  • Several S-wave tetraquarks in the $bb\bar q\bar q$ and $cb\bar q\bar q$ systems lie below all meson-meson thresholds and are predicted to be very narrow peaks.
  • The doubly heavy baryon masses computed in the same framework agree with results from the relativistic quark model, lattice QCD, and quark potential models, supporting the approach's reliability.
  • The lowest $1^+$ state in the $cc\bar u\bar d$ system, at 3793.5 MeV, sits below the $D^0 D^{*+}$ threshold and, with only S-wave decays allowed, cannot decay to two mesons, making it a compact tetraquark candidate.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 3874.8 MeV mass of T_cc+ is put in by hand to fix $R_0$, so the paper does not independently predict that mass; the content of the claim is the sign difference in the Born-Oppenheimer energy between the two color channels (-54.9 MeV versus +75.6 MeV).
  • The authors explicitly set aside mixing between the $\bar{3}$ and $6$ color configurations; if such mixing is significant, the ordering and even the bound or unbound character of the predicted states could change, making a mixing-inclusive calculation the sharpest follow-up.
  • The same machinery could be applied to excited or P-wave doubly heavy tetraquarks, and the predicted narrow states in the $bb$ and $cb$ systems give concrete mass targets for future searches.
  • Using a variational light-quark wave function with more than one exponential would test whether the shallow binding of T_cc+ in the $6\otimes\bar 6$ channel is stable against improvements of the orbital wave function.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper applies the Born-Oppenheimer approximation to S-wave doubly heavy baryons (QQq) and doubly heavy tetraquarks (QQ anti-q anti-q), treating the heavy quarks as fixed sources in analogy with H2 and H2+. The model combines a color Coulomb potential, a linear confinement term that turns on at a fitted distance R0, a variational light-quark wave function, and a color-spin hyperfine interaction. Parameters are fitted to conventional hadrons, and the baryon spectra are compared with lattice QCD and quark-model results. For tetraquarks, the paper calculates two color configurations, |(QQ)_3bar (anti-q anti-q)_3> and |(QQ)_6 (anti-q anti-q)_6bar>, and claims that the experimentally observed T_cc+ is best described as the compact tetraquark |(cc)_0^6 (anti-u anti-d)_1^6bar> with (I,J^P)=(0,1^+). Further stable tetraquark states are predicted in the bb and cb sectors.

Significance. If the central claim were supported, the paper would offer a compact-tetraquark interpretation of T_cc+ within a simple BO framework and a set of testable mass predictions for other doubly heavy tetraquarks. The baryon-sector results are a genuine strength: the mass tables in Sec. III agree reasonably with lattice QCD and quark-model calculations, and the analytical variational treatment of the light quark is transparent. However, the T_cc+ identification is not an independent prediction because R0 is fitted to the measured T_cc+ mass separately in each color channel, and the preferred 6-channel solution is selected after the fit by requiring a negative energy. The paper also explicitly neglects color mixing. As it stands, the paper is a useful phenomenological study but its headline claim requires substantial reworking before it can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV.A, Eqs. (49)-(50)] The central claim that T_cc+ is a |(cc)_0^6(anti-u anti-d)_1^6bar> state is undermined by a circular procedure: Eq. (49) inserts the measured T_cc+ mass into Eq. (1) and obtains E=75.6 MeV with R0=2.95 GeV^-1 for the 3bar channel, while Eq. (50) repeats the fit for the 6 channel and obtains E=-54.9 MeV with R0=5.25 GeV^-1. Since R0 is retuned in each channel to reproduce the same experimental mass, the sign of E is not a prediction but a consequence of the fit, and the preference for the 6 configuration is post-hoc. To support the claim, the authors should either fix R0 from the baryon sector (Eq. (33), R0=4.12 GeV^-1) and predict both tetraquark masses without fitting T_cc+, or provide a quantitative model-selection criterion that accounts for the loss of degrees of freedom from fitting R0 in each channel.
  2. [Sec. II.B] The manuscript explicitly states that the mixing between |(Q1Q2)_3bar(anti-q3 anti-q4)_3> and |(Q1Q2)_6(anti-q3 anti-q4)_6bar> is not considered, and the T_cc+ assignment is made in one isolated color channel. Since the physical tetraquark wave function is in general a superposition of these two color couplings, the masses, the ordering of states, and the stability against meson-meson thresholds could change once mixing is included. The authors should estimate the mixing matrix element or give a physical argument for why it is negligible; without this, the claim that T_cc+ is 'most likely' the 6-channel configuration is not tested against the orthogonal channel.
  3. [Sec. III, Eq. (33)] The baryon calibration is not as clean as presented: fitting the Xi_cc++ mass yields E=+19.7 MeV, so the input hadron is actually unbound in the model, and the statement that |E/M| ~ 0.005 puts the result 'within the allowable error range' is not a substitute for a bound-state condition. This weakens the claim that the agreement in Tables III-IV establishes the reliability of the method for tetraquarks, where binding is the decisive criterion. The authors should either refine the model so that the fitted Xi_cc++ has E<0, or explicitly discuss how a positive E in the calibration state affects confidence in the predicted tetraquark binding energies.
  4. [Sec. IV, Table V and Figure 5] The paper applies the single value R0=5.25 GeV^-1, obtained from the 6-channel fit to T_cc+, to all other tetraquark states and to the 3bar-channel states as well, even though Eq. (49) gave R0=2.95 GeV^-1 for the 3bar channel. Because R0 is described in Sec. II.A as related to the spatial configuration of the hadron, it is not evident that one value should be used for both color configurations and all flavor combinations. The authors should justify this transfer or show that the qualitative predictions are stable under the alternative choice; otherwise the predicted masses in Table V and Figure 5 carry an uncontrolled systematic uncertainty.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. V] There are typographical errors such as 'Forthermore' in the abstract and 'tetarquark' near Eq. (49); these should be corrected.
  2. [Sec. IV.A, Eq. (48)] Equation (48) uses the notation (kappa_cc)^3bar for the hyperfine strength of a cc pair in the 6 color configuration; if a distinct strength is intended for the 6 representation, the notation should be changed to avoid ambiguity.
  3. [Sec. II.C and Table I] The manuscript says the remaining kappa parameters are extracted similarly to Ref. [18] but does not list the input hadrons or fitting uncertainties; a table of the fitted inputs and errors would improve reproducibility.
  4. [Sec. IV.A, Figure 4] Figure 4 shows the BO potential and wave function for two color channels, but the caption does not state that the two panels use different R0 values (2.95 vs 5.25 GeV^-1); this should be stated to avoid misleading comparisons.
  5. [Reference [16]] Reference [16] is cited as 'JHEP25, 004 (2020)' with arXiv 2501.13249; the volume/year appear inconsistent and should be checked.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

The T_cc^+ assignment to the 6 color channel is not an independent prediction: Eq. (50) fixes R_0 with the measured T_cc^+ mass, so the negative binding energy that selects the 6 configuration is a fit residual.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. IV.A, Eqs. (49)-(50)]
    "Substituting the mass of T_cc^+ into Eq.(1), we can obtain the total ground-state energy E of the lowest state and the corresponding parameter R_0 as E = 75.6 MeV, R_0 = 2.95 GeV^-1. (49) ... On the other hand, we calculated the case where the color coupling of the tetraquark cc ubar dbar system is 6⊗6bar→1. The calculated results are as follows E = −54.9 MeV, R_0 = 5.25 GeV^-1. (50) Such a shallow tetraquark cc ubar dbar bound state is consistent with our expectations."

    In Eq. (1) the mass is M = 2m_c + 2m_n + E + <H_ss>; inserting the measured T_cc^+ mass fixes E for each color channel. With Eqs. (47)-(48) giving <H_ss> = −150.8 and −20.2 MeV, the quoted values E = 75.6 and −54.9 MeV are exactly the residuals 3874.8 − 3799.2 and 3874.8 − 3929.8. The negative E that 'confirms' the 6 configuration is therefore the algebraic deficit of the input mass below the hyperfine-shifted constituent sum, not an independent prediction. Selecting the 6 channel because that fit gives E < 0 is choosing the configuration by the sign of the fit residual.

  2. self definitional [Sec. IV.A, discussion of Fig. 5(a)]
    "For the doubly charmed tetraquark cc nbar nbar system with quantum number J^P = 1^+, there are three possible tetraquark states with masses of 3793.5 MeV, 3874.8 MeV, and 3964.5 MeV. ... 3874.8 MeV is slightly below the D^0 D^{*+} threshold and above the D^0 D^0 π^+ threshold."

    The value 3874.8 MeV is the LHCb T_cc^+ mass inserted into Eq. (1) at Eq. (50) to fix R_0 = 5.25 GeV^-1. Listing this same number as a computed spectrum point and discussing its decay channels presents the fit input as a derived output; the agreement of the 'predicted' state with the observed T_cc^+ is true by construction, not by calculation.

1 more flagged steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. IV.A, conclusion after Eq. (50)]
    "Based on this, we suggest that T_cc^+ is more likely to be a good candidate for the tetraquark |(cc)_0^6(ubar dbar)_1^{6bar}> configuration with quantum numbers (I, J^P) = (0, 1^+)."

    The phrase 'Based on this' refers to the sign of the fitted residual E from Eq. (50). Both color couplings (3bar and 6) are fitted to the same experimental T_cc^+ mass; the 3bar fit gives E = 75.6 MeV > 0 and is declared unbound, while the 6 fit gives E = −54.9 MeV < 0 and is declared the 'good candidate.' Since the paper explicitly omits 3bar–6 mixing (Sec. II.B), the central assignment is a post-hoc choice between two fits of one input, not a discriminative prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central assertion—that T_cc^+ is best described as the compact tetraquark |(cc)_0^6(ubar dbar)_1^{6bar}>—reduces by construction to its input. In Eqs. (49)-(50) the measured T_cc^+ mass is substituted into Eq. (1) separately for the 3bar and 6 color configurations; because M = 2m_c + 2m_n + E + <H_ss>, the quoted ground-state energies E = 75.6 MeV and E = −54.9 MeV are nothing but the residuals left after subtracting the fixed constituent and hyperfine energies from the experimental mass. The sign of E, which is the sole basis for preferring the 6 configuration, is therefore determined by the input mass, not predicted. The same input reappears in Fig. 5(a) as the 3874.8 MeV spectrum point. The color selection is post-hoc: both channels are fitted to the same mass, and the configuration that yields E < 0 is declared 'more likely,' with 3bar–6 mixing explicitly omitted. These are genuine instances of fitted inputs being presented as predictions. The paper is not wholly circular: the baryon-sector masses for states other than Xi_cc (Tables III-IV) are compared with lattice QCD and quark-model results, the predicted bb and cb tetraquark spectra are not fixed by the T_cc^+ input, and the hyperfine parameters of Table I are calibrated on conventional hadrons (partly in Ref. [18], a same-group preprint, but externally falsifiable). The Xi_cc calibration itself yields E = +19.7 MeV (Eq. (33)), a positive energy waved away by |E/M| ~ 0.005—a correctness caveat rather than a circularity. Nevertheless, the headline conclusion—the paper's own summary repeats that T_cc^+ is used as input and then 'the results show that T_cc^+ is a good candidate'—is equivalent to its input by construction, supporting a score of 7.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central predictions rest on a long chain of fitted parameters (quark masses, running coupling, string tension, hyperfine strengths, and R0) plus the Born-Oppenheimer factorization, a single-exponential light-quark ansatz, and the explicit neglect of color mixing. Many hyperfine parameters are taken from a self-cited paper (Ref. [18]) without reproducing their fitting procedure.

free parameters (9)
  • constituent quark mass m_n = 308 MeV
    Fitted to S-wave meson and baryon masses (Sec. II.C).
  • constituent quark mass m_s = 484 MeV
    Fitted to S-wave meson and baryon masses (Sec. II.C).
  • constituent quark mass m_c = 1667 MeV
    Fitted to S-wave meson and baryon masses (Sec. II.C).
  • constituent quark mass m_b = 5005 MeV
    Fitted to S-wave meson and baryon masses (Sec. II.C).
  • running coupling parameters alpha0, Lambda0, mu0 = 2.118, 0.113 fm^-1, 36.976 MeV
    Parameters of Eq. (20), taken from Ref. [45]; fitted to hadron spectra.
  • string tension k = 0.15 GeV^2
    Extracted by fitting charmonium, bottomonium, and charm-bottom mesons (Sec. II.C).
  • color-spin hyperfine strengths kappa_ij = 20 values in Table I, e.g., (kappa_nn)^1=315 MeV
    Extracted by fitting conventional hadrons; most values taken from Ref. [18] by the same group.
  • confinement start R0 for baryons = 4.12 GeV^-1
    Determined by fitting the Xi_cc mass; however the computed E=19.7 MeV is positive, so the fitted baryon is not bound in the model (Eq. (33)).
  • confinement start R0 for tetraquarks = 5.25 GeV^-1
    Determined by fitting the T_cc+ mass in Eq. (49); the same mass is then reported as the predicted T_cc+ mass, so this is a fit, not a prediction.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Hadrons are color singlets; the color couplings in the model follow from SU(3) color factors (e.g., 3bar x 3 -> 1).
    Assumed in Sec. II.B when constructing color-spin wave functions.
  • domain assumption Born-Oppenheimer separation of heavy and light quark wave functions is valid for m_Q >> m_q.
    Invoked in Sec. II.A; supports the factorization in Eq. (6).
  • domain assumption The total Hamiltonian is the sum of constituent masses, BO energy, and color-spin hyperfine interaction (Eq. (1)).
    This is a quark-model ansatz; not derived from QCD.
  • ad hoc to paper The confinement potential acts only between the two heavy quarks and has the form k(r_AB-R0) theta(r_AB-R0) (Eq. (11)).
    This form is introduced to simulate confinement; its restriction to the heavy-heavy pair is a modeling choice.
  • ad hoc to paper The light quark orbital is a single exponential variational ansatz R(r)=A^{3/2} e^{-Ar}/sqrt(pi) (Eq. (25)).
    Used to solve the light-quark Schrodinger equation; no justification for this specific form beyond simplicity.
  • ad hoc to paper The two color configurations 3bar x 3 and 6 x 6bar do not mix (Sec. II.B).
    Explicitly stated; the physical tetraquark is assigned to one color channel, which is central to the T_cc+ identification.
  • domain assumption The color-spin hyperfine interaction has the form H_ss = sum_{i<j} 2 kappa_ij (s_i.s_j) (Eq. (2)) with parameters fitted to conventional hadrons.
    Standard quark-model hyperfine interaction; the specific kappa values are fitted.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hydrogen-like structures in the strong interaction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J3UVFUSC

@misc{pith2026250522177,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hydrogen-like structures in the strong interaction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J3UVFUSC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22177}
}
abstract

Heavy flavor hadrons, especially doubly heavy baryons and doubly heavy tetraquarks, have always received extensive attention in theoretical and experimental research. Given the separation of quark masses $m_Q \gg m_q$ ($Q = c, b$ and $q = u, d, s$), this type of heavy flavor hadrons can be well regarded as hydrogen-like structures in the strong interaction. In the theoretical framework of Born-Oppenheimer approximation, we derive the Schr{\"o}dinger equation for the motion of light quarks in the effective potential field of heavy quarks. Taking proper account of the color-spin hyperfine interaction, we carry out a systematic study on the mass spectra of $S$-wave doubly heavy baryons and doubly heavy tetraquarks. The model parameters required for the calculation are obtained by fitting conventional hadrons. The investigation on the doubly heavy baryon systems indicates the reliability of our theoretical approach. Our calculation results show that the experimentally discovered $T_{cc}^+$ is most likely a compact tetraquark $|(cc)_0^{6}(\bar{u}\bar{d})_1^{\bar{6}}\rangle$ state with quantum numbers $(I,J^P)=(0, 1^+)$. Forthermore, for different quantum number assignments, some stable tetraquark states are found and may be very narrow peaks. The predictions for other heavy flavor hadrons are expected to be confirmed in new theories and future experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.22177 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of a doubly heavy baryon (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. For the doubly charmed baryon Ξcc, the ground￾state energy E varies with the parameter R0. By fitting the experimental value of the doubly charmed baryon Ξ++ cc , we can obtain the ground-state energy E and the parameter R0 as follows: E = 19.7 MeV, R0 = 4.12 GeV−1 . (33) It can be found that the ground-state energy of the baryon Ξ++ cc is slightly greater than zero, indicating that the three quarks ccu cannot form … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. For the tetraquark ccn¯n¯ system, R0-dependence of the ground-state energy E for different colors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: For the tetraquark ccu¯d¯system with quantum num￾bers (I, JP ) = (0, 1 +), the color features of the heavy diquark are (a) cc in ¯3, (b) cc in 6. The BO potential VBO(rAB), the total ground-state energy E (in MeV), and the corresponding wave function ψ(rAB) are shown. …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Mass spectra of the S-wave doubly heavy tetraquark systems (a) ccn¯n¯, (b) ccs¯s¯, (c) ccn¯s¯, (d) bbn¯n¯, (e) bbs¯s¯, (f) bbn¯s¯ (g) cbn¯n¯, (h) cbs¯s¯, and (i) cbn¯s¯. The blue mass spectra indicate that the heavy diquark color is in 6. The black mass spectra indicat…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [18]

    B. Kang, X. Xia, and T. Guo, (2025), arXiv:2503.10173 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    This result implies that it is difficult for the tetraquark cc¯u¯dsystem to form a bound state

    Substituting the mass ofT + cc into Eq.(1), we can obtain the total ground-state energyEof the lowest state and the corresponding parameterR 0 as E= 75.6 MeV,R 0 = 2.95 GeV−1.(49) 8 Obviously, in this case, the ground-state energy of the tetraquarkcc¯u¯dsystem is significantly greater than zero. This result implies that it is difficult for the tetraquark ...

    work page

  3. [2]

    If the two heavy quarks in the system are of the same flavor, thenδ S 12 = 0 andδ A 12 = 1

    (19) In the above basis vectors, we introduce the symbolsδ A ij andδ S ij to satisfy the exchange symmetry principle of fermions. If the two heavy quarks in the system are of the same flavor, thenδ S 12 = 0 andδ A 12 = 1. If the two heavy quarks are different, we haveδ S 12 =δ A 12 = 1. Con- sidering that the two light antiquarks in the system are ¯uor ¯d...

    work page

  4. [3]

    D. J. Gross and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett.30, 1343 (1973)

    1973

  5. [4]

    Gell-Mann, Phys

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

    1964

  6. [5]

    Fritzsch, M

    H. Fritzsch, M. Gell-Mann, and H. Leutwyler, Phys. Lett. B47, 365 (1973)

    work page 1973

  7. [6]

    Brambilla, S

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

    arXiv 2020

  8. [7]

    Klempt and A

    E. Klempt and A. Zaitsev, Phys. Rept.454, 1 (2007), arXiv:0708.4016 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2007

Show all 53 references
  1. [8]

    Liu, H.-X

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

    2019 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Liu.et al., J

    J. Liu.et al., J. Chem. Phys.130, 174306 (2009)

    2009

  3. [10]

    Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys

    S. Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  4. [11]

    Piszczatowski.et al., J

    K. Piszczatowski.et al., J. Chem. Theory Comput.5, 3039 (2009)

    2009

  5. [12]

    Bicudo, M

    P. Bicudo, M. Cardoso, A. Peters, M. Pflaumer, and M. Wagner, Phys. Rev. D96, 054510 (2017), arXiv:1704.02383 [hep-lat]

    2017 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Maiani, A

    L. Maiani, A. D. Polosa, and V. Riquer, Phys. Rev. D 100, 074002 (2019), arXiv:1908.03244 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Braaten, C

    E. Braaten, C. Langmack, and D. H. Smith, Phys. Rev. D90, 014044 (2014), arXiv:1402.0438 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Bruschini and P

    R. Bruschini and P. Gonz´ alez, Phys. Rev. D102, 074002 (2020), arXiv:2007.07693 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Maiani, A

    L. Maiani, A. D. Polosa, and V. Riquer, Phys. Rev. D 100, 014002 (2019), arXiv:1903.10253 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  10. [17]

    J. F. Giron, R. F. Lebed, and C. T. Peterson, JHEP05, 061 (2019), arXiv:1903.04551 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Germani, B

    D. Germani, B. Grinstein, and A. D. Polosa, JHEP25, 004 (2020), arXiv:2501.13249 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Mutuk, Phys

    H. Mutuk, Phys. Rev. D110, 034025 (2024), arXiv:2401.02788 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Mattsonet al.(SELEX), Phys

    M. Mattsonet al.(SELEX), Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 112001 (2002), arXiv:hep-ex/0208014

    2002 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Berwein, N

    M. Berwein, N. Brambilla, A. Mohapatra, and A. Vairo, Phys. Rev. D110, 094040 (2024), arXiv:2408.04719 [hep- ph]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Brambilla, G

    N. Brambilla, G. a. Krein, J. Tarr´ us Castell` a, and A. Vairo, Phys. Rev. D97, 016016 (2018), 11 arXiv:1707.09647 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Chistovet al.(Belle), Phys

    R. Chistovet al.(Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 162001 (2006), arXiv:hep-ex/0606051

    2006 arXiv

  17. [25]

    S. P. Ratti, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.115, 33 (2003)

    2003

  18. [26]

    Aubertet al.(BaBar), Phys

    B. Aubertet al.(BaBar), Phys. Rev. D74, 011103 (2006), arXiv:hep-ex/0605075

    2006 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), Phys

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 162002 (2018), arXiv:1807.01919 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), JHEP12, 090 (2013), arXiv:1310.2538 [hep-ex]

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), JHEP12, 090 (2013), arXiv:1310.2538 [hep-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), Phys

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 112001 (2017), arXiv:1707.01621 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), Nature Commun.13, 3351 (2022), arXiv:2109.01056 [hep-ex]

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), Nature Commun.13, 3351 (2022), arXiv:2109.01056 [hep-ex]

    2022

  23. [31]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), JHEP05, 038 (2022), arXiv:2202.05648 [hep-ex]

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), JHEP05, 038 (2022), arXiv:2202.05648 [hep-ex]

    2022

  24. [32]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), Nature Phys.18, 751 (2022), arXiv:2109.01038 [hep-ex]

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), Nature Phys.18, 751 (2022), arXiv:2109.01038 [hep-ex]

    2022

  25. [33]

    Ikeda, B

    Y. Ikeda, B. Charron, S. Aoki, T. Doi, T. Hatsuda, T. In- oue, N. Ishii, K. Murano, H. Nemura, and K. Sasaki, Phys. Lett. B729, 85 (2014), arXiv:1311.6214 [hep-lat]

    2014 arXiv

  26. [34]

    (17) 2.J P = 1+ β4 =|(Q 1Q2)6 0(¯q3 ¯q4) ¯6 1⟩δA 12δS 34, β5 =|(Q 1Q2)6 1(¯q3 ¯q4) ¯6 0⟩δS 12δA 34, β6 =|(Q 1Q2)6 1(¯q3 ¯q4) ¯6 1⟩δS 12δS 34

    (16) 4 Similarly, the color-spin basis vectors in the tetraquark |(Q1Q2)6(¯q3 ¯q4)¯6⟩configuration are expressed as 1.J P = 0+ α3 =|(Q 1Q2)6 0(¯q3 ¯q4) ¯6 0⟩δA 12δA 34, α4 =|(Q 1Q2)6 1(¯q3 ¯q4) ¯6 1⟩δS 12δS 34. (17) 2.J P = 1+ β4 =|(Q 1Q2)6 0(¯q3 ¯q4) ¯6 1⟩δA 12δS 34, β5 =|(Q ...

  27. [35]

    F. S. Navarra, M. Nielsen, and S. H. Lee, Phys. Lett. B 649, 166 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0703071

    2007 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Ohkoda, Y

    S. Ohkoda, Y. Yamaguchi, S. Yasui, K. Sudoh, and A. Hosaka, Phys. Rev. D86, 034019 (2012), arXiv:1202.0760 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Karliner and J

    M. Karliner and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 202001 (2017), arXiv:1707.07666 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  30. [38]

    T. Guo, J. Li, J. Zhao, and L. He, Phys. Rev. D105, 014021 (2022), arXiv:2108.10462 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Y. Lyu, S. Aoki, T. Doi, T. Hatsuda, Y. Ikeda, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 161901 (2023), arXiv:2302.04505 [hep-lat]

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    L. Meng, E. Ortiz-Pacheco, V. Baru, E. Epelbaum, M. Padmanath, and S. Prelovsek, Phys. Rev. D111, 034509 (2025), arXiv:2411.06266 [hep-lat]

    2025 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Fleming, R

    S. Fleming, R. Hodges, and T. Mehen, Phys. Rev. D 104, 116010 (2021), arXiv:2109.02188 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Ling, M.-Z

    X.-Z. Ling, M.-Z. Liu, L.-S. Geng, E. Wang, and J.-J. Xie, Phys. Lett. B826, 136897 (2022), arXiv:2108.00947 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  35. [43]

    M.-L. Du, V. Baru, X.-K. Dong, A. Filin, F.-K. Guo, C. Hanhart, A. Nefediev, J. Nieves, and Q. Wang, Phys. Rev. D105, 014024 (2022), arXiv:2110.13765 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Gil-Dom ´ ınguez, A

    F. Gil-Dom ´ ınguez, A. Giachino, and R. Molina, Phys. Rev. D111, 016029 (2025), arXiv:2409.15141 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Braaten, L.-P

    E. Braaten, L.-P. He, K. Ingles, and J. Jiang, Phys. Rev. D106, 034033 (2022), arXiv:2202.03900 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  38. [46]

    N. N. Achasov and G. N. Shestakov, Phys. Rev. D105, 096038 (2022), arXiv:2203.17100 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Andreev, Phys

    O. Andreev, Phys. Rev. D106, 066002 (2022), arXiv:2205.12119 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Vijande, F

    J. Vijande, F. Fernandez, and A. Valcarce, J. Phys. G 31, 481 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0411299

    2005 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Ebert, R

    D. Ebert, R. N. Faustov, V. O. Galkin, and A. P. Mar- tynenko, Phys. Rev. D66, 014008 (2002), arXiv:hep- ph/0201217

    2002

  42. [50]

    Mathur, M

    N. Mathur, M. Padmanath, and S. Mondal, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 202002 (2018), arXiv:1806.04151 [hep-lat]

    2018 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Roberts and M

    W. Roberts and M. Pervin, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A23, 2817 (2008), arXiv:0711.2492 [nucl-th]

    2008 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Karliner and J

    M. Karliner and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. D90, 094007 (2014), arXiv:1408.5877 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Patel and K

    K. Patel and K. Thakkar, (2024), arXiv:2408.00335 [hep- ph]

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

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