Exploring Charm Bound States: Mass Spectra and Decay Dynamics of D Mesons and $Cq\bar{q}\bar{q}$ Tetraquarks

Ajay Kumar Rai; Chetan Lodha; Manak Parmar

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Exploring Charm Bound States: Mass Spectra and Decay Dynamics of D Mesons and $Cq\bar{q}\bar{q}$ Tetraquarks

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 diquark–antidiquark potential model places singly charmed $Cq\bar{q}\bar{q}$ tetraquarks between 2.5 and 3.5 GeV and identifies $D^*(2640)$ and $D(3000)$ as their most plausible experimental candidates.

desk verdict A useful tetraquark mass table undermined by a decay section that omits the open Dπ/D*π channels and claims unestablished few-MeV annihilation widths. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22393 v1 pith:GFMEKVSK submitted 2025-05-28 hep-ph

Chetan lodha , Manak Parmar , Ajay Kumar Rai This is my paper

classification hep-ph

keywords singlycharmedtetraquarkdiquark-antidiquarkmodelCornellpotentialcharmmesonspectroscopynonleptonicDdecaysFierzrearrangementReggetrajectoriesexotichadrons

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 predicts the masses and decay patterns of tetraquarks made of one charm quark and three light quarks ($Cq\bar{q}\bar{q}$), treating each tetraquark as a bound pair of a diquark (two quarks clustered together) and an antidiquark. The same potential model also computes the D meson spectrum and its nonleptonic branching fractions, so one parameter set links ordinary charm mesons to exotic four-quark states. Its central result is that these tetraquarks occupy a mass window of about 2.5–3.5 GeV, with the lowest S-wave states decaying mainly into a $D$ or $D^*$ meson accompanied by two or three gluons. That gives experimental searches a concrete mass range and decay signature. It also suggests that two poorly understood resonances, $D^*(2640)$ and $D(3000)$, may be tetraquarks.

What carries the argument

The engine of the paper is a two-body Schrödinger equation with a Cornell-type potential $V(r) = -k_s\alpha_s/r + b r + V_0$, relativistic kinetic corrections through $O(p^6)$, and spin-dependent one-gluon-exchange terms (spin–spin, spin–orbit, tensor). A tetraquark is reduced to two-body form by grouping the quarks into a $Cq$ diquark in the color antitriplet and a $\bar{q}\bar{q}$ antidiquark in the color triplet, whose attractive color factor is $k_s = -4/3$. D meson data fix the model parameters, and the same parameters generate diquark masses and then tetraquark masses through $M_{Cq\bar{q}\bar{q}} = M_{Cq} + M_{\bar q \bar q} + E + \langle V^1\rangle$. Decay widths follow from Fierz rearrangement of the tetraquark's color–spin wave functions into two-meson channels, with the rate set by the ratio of tetraquark-to-meson wavefunction overlaps.

What would settle it

Establish the spin–parity of $D^*(2640)$ and $D(3000)$. The model places $D^*(2640)$ in the $0^+$ $1^1S_0$ tetraquark state with a width around 1–2 MeV, so a measured $J^P$ other than $0^+$, or a total width far above a few MeV, would break that assignment. A lattice calculation of the interaction between a color-antitriplet $Cq$ diquark and a color-triplet $\bar q\bar q$ antidiquark would directly test the color-factor assumption, since a $k_s$ different from $-4/3$ would move the 2.5–3.5 GeV spectrum substantially.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that singly charmed $Cq\bar{q}\bar{q}$ tetraquarks in the color-antitriplet/color-triplet diquark configuration have masses between 2.5 and 3.5 GeV in the non-relativistic treatment and between 2.6 and 3.5 GeV in the semi-relativistic treatment. For the three lowest S-wave states the paper computes dominant decay modes and widths: $D$ + 2 gluons for the $1^1S_0$ state at 1.34–2.34 MeV, $D^*$ + 2 gluons for the $1^3S_1$ state at 2.68–4.68 MeV, and $D^*$ + 3 gluons for the $1^5S_2$ state at 0.79–1.38 MeV. The same model matches thirteen observed D meson resonances across S-, P-, and D-wave multiplets and produces nonleptonic D branching fractions close to experimental values. On that basis the authors identify $D^*(2640)$ and $D(3000)$ as the two most plausible experimental candidates, while noting that neither state yet has a firm spin–parity assignment.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a charm–light diquark and a light–light antidiquark are compact enough to be treated as two-body clusters whose interaction is the same Cornell potential and color factor fitted to ordinary mesons; if the diquarks are not compact, or the effective color force inside a four-quark system differs from $k_s = -4/3$, every tetraquark mass shifts by an unquantified amount.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The 2.5–3.5 GeV window places these tetraquarks inside the reach of existing charm experiments, giving them a concrete search region.
The predicted signatures are a $D$ meson plus two gluons (ground $1^1S_0$), a $D^*$ plus two gluons ($1^3S_1$), and a $D^*$ plus three gluons ($1^5S_2$), with widths of order 1–5 MeV; the gluons should appear as light-hadron showers accompanying the heavy meson.
Thirteen observed D meson resonances line up with the model's S-, P-, and D-wave states, including the less-established $D_0(2550)$, $D_1^*(2600)$, $D_2(2740)$, $D_3(2750)$, and $D_1^*(2760)$, which supports using the same parameters for tetraquarks.
If $D^*(2640)$ and $D(3000)$ are tetraquarks, their currently unknown spin–parity assignments become specific predictions that angular analyses can confirm or reject.
The Regge trajectories from the semi-relativistic spectra bend downward in the $(n, M^2)$ plane, indicating rotor-like heavy-light dynamics rather than the nearly linear behavior of light mesons.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper leaves implicit that the same decay machinery could be applied to double-charm and hidden-charm tetraquarks, where a $D$ or $D^*$ plus gluon signature would give a distinctive inclusive search channel.
A lattice calculation of the spatial size and binding of the $Cq$ diquark would settle whether the compact-diquark reduction is self-consistent; if the diquark is as diffuse as a typical D meson, the two-body picture behind the mass window needs revision.
The relative ordering of the $1^1S_0$, $1^3S_1$, and $1^5S_2$ widths is controlled mostly by spin overlaps and phase space, so repeating the calculation with strange instead of up/down quarks would yield a sharp prediction that could separate this picture from hadronic-molecule alternatives.
An inclusive measurement of D-meson production with low-multiplicity pion systems near 2.6–2.7 GeV could reveal a narrow enhancement even before a full angular analysis, since the predicted dominant decay is $D$ plus hadronized gluons.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this is a straightforward extension of the authors' diquark-antidiquark potential model to singly charmed tetraquarks. The mass tables are new for this quark content, and the paper does a systematic job in both non-relativistic and semi-relativistic settings. The D meson branching fractions are a useful re-check of the factorization approach. That part is fine.

The problem is the decay section. The authors set up the Fierz recoupling into C\bar q + q\bar q meson pairs, which correctly says the tetraquark contains components that are literally a D plus a pion, D* plus a pion, etc. Their own Table 4 lists those thresholds, and all three S-wave tetraquarks sit far above them. Yet Tables 7–9 never list Dπ, D*π, ρD, or ρD* as decay channels. Instead the "dominant" widths come from annihilation of the q\bar q pair into gluons, using Eq. (31), which is an annihilation formula for an isolated color-singlet pair. There is no argument that the direct two-meson rearrangement decay is suppressed. The Fierz coefficients give O(1) overlaps, not small ones. The decay machinery is inherited from previous papers and not derived here, so the 1–5 MeV widths are an assertion, not a demonstrated result. So the central quantitative claim, that these states have widths of 1–5 MeV and decay via D/D* + gluons, is unsupported and likely wrong. A state 500 MeV above Dπ should have a strong, broad two-meson decay.

Other soft spots: the potential parameters are fitted to D meson ground states, so the D meson agreement isn't independent. The tetraquark masses are compared with no other model. The experimental candidates are a loose match: D*(2640) is tens of MeV from the predicted 1S0 mass, with unknown J^P, and D(3000) is matched to no specific predicted state. The quoted uncertainties (sub-MeV) are certainly too small. Minor: the parameter list seems to have M_c and M_q swapped (0.37 and 1.45 GeV), and the 11S0 mass appears as 2674.99 in one table and 2689.92 in the text.

Who is this for? Someone compiling potential-model tetraquark mass tables might cite the spectrum. The decay numbers should be ignored until the authors either compute the direct two-meson widths or explain why they are absent. I'd send it to review with a clear request for major revision of the decay section, and I would not trust the widths until that is fixed.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper uses a Cornell-plus-spin-dependent potential model to compute mass spectra of D mesons, Cq diquarks, and Cq\bar q\bar q tetraquarks in the diquark-antidiquark \bar 3-3 color configuration, using both non-relativistic and semi-relativistic Hamiltonians. The potential parameters are fitted to D meson ground states. The paper then computes D meson non-leptonic branching fractions with the factorization approach, and tetraquark decay widths using Fierz rearrangement and a quark-pair annihilation formula (Eq. 31). The central claims are that the 1^1S0 tetraquark decays dominantly to D + 2 gluons with width ~1.3-2.3 MeV, the 1^3S1 to D* + 2 gluons with ~2.7-4.7 MeV, and the 1^5S2 to D* + 3 gluons with ~0.8-1.4 MeV, and that D*(2640) and D(3000) are the most plausible experimental candidates.

Significance. If the predictions were reliable, they would provide concrete search guidance for open-charm tetraquarks at LHCb, BESIII, and Belle II. The D meson mass tables and branching-fraction comparisons are extensive and useful as a phenomenological reference; the Regge-trajectory analysis adds a complementary check. However, the tetraquark decay calculation omits open strong two-meson channels arising from the paper's own Fierz rearrangement, so the central decay claim is unsupported. The mass predictions also carry an unquantified systematic uncertainty from the diquark-cluster approximation, and no comparison with other tetraquark model predictions or lattice results is given. The paper's main new physics conclusion therefore does not currently withstand scrutiny.

major comments (4)

[Section 4.2, Tables 7-9] The direct two-meson decay channels that follow from the Fierz rearrangement (Eqs. 29-30) are kinematically open for all three states whose widths are central to the paper, yet they are absent from Tables 7-9. The 1^1S0 state at 2580.65/2674.99 MeV lies about 570-670 MeV above the πD threshold (2006.98 MeV), the 1^3S1 state at 2652.11/2743.73 MeV lies about 500-600 MeV above πD* (2146.94 MeV) and, in the semi-relativistic case, just above ρD (2640.19 MeV), and the 1^5S2 state at 2795.05/2876.96 MeV lies above ρD* (2780.15/2781.53 MeV). The widths in Tables 7-9 are computed with Eq. (31), which is the annihilation formula for an isolated color-singlet q\bar q pair, not a direct two-meson decay amplitude. The color-singlet projection in Eq. (30) has probability 1/3 and the spin recoupling in Eq. (29a) contributes factors of order one, so the direct strong decays would naively have widths of tens to hundreds of MeV, far exceeding the quoted ~1-5 MeV annihilation widths. The paper never demonstrates a suppression mechanism for the direct channels; therefore the statement that D+2g, D*+2g, and D*+3g are the dominant decay modes is unsupported and likely wrong.
[Section 6.2, Table 3] The assignment of D*(2640) to the 1^1S0 tetraquark state is internally inconsistent. Section 6.2 quotes the semi-relativistic mass of this state as 2689.92 ± 0.63 MeV, but Table 3 lists 2674.99 ± 0.63 MeV. Moreover, the experimental mass of D*(2640), 2637 ± 2 ± 6 MeV, is closer to the predicted 1^3S1 mass (2652.11 MeV NR, 2743.73 MeV SR) than to the 1^1S0 mass quoted in the assignment. The paper does not discuss this ambiguity. Further, D(3000), with a width of 190 ± 80 MeV, is assigned without demonstrating that the model can produce such a broad state; the quoted annihilation widths are all below a few MeV, and no direct strong-decay width is computed to show compatibility.
[Section 3.3, Eq. (12), Table 2] The tetraquark mass calculation relies on the diquark-antidiquark approximation and on transferring parameters fitted to D meson quark-antiquark pairs to the four-quark system, but the uncertainty from this transfer is not quantified. Eq. (12) uses the Cq diquark mass from Table 2 and the mass of the \bar q\bar q antidiquark, yet the light antidiquark masses are never listed, so the calculation is not reproducible from the paper alone. The quoted errors of ~0.5 MeV reflect only the numerical fit to the D meson ground states, not the model uncertainty from treating the diquark as a pointlike cluster with color factor ks = -4/3. No comparison with other tetraquark calculations (e.g., QCD sum rules, lattice, or other quark models) is given, so the reader cannot assess the reliability of the mass predictions.
[Tables 7-9] Tables 7-9 mix strong, electromagnetic, and weak decay channels without clearly separating them, and several listed channels require flavor changes that are not explained. For example, the initial Cq\bar q\bar q tetraquark with light quarks u,d contains no strange quarks, yet the tables list many channels with strange mesons, such as π + ρ^0 K^+, π + K^-π^+, and π + ηK^+. If these are weak decays of the charm quark, they should not be presented in the same table as the gluonic annihilation channels without a clear labeling of the underlying operator; if they are not weak decays, they are forbidden by flavor conservation. This obscures the physics and makes the claimed dominance of the gluonic channels difficult to evaluate.

minor comments (6)

[Section 4.2, Eq. (31)] Eq. (31) contains an unresolved citation placeholder "[? ]" instead of a reference for the annihilation cross section formula.
[Section 4.2 title] The section title "Tetraquark Deacy" contains a typo and should read "Tetraquark Decay".
[Section 2, Eq. (3)] The text states that the kinetic energy is expanded up to O(p^6), but Eq. (3) displays only three terms (p^2, p^4, p^6); please clarify whether the O(p^6) term is the last term or whether higher orders are included.
[Table 6] The header of Table 6 does not identify which column corresponds to the experimental data, and several rows (e.g., ηπ+ and η'π+) show large discrepancies among the theory columns that likely indicate transcription errors; please check and label the columns.
[References] Reference [60] (Lucha and Schoberl) and reference [84] (Yu, Kang, Galkin) are incomplete as printed; reference [83] is given as "Private communication", which is not suitable for a central input to the decay analysis.
[Section 6.1 and Figures 1-5] The text in Section 6.1 refers to Regge trajectories in the (J, M^2) plane, while the figures and captions are labeled as (n, M^2) planes; please make the notation consistent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction: tetraquark masses are computed from D-meson-fitted parameters and the decay widths from the stated Fierz/annihilation formula; the only concern is a self-cited decay mechanism that is not independently detailed in this paper.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular in the sense of equations reducing to their inputs. The potential parameters (b, alpha_s, Mc, Mq) are optimized to the D-meson spectrum (Sec. 3.1), and the tetraquark masses in Table 3 are then obtained from Eq. (12) using the same parameters and the model diquark masses, not by fitting to D*(2640) or D(3000); the candidate assignment in Sec. 6.2 is a post-hoc comparison, not a fit. The decay widths in Tables 7-9 are produced by the Fierz recoupling of Eqs. (29)-(30) and the stated annihilation formula Eq. (31), with relative rates set by the recoupling coefficients and alpha_s powers, so they are not equal by construction to any fitted data. The paper does rely on the same authors' previous work for the detailed working mechanism of the tetraquark decays ('A more detailed explanation of the working mechanism of the decays described in this section can be found in our previous studies, Refs. [56,57]'), and Eq. (31) carries an unresolved citation '[?]'; this is a self-citation/missing-support weakness rather than a circular reduction, because the formula and its spin/color input are stated in the text and the mass predictions are independently testable. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation; the Regge trajectories are drawn from the computed masses. Concerns about omitted two-meson channels in Tables 7-9 are physics-correctness issues, not circularity. Overall, the central claim is not forced by definition or by a self-citation chain.

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

The central calculation rests on four fitted potential parameters plus an unlisted constant and an unlisted Gaussian width, and on transferring a meson-calibrated Cornell potential to diquark and tetraquark systems. No new fundamental entities are introduced; the tetraquark states are composite predictions made of known quarks.

free parameters (5)

String tension b = 0.1075 GeV^2 (NR), 0.107 GeV^2 (SR)
Fitted to the D meson spectrum in Section 3.1 and reused for diquarks and tetraquarks.
Strong coupling alpha_s = 0.675 (NR), 0.67 (SR)
Fitted together with b and the constituent masses; enters the Coulomb and spin-dependent potentials.
Constituent quark masses M_c and M_q = Text lists 0.37 GeV and 1.45 GeV with order ambiguous; conventional assignment is M_c = 1.45 GeV, M_q = 0.37 GeV
Fitted to D meson ground states; the order ambiguity in the text is a clarity defect.
Overall potential constant C (or V0) = Not stated
Eq. 4 says C is adjusted to fit the ground-state mass, but no numerical value is given anywhere in the paper.
Gaussian width sigma in the spin-spin term = Not stated
Eq. 9c uses exp(-sigma^2 r^2) as a smeared delta function, and the hyperfine splittings depend on this width, but its value is never given.

assumptions (5)

standard math The time-independent Schrodinger equation with a central potential, solved after separating variables, gives the bound-state energies used in all mass formulas.
Invoked in Section 2; the numerical solution method, grid, and convergence criteria are not described.
domain assumption The Cq qbar qbar tetraquark is approximated as a two-body diquark-antidiquark system in color anti-triplet-triplet.
Section 3.3 states this reduction and acknowledges that it excludes mixed tetraquark configurations.
domain assumption The Cornell potential and spin-dependent terms calibrated on quark-antiquark D mesons transfer unchanged to quark-quark diquarks and to diquark-antidiquark systems with the appropriate color factor.
Used in Eqs. 10-12; no independent four-quark calibration is provided, making this the main fragility of the mass predictions.
domain assumption Nonleptonic D decays are described by a factorized weak Hamiltonian with Wilson coefficients c1 = 1.26, c2 = -0.51 and form factors from Ref. 84, neglecting non-factorizable and final-state interaction contributions.
Section 4.1 explicitly lists the approximation and the omitted rescattering effects.
ad hoc to paper Tetraquark decay widths are obtained from overlap ratios |Psi_T(0)|^2 / |Psi_Meson(0)|^2 times spin-averaged annihilation cross sections taken from prior work of the same authors.
Eq. 31 contains an unresolved reference marker, and the cross sections are not defined in the present text, so Tables 7-9 cannot be independently checked.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring Charm Bound States: Mass Spectra and Decay Dynamics of D Mesons and $Cq\bar{q}\bar{q}$ Tetraquarks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GFMEKVSK

@misc{pith2026250522393,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring Charm Bound States: Mass Spectra and Decay Dynamics of D Mesons and $Cq\barq\barq$ Tetraquarks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GFMEKVSK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22393}
}

abstract

Motivated by the discovery of several charm states exhibiting tetraquark-like characteristics at BESIII and LHCb, this study investigates the spectroscopy and decay properties of D mesons and tetraquark states with quark content $Cq\bar{q}\bar{q}$ within the diquark - antidiquark framework. The analysis is performed using a potential model based on the Cornell potential, considering color antitriplet - triplet configurations. Mass spectra are computed for both mesons and tetraquarks, while their decay behaviors are examined using the factorization approach for D mesons and Fierz rearrangement for tetraquark decays. Theoretical results are compared with experimentally observed resonances to improve our understanding of charm quark bound systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.22393 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Regge trajectory in the (n,M2 ) plane for D meson with Spins S = 0 5. The same spin-0 Cq¯ state can also undergo rare radiative leptonic decays of the form γl ± +νl , depending on the meson species. 6. A spin-1Cq¯ pair in the color-singlet representation can decay into dileptonic channels such as l +l −, where l = e,µ, τ. 7. A spin-0 Cq¯ pair in the color-singlet representation can decay into two body nonleptonic … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Regge trajectory in the (n,M2 ) plane for D meson with Spins S = 1 scattering amplitudes, Regge theory has become indispensable for classifying mesons, baryons, and exotic states. In its simplest form, a trajectory is written as J = α ′ M2 +α0 , where α ′ (the slope) and α0 (the intercept) encode the confinement dynamics. For light mesons—composed of u, d, and s quarks—the trajectories are nearly linear but exhibit … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Regge trajectory in the (n,M2 ) plane for Cqq¯q¯ tetraquark with Spins S = 0 (a) Non-relativistic (b) Semi-relativistic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Regge trajectory in the (n,M2 ) plane for Cqq¯q¯ tetraquark with Spins S = 1 The Regge trajectories in the (n,M2 ) plane are drawn for Cqq¯q¯ tetraquark for Spin S = 0,1 and 2 are shown in figure 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b, 5a and 5b, respectively. 6. Results and Discussion In the…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Regge trajectory in the (n,M2 ) plane for Cqq¯q¯ tetraquark with Spins S = 2 The decay properties of D meson by factorization approach is calculated and tabulated in table 6 which are furthur used to calculate the decay width of the tetraquark for 1S0, 3 S1 and 5S2 sta…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

A Unified Study of Hidden-Charm and Hidden-Bottom Mesons
hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

A common screened-potential and QCD sum-rule framework yields consistent spectra, E1/M1 widths, Regge slopes, decay constants and finite-spectrum thermal indicators for c¯c and b¯b mesons.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Gell-Mann, Phys

M. Gell-Mann, Phys. Lett. 8, 214-215 (1964)

1964
[2]

Berwein, N

M. Berwein, N. Brambilla, A. Mohapatra and A. Vairo, Phys. Rev. D 110, no.9, 094040 (2024)

2024
[3]

S. K. Choi et al. [Belle], Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 262001 (2003)

2003
[4]

Chilikin et al

K. Chilikin et al. [Belle], Phys. Rev. D 90, no.11, 112009 (2014)

2014
[5]

X. L. Wang et al. [Belle], Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 142002 (2007)

2007
[6]

Aaltonen et al

T. Aaltonen et al. [CDF], Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 242002 (2009)

2009
[7]

V . M. Abazov et al. [D0], Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, no.2, 022003 (2016)

2016
[8]

Ablikim et al

M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII], Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 252001 (2013)

2013

Show all 96 references

[9]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Sci. Bull. 65, no.23, 1983-1993 (2020)

2020
[10]

Goldhaber, F

G. Goldhaber, F. Pierre, G. S. Abrams, M. S. Alam, A. Boyarski, M. Breidenbach, W. C. Carithers, W. Chinowsky, S. Cooper and R. DeV oe, et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 37, 255-259 (1976)

1976
[11]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, no.21, 211803 (2019)

2019
[12]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, no.11, 111801 (2021)

2021
[13]

I. I. Y . Bigi and N. G. Uraltsev, Nucl. Phys. B592, 92-106 (2001)

2001
[14]

Owen and N

P. Owen and N. Serra, Eur. Phys. J. ST 233, no.2, 225-240 (2024)

2024
[15]

Kou et al

E. Kou et al. [Belle-II], PTEP 2019, no.12, 123C01 (2019) [erratum: PTEP2020, no.2, 029201 (2020)]

2019
[16]

Götzen et al

K. Götzen et al. [PANDA], Nuovo Cim. C47, no.4, 179 (2024)

2024
[17]

Banerjee et al

S. Banerjee et al. [Heavy Flavor Averaging Group (HFLA V)], [arXiv:2411.18639 [hep- ex]]

arXiv
[18]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. D 108, no.5, 052005 (2023)

2023
[19]

Adachi et al

I. Adachi et al. [Belle and Belle-II], Phys. Rev. D 111, no.1, 012015 (2025)

2025
[20]

Buccella, M

F. Buccella, M. Lusignoli, G. Miele, A. Pugliese and P. Santorelli, Phys. Rev. D 51, 3478-3486 (1995)

1995
[21]

A. F. Falk, Y . Grossman, Z. Ligeti and A. A. Petrov, Phys. Rev. D65, 054034 (2002)

2002
[22]

Grossman, A

Y . Grossman, A. L. Kagan and Y . Nir, Phys. Rev. D75, 036008 (2007)

2007
[23]

Golowich, J

E. Golowich, J. Hewett, S. Pakvasa and A. A. Petrov, Phys. Rev. D 76, 095009 (2007)

2007
[24]

Isidori, J

G. Isidori, J. F. Kamenik, Z. Ligeti and G. Perez, Phys. Lett. B 711, 46-51 (2012)

2012
[25]

Patel, R

V . Patel, R. Chaturvedi and A. K. Rai, [arXiv:2201.01120 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[26]

Devlani and A

N. Devlani and A. K. Rai, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 52, 2196-2208 (2013)

2013
[27]

V . Kher, N. Devlani and A. K. Rai, Chin. Phys. C41, no.7, 073101 (2017)

2017
[28]

Oudichhya and A

J. Oudichhya and A. K. Rai, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 39, no.28, 2443004 (2024)

2024
[29]

Godfrey and N

S. Godfrey and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. D 32, 189-231 (1985)

1985
[30]

R. H. Ni, Q. Li and X. H. Zhong, Phys. Rev. D 105, no.5, 056006 (2022)

2022
[31]

G. Moir, M. Peardon, S. M. Ryan, C. E. Thomas and D. J. Wilson, JHEP10, 011 (2016) May 29, 2025 1:8 document REFERENCES 29

2016
[32]

H. Y . Cheng and C. W. Chiang, Phys. Rev. D81, 074031 (2010)

2010
[33]

J. G. Korner and M. Kramer, Z. Phys. C 55, 659-670 (1992)

1992
[34]

Aubert et al

B. Aubert et al. [BaBar], Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 242001 (2003)

2003
[35]

Besson et al

D. Besson et al. [CLEO], Phys. Rev. D 68, 032002 (2003) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 75, 119908 (2007)]

2003
[36]

Krokovny et al

P. Krokovny et al. [Belle], Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 262002 (2003)

2003
[37]

Navas et al

S. Navas et al. [Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D 110, no.3, 030001 (2024)

2024
[38]

van Beveren and G

E. van Beveren and G. Rupp, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 202001 (2006)

2006
[39]

Aubert et al

B. Aubert et al. [BaBar], Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 222001 (2006)

2006
[40]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 162001 (2014)

2014
[41]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. D 94, no.7, 072001 (2016)

2016
[42]

J. M. Link et al. [FOCUS], Phys. Lett. B 586, 11-20 (2004)

2004
[43]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 242001 (2020)

2020
[44]

B. Wang, K. Chen, L. Meng and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 109, no.3, 034027 (2024)

2024
[45]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Nature Phys. 18, no.7, 751-754 (2022)

2022
[46]

A. Ali, L. Maiani and A. D. Polosa, Cambridge University Press, 2019, ISBN 978-1- 316-76146-5, 978-1-107-17158-9, 978-1-316-77419-9

2019
[47]

Y . K. Chen, J. J. Han, Q. F. Lü, J. P. Wang and F. S. Yu, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, no.1, 71 (2021)

2021
[48]

Z. G. Wang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 35, no.30, 2050187 (2020)

2020
[49]

S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi, B. Barsbay and H. Sundu, Eur. Phys. J. A 57, no.3, 106 (2021)

2021
[50]

Padmanath, C

M. Padmanath, C. B. Lang and S. Prelovsek, Phys. Rev. D 92, no.3, 034501 (2015)

2015
[51]

L. Meng, G. J. Wang, B. Wang and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 104, no.5, 051502 (2021)

2021
[52]

Fleming, R

S. Fleming, R. Hodges and T. Mehen, Phys. Rev. D 104, no.11, 116010 (2021)

2021
[53]

P. G. Ortega, J. Segovia, D. R. Entem and F. Fernandez, Phys. Rev. D94, no.7, 074037 (2016)

2016
[54]

Esposito, A

A. Esposito, A. Pilloni and A. D. Polosa, Phys. Rept. 668, 1-97 (2017)

2017
[55]

Y . R. Liu, H. X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 107, 237-320 (2019)

2019
[56]

Lodha and A

C. Lodha and A. K. Rai, [arXiv:2505.01195 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[57]

Lodha and A

C. Lodha and A. K. Rai, Indian J. Phys. (2024),

2024
[58]

Lodha and A

C. Lodha and A. K. Rai, Few Body Syst. 65, no.4, 99 (2024)

2024
[59]

Lodha and A

C. Lodha and A. K. Rai, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 139, no.7, 663 (2024)

2024
[60]

Lucha and F

W. Lucha and F. F. Schoberl,
[61]

Y . Koma, M. Koma and H. Wittig, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 122003 (2006)

2006
[62]

Foundations of Quantum Chromodynamics: An Introduction to Perturbative Methods in Gauge Theories, (3rd ed.),

T. Muta, “Foundations of Quantum Chromodynamics: An Introduction to Perturbative Methods in Gauge Theories, (3rd ed.),” World Scientific, 2010, ISBN 978-981-279-353-9

2010
[63]

Lucha, F

W. Lucha, F. F. Schoberl and D. Gromes, Phys. Rept. 200, 127-240 (1991)

1991
[64]

M. B. V oloshin, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 61, 455-511 (2008)

2008
[65]

V . R. Debastiani and F. S. Navarra, Chin. Phys. C43, no.1, 013105 (2019)

2019
[66]

Fredriksson, A theoretical study of the meson spectrum in the Bethe-Salpeter for- malism, Nucl

K. Fredriksson, A theoretical study of the meson spectrum in the Bethe-Salpeter for- malism, Nucl. Phys. B 186, 478-490 (1981)

1981
[67]

V . R. Debastiani, Espectroscopia do Todo-Charme Tetraquark, Master’s thesis, Insti- May 29, 2025 1:8 document 30 REFERENCES tuto de Física, Universidade de São Paulo, 2016

2025
[68]

R. N. Faustov, V . O. Galkin and E. M. Savchenko, Universe7, no.4, 94 (2021)

2021
[69]

J. K. Chen, X. Feng and J. Q. Xie, JHEP 10, 052 (2023)

2023
[70]

P. L. Yin, Z. F. Cui, C. D. Roberts and J. Segovia, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, no.4, 327 (2021)

2021
[71]

Y . M. Yu, H. W. Ke, Y . B. Ding, X. H. Guo, H. Y . Jin, X. Q. Li, P. N. Shen and G. L. Wang, Commun. Theor. Phys. 46, 1031-1039 (2006)

2006
[72]

Giannuzzi, Phys

F. Giannuzzi, Phys. Rev. D 99, no.9, 094006 (2019)

2019
[73]

L. X. Gutierrez-Guerrero, J. Alfaro and A. Raya, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 36, no.24, 2150171 (2021)

2021
[74]

Tiwari, J

R. Tiwari, J. Oudichhya and A. K. Rai, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 38, no.33n34, 2341007 (2023)

2023
[75]

R. T. Kleiv, T. G. Steele, A. Zhang and I. Blokland, Phys. Rev. D 87, no.12, 125018 (2013)

2013
[76]

de Oliveira, D

T. de Oliveira, D. Harnett, R. Kleiv, A. Palameta and T. G. Steele, Phys. Rev. D 108, no.5, 054036 (2023)

2023
[77]

Watanabe, Phys

K. Watanabe, Phys. Rev. D 105, no.7, 074510 (2022)

2022
[78]

J. D. Bjorken, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 11, 325-341 (1989)

1989
[79]

M. A. Shifman, Nucl. Phys. B 388, 346-362 (1992)

1992
[80]

R. N. Faustov, V . O. Galkin and X. W. Kang, Phys. Rev. D101, no.1, 013004 (2020)

2020
[81]

A. N. Kamal, A. B. Santra, T. Uppal and R. C. Verma, Phys. Rev. D 53, 2506-2515 (1996)

1996
[82]

Zhang, X

L. Zhang, X. W. Kang, X. H. Guo, L. Y . Dai, T. Luo and C. Wang, JHEP02, 179 (2021)

2021
[83]

Parmar and A.K

M. Parmar and A.K. Rai, Private communication
[84]

S. Y . Yu, X. W. Kang and V . O. Galkin, Front. Phys. (Beijing)18, no.6, 64301 (2023)

2023
[85]

Biswas, N

A. Biswas, N. Sinha and G. Abbas, Phys. Rev. D 92, no.1, 014032 (2015)

2015
[86]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], JHEP 09, 145 (2013)

2013
[87]

del Amo Sanchez et al

P. del Amo Sanchez et al. [BaBar], Phys. Rev. D 82, 111101 (2010)

2010
[88]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. D 101, no.3, 032005 (2020)

2020
[89]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. D 92, no.1, 012012 (2015)

2015
[90]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. D 92, no.3, 032002 (2015)

2015
[91]

Aubert et al

B. Aubert et al. [BaBar], Phys. Rev. D 79, 112004 (2009)

2009
[92]

Abe et al

K. Abe et al. [Belle], Phys. Rev. D 69, 112002 (2004)

2004
[93]

Ablikim et al

M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII], Phys. Lett. B 804, 135395 (2020)

2020
[94]

Abe et al

K. Abe et al. [Belle], Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 221805 (2005)

2005
[95]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. D 91, no.9, 092002 (2015) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 93, no.11, 119901 (2016)]

2015
[96]

Abreu et al

P. Abreu et al. [DELPHI], Phys. Lett. B 426, 231-242 (1998)

1998

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Gell-Mann, Phys

M. Gell-Mann, Phys. Lett. 8, 214-215 (1964)

1964

[2] [2]

Berwein, N

M. Berwein, N. Brambilla, A. Mohapatra and A. Vairo, Phys. Rev. D 110, no.9, 094040 (2024)

2024

[3] [3]

S. K. Choi et al. [Belle], Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 262001 (2003)

2003

[4] [4]

Chilikin et al

K. Chilikin et al. [Belle], Phys. Rev. D 90, no.11, 112009 (2014)

2014

[5] [5]

X. L. Wang et al. [Belle], Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 142002 (2007)

2007

[6] [6]

Aaltonen et al

T. Aaltonen et al. [CDF], Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 242002 (2009)

2009

[7] [7]

V . M. Abazov et al. [D0], Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, no.2, 022003 (2016)

2016

[8] [8]

Ablikim et al

M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII], Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 252001 (2013)

2013