Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Tensor Resonance in $J/\psi J/\psi$ Scattering from Lattice QCD

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 This paper uses first-principles lattice QCD to show that the broad 6.2–6.7 GeV enhancement in the di-$J/\psi$ spectrum is a genuine $2^{++}$ tensor resonance, with pole at $\sqrt{s_R} = (6.543(10) - i\,0.274(17))$ GeV, matching the…

desk verdict First lattice QCD scattering amplitudes for J/psi J/psi with a 2++ resonance candidate at 6.54 GeV; the pole is plausible but rests on a linear K-matrix that needs a systematic robustness check. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.24213 v1 pith:GCIL45HH submitted 2025-05-30 hep-lat

Geng Li , Chunjiang Shi , Ying Chen , Wei Sun This is my paper
classification hep-lat
keywords latticeQCDJ/psiscatteringfully-charmedtetraquarkX(6600)tensorresonanceLüscherformalismquarkrearrangementvirtualboundstate
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 uses lattice QCD, a first-principles method, to compute $J/\psi J/\psi$ scattering in the channels that feed the di-$J/\psi$ mass spectra seen at the LHC. It finds a virtual bound state just below threshold in the $0^{++}$ channel, a candidate for $X(6200)$, and a resonance in the ${}^5S_2$ channel with $J^{PC}=2^{++}$, mass around 6.54 GeV and width about 0.55 GeV, nearly independent of the sea pion mass. The authors identify this resonance with the $X(6600)$/$X(6400)$ structure reported by ATLAS and CMS, arguing that the broad enhancement between 6.2 and 6.7 GeV is a real tensor state produced by $J/\psi J/\psi$ interactions rather than a production artifact. If correct, the result fixes the quantum numbers of this state from first principles and ties a lattice QCD prediction directly to the observed fully-charmed tetraquark candidates.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by finite-volume lattice QCD energies: correlation functions computed with the distillation method on anisotropic $N_f=2$ lattices at two volumes and two pion masses give the discrete spectrum of the $J/\psi J/\psi$ system in a box. The L\"uscher quantization condition converts those finite-volume energies into infinite-volume scattering phase shifts. For the ${}^5S_2$ channel the authors then assume a $K$-matrix that is linear in $s$, $K(s) = a s + b$, fit it to the phase-shift data up to $s \approx 43$ GeV$^2$ while excluding the highest $\approx 6.7$ GeV level, and locate the resonance by solving the pole equation $1 - i\rho(s)K(s) = 0$. The quark-rearrangement spin rules, summarized in Eq. (7), provide the dynamical explanation for why the two channels have opposite signs of the interaction near threshold.

What would settle it

Repeat the lattice analysis as a coupled-channel problem that includes $\eta_c\eta_c$ explicitly and also includes the $\approx 6.7$ GeV finite-volume level in the fit; if the 6.54 GeV pole moves outside the 6.2–6.7 GeV region or disappears, the single-channel linear-$K$ claim is refuted. A physical-pion-mass calculation with more volumes should also reproduce the pole within errors.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the ${}^5S_2$ ($J^{PC}=2^{++}$) $J/\psi J/\psi$ scattering amplitude has a resonance pole at $\sqrt{s_R} = (6.543(10) - i\,0.274(17))$ GeV for $m_\pi \approx 420$ MeV and $\sqrt{s_R} = (6.538(13) - i\,0.269(28))$ GeV for $m_\pi \approx 250$ MeV, corresponding to a mass $m_R \approx 6.54$ GeV and width $\Gamma_R \approx 0.54$ GeV. The authors identify this pole with the $X(6600)$ or $X(6400)$ broad structure observed by ATLAS and CMS, and note that the $2^{++}$ assignment agrees with the recent CMS angular analysis. They also find a $0^{++}$ virtual state about 30–40 MeV below the $J/\psi J/\psi$ threshold, which they interpret as a candidate for $X(6200)$, favoring the virtual-state reading over a bound state or narrow resonance. The contrasted near-threshold behavior, attractive in $0^{++}$ and repulsive in $2^{++}$, is traced to a quark-rearrangement mechanism whose spin-overlap ratio between the two channels is approximately $-2$.

Load-bearing premise

The central result assumes that $J/\psi J/\psi$ does not mix with $\eta_c\eta_c$ and that the $K$-matrix is exactly linear up to about 6.5 GeV, while the highest $\approx 6.7$ GeV lattice level is excluded from the fit; if any of these choices is wrong, the 6.54 GeV pole could be an artifact of the parametrization.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 6.2–6.7 GeV broad enhancement in the di-$J/\psi$ spectrum is a genuine $2^{++}$ resonance rather than a threshold or production effect.
  • If confirmed, $X(6200)$ is most plausibly a $0^{++}$ virtual state just below the $J/\psi J/\psi$ threshold, not a bound state or a narrow resonance.
  • The near independence of the resonance mass and width on the sea pion mass indicates that its dynamics is dominated by charm quarks, consistent with a predominantly fully-charmed tetraquark interpretation.
  • Lattice QCD can determine the quantum numbers of the $X$ states from first principles, giving experimental angular analyses of $X(6600)$ a concrete $2^{++}$ target.
  • The quark-rearrangement mechanism offers a concrete dynamical picture of why the $0^{++}$ and $2^{++}$ $J/\psi J/\psi$ interactions differ, a pattern that can be tested in other charmonium-pair channels.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the $2^{++}$ assignment survives, the ATLAS readings of $X(6400)$ and $X(6600)$ are likely two parametrizations of the same pole rather than two separate states.
  • The CDD zero in $K(s)$ at $\sqrt{s_0} \approx 6.454$ GeV may be the footprint of a compact $2^{++}$ state; extending the analysis to the $J/\psi\psi(2S)$ channel would show whether this zero evolves into a second pole.
  • A coupled-channel lattice calculation that includes $\eta_c\eta_c$ explicitly, and eventually $J/\psi\psi(2S)$, would test how robust the 6.54 GeV pole is and could predict the position of $X(6900)$ in the same framework.
  • The $0^{++}$ virtual state implies a threshold enhancement rather than a peak, so experimental searches for $X(6200)$ should look for cusp-like signals in spin-0 $J/\psi J/\psi$ near threshold rather than a narrow resonance.
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. This manuscript presents a lattice QCD study of S-wave J/psi J/psi scattering in the 0++ (1S0) and 2++ (5S2) channels using Nf=2 anisotropic ensembles at two pion masses (approximately 420 and 250 MeV) and two spatial volumes. The authors extract phase shifts via the Luscher formalism and find a near-threshold attractive interaction in the 1S0 channel, yielding a virtual bound state 30-40 MeV below the di-J/psi threshold, and a repulsive interaction in the 5S2 channel. Fitting the 5S2 K-matrix as a linear function of s and continuing to the complex plane, they obtain a resonance pole at sqrt(s_R) = (6.543(10) - i0.274(17)) GeV at m_pi ~ 420 MeV, with a consistent result at 250 MeV, and identify this state with the X(6600)/X(6400) structures seen by ATLAS and CMS, assigning J^PC = 2++. The paper also proposes a quark-rearrangement spin-factor argument, Q(5S2)/Q(1S0) ~ -2, to explain the opposite signs of the near-threshold interactions in the two channels.

Significance. If correct, this is the first lattice QCD determination of a tensor resonance in J/psi J/psi scattering, providing strong evidence that the broad di-J/psi enhancement between 6.2 and 6.7 GeV is a genuine 2++ state rather than a production artifact. The paper also offers a simple dynamical mechanism, quark rearrangement, for the channel-dependent behavior near threshold, and the extracted 1S0 virtual bound state is a concrete prediction for X(6200) searches. The calculation has notable strengths: two volumes, two pion masses, good chi2/dof values for the fits, and a pole position that is stable across pion masses. The main risk is that the central resonance claim rests on a model-dependent analytic continuation of a single-channel K-matrix fit, with systematic uncertainties from the K-matrix form, the excluded highest level, residual coupled-channel effects, and the single lattice spacing not yet quantified.

major comments (3)
  1. [Scattering analysis, Eq. (5), Table I] The central resonance claim rests on the analytic continuation of the linear K-matrix K(s) = a s + b fitted to real-axis data up to s ~ 43 GeV^2, while the pole is found at sqrt(s_R) = 6.543(10) - i0.274(17) GeV, corresponding to Im(s_R) ~ -3.6 GeV^2. The fit excludes the highest finite-volume level near 6.7 GeV (note after Eq. (5)), and no alternative parameterization of K(s) or fit including the excluded level is presented. Since the pole position and even its existence can change under such variations, the quoted uncertainties in Table I omit the dominant model systematic. A robustness test, for example a K-matrix with a pole term or a quadratic term and a fit including the excluded level, is needed before the claimed agreement with X(6600)/X(6400) can be considered established.
  2. [Finite volume energies and Scattering analysis] The analysis uses a single lattice spacing, a_s ~ 0.136 fm, and therefore no continuum extrapolation is performed. The phase shifts and the derived pole position are subject to unquantified lattice-spacing artifacts; two volumes and two pion masses do not constrain discretization effects. Since the manuscript compares the resonance mass and width directly with experimental values, an estimate of systematic uncertainty from the finite lattice spacing, or a clear statement that the continuum limit has not yet been taken, is required for the quantitative claim.
  3. [Scattering analysis, first paragraph] The single-channel analysis is justified by the statement that the eta_c eta_c and J/psi J/psi channels are 'nearly decoupled' as shown in the companion paper [31], and the highest level is excluded because of higher-channel contamination. Because the resonance pole lies above the eta_c eta_c threshold and the excluded level is close to the resonance region, this decoupling assumption is load-bearing. The manuscript should either include the quantitative decoupling measure from [31] or provide a direct check that a small eta_c eta_c coupling does not move the pole by more than the quoted uncertainties.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Summary] In the Summary section, '0S1' appears to be a typo and should read '1S0'.
  2. [Throughout] 'Notable' is used where 'Notably' is meant, and 'paramterize' should be 'parameterize'.
  3. [Figure 4 and surrounding text] Please clarify how the shift of the Re(sqrt(s)) axis by 2 m_J/psi accounts for the lattice m_J/psi being 10-15 MeV lower than the physical value, and whether the experimental pole positions are shifted in the same way.
  4. [Introduction and comparison with experiments] The phrase 'X(6600) (or X(6400))' conflates different experimental parametrizations; a brief sentence identifying which ATLAS or CMS model each number refers to would improve readability.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Single-channel decoupling and FVE-reliability choices are delegated to the same-authors companion paper, and the FVE 'predictions' are a consistency check of the fitted amplitude; the resonance pole itself still has independent content.

  1. self citation load bearing [Introduction and Scattering analysis (before Eq. (4), and note after Eq. (5))]
    "Furthermore, a detailed companion study [31] shows that the ηcηc and J/ψJ/ψ systems are nearly decoupled in each channel, justifying a focus on single-channel J/ψJ/ψ scattering."

    The single-channel analysis that produces the 5S2 phase shifts and hence the resonance pole is valid only if the ηcηc and J/ψJ/ψ channels decouple. That premise is not demonstrated in this paper; it is referred to the same-authors companion paper [31]. The same companion paper is also cited to justify excluding the highest finite-volume energy level near 6.7 GeV from the K(s)=as+b fit, a choice that directly shapes the fitted amplitude and the resulting pole. The central extraction therefore rests on an unverified same-author citation for a load-bearing assumption, even though the pole itself is not defined by that citation.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Scattering analysis, paragraph after Eq. (5); Fig. 1 caption]
    "With these parameters and the consequent t(s), one can perform a cross-check by reproducing FVEs through Eq. (2) and Eq. (4), which are shown as green bands in Fig. 1. It is seen that the theoretical predictions from t(s) agree well with the numerical data up to 6.6 GeV on L12 and 6.3 GeV on L16 (The reason why higher FVEs are considered unreliable has been discussed in detail in the accompanying article [31])."

    The parameters a and b in K(s)=as+b are fit to k cotδ0 values extracted from exactly these finite-volume energies via the Lüscher quantization condition Eq. (3). Reproducing the FVEs with the fitted amplitude is therefore a rearrangement of the fitting residuals, not an independent prediction: the green bands are generated from the same data that defined the fit, so the agreement within the fitted energy range is forced. Calling this a 'theoretical prediction' overstates the independence, though it is presented only as a cross-check rather than as evidence for the resonance.

full rationale

The central claim—a 5S2 J/ψJ/ψ resonance near (6.54−0.27i) GeV—is not definitionally circular: the pole is obtained by analytic continuation of a K-matrix fit to lattice-determined FVEs, and no fitted parameter is renamed as the resonance. The comparison with ATLAS/CMS pole positions is posterior, not a constraint. However, two steps weaken the paper's independence. First, the single-channel decoupling premise and the exclusion of the highest FVE are justified only by the same-authors companion paper [31], making a load-bearing assumption self-citational and unverified within the paper. Second, the 'theoretical predictions' of FVEs from the fitted amplitude are a consistency check of the same data, not an independent prediction. These issues do not reduce the pole to a tautology—the continuation and pole search remain nontrivial—so a score of 4 is appropriate: some self-citation and one mild by-construction 'prediction', while the core lattice determination retains independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central resonance and virtual-state poles are analytic continuations of the fitted scattering amplitude, not newly postulated particles; no new degrees of freedom are introduced. The load-bearing input that the reader does not pay for upstream is the single-channel framework: the decoupling assumption and the linear K-matrix ansatz, plus the fitted parameters a, b, a0, r0.

free parameters (8)
  • K-matrix slope a (5S2, M420) = 1.45(12) GeV^-2
    Slope of the linear K(s) = a s + b fit to the 5S2 lattice phase shifts at m_pi ~ 420 MeV; the resonance pole is derived from the fitted a and b.
  • K-matrix intercept b (5S2, M420) = -60.4(4.9)
    Intercept of the linear K(s) fit at m_pi ~ 420 MeV.
  • K-matrix slope a (5S2, M250) = 1.48(20) GeV^-2
    Slope of the linear K(s) fit at m_pi ~ 250 MeV.
  • K-matrix intercept b (5S2, M250) = -61.6(8.4)
    Intercept of the linear K(s) fit at m_pi ~ 250 MeV.
  • ERE scattering length a0 (1S0, M420) = 0.25(7) fm
    Effective range expansion parameter for the 1S0 channel at m_pi ~ 420 MeV, fitted to k cot(delta0).
  • ERE effective range r0 (1S0, M420) = 2.31(33) fm
    Second ERE parameter at m_pi ~ 420 MeV.
  • ERE scattering length a0 (1S0, M250) = 0.20(8) fm
    Effective range expansion parameter at m_pi ~ 250 MeV.
  • ERE effective range r0 (1S0, M250) = 2.14(41) fm
    Second ERE parameter at m_pi ~ 250 MeV.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Luescher quantization condition relating finite-volume energies to infinite-volume scattering phase shifts
    Used to convert the lattice FVEs in Fig. 1 into the k cot(delta0) values in Figs. 2 and 3.
  • domain assumption eta_c eta_c and J/psi J/psi are nearly decoupled in the 0++ and 2++ channels
    Justifies the single-channel analysis; established only in the same-group companion paper [31], not demonstrated in this letter.
  • domain assumption Charm-anticharm annihilation has negligible impact on the J/psi J/psi correlation functions
    Invoked to restrict the operator basis to meson-meson operators; asserted via Ref [31].
  • ad hoc to paper The K-matrix K(s) is linear in s over the fitted range up to s ~ 43 GeV^2
    Motivated by the approximate linear behavior of the lattice points in the middle row of Fig. 3; the resonance pole is a consequence of this parameterization.
  • domain assumption Quark rearrangement rules of Eq. (7): spin configurations transform as listed, with the exchanged charm quarks preserving spin orientation
    Used to derive the ratio r_QR approximately -2; the rules are asserted rather than derived from QCD.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tensor Resonance in $J/\psi J/\psi$ Scattering from Lattice QCD." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GCIL45HH

@misc{pith2026250524213,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tensor Resonance in $J/\psi J/\psi$ Scattering from Lattice QCD},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GCIL45HH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.24213}
}
abstract

The $S$-wave scattering amplitudes of $J/\psi J/\psi$ with quantum numbers $J^{PC} = 0^{++}$ and $2^{++}$ are determined up to 6600\,MeV using lattice QCD calculations at $m_\pi \approx 420$ and 250\,MeV. The ${}^1S_0$ $J/\psi J/\psi$ system exhibits a near-threshold attractive interaction, resulting in a virtual bound state with a binding energy of approximately 30-40\,MeV. In contrast, the ${}^5S_2$ $J/\psi J/\psi$ system exhibits a repulsive interaction near threshold. These behaviors are primarily dominated by the quark rearrangement effect. Most notably, a resonance is observed in the ${}^5S_2$ $J/\psi J/\psi$ channel, with a mass around 6540\,MeV and a width of approximately 540\,MeV. The extracted mass and width are consistent with the $X(6600)$ (or $X(6400)$) observed by the ATLAS and CMS collaborations, and show little dependence on the sea pion mass.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.24213 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. presents the computed FVEs (data points) of the S-wave J/ψJ/ψ scattering in 0++ and 2++ chan￾nels at mπ ≈ 420 MeV, where the dashed lines stand for the non-interacting di-J/ψ energies E (0) n (FVEs at mπ ≈ 250 MeV have the similar feature). It can be ob￾served that, although FVEs are close to the correspond￾ing E (0) n values, the deviations remain non-negligible. Scattering analysis.— Since J/ψJ/ψ and ηcηc channels… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. , K(s) (and thereby t(s) in Eq. (4)) has a zero point at s0 = −b/a, which corresponds √ s0 = 6.454(11) GeV and 6.454(15) GeV at mπ ≈ 420 MeV and 250 MeV, re￾spectively. The bottom row of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Pole positions in the complex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

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

  1. Next-to-leading order QCD corrections to electromagnetic production and decay of fully charm tetraquarks

    hep-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The first NLO QCD corrections to fully charm tetraquark → γγ decay are given, with photon-fusion production cross sections predicted.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [31]

    G. Li, C. Shi, Y. Chen, and W. Sun, ηcηc and J/ψJ/ψ scatterings from lattice QCD (2025), arXiv:2505.23220 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    Navas et al.(Particle Data Group), Review of particle physics, Phys

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

    2024

  3. [2]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Observation of structure in the J/ψ -pair mass spectrum, Sci. Bull. 65, 1983 (2020), arXiv:2006.16957 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2020

  4. [3]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Observation of an Excess of Dicharmonium Events in the Four-Muon Final State with the ATLAS Detector, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 151902 (2023), arXiv:2304.08962 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2023

  5. [4]

    Hayrapetyan et al

    A. Hayrapetyan et al. (CMS), New Structures in the J/ψ J/ψ Mass Spectrum in Proton-Proton Collisions at s = 13 TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 111901 (2024), arXiv:2306.07164 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2024

  6. [5]

    New Structures in the $J/\psi$ $J/\psi$ Mass Spectrum at CMS

    X. Wang and K. Yi, New Structures in theJ/ψ J/ψMass Spectrum at CMS, in 22nd Conference on Flavor Physics and CP Violation(2024) arXiv:2408.04722 [hep-ex]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  7. [6]

    X.-K. Dong, V. Baru, F.-K. Guo, C. Hanhart, and A. Nefediev, Coupled-Channel Interpretation of the LHCb Double- J/ψ Spectrum and Hints of a New State Near the J/ψJ/ψ Threshold, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 132001 (2021), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 127, 119901 (2021)], arXiv:2009.07795 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  8. [7]

    Y.-L. Song, Y. Zhang, V. Baru, F.-K. Guo, C. Hanhart, and A. Nefediev, Toward a precision determination of the X(6200) parameters from data, Phys. Rev. D 111, 034038 (2025), arXiv:2411.12062 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

Show all 50 references
  1. [8]

    Observation of a family of all-charm tetraquark candi- dates at the LHC (2025)

    2025

  2. [9]

    Spin and symmetry properties of all-charm tetraquarks (2025)

    2025

  3. [10]

    Iwasaki, A Possible Model for New Resonances- Exotics and Hidden Charm, Prog

    Y. Iwasaki, A Possible Model for New Resonances- Exotics and Hidden Charm, Prog. Theor. Phys. 54, 492 (1975)

    1975

  4. [11]

    Chao, The (cc) - ( ¯ cc) (Diquark - Anti-Diquark) States in e+e− Annihilation, Z

    K.-T. Chao, The (cc) - ( ¯ cc) (Diquark - Anti-Diquark) States in e+e− Annihilation, Z. Phys. C 7, 317 (1981)

    1981

  5. [12]

    J. P. Ader, J. M. Richard, and P. Taxil, DO NARROW HEA VY MULTI - QUARK STATES EXIST?, Phys. Rev. D 25, 2370 (1982)

    1982

  6. [13]

    Li and K.-F

    B.-A. Li and K.-F. Liu, J/ψ Pair Production in Hadronic Collisions, Phys. Rev. D 29, 426 (1984)

    1984

  7. [14]

    Heller and J

    L. Heller and J. A. Tjon, On Bound States of Heavy Q2 ¯Q2 Systems, Phys. Rev. D 32, 755 (1985)

    1985

  8. [15]

    A. M. Badalian, B. L. Ioffe, and A. V. Smilga, FOUR QUARK STATES IN THE HEA VY QUARK SYSTEM, Nucl. Phys. B 281, 85 (1987)

    1987

  9. [16]

    Chen, H.-X

    W. Chen, H.-X. Chen, X. Liu, T. G. Steele, and S.-L. Zhu, Hunting for exotic doubly hidden-charm/bottom tetraquark states, Phys. Lett. B 773, 247 (2017), arXiv:1605.01647 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Wu, Y.-K

    W.-L. Wu, Y.-K. Chen, L. Meng, and S.-L. Zhu, Bench- mark calculations of fully heavy compact and molecu- lar tetraquark states, Phys. Rev. D 109, 054034 (2024), arXiv:2401.14899 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Guo and J

    Z.-H. Guo and J. A. Oller, Insights into the inner struc- tures of the fully charmed tetraquark state X(6900), Phys. Rev. D 103, 034024 (2021), arXiv:2011.00978 [hep- ph]

    2021 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Liu, F.-X

    M.-S. Liu, F.-X. Liu, X.-H. Zhong, and Q. Zhao, 6 Fully heavy tetraquark states and their evidences in LHC observations, Phys. Rev. D 109, 076017 (2024), arXiv:2006.11952 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [20]

    H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, and S.-L. Zhu, Strong decays of fully-charm tetraquarks into di-charmonia, Sci. Bull. 65, 1994 (2020), arXiv:2006.16027 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Maiani, J/ψ-pair resonance by LHCb: a new revolu- tion?, Sci

    L. Maiani, J/ψ-pair resonance by LHCb: a new revolu- tion?, Sci. Bull. 65, 1949 (2020), arXiv:2008.01637 [hep- ph]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Chao and S.-L

    K.-T. Chao and S.-L. Zhu, The possible tetraquark states cc¯c¯c observed by the LHCb experiment, Sci. Bull. 65, 1952 (2020), arXiv:2008.07670 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Kuang, Q

    S.-Q. Kuang, Q. Zhou, D. Guo, Q.-H. Yang, and L.-Y. Dai, Study of X(6900) with unitarized coupled channel scattering amplitudes, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 383 (2023), arXiv:2302.03968 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [24]

    P. Niu, Z. Zhang, Q. Wang, and M.-L. Du, The third peak structure in the double J/ψ spectrum, Sci. Bull. 68, 800 (2023), arXiv:2212.06535 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Liu, M.-S

    F.-X. Liu, M.-S. Liu, X.-H. Zhong, and Q. Zhao, Higher mass spectra of the fully-charmed and fully- bottom tetraquarks, Phys. Rev. D 104, 116029 (2021), arXiv:2110.09052 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  19. [26]

    X.-K. Dong, V. Baru, F.-K. Guo, C. Hanhart, A. Nefediev, and B.-S. Zou, Is the existence of a J/ ψJ/ψ bound state plausible?, Sci. Bull. 66, 2462 (2021), arXiv:2107.03946 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Gong, M.-C

    C. Gong, M.-C. Du, Q. Zhao, X.-H. Zhong, and B. Zhou, Nature of X(6900) and its production mech- anism at LHCb, Phys. Lett. B 824, 136794 (2022), arXiv:2011.11374 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Huang, R

    Q. Huang, R. Chen, J. He, and X. Liu, Discovering a Novel Dynamics Mechanism for Charmonium Scattering (2024), arXiv:2407.16316 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Zhang and F.-K

    Z.-H. Zhang and F.-K. Guo, Classification of Coupled-Channel Near-Threshold Structures (2024), arXiv:2407.10620 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [30]

    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]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    L¨ uscher, Volume dependence of the energy spectrum in massive quantum field theories

    M. L¨ uscher, Volume dependence of the energy spectrum in massive quantum field theories. II. Scattering states, Commun. Math. Phys. 105, 153 (1986)

    1986

  25. [33]

    L¨ uscher, Two-particle states on a torus and their re- lation to the scattering matrix, Nucl

    M. L¨ uscher, Two-particle states on a torus and their re- lation to the scattering matrix, Nucl. Phys. B 354, 531 (1991)

    1991

  26. [34]

    L¨ uscher, Signatures of unstable particles in finite vol- ume, Nucl

    M. L¨ uscher, Signatures of unstable particles in finite vol- ume, Nucl. Phys. B 364, 237 (1991)

    1991

  27. [35]

    H. Li, C. Shi, Y. Chen, M. Gong, J. Liang, Z. Liu, and W. Sun, X(3872) Relevant D ¯D∗ Scattering in Nf = 2 Lattice QCD (2024), arXiv:2402.14541 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Peardon, J

    M. Peardon, J. Bulava, J. Foley, C. Morningstar, J. Dudek, R. G. Edwards, B. Joo, H.-W. Lin, D. G. Richards, and K. J. Juge (Hadron Spectrum), Novel quark-field creation operator construction for hadronic physics in lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 80, 054506 (2009), arXiv:0905.2160 ...

    2009 arXiv

  29. [37]

    G. K. C. Cheung, C. E. Thomas, J. J. Dudek, and R. G. Edwards (Hadron Spectrum), Tetraquark operators in lattice QCD and exotic flavour states in the charm sector, JHEP 11, 033, arXiv:1709.01417 [hep-lat]

    arXiv

  30. [38]

    Y. Meng, C. Liu, X.-Y. Tuo, H. Yan, and Z. Zhang, Lat- tice calculation of the ηcηc and J/ψJ/ψ s-wave scattering length (2024), arXiv:2411.11533 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Castillejo, R

    L. Castillejo, R. H. Dalitz, and F. J. Dyson, Low’s scat- tering equation for the charged and neutral scalar theo- ries, Phys. Rev. 101, 453 (1956)

    1956

  32. [40]

    F. J. Dyson, Meaning of the solutions of Low’s scattering equation, Phys. Rev. 106, 157 (1957)

    1957

  33. [41]

    M. I. Krivoruchenko, Remarks on the origin of Castillejo- Dalitz-Dyson poles, Phys. Rev. C 82, 018201 (2010), arXiv:1001.1659 [nucl-th]

    2010 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Li, F.-K

    Y. Li, F.-K. Guo, J.-Y. Pang, and J.-J. Wu, Generaliza- tion of Weinberg’s compositeness relations, Phys. Rev. D 105, L071502 (2022), arXiv:2110.02766 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  35. [43]

    L¨ u, D.-Y

    Q.-F. L¨ u, D.-Y. Chen, and Y.-B. Dong, Masses of fully heavy tetraquarks QQ ¯Q ¯Q in an extended rela- tivized quark model, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 871 (2020), arXiv:2006.14445 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  36. [44]

    G.-J. Wang, L. Meng, M. Oka, and S.-L. Zhu, Higher fully charmed tetraquarks: Radial excitations and P-wave states, Phys. Rev. D 104, 036016 (2021), arXiv:2105.13109 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  37. [45]

    S. Chen, C. Shi, Y. Chen, M. Gong, Z. Liu, W. Sun, and R. Zhang, Tcc+(3875) relevant DD∗ scattering from Nf=2 lattice QCD, Phys. Lett. B 833, 137391 (2022), arXiv:2206.06185 [hep-lat]

    2022 arXiv

  38. [46]

    R. G. Edwards and B. Joo (SciDAC, LHPC, UKQCD), The Chroma software system for lattice QCD, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 140, 832 (2005), arXiv:hep- lat/0409003

    2005

  39. [47]

    M. A. Clark, R. Babich, K. Barros, R. C. Brower, and C. Rebbi, Solving Lattice QCD systems of equations us- ing mixed precision solvers on GPUs, Comput. Phys. Commun. 181, 1517 (2010), arXiv:0911.3191 [hep-lat]

    2010 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Babich, M

    R. Babich, M. A. Clark, B. Joo, G. Shi, R. C. Brower, and S. Gottlieb (QUDA), Scaling lattice QCD beyond 100 GPUs, in International Conference for High Per- formance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis (2011) arXiv:1109.2935 [hep-lat]

    2011 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Jiang, C

    X. Jiang, C. Shi, Y. Chen, M. Gong, and Y.-B. Yang, Use quda for lattice qcd calculation with python (2024), arXiv:2411.08461 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  42. [101]

    The Chroma software system [46], QUDA li- brary [47, 48], and PyQUDA package [49] are acknowl- edged. The computations were performed on the HPC clusters at the Institute of High Energy Physics (Bei- jing), China Spallation Neutron Source (Dongguan), and the ORISE computing en...

Pith tools

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