Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 5 cited by

Three top quarks could form a baryon, Ωttt, with a mass near 514 GeV and a binding energy near 4 GeV.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

The triple-top baryon Ωttt is predicted to have mass 513.58 GeV, binding energy 4.13 GeV, and a dominant W+W+W+bbb decay, with production cross sections too small to observe at near-future colliders.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection Honest potential-model estimate of a triple-top baryon, but the width-to-binding ratio makes the bound-state premise doubtful. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2508.19137 v2 pith:YUOXFW6S submitted 2025-08-26 hep-ph

Triple top baryon $\Omega_{ttt}$

Zi-Qi Zhu , Chang Xiong , Yu-Jie Zhang This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords triple-top baryonOmega_ttttop quark bound statestriply heavy baryonsvariational methodnon-relativistic Schrödinger equationtoponiummulti-top production
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 three top quarks can bind into a baryon, Ωttt, before the individual tops decay. Using a variational solution of the non-relativistic Schrödinger equation with a pairwise potential that includes QCD, QED, and Higgs exchange, it estimates the mass at 513.58 GeV and the binding energy at about 4.13 GeV. The state would have spin-parity 3/2+ and decay almost entirely to W+W+W+bbb. Its production cross sections at conceivable future colliders are found to be extremely small, so direct observation would require far more luminosity than any planned machine. The analysis sets a quantitative baseline that more precise methods, such as lattice QCD or effective field theory, could refine.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that three top quarks can form a ground-state baryon, Ωttt, with quantum numbers J^P = 3/2+, before their individual weak decays take over. Solving the non-relativistic Schrödinger equation variationally with a potential made of pairwise color-Coulomb attraction (−λ3/r with λ3 = 0.154), a linear confining term, a small QED repulsion, and a tiny Higgs attraction gives a binding energy of 4.13 ± 0.27 GeV and a mass of 513.58 ± 0.87(m_t) ± 0.23(λ3) GeV. The state is weakly coupled: its typical scale m_t v^2 ≈ 2.93 GeV sits well above Λ_QCD, and its mean inter-top distance is 0.016 fm. The total width is estimated as about three times the top-quark width, ≈3.93 GeV,

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a variational solution of the non-relativistic three-body Schrödinger equation. After removing the center-of-mass motion, the Hamiltonian is H = −∇²_{r1}/m_t − ∇²_{r2}/m_t − (∇_{r1}·∇_{r2})/m_t + V_ttt, with the potential approximated as a sum of pairwise interactions V_tt(r) = −λ3/r + σr + 4α/(9r) − (m_t²/(4πv²)) e^{−m_H r}/r. The trial wave function is a symmetrized product of hydrogen-like exponentials f(r) = Λ^{3/2}/√π e^{−Λr}, and the energy expectation E(Λ) is minimized to fix Λ = 20.6 GeV. This single variational parameter carries the mass prediction: the kinetic term gives ⟨T⟩ = 4.40 GeV, ⟨m_t v²⟩ = 2.93 GeV, ⟨r_tt⟩ = 1/12.6 GeV, and ψ(0,0) = 3093 GeV³, which

Load-bearing premise

The three top quarks must bind into a resonance before they decay; with the computed total width 3.93 GeV nearly equal to the binding energy 4.13 GeV, the state is only marginally bound, and if hadronization is slower than top decay the whole prediction collapses.

What would settle it

Compute the decay width of the variational Ωttt state with the top-quark width included in the Hamiltonian; a width larger than roughly 4.1 GeV means no bound resonance exists. Experimentally, a search for a 514 GeV invariant-mass peak in the W+W+W+bbb final state at a 100 TeV proton-proton collider—if enough luminosity could ever be accumulated—would settle the existence question directly.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • A 514 GeV, J^P = 3/2+ baryon made of three top quarks is predicted to exist as a weakly coupled state, with m_t v² ≈ 2.93 GeV well above Λ_QCD.
  • Its dominant decay is Ωttt → W+W+W+bbb, with total width ≈ 3Γ_t = 3.93 GeV, so the visible signature is three b-jets plus three reconstructed W bosons peaked near 514 GeV.
  • Rare transition to the triply-bottom baryon Ωbbb plus three W's has branching ratio ~ m_b^6/m_t^6 ~ 10^-9.
  • At proton-proton colliders the leading-order production cross sections are 1.7×10^-7 fb at 100 TeV and 1.7×10^-2 fb at 10^4 TeV, far below what any currently planned machine and luminosity could deliver.
  • The method reproduces the Ωccc production cross section at the LHC within a factor of two, supporting the order-of-magnitude reliability of the production estimate.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct corollary the authors do not spell out: the computed width (3.93 GeV) and binding energy (4.13 GeV) are within 0.2 GeV of each other, so the state sits at the edge of resonance existence; a fuller treatment with the top width folded into the Hamiltonian could tip it into unbound territory.
  • The clean three-W plus three-b final state separates the search strategy from the highly uncertain production-rate prediction: an invariant-mass scan near 514 GeV in six-top-like final states is the decisive experimental test.
  • The same variational wave function and production formula should transfer to four-top and fully-heavy tetraquark systems, where only the color factor and combinatoric factor change; the authors' Ωccc validation suggests the order-of-magnitude scaling survives.
  • Given the tiny direct cross sections, if Ωttt is ever observed it would likely come from rare cascade decays of heavier multiquark states or from beyond-Standard-Model top-rich processes, not from direct QCD production.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the hypothetical triple-top baryon Omega_ttt. It uses a non-relativistic variational calculation with a pairwise QCD+QED+Higgs potential and a hydrogen-like trial wavefunction, obtaining a mass of 513.58 GeV, a binding energy of 4.13 GeV, J^P = 3/2^+, and an average top-top separation of 0.016 fm. It also estimates production cross sections at hadron and lepton colliders, finding extremely small values, and identifies the dominant decay as Omega_ttt -> W^+ W^+ W^+ bbb, with a total width of about 3.93 GeV.

Significance. The paper addresses a genuinely novel three-top system and provides a concrete, checkable variational estimate. Its strengths include an explicit Hamiltonian and energy functional, internal consistency of the quoted mass and binding energy, and a validation of the cross-section approximation against Omega_ccc production. If the quasi-bound-state assumption could be justified quantitatively, the paper would serve as a useful baseline for future lattice or EFT studies of triply-heavy baryons. The main risk is that the computed total width is comparable to the binding energy, which undermines the interpretation of the variational result as a physical resonance.

major comments (3)
  1. [§I and §IV, Eqs. (14), (17), (23)] The central claim that Omega_ttt is a quasi-bound state is not established by the paper's own numbers. The total width is estimated as Gamma_total ≈ 3.93 GeV, while the binding energy is |E| = 4.13 GeV and the soft scale is m_t v^2 = 2.93 GeV. A weakly coupled quasi-bound state in pNRQCD requires Gamma << m_t v^2; here Gamma exceeds it. The Introduction asserts that the hadronization timescale remains shorter than the top lifetime, citing Refs. [38-40], but no quantitative estimate for the three-body system is provided. Since the potential between top quarks is weaker than in toponium, the formation time is longer, not automatically shorter. If the pole width is not small compared with the binding, the variational mass cannot be interpreted as a resonance separated from the ttt continuum, and the production cross sections in Eqs. (20)-(22) lose their physical meaning. Please provide a qu
  2. [§II, Eqs. (10) and (17)] E_Higgs is stated to be 'small and not shown explicitly.' Since the final binding energy is quoted as -4.13 ± 0.27 GeV and includes a -0.115 GeV Higgs contribution, the explicit expression is required for reproducibility. Without it, a reader cannot verify the sign or magnitude, and the uncertainty estimate is incomplete. Please provide the analytic E_Higgs(Λ) expression or a numerical decomposition of all contributions at the minimum.
  3. [§III, Eqs. (20)-(22), Figs. 3-4] The production estimates are not fully reproducible. The input six-top cross section σ(pp -> 3t tbar) is not stated, the scale/PDF uncertainty bands are described only by multiplicative factors, and the statement that 'Electroweak and Higgs contributions are included too' is not accompanied by a specification of the calculation. Since production is one of the paper's quantitative outputs, please define the setup (order, scales, PDF set, phase-space cuts) and give the input cross-section values used in Eq. (20).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and §I] The phrase 'the only baryon that is governed by ultraviolet freedom' is unclear; presumably 'asymptotic freedom' is intended. Please reword.
  2. [§II, Eq. (12)] The notation 'inverse Bohr radius of toponium (1/26.7 GeV)' is ambiguous: 1/26.7 GeV is a length, not an inverse length. Clarify whether the Bohr radius is 1/(26.7 GeV) and the inverse is 26.7 GeV.
  3. [§IV, Eq. (26)] The branching-ratio estimate Br ~ m_b^6/m_t^6 ignores phase-space and wavefunction-overlap effects. If intended only as an order-of-magnitude estimate, state this explicitly.
  4. [References] Reference [2] is incomplete (no journal, volume, or arXiv identifier). Some other entries, e.g. [38-40], are arXiv preprints; please indicate peer-reviewed status where applicable.
  5. [Figs. 3 and 4] The error-band prescriptions (factor 1/4 to 4 and 1/3 to 3) are not derived. Please specify the source of these uncertainties or remove the bands if they are purely illustrative.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the Ω_ttt mass is a variational output from fixed inputs; self-citations supply parameters but do not presuppose the result.

full rationale

The paper's central result, m(Ω_ttt)=513.58 GeV with binding energy −4.13 GeV (Eqs. 17–18), is obtained by minimizing E(Λ) (Eq. 10) with respect to the single variational parameter Λ (Eqs. 11–12). The potential parameters in Eq. (7) (λ3=0.154±0.005, σ=0.206 GeV^2, α, v, m_H) are fixed inputs taken from QED, the Higgs sector, and previous toponium analyses [18,38,39]; none is fitted to the Ω_ttt mass, which is the output. The ansatz of Eq. (8) is explicitly attributed to Ref. [18], an external variational study of triply heavy baryons, so no ansatz is smuggled in. The production estimate Eq. (20) uses the same variational wavefunction but is checked against an external Ω_ccc cross-section result [57], giving an order-of-magnitude validation. The main self-citations [38–40] supply the toponium Coulomb coefficient and the argument that toponium/multi-top systems can hadronize before the top quark decays. While this formation-timescale premise is load-bearing for the physical existence of Ω_ttt and is asserted rather than re-derived here (a correctness risk amplified by the paper's own numbers Γ_total≈3.93 GeV vs. |E|≈4.13 GeV), it is not circular: the cited works do not use the Ω_ttt mass or the present calculation, and the cited toponium observation [1,2] is external experimental input. No equation in the paper reduces, by construction or by fitting, to the predicted mass or cross sections.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on a non-relativistic potential model with parameters taken from prior fits, and on the assumption that a bound state forms within the top lifetime. The variational parameter Λ = 20.6 GeV is determined by minimization, so it is not a free fit to the mass, but the model inputs themselves are external.

free parameters (2)
  • λ3 = 0.154 ± 0.005
    Color-triplet Coulomb coefficient, taken from Refs [38,39] (the authors' own toponium model); the mass error budget includes ±0.23 GeV from its variation.
  • σ = 0.206 GeV^2
    String tension for the linear confinement term; contributes +0.049 GeV to the binding energy.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption A non-relativistic Schrödinger equation with a pairwise-sum potential describes the three-top bound state.
    Used in Sec. II, Eqs. (1)-(7); relies on v ~ 0.1 from Refs [38-40].
  • domain assumption The bound state forms before the top quarks decay.
    Sec. I asserts the hadronization timescale is shorter than τ_t; this is challenged by Γ_total ≈ E_B.
  • standard math Three identical top quarks must be color-antisymmetric and spin-symmetric, so the ground state has J = 3/2.
    Pauli principle and color singlet requirement in Sec. II.
  • domain assumption The effective potential is the sum of pairwise QCD, QED, and Higgs contributions, with no three-body potential.
    Eqs. (6)-(7).
  • domain assumption NRQCD factorization for bound-state production, as encoded in Eq. (20), applies to Ωttt.
    Cross section proportional to |ψ(0,0)|^2 / m_t^6; validated against Ωccc only to within a factor of two.
invented entities (1)
  • Ωttt (triple-top baryon) no independent evidence
    purpose: Predicted J^P = 3/2^+ bound state of three top quarks; mass ~514 GeV, decay W+W+W+bbb.
    No experimental evidence; production cross sections quoted (1.7e-7 fb at 100 TeV pp) are far below observable rates, and the width-to-binding ratio ~0.95 makes the status as a resonance uncertain. The predicted mass and decay signature are in-principle falsifiable but not practically testable.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Triple top baryon $\Omega_{ttt}$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YUOXFW6S

@misc{pith2026250819137,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Triple top baryon $\Omega_ttt$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YUOXFW6S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.19137}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

The recent observation of toponium by CMS and ATLAS has renewed interest in top quark bound states. In this work, we present an exploratory but quantitative study of the hypothetical triple-top baryon, denoted as $\Omega_{ttt}$, the only baryon that is governed by ultraviolet freedom. Using a variational method with an effective potential of $ttt$ that includes QCD, Higgs, and QED contributions, we estimate its mass to be around 514 GeV with a binding energy of about 4 GeV. We further discuss its possible production at future high-energy colliders, finding that the cross sections are extremely suppressed. The dominant weak decay channel is identified as $\Omega_{ttt}\to W^+W^+W^+bbb$, leading to complex multi-lepton and multi-jet final states. Our analysis, though approximate, demonstrates the distinctive features of $\Omega_{ttt}$ compared with other triply-heavy baryons such as $\Omega_{ccc}$ and $\Omega_{bbb}$, and may serve as a starting point for more refined approaches, including lattice QCD or effective field theory. This work highlights both the theoretical challenges and the potential opportunities in probing the strong interaction at unprecedented mass scales.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.19137 by Chang Xiong, Yu-Jie Zhang, Zi-Qi Zhu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Schematic diagram of the Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Schematic Feynman diagram of Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Estimated cross section of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Estimated cross section of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. Renormalon subtracted nonrelativistic QCD for heavy hadron systems

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5

    MRS-pNRQCD plus GFMC stabilizes heavy-hadron spectroscopy; NNLO baryon masses undershoot lattice QCD by 125–175 MeV with 1/m_Q scaling, and a critical mass ratio for tetraquark binding is extracted.

  2. Phenomenology of Hypothetical Single-Top Hadronic States

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    QCD sum rule calculations produce ground-state masses for single-top baryons like Lambda_t and mesons like T_t b-bar, with several central values slightly below constituent quark mass sums suggesting possible weak bin...

  3. Masses of Purely Top-Quark Bound States: Toponium and the Triply-Top Baryon

    hep-ph 2025-11 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    QCD sum-rule calculations give negative binding energies for toponium states consistent with near-threshold experimental signals and a central mass for the triply-top baryon slightly above three times the top-quark mass.

  4. Examining possible doubly topped baryon configurations

    hep-ph 2026-01 reject novelty 4.0

    QCD sum rules give doubly topped baryon masses of 345-350 GeV, essentially the sums of the constituent quark masses, with no sign of genuine binding.

  5. Phenomenology of Hypothetical Single-Top Hadronic States

    hep-ph 2026-05 reject novelty 3.0

    QCD sum-rule calculations yield single-top baryon and meson masses near the top-quark mass, with a few channels slightly below the naive quark-sum threshold.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers · 10 internal anchors

  1. [3]

    Is the ccc a new deal for baryon spectroscopy?,

    J. D. Bjorken, “Is the ccc a new deal for baryon spectroscopy?,”AIP Conf. Proc.132(1985) 390–403

    work page 1985

  2. [4]

    QCD forces and heavy quark bound states,

    G. S. Bali, “QCD forces and heavy quark bound states,”Phys. Rept.343(2001) 1–136, arXiv:hep-ph/0001312

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  3. [5]

    Effective field theory Lagrangians for baryons with two and three heavy quarks,

    N. Brambilla, A. Vairo, and T. Rosch, “Effective field theory Lagrangians for baryons with two and three heavy quarks,”Phys. Rev. D72(2005) 034021,arXiv:hep-ph/0506065

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  4. [6]

    The three-quark static potential in perturbation theory

    N. Brambilla, J. Ghiglieri, and A. Vairo, “The Three-quark static potential in perturbation theory,”Phys. Rev. D81(2010) 054031,arXiv:0911.3541 [hep-ph]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 107, 019904 (2023)]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  5. [7]

    Symmetries of the Three Heavy-Quark System and the Color-Singlet Static Energy at NNLL

    N. Brambilla, F. Karbstein, and A. Vairo, “Symmetries of the three-heavy-quark system and the color-singlet static energy at next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic order,”Phys. Rev. D87 no. 7, (2013) 074014,arXiv:1301.3013 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  6. [8]

    Precise determination of the three-quark potential in SU(3) lattice gauge theory,

    Y. Koma and M. Koma, “Precise determination of the three-quark potential in SU(3) lattice gauge theory,”Phys. Rev. D95no. 9, (2017) 094513,arXiv:1703.06247 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  7. [9]

    Baryon-baryon, meson-meson, and meson-baryon interactions in nonrelativistic QCD,

    B. Assi, A. Grebe, and M. Wagman, “Baryon-baryon, meson-meson, and meson-baryon interactions in nonrelativistic QCD,”arXiv:2508.10090 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv

  8. [10]

    Tetraquark bound states in constituent quark models: Benchmark test calculations,

    L. Meng, Y.-K. Chen, Y. Ma, and S.-L. Zhu, “Tetraquark bound states in constituent quark models: Benchmark test calculations,”Phys. Rev. D108no. 11, (2023) 114016, arXiv:2310.13354 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  9. [11]

    Regge trajectories for the triply heavy bottom-charm baryons in the diquark picture,

    J.-Q. Xie, H. Song, and J.-K. Chen, “Regge trajectories for the triply heavy bottom-charm baryons in the diquark picture,”Eur. Phys. J. C84no. 10, (2024) 1048,arXiv:2407.18280 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  10. [12]

    Magnetic moments of baryons containing all heavy quarks in the quark-diquark model,

    K. Thakkar, A. Majethiya, and P. C. Vinodkumar, “Magnetic moments of baryons containing all heavy quarks in the quark-diquark model,”Eur. Phys. J. Plus131no. 9, (2016) 339,arXiv:1609.05444 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  11. [13]

    Spectroscopy and decays of the fully-heavy tetraquarks,

    M. N. Anwar, J. Ferretti, F.-K. Guo, E. Santopinto, and B.-S. Zou, “Spectroscopy and decays of the fully-heavy tetraquarks,”Eur. Phys. J. C78no. 8, (2018) 647, arXiv:1710.02540 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  12. [14]

    Triply charmed and bottom baryons in a constituent 11 quark model,

    M.-S. Liu, Q.-F. L¨ u, and X.-H. Zhong, “Triply charmed and bottom baryons in a constituent 11 quark model,”Phys. Rev. D101no. 7, (2020) 074031,arXiv:1912.11805 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  13. [15]

    Triply heavy baryons in the constituent quark model,

    G. Yang, J. Ping, P. G. Ortega, and J. Segovia, “Triply heavy baryons in the constituent quark model,”Chin. Phys. C44no. 2, (2020) 023102,arXiv:1904.10166 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  14. [16]

    Analysis of the Triply Heavy Baryon States with QCD Sum Rules,

    Z.-G. Wang, “Analysis of the Triply Heavy Baryon States with QCD Sum Rules,”Commun. Theor. Phys.58(2012) 723–731,arXiv:1112.2274 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  15. [17]

    Analysis of the triply-heavy baryon states with the QCD sum rules,

    Z.-G. Wang, “Analysis of the triply-heavy baryon states with the QCD sum rules,”AAPPS Bull.31(2021) 5,arXiv:2010.08939 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  16. [18]

    Variational study of weakly coupled triply heavy baryons,

    Y. Jia, “Variational study of weakly coupled triply heavy baryons,”JHEP10(2006) 073, arXiv:hep-ph/0607290

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  17. [19]

    A First Estimate of Triply Heavy Baryon Masses from the pNRQCD Perturbative Static Potential,

    F. J. Llanes-Estrada, O. I. Pavlova, and R. Williams, “A First Estimate of Triply Heavy Baryon Masses from the pNRQCD Perturbative Static Potential,”Eur. Phys. J. C72 (2012) 2019,arXiv:1111.7087 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  18. [20]

    Triply-heavy/strange baryons with Cornell potential on a quantum computer,

    N. M. de Arenaza, J. J. G´ alvez-Viruet, and F. J. Llanes-Estrada, “Triply-heavy/strange baryons with Cornell potential on a quantum computer,”Eur. Phys. J. A60(2024) 216, arXiv:2407.07232 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  19. [21]

    Hartree-Fock all-heavy $c$, $b$ multiquarks and constraints on new top-sector physics

    A. Alonso-Valero, D. Berzal-Rozal´ en, F. J. Llanes-Estrada, M. C. Pardo, and C. Peset, “Hartree-Fock all-heavyc,bmultiquarks and constraints on new top-sector physics,” arXiv:2410.05066 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  20. [22]

    Model comparison of Delta and Omega masses in a covariant Faddeev approach

    H. Sanchis-Alepuz, R. Alkofer, G. Eichmann, and R. Williams, “Model Comparison of Delta and Omega Masses in a Covariant Faddeev Approach,”PoSQCD-TNT-II(2011) 041, arXiv:1112.3214 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  21. [23]

    Estimation of heavy baryon masses Ωccc++ and Ωbbb- by solving the Faddeev equation in a three-dimensional approach,

    M. Radin, S. Babaghodrat, and M. Monemzadeh, “Estimation of heavy baryon masses Ωccc++ and Ωbbb- by solving the Faddeev equation in a three-dimensional approach,” Phys. Rev. D90no. 4, (2014) 047701

    work page 2014

  22. [24]

    Constraining the DDD* three-body bound state via the Zc(3900) pole,

    H.-X. Zhu, L. Meng, Y. Ma, N. Li, W. Chen, and S.-L. Zhu, “Constraining the DDD* three-body bound state via the Zc(3900) pole,”Phys. Rev. D111no. 9, (2025) 094022, arXiv:2412.12816 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [25]

    Trilepton and tetralepton bound and resonant states: The QED counterpart of multiquark states,

    Y. Ma, L. Meng, L.-Z. Wen, and S.-L. Zhu, “Trilepton and tetralepton bound and resonant states: The QED counterpart of multiquark states,”Phys. Rev. D111no. 7, (2025) 073001, arXiv:2501.00871 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  24. [26]

    DeepQuark: deep-neural-network approach to 12 multiquark bound states,

    W.-L. Wu, L. Meng, and S.-L. Zhu, “DeepQuark: deep-neural-network approach to 12 multiquark bound states,”arXiv:2506.20555 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  25. [27]

    Triply heavy tetraquark states with different flavors,

    H.-M. Yang, Y. Ma, W.-L. Wu, and S.-L. Zhu, “Triply heavy tetraquark states with different flavors,”Phys. Rev. D111no. 7, (2025) 074040,arXiv:2502.10798 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [28]

    Heavy flavored hydrogen molecule systems

    H.-M. Yang, Y. Ma, and S.-L. Zhu, “Heavy flavored hydrogen molecule systems,” arXiv:2507.21498 [physics.atom-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  27. [29]

    Ground state baryons in the flux-tube three-body confinement model using diffusion Monte Carlo,

    Y. Ma, L. Meng, Y.-K. Chen, and S.-L. Zhu, “Ground state baryons in the flux-tube three-body confinement model using diffusion Monte Carlo,”Phys. Rev. D107no. 5, (2023) 054035,arXiv:2211.09021 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  28. [30]

    Doubly heavy tetraquark states in the constituent quark model using diffusion Monte Carlo method

    Y. Ma, L. Meng, Y.-K. Chen, and S.-L. Zhu, “Doubly heavy tetraquark states in the constituent quark model using diffusion Monte Carlo method,”Phys. Rev. D109no. 7, (2024) 074001,arXiv:2309.17068 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  29. [31]

    Charmed bottom baryon spectroscopy from lattice QCD,

    Z. S. Brown, W. Detmold, S. Meinel, and K. Orginos, “Charmed bottom baryon spectroscopy from lattice QCD,”Phys. Rev. D90no. 9, (2014) 094507,arXiv:1409.0497 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  30. [32]

    Triply charmed baryons mass decomposition from lattice QCD*,

    J.-B. Li, L.-C. Gui, W. Qin, W. Sun, and J. Liang, “Triply charmed baryons mass decomposition from lattice QCD*,”Chin. Phys. C49no. 6, (2025) 063103, arXiv:2211.04713 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  31. [33]

    Triply heavy baryon spectroscopy revisited,

    H. Zhou, S.-Q. Luo, and X. Liu, “Triply heavy baryon spectroscopy revisited,” arXiv:2507.10243 [hep-ph]. [34]Particle Data GroupCollaboration, S. Navaset al., “Review of particle physics,”Phys. Rev. D110no. 3, (2024) 030001

    arXiv 2024

  32. [35]

    Top-Quark Decay at Next-to-Next-to-Next-to-Leading Order in QCD,

    L. Chen, X. Chen, X. Guan, and Y.-Q. Ma, “Top-Quark Decay at Next-to-Next-to-Next-to-Leading Order in QCD,”arXiv:2309.01937 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  33. [36]

    Analytic third-order QCD corrections to top-quark and semileptonic b→u decays,

    L.-B. Chen, H. T. Li, Z. Li, J. Wang, Y. Wang, and Q.-f. Wu, “Analytic third-order QCD corrections to top-quark and semileptonic b→u decays,”Phys. Rev. D109no. 7, (2024) L071503,arXiv:2309.00762 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [37]

    Production and Decay Properties of Ultraheavy Quarks,

    I. I. Y. Bigi, Y. L. Dokshitzer, V. A. Khoze, J. H. Kuhn, and P. M. Zerwas, “Production and Decay Properties of Ultraheavy Quarks,”Phys. Lett. B181(1986) 157–163

    1986

  35. [38]

    Toponium: The smallest bound state and simplest hadron in quantum mechanics,

    J.-H. Fu, Y.-J. Li, H.-M. Yang, Y.-B. Li, Y.-J. Zhang, and C.-P. Shen, “Toponium: The smallest bound state and simplest hadron in quantum mechanics,”Phys. Rev. D111no. 11, (2025) 114020,arXiv:2412.11254 [hep-ph]. 13

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  36. [39]

    Toponium: Implementation of a toponium model in FeynRules,

    J.-H. Fu, Y.-J. Zhang, G.-Z. Xu, and K.-Y. Liu, “Toponium: Implementation of a toponium model in FeynRules,”arXiv:2504.12634 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  37. [40]

    Probing Yoctosecond Quantum Dynamics in Toponium Formation at Colliders,

    C. Xiong and Y.-J. Zhang, “Probing Yoctosecond Quantum Dynamics in Toponium Formation at Colliders,”arXiv:2507.05703 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  38. [41]

    Neutral current effects fore +e− annihilation in toµ +µ− in the toponium region,

    S. Hirata, “Neutral current effects fore +e− annihilation in toµ +µ− in the toponium region,”Prog. Theor. Phys.64(1980) 342

    work page 1980

  39. [42]

    Threshold Behavior of Heavy Top Production in e+ e- Collisions,

    V. S. Fadin and V. A. Khoze, “Threshold Behavior of Heavy Top Production in e+ e- Collisions,”JETP Lett.46(1987) 525–529

    work page 1987

  40. [43]

    Contrasting Pseudoscalar Higgs and Toponium States at the LHC and Beyond

    A. Djouadi, J. Ellis, and J. Quevillon, “Contrasting pseudoscalar Higgs and toponium states at the LHC and beyond,”Phys. Lett. B866(2025) 139583,arXiv:2412.15138 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  41. [44]

    Investigating the exclusive toponium production at the LHC and FCC,

    R. Francener, V. P. Goncalves, and D. E. Martins, “Investigating the exclusive toponium production at the LHC and FCC,”arXiv:2502.03295 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  42. [45]

    Toponia at the HL-LHC, CEPC, and FCC-ee,

    Y. Bai, T.-K. Chen, and Y. Yang, “Toponia at the HL-LHC, CEPC, and FCC-ee,” arXiv:2506.14552 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  43. [46]

    Topped baryons from QCD sum rules,

    S.-W. Zhang, W.-H. Tan, X. Luo, and H.-X. Chen, “Topped baryons from QCD sum rules,” arXiv:2507.05895 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  44. [47]

    QCD sum rule study of topped mesons within heavy quark effective theory,

    S.-W. Zhang, X. Luo, H.-M. Yang, and H.-X. Chen, “QCD sum rule study of topped mesons within heavy quark effective theory,”arXiv:2508.03422 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  45. [48]

    The quest for topped hadrons,

    S.-Q. Luo, Q. Huang, and X. Liu, “The quest for topped hadrons,”arXiv:2508.17646 [hep-ph]. [49]A TLASCollaboration, G. Aadet al., “Observation of four-top-quark production in the multilepton final state with the ATLAS detector,”Eur. Phys. J. C83no. 6, (2023) 496, arXiv:2303.15061 [hep-ex]. [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 84, 156 (2024)]. [50]CMSCollaboration, A. H...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  46. [51]

    Large NLO corrections int ¯tW ± andt ¯tt¯t hadroproduction from supposedly subleading EW contributions,

    R. Frederix, D. Pagani, and M. Zaro, “Large NLO corrections int ¯tW ± andt ¯tt¯t hadroproduction from supposedly subleading EW contributions,”JHEP02(2018) 031, arXiv:1711.02116 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  47. [52]

    Threshold Resummation for the Production of Four Top Quarks at the LHC,

    M. van Beekveld, A. Kulesza, and L. M. Valero, “Threshold Resummation for the Production of Four Top Quarks at the LHC,”Phys. Rev. Lett.131no. 21, (2023) 211901, 14 arXiv:2212.03259 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  48. [53]

    What can We Learn from Triple Top-Quark Production?

    Q.-H. Cao, S.-L. Chen, Y. Liu, and X.-P. Wang, “What can We Learn from Triple Top-Quark Production?,”Phys. Rev. D100no. 5, (2019) 055035,arXiv:1901.04643 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  49. [54]

    Multi-tops at the LHC

    A. Deandrea and N. Deutschmann, “Multi-tops at the LHC,”JHEP08(2014) 134, arXiv:1405.6119 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  50. [55]

    Six Top Messages of New Physics at the LHC,

    H. Han, L. Huang, T. Ma, J. Shu, T. M. P. Tait, and Y. Wu, “Six Top Messages of New Physics at the LHC,”JHEP10(2019) 008,arXiv:1812.11286 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  51. [56]

    Multi-top signals of vectorlike quarks at the LHC,

    E. Bernreuther and B. A. Dobrescu, “Multi-top signals of vectorlike quarks at the LHC,” arXiv:2508.14960 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  52. [57]

    Production of Triply Heavy Baryons at LHC,

    Y.-Q. Chen and S.-Z. Wu, “Production of Triply Heavy Baryons at LHC,”JHEP08(2011) 144,arXiv:1106.0193 [hep-ph]. [Erratum: JHEP 09, 089 (2011)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  53. [58]

    HELAC-Onia 2.0: an upgraded matrix-element and event generator for heavy quarkonium physics,

    H.-S. Shao, “HELAC-Onia 2.0: an upgraded matrix-element and event generator for heavy quarkonium physics,”Comput. Phys. Commun.198(2016) 238–259,arXiv:1507.03435 [hep-ph]. [59]FCCCollaboration, F. Zimmermannet al., “Future Circular Collider Feasibility Study Report: Volume 2, Accelerators, Technical Infrastructure and Safety,”arXiv:2505.00274 [physics.acc-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  54. [60]

    Study Overview for Super Proton-Proton Collider

    J. Tang, Y. Zhang, Q. Xu, J. Gao, X. Lou, and Y. Wang, “Study Overview for Super Proton-Proton Collider,” inSnowmass 2021. 3, 2022.arXiv:2203.07987 [hep-ex]. [61]FCCCollaboration, M. Benediktet al., “Future Circular Collider Feasibility Study Report: Volume 1, Physics, Experiments, Detectors,”arXiv:2505.00272 [hep-ex]. [62]CEPC Study GroupCollaboration, W...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  55. [65]

    Towards a muon collider,

    C. Accetturaet al., “Towards a muon collider,”Eur. Phys. J. C83no. 9, (2023) 864, arXiv:2303.08533 [physics.acc-ph]. [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 84, 36 (2024)]. [66]International Muon ColliderCollaboration, C. Accetturaet al., “Interim report for the International Muon Collider Collaboration (IMCC),”CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr.2/2024 (2024) 176,arXiv:2407.12450 [p...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.