Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 95 references

The X(3872), T_cc(3875)+, and the lowest positive-parity open-charm states are hadronic molecules, and an isovector partner of X(3872) named W_c1 should exist.

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 ↗

A conference review argues that the X(3872), Tcc(3875), and the lowest open-charm states are hadronic molecules, and predicts an isovector partner Wc1 that should show up in B0 -> K0 J/psi pi pi decays.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection A lucid review with a real prediction—but the Wc1 claim rides on a fitted amplitude, and 'deuteron-level rigour' overstates it. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2508.20694 v1 pith:NHHGBKCQ submitted 2025-08-28 hep-ph hep-exhep-lat

Single- and double-heavy Hadronic Molecules

C. Hanhart This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-exhep-lat
keywords hadronic moleculesexotic hadronsX(3872)T_cc(3875)open-charm stateschiral effective field theorycompositeness criterionW_c1 isovector partner
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 several of the most puzzling heavy hadrons seen in the last two decades—the X(3872), the T_cc(3875)+, and the lowest positive-parity states with one charm quark—are not compact quark structures but hadronic molecules: loosely bound pairs of ordinary mesons, in the same sense that the deuteron is a bound proton and neutron. The evidence is quantitative: a compositeness criterion links each state's binding and effective range to its molecular or compact character, and unitarised chiral effective field theory generates the observed states dynamically from meson–meson forces, matching data and lattice QCD. If the paper is right, these exotic hadrons are threshold effects of QCD rather than new quark configurations, and an unseen isovector partner of the X(3872), dubbed W_c1, should appear as a distortion of the J/psi pi+ pi- spectrum in B0 decays. The paper also argues that the main rival explanation for the open-charm states—diquark–anti-diquark tetraquarks—is ruled out by lattice data and flavor symmetry.

Core claim

At the paper's core is the claim that the lowest positive-parity open-charm states, the T_cc(3875)+, and the X(3872) satisfy the same quantitative tests used to classify the deuteron as a bound two-hadron state, and therefore qualify as hadronic molecules. For the open-charm sector, a single chiral-unitary amplitude with parameters fixed by lattice data produces two dynamical poles near 2.1 and 2.45 GeV whose interference explains the experimentally observed 2.3 GeV peak; the repulsive [15] flavor channel predicts no partner states, consistent with lattice results and inconsistent with diquark–anti-diquark pictures. For the X(3872), a coupled-channel calculation with full three-body dynamics

What carries the argument

Two tools carry the argument. The compositeness criterion derives from the effective-range expansion and ties a near-threshold state's scattering length and effective range to the probability of a compact core; a pure molecule has a ≈ -1/gamma and a positive small effective range, an unambiguous signature. Unitarised chiral effective field theory provides the forces: for pseudoscalar–heavy-meson scattering the leading S-wave interaction is fixed by chiral symmetry, attractive in the [3bar] and [6] flavor channels and repulsive in the [15]; resummation dynamically generates the observed poles. For two heavy mesons, the leading interaction is a fitted contact term plus one-pion exchange; in th

Load-bearing premise

For X(3872) and T_cc, the molecular classification rests on the assumption that the leading force between the two heavy mesons is a single contact interaction, with strength set by fitting data, plus pion exchange; if additional short-range dynamics matter, the extracted poles and the W_c1 prediction would shift.

What would settle it

High-statistics measurement of the J/psi pi+ pi- invariant-mass distribution in B0 -> K0 J/psi pi+ pi-: the molecular coupled-channel picture predicts a W_c1 modulation near the D+ D*- threshold, about 3.1 MeV above it, that should be clearly visible there and suppressed in B+ decays. Seeing no such modulation would rule out the predicted isovector partner and weaken the channel-coupling explanation of X(3872)'s binding.

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

If this is right

  • The lowest positive-parity open-charm states should carry no [15]-flavor partner states; observing such a state would contradict the molecular picture, while the existing lattice data already rule out the diquark–anti-diquark alternative.
  • X(3872) should be treated as a quasi-bound D0 Dbar*0 molecule about 160 keV below threshold, with a 97±2% two-hadron probability; its line shape should reflect the coupled-channel dynamics near the charged threshold.
  • T_cc(3875)+ has an isospin-corrected effective range r0 = (1.38 ± 0.85) fm, fully consistent with a D D* molecule; lattice studies at near-physical pion masses should confirm the predicted left-hand cut.
  • An isovector partner W_c1 must exist: its neutral member is a hidden-sheet resonance about 3.1 MeV above the charged D+ D*- threshold, and it should produce a clear enhancement in B0 -> K0 J/psi pi+ pi- that is suppressed in B+ -> K+ J/psi pi+ pi-.
  • The diquark–anti-diquark interpretation of the open-charm states is excluded because it predicts [15]-representation states with large mass splittings between the 0+ and 1+ sectors, while lattice data show consistent levels.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the paper's picture is right, the W_c1 is the sharpest test of the whole X(3872) mechanism: a high-statistics B0 run that shows no near-threshold J/psi pi+ pi- modulation would challenge not just the W_c1 but the channel-coupling explanation for why X(3872) is bound at all.
  • The same coupled-channel, isospin-violating mechanism should have counterparts in the bottom sector (states near B Bbar* thresholds), where different meson masses and widths would make the predicted pole positions and line shapes quantitatively different; a search there would test the universality of the molecular claim.
  • The two-pole interpretation of the open-charm peak implies that single-Breit-Wigner fits to similar hadron spectra can return misleading masses whenever two nearby poles interfere; future amplitude analyses should report pole locations rather than Breit-Wigner masses.
  • The strength difference between the isoscalar and isovector interactions is left as an output of the X(3872) fit; precise measurements of both the B+ and B0 channels would constrain that difference directly.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. This proceedings contribution argues that the lowest positive-parity open-charm states, the T_cc(3875)^+, and the X(3872) are hadronic molecules, and that an isovector partner of the X(3872), dubbed W_c1, should exist. The first part reviews the Weinberg criterion and chiral-unitary approaches to the singly heavy open-charm sector, presenting evidence that a diquark–antidiquark assignment is inconsistent with lattice and phenomenological constraints. The second part summarizes recent coupled-channel EFT fits of the T_cc and X(3872), including three-body effects and isospin violation, and reports a prediction for an enhanced W_c1 signal in B^0 -> K^0 J/psi pi+pi-. The manuscript is largely a review of the author's prior works, with the new W_c1 prediction taken from Ref. [88].

Significance. If the W_c1 prediction is confirmed, it would provide a genuinely new, falsifiable signature supporting the molecular interpretation of the J^PC=1++ states near the D Dbar* thresholds, and would strengthen the case that the T_cc and X(3872) are hadronic molecules. The paper is also useful in consolidating the Weinberg criterion and the chiral EFT framework for heavy-light and doubly heavy systems, and it correctly highlights the nontrivial role of three-body cuts and left-hand cuts. A particular strength is that the author quotes quantitative limitations of the underlying fits, such as the 2.8sigma significance of the X(3872) pole and the hidden-sheet location of the W_c1 pole. However, the abstract and summary claim that the evidence has 'the same level of rigour as the deuteron' goes beyond what the quoted numbers support; the W_c1 is not directly observed and the prediction depends on a production-model parameter that is not determined by the molecular dynamics.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5 and Summary] The central claim is that X(3872) and its isovector partner W_c1 are established with 'the same level of rigour as the deuteron.' Yet §5 reports that the X(3872) pole has only 2.8sigma significance and that the W_c1 pole sits on a hidden Riemann sheet, appearing in data as 'merely a slight modulation' of the X(3872) lineshape. These statements do not support the abstract's 'strong support' or the summary's 'compelling evidence' for the existence of W_c1. The manuscript should either soften these conclusions to 'consistent with' or 'predicted,' or provide quantitative evidence that the 2.8sigma and hidden-sheet issues are mitigated by other data.
  2. [§5, Fig. 5] The predicted enhancement in B^0 -> K^0 J/psi pi+pi- depends crucially on the ratio of source couplings to charged relative to neutral D Dbar* channels being about 2 (Fig. 5, right panel), whereas the B+ fit returned 0.5 for the same ratio. This ratio is a production-model input, not derived from the molecular wavefunction. If the true B^0 ratio is closer to 0.5, the W_c1 signal could be suppressed and the claimed discriminating power of the prediction would be lost. The paper should quantify the sensitivity of the B^0 lineshape to this parameter or present the figure as an illustrative scenario rather than a robust prediction.
  3. [§3, §5] In the doubly heavy sector, the leading S-wave interaction is a single fitted contact term with no chiral-symmetry-determined strength comparable to the Weinberg–Tomozawa term of Eq. (6). Consequently, the molecular conclusions for T_cc and X(3872), including the 97% compositeness of X(3872), are outputs of fits to the very data used to assert the molecular nature. This is less direct than the deuteron case, where scattering length and effective range are measured independently. The manuscript should state this model-dependence explicitly and avoid implying that the molecular interpretation rests on parameter-free predictions.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§2, Eq. (1)] The text around Eq. (1) has a typo: 'canceltheanalyticcontinuationofthe 𝑖𝑝 terma 𝐸 =−𝐸𝐵' should read 'at E=-E_B'. Also the footnote defining the sheets could be made more explicit.
  2. [§4] There are several spacing/typographical issues, e.g., 'non-pertrubative' should be 'non-perturbative', and 'thelow lying𝐷-meson spectra' lacks spaces. Please proofread.
  3. [§5] The statement that the W_c1 pole is 'found at (3.1 ± 0.7 + 1.3 +1.9/-0.6 i) MeV' is hard to parse: the asymmetric errors are not fully defined. Please clarify the convention and which uncertainties are statistical/systematic.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the doubly-heavy results are fits to external data with a genuinely new B0 lineshape prediction; the paper explicitly avoids the Weinberg-criterion inverse-fit trap.

full rationale

The paper's central claims rest on fits to external LHCb/BESIII data and lattice QCD, not on a theorem whose conclusion is assumed. For the open-charm states, the chiral-unitarity amplitude is fixed by lattice scattering lengths and then checked against above-threshold pi-D data and the LHCb phase. For Tcc, the effective range is an output of a fit to the observed line shape, and the paper explicitly says one should not use a and r to extract lambda^2 but only to test consistency, which is the correct use of Weinberg's criterion. For X(3872), the Wc1 is not used as an input: it is a pole generated by a fit to B+ and BESIII data, and the B0->K0 J/psi pi+pi- enhancement is a genuine prediction for a different production channel. The related charged-to-neutral source ratio for B0 is an estimated input, not a fitted parameter, and the claim is conditional on that estimate; this is model dependence, not circularity. The heavy reliance on the author's prior papers (Refs [81,82,88]) is a summary role, not a load-bearing self-citation: those papers contain the data fits. No step reduces to its own input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 4 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on EFT amplitudes whose leading interaction is fitted to data, plus lattice data from other groups. The main invented entity is the Wc1 state, which has a concrete experimental prediction that is not used in the fit itself.

free parameters (2)
  • Contact-term strength for two-heavy-meson S-wave interaction = not specified (fitted to data)
    In Sec. 3, the leading-order interaction for two heavy sources is described as containing a free contact term; its value is fit to Tcc and X data, and the resulting pole positions and compositeness depend on it.
  • Ratio of source couplings to charged vs neutral D-D* channels in B decays = 0.5 for B+ -> K+ J/psi pi pi (fit), 2 for B0 -> K0 J/psi pi pi (estimate)
    From Sec. 5, this ratio is fit to the B+ data and then estimated for B0 decays; the predicted Wc1 enhancement in B0 relies on this ratio.
axioms (4)
  • standard math Effective range expansion and Weinberg compositeness criterion are applicable
    Sec. 2 uses these to relate scattering length, effective range, and the molecular probability, assuming a near-threshold single-channel pole.
  • domain assumption S-wave dominance for near-threshold states
    The paper applies single- and two-channel S-wave scattering formulas; higher partial waves are neglected throughout the analysis.
  • domain assumption Unitarised ChPT amplitudes with parameters fit to lattice data are valid at the physical point
    In Sec. 4, the two-pole structure for open charm states is obtained from an amplitude whose parameters were fit to lattice data; a chiral extrapolation is used to reach physical pion masses.
  • domain assumption Leading isospin violation is captured by meson mass differences and rho-omega mixing
    In Sec. 5, these are the only isospin-breaking mechanisms considered in the X/Wc1 coupled-channel analysis.
invented entities (1)
  • Wc1, a predominantly isovector partner of X(3872) independent evidence
    purpose: Explains a slight modulation in the X(3872) lineshape and predicts an enhanced signal in B0 -> K0 J/psi pi pi.
    The paper provides a concrete falsifiable prediction for B0 decays (Sec. 5, Fig. 5) that can be tested at LHCb or Belle II.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Single- and double-heavy Hadronic Molecules." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NHHGBKCQ

@misc{pith2026250820694,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Single- and double-heavy Hadronic Molecules},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NHHGBKCQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.20694}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

In this presentation the notion of hadronic molecules is reviewed and it is argued that some of the enigmatic single and double heavy mesons, namely the lowest lying positive parity open charm states, the $T_{cc}(3875)^+$ and the $\chi_{c1}(3872)$ aka $X(3872)$, that do not fit into the conventional quark--anti-quark scheme in fact qualify as hadronic molecules. For the single heavy states we show that an alternative explanation as diquark--anti-diquark structure is at odds with either phenomenology or lattice data. For the $X(3872)$ we discuss also the claimed isovector partner state, whose properties would provide additional strong support for a molecular structure of the $J^{PC}=1^{++}$ states near the $D\bar D^{*}$ thresholds. Its existence could be confirmed by, e.g., a high statistics measurement of the $J/\psi\pi^+\pi^-$ lineshape from $B^0\to K^0 J/\psi\pi^+\pi^-$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.20694 by C. Hanhart.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Quark masses in comparison to the QCD mass scale Λ𝑄𝐶𝐷. The masses of up, down and strange are the 𝑀𝑆 masses at a renormalisation scale of 2 GeV and the heavy masses are evaluated at their own mass as scale [12]. QCD allows for two systematic expansions, one around vanishing quark masses with corrections of order (𝑚𝑞/ΛQCD), applicable to up, down and eventually strange quarks, that can be treated using ChPT… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Spectrum of the lightest positive parity non￾strange (left) and strange open charm states. Blue solid (dashed) lines show states predicted by the rep￾resentative quark model of Ref. [56] and (not) con￾firmed by experiment and red solid lines show states found experimentally with properties at odds with the quark model. The boxes indicate the widths of the states. by ChPT [44, 45]. The respective studies of… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Fit result of Ref. [70] employing the scattering amplitude of Ref. [62] to the experimental data of Ref. [72] for the 𝜋 −𝐷 + 𝑆-wave amplitude extracted from 𝐵 − → 𝐷 +𝜋 −𝜋 − . The strong rise at low 𝑀𝐷 𝜋 is driven by the pole at 2.1 GeV and the pronounced cusp near the higher thresholds (indicated by the dashed lines) is a signature of the pole at 2.45 GeV on a hidden sheet. However, fitting a single symmet… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The upper and the lower plot shows relevant scales for the 𝑇𝑐𝑐 (3875) and the 𝑋(3872), respectively. Figs. courtesy of V. Baru. range of applicability of those approaches is more limited and the effects of isospin violation cannot be captured completely, as is illustrated by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Results for the 𝐽/𝜓𝜋𝜋 spectra of Ref. [88]. Left panel: Fit result data extracted from 𝐵 + → 𝐾 + 𝐽/𝜓𝜋𝜋 [90]; right panel: Estimate for the spectrum from 𝐵 0 → 𝐾 0 𝐽/𝜓𝜋𝜋. In both cases the theory curves are convolved with the LHCb resolution. The red solid line shows the full result, the green dashed one just the contribution from the 𝑋(3872) and the black dot-dashed line, featuring the 𝑊0 𝑐1 signal, the di… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

95 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Hosakaet al., PTEP2016(2016) no.6, 062C01

    A. Hosakaet al., PTEP2016(2016) no.6, 062C01

    2016

  2. [2]

    Esposito, A

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

    2017

  3. [3]

    90(2018)no.1,015004[erratum: Rev.Mod.Phys

    F.K.Guo et al.,Rev.Mod.Phys. 90(2018)no.1,015004[erratum: Rev.Mod.Phys. 94(2022) no.2, 029901]

    2018

  4. [4]

    S. L. Olsen, T. Skwarnicki and D. Zieminska, Rev. Mod. Phys.90 (2018) no.1, 015003

    2018

  5. [5]

    Karliner, J

    M. Karliner, J. L. Rosner and T. Skwarnicki, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.68(2018), 17-44

    2018

  6. [6]

    Brambillaet al., Phys

    N. Brambillaet al., Phys. Rept.873 (2020), 1-154

    2020

  7. [7]

    G. Yang, J. Ping and J. Segovia, Symmetry12(2020) no.11, 1869

    2020

  8. [8]

    H. X. Chenet al., Rept. Prog. Phys.86(2023) no.2, 026201

    2023

  9. [9]

    Menget al., Phys

    L. Menget al., Phys. Rept.1019(2023), 1-149

    2023

  10. [10]

    Hanhart, arXiv:2504.06043 [hep-ph]

    C. Hanhart, arXiv:2504.06043 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  11. [11]

    Review on Resonances in Ref. [12]

  12. [12]

    Navaset al

    S. Navaset al. [Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) no.3, 030001

    2024

  13. [13]

    Mai, U.-G

    M. Mai, U.-G. Meißner and C. Urbach, Phys. Rept.1001(2023), 1-66

    2023

  14. [14]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev.137 (1965), B672-B678

    1965

  15. [15]

    Baruet al., Phys

    V. Baruet al., Phys. Lett. B586 (2004), 53-61

    2004

  16. [16]

    H. A. Bethe, Phys. Rev.76 (1949), 38-50. 6Clearly, for the isovector states the𝐶 assignment can be applied to the neutral state only. 11 Single- and double-heavy Hadronic Molecules C. Hanhart

    1949

  17. [17]

    Espositoet al., Phys

    A. Espositoet al., Phys. Rev. D105 (2022) no.3, L031503

    work page 2022

  18. [18]

    Baruet al., Phys

    V. Baruet al., Phys. Lett. B833 (2022), 137290

    work page 2022

  19. [19]

    Liet al., Phys

    Y. Liet al., Phys. Rev. D105 (2022) no.7, L071502

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    Albaladejo and J

    M. Albaladejo and J. Nieves, Eur. Phys. J. C82(2022) no.8, 724

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    J. Song, L. R. Dai and E. Oset, Eur. Phys. J. A58(2022) no.7, 133

    work page 2022

  22. [22]

    Matuscheket al., Eur

    I. Matuscheket al., Eur. Phys. J. A57 (2021) no.3, 101

    work page 2021

  23. [23]

    P. C. Bruns, arXiv:1905.09196 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1905

  24. [24]

    J. A. Oller, Annals Phys.396 (2018), 429-458

    work page 2018

  25. [25]

    X. W. Kang and J. A. Oller, Eur. Phys. J. C77 (2017) no.6, 399

    work page 2017

  26. [26]

    Sekihara, Phys

    T. Sekihara, Phys. Rev. C95 (2017) no.2, 025206

    work page 2017

  27. [27]

    Kamiya and T

    Y. Kamiya and T. Hyodo, PTEP2017(2017) no.2, 023D02

    work page 2017

  28. [28]

    Z. H. Guo and J. A. Oller, Phys. Rev. D93(2016) no.9, 096001

    work page 2016

  29. [29]

    Sekihara, T

    T. Sekihara, T. Hyodo and D. Jido, PTEP2015 (2015), 063D04

    work page 2015

  30. [30]

    Aceti and E

    F. Aceti and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D86(2012), 014012

    work page 2012

  31. [31]

    Gamermannet al., Phys

    D. Gamermannet al., Phys. Rev. D81(2010), 014029

    work page 2010

  32. [32]

    Kinugawa and T

    T. Kinugawa and T. Hyodo, [arXiv:2403.12635 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  33. [33]

    M. Z. Liuet al., Phys. Rept.1108 (2025), 1-108

    work page 2025

  34. [34]

    Meißner, A

    U.-G. Meißner, A. Rusetsky, Effective Field Theories, Cambridge University Press 2022

    work page 2022

  35. [35]

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

    work page 2024

  36. [36]

    Colangelo, J

    G. Colangelo, J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Nucl. Phys. B603 (2001), 125-179

    work page 2001

  37. [37]

    Gasser, M

    J. Gasser, M. E. Sainio and A. Svarc, Nucl. Phys. B307 (1988), 779-853

    work page 1988

  38. [38]

    Bernard, N

    V. Bernard, N. Kaiser and U.-G. Meißner, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E4(1995), 193-346

    work page 1995

  39. [39]

    A. V. Manohar and M. B. Wise, Camb. Monogr. Part. Phys. Nucl. Phys. Cosmol.10 (2000), 1-191

    work page 2000

  40. [40]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.17(1966), 616-621

    work page 1966

  41. [41]

    Tomozawa, Nuovo Cim

    Y. Tomozawa, Nuovo Cim. A46(1966), 707-717

    work page 1966

  42. [42]

    J. A. Oller and E. Oset, Nucl. Phys. A620 (1997), 438-456 [erratum: Nucl. Phys. A652 (1999), 407-409]. 12 Single- and double-heavy Hadronic Molecules C. Hanhart

    work page 1997

  43. [43]

    J. A. Oller, E. Oset and J. R. Pelaez, Phys. Rev. D59 (1999), 074001 [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999), 099906; erratum: Phys. Rev. D75 (2007), 099903]

    work page 1999

  44. [44]

    Dobado and J

    A. Dobado and J. R. Pelaez, Phys. Rev. D56(1997), 3057-3073

    work page 1997

  45. [45]

    J. A. Oller and U.-G. Meißner, Phys. Lett. B500 (2001), 263-272

    work page 2001

  46. [46]

    E. E. Kolomeitsev and M. F. M. Lutz, Phys. Lett. B582(2004), 39-48

    work page 2004

  47. [47]

    F. K. Guoet al., Phys. Lett. B641 (2006), 278-285

    work page 2006

  48. [48]

    F. K. Guo and U.-G. Meißner, Phys. Rev. D84 (2011), 014013

    work page 2011

  49. [49]

    Weinberg, Nucl

    S. Weinberg, Nucl. Phys. B363 (1991), 3-18

    work page 1991

  50. [50]

    Epelbaum, H

    E. Epelbaum, H. W. Hammer and U.-G. Meißner, Rev. Mod. Phys.81(2009), 1773-1825

    work page 2009

  51. [51]

    M. L. Duet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.131 (2023) no.13, 131903

    work page 2023

  52. [52]

    Menget al., Phys

    L. Menget al., Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) no.7, L071506

    work page 2024

  53. [53]

    Collinset al., Phys

    S. Collinset al., Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) no.9, 9

    work page 2024

  54. [54]

    M. T. Hansen, F. Romero-López and S. R. Sharpe, JHEP06(2024), 051

    work page 2024

  55. [55]

    J. T. Chackoet al., Phys. Rev. D111 (2025) no.3, 3

    work page 2025

  56. [56]

    Di Pierro and E

    M. Di Pierro and E. Eichten, Phys. Rev. D64(2001), 114004

    work page 2001

  57. [57]

    Aubertet al

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

    work page 2003

  58. [58]

    Abeet al

    K. Abeet al. [Belle], Phys. Rev. D69(2004), 112002

    work page 2004

  59. [59]

    Hanhart, J

    C. Hanhart, J. R. Pelaez and G. Rios, Phys. Rev. Lett.100 (2008), 152001

    work page 2008

  60. [60]

    F. K. Guo, C. Hanhart and U. G. Meissner, Eur. Phys. J. A 40 (2009), 171-179 doi:10.1140/epja/i2009-10762-1 [arXiv:0901.1597 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  61. [61]

    Hanhart, J

    C. Hanhart, J. R. Pelaez and G. Rios, Phys. Lett. B739 (2014), 375-382

    work page 2014

  62. [62]

    Liuet al., Phys

    L. Liuet al., Phys. Rev. D87(2013) no.1, 014508

    work page 2013

  63. [63]

    Albaladejoet al., Phys

    M. Albaladejoet al., Phys. Lett. B767 (2017), 465-469

    work page 2017

  64. [64]

    Moiret al., JHEP10 (2016), 011

    G. Moiret al., JHEP10 (2016), 011

    work page 2016

  65. [65]

    Asokanet al., Eur

    A. Asokanet al., Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) no.9, 850

    work page 2023

  66. [66]

    X. Y. Guo, Y. Heo and M. F. M. Lutz, Phys. Lett. B791 (2019), 86-91

    work page 2019

  67. [67]

    X. Y. Guo, Y. Heo and M. F. M. Lutz, Phys. Rev. D98(2018) no.1, 014510

    work page 2018

  68. [68]

    Z. H. Guoet al., Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019) no.1, 13. 13 Single- and double-heavy Hadronic Molecules C. Hanhart

    work page 2019

  69. [69]

    M. F. M. Lutzet al., Phys. Rev. D106 (2022) no.11, 114038

    work page 2022

  70. [70]

    M. L. Duet al., Phys. Rev. D98(2018) no.9, 094018

    work page 2018

  71. [71]

    M. L. Du, F. K. Guo and U.-G. Meißner, Phys. Rev. D99 (2019) no.11, 114002

    work page 2019

  72. [72]

    Aaijet al

    R. Aaijet al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. D94(2016) no.7, 072001

    work page 2016

  73. [73]

    M. L. Duet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.126 (2021) no.19, 192001

    work page 2021

  74. [74]

    Meißner, Symmetry12 (2020) no.6, 981

    U.-G. Meißner, Symmetry12 (2020) no.6, 981

    work page 2020

  75. [75]

    E. B. Gregoryet al., arXiv:2106.15391 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  76. [76]

    J. D. E. Yeoet al. [Hadron Spectrum], JHEP07(2024), 012

    work page 2024

  77. [77]

    F. K. Guo and C. Hanhart, Commun. Theor. Phys.77(2025) no.12, 125201

    work page 2025

  78. [78]

    Maiani, A

    L. Maiani, A. D. Polosa and V. Riquer, Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) no.3, 034014

    work page 2024

  79. [79]

    M. Y. Barabanovet al., Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.116 (2021), 103835

    work page 2021

  80. [80]

    E. B. Gregoryet al., arXiv:2503.23954 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

Showing first 80 references.

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