Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

$T_{\bar{c}\bar{s}1}^f(2750)$ production in the $B^+$ decays processes

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Under the D̄K* molecular hypothesis for the 2.7 GeV structure, B+ decays should produce the state at branching ratios of order 10^-4, and the channel B+→D*+D*−K+ should show a fit fraction near 4.6%.

desk verdict Competent loop calculation for a hypothetical tetraquark, but the fit-fraction table contradicts the paper's own formula by a factor of 2–3. read the letter →

arxiv 2511.18072 v2 pith:FD5M2NPO submitted 2025-11-22 hep-ph

Zhuo Yu , Qi Wu , Zi-Li Yue , Dian-Yong Chen This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords open-charmtetraquarkhadronicmoleculeD̄K*molecularstateBmesondecaysloopmechanismeffectiveLagrangianbranchingratiofitfraction
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 argues that the unexplained 2.7 GeV enhancement seen in the D*−K+ mass spectrum can be understood as a bound state of an anti-D meson and a K* meson—a D̄K* hadronic molecule with isospin 0 and spin-parity 1+—and that this hypothesis makes sharp, testable predictions for B+ decays. Working in an effective-Lagrangian description with triangle meson loops, the authors compute the production rates of this state, called T^0_{c̄s̄1}(2750), alongside a D or D* meson. They find branching ratios of order 10^-4, about an order of magnitude larger than the analogous production of the related 2900 MeV open-charm tetraquark candidate. They also convert these rates into fit fractions for measured four-body final states and identify the decay B+→D*+D*−K+ as a channel where the resonance should show up with a fit fraction near 5%. If confirmed, this would turn an ambiguous experimental bump into a concrete open-charm molecule and give experiments a specific search target.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the proposed hadronic molecule T^0_{c̄s̄1}(2750), a bound state of a D̄ and a K* meson with quantum numbers 0(1+) and a 10 MeV binding energy. The production calculation uses an effective Lagrangian with factorized weak B+→(c̄s)+D̄0 vertices, heavy-quark and chiral-symmetry couplings for D(*) mesons with vector mesons, and triangle-loop amplitudes in which charm-strange mesons (Ds, Ds*, D′s1, Ds1) couple to D̄ and K*, with the final D̄K* pair coalescing into T^0 through its coupling g=7.0. Off-shell effects are regulated by a monopole form factor with scale Λ=m_q3+αΛQCD, and the model parameter α, varied from 1 to 2, sets the quoted uncertainty.

What would settle it

Measure the fit fraction of a resonance in the 2.7 GeV region of B+→D*+D*−K+ using the same amplitude-analysis methods that established the 2900 MeV states. The molecular prediction is a fit fraction of 4.60+2.16−1.61%; observing no structure there, or a fit fraction below about 1%, would rule out the specific D̄K* molecule with its assumed 10 MeV binding and coupling. In addition, measuring the ratio B(B+→D*+T^0)/B(B+→D+T^0) far from the predicted ≈2.9 would contradict the mechanism even if the absolute scale is uncertain.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, T^0_{c̄s̄1} is an S-wave D̄K* molecule with I(J^P)=0(1+), written as an equal-weight combination of D̄0K*0 and D−K*+, with binding energy Eb=10 MeV and coupling g=7.0. The meson-loop calculation gives B(B+→D+T^0)=(1.29+0.73−0.63)×10^-4 and B(B+→D*+T^0)=(3.73+2.43−1.84)×10^-4, with the spread coming from varying the model cutoff parameter α between 1 and 2. Combining these with measured B+→D(*)+D̄*K branching fractions, the authors estimate fit fractions of 3.54% in B+→D+D*−K+ and 4.60% in B+→D*+D*−K+. They conclude that if the 2.7 GeV structure seen in D*−K+ data is this molecular state, it should also appear in B+→D*+D*−K+, and they recommend that channel as the se

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 2.7 GeV bump in D*−K+ data really is a single bound state of an anti-D and a K* meson, with isospin 0, spin-parity 1+, and a binding energy of 10 MeV; if the bump is instead a non-resonant artifact, a compact tetraquark, or has different quantum numbers, every predicted rate and fit fraction in the paper loses its anchor.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The branching ratio for B+→D+T^0 is about 1.3×10^-4, roughly an order of magnitude larger than the corresponding production of the 2900 MeV tetraquark candidate, so the molecular state should be easier to find, not harder.
  • The branching ratio for B+→D*+T^0 is even larger, about 3.7×10^-4, making the D*+ final state the more copious of the two production modes.
  • A fit fraction near 3.5% in B+→D+D*−K+ means existing data on that channel may already contain a detectable signal from this state.
  • A fit fraction near 4.6% in B+→D*+D*−K+ makes this channel a recommended discovery mode, with the resonance appearing at the percent level.
  • These rates vary with the cutoff parameter α between 1 and 2, but even at the lower end they stay near 10^-4, so the qualitative conclusion is robust within the model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • As an inference: the predicted ratio R = B(B+→D*+T^0)/B(B+→D+T^0) ≈ 2.9 is less sensitive to the overall scale than either rate alone, so measuring this ratio would be a sharper test of the molecular mechanism than measuring the absolute branching fractions.
  • As an inference: if a future amplitude analysis assigns different quantum numbers to the 2.7 GeV structure—say spin-parity 1− instead of 1+, or a broad non-resonant origin—the same calculation framework could be rerun, but the quoted fit fractions and the recommended search channel would need to be reassessed.
  • As an inference: because the same triangle-loop machinery was previously applied to the 2900 MeV states, these two sets of predictions together provide a consistency check: one molecular interpretation should explain both production patterns, and experiments that measure both channels can test whether they scale together.
  • As an inference: the prediction singles out a specific final state (D*+D*−K+) where the molecular signal should be visible with a small background contamination; if the state appears in D+D*−K+ but not in D*+D*−K+, the assumed coupling or the D*+ production mechanism would need modification.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies production of the T_{cbar s1}^0 state in B^+ decays under the assumption that this state is an S-wave Dbar K* molecule with I(J^P)=0(1^+). Using effective Lagrangians, parametrized weak transition form factors, and triangle meson-loop diagrams, the authors compute the branching ratios of B^+ -> D^+ T_{cbar s1}^0 and B^+ -> D^{*+} T_{cbar s1}^0. Varying the monopole form-factor parameter alpha from 1.0 to 2.0, they find (1.29^{+0.73}_{-0.63})x10^{-4} and (3.73^{+2.43}_{-1.84})x10^{-4}, respectively. They then combine these with the T_{cbar s1}^0 -> Dbar*K branching ratio from Ref. [92] and measured B^+ -> D^{(*)+} Dbar*K rates to estimate fit fractions (Table VI), concluding that B^+ -> D^{*+}D^{*-}K^+ is a promising search channel. The paper explicitly acknowledges that the conclusions are conditional on the existence and molecular nature of the 2.7 GeV structure seen by LHCb.

Significance. If the predictions are correct, the predicted branching ratios are about an order of magnitude larger than those for T*_{cbar s1}(2900) production in similar B decays, making the state potentially observable at LHCb and Belle II. The study provides a concrete, quantitative test of the Dbar K* molecular hypothesis in a channel where LHCb has already reported an unexplained structure around 2.7 GeV. The paper is transparent in listing its input parameters, and the alpha-dependence scan is a useful check of model sensitivity. The main scientific value is the falsifiable prediction of a specific fit fraction in a specific decay channel. However, this value is compromised by an arithmetic inconsistency in Table VI, as detailed below, and the quoted uncertainties cover only the alpha variation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III B, Eq. (14)-(15), Table VI] The fit fractions in Table VI are not reproducible from the paper's own inputs. For B+ -> D+D*-K+, using the stated central BR(B+->D+T) = 1.29e-4 and B(T->Dbar*K) = 47.3-80.9% from Ref. [92] gives a numerator of (0.61-1.04)e-4; dividing by the denominator 6.0e-4 yields FF around 10-17%, not 3.54%. Similarly, for B+ -> D*+D*-K+, the stated inputs give FF around 13-23%, not 4.60%. The tabulated values imply B(T->Dbar*K) around 0.16, in conflict with the quoted 0.473-0.809. This is a factor-of-three internal inconsistency in a headline quantity; the central search recommendation in the abstract and Sec. III B is therefore not supported by the calculations as written.
  2. [Sec. III B, Fig. 3, Table VI] The quoted uncertainties are only the sensitivity to the monopole parameter alpha (1.0-2.0). Other inputs carry sizable errors that are not propagated: the B+ -> (cbar s) Dbar0 branching ratios in Table II have relative errors of 10-20%, the coupling g_{T Dbar K*} = 7.0 is taken at a fixed binding energy and cutoff, and the weak form-factor parameters in Tables IV-V come from external model calculations. The asymmetric error bars should therefore be labeled as alpha-sensitivity, not total theoretical uncertainty. This does not change the order-of-magnitude claim, but it affects the quoted fit fractions and their ranges.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (15)] The numerator in Eq. (15) uses Dbar K, while the text and Table VI use Dbar* K. This is presumably a typo, but it should be corrected since the equation defines the fit fraction.
  2. [Sec. III B, text after Eq. (14)] The sentence 'the branching ratios of the cascade processes can approximately be' is grammatically incomplete; please revise.
  3. [Sec. I, Table I] Duplicate word in 'as summarized in in Table. I'.
  4. [Sec. III B, Table VI] The measured branching ratio for B+ -> D*+D*-K+ is listed as (1.32 +/- 2.12)e-3, which is consistent with zero at the 1-sigma level. This makes the corresponding fit fraction very sensitive to the denominator; the authors should either use a more precise input or explicitly caveat this row.
  5. [Abstract and text] The title uses T_{cbar s1}^f(2750), but the body uses T_{cbar s1}^0. Please define the notation and explain the superscript 'f' or use consistent notation throughout.
  6. [Sec. III B] In the sentence 'the fit fraction of T_{cbar s1} in B+ -> D*+D*-K+ is estimated to be 4.60^{+2.16}_{-1.61}', the percent sign is missing; Table VI includes it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No definitional circularity found; molecular-model prediction is conditional on a load-bearing overlapping-author coupling, and the Table VI fit fractions are not reproducible from the stated inputs (arithmetic inconsistency, not circularity).

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: Sec. II constructs the production amplitudes from effective Lagrangians and loop integrals, and the branching ratios in Fig. 3 are outputs of that calculation rather than fits to the PDG denominators; no target observable is used as an input. The 'fit fraction' in Eq. (15) is a derived ratio of the model output B[B+->D(*)T], the input B[T->D*K] and a measured denominator; this is composition, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The main overlap is Ref. [92] (same group), supplying g_T=7.0 and B[T->D*K]=(47.3-80.9)%; these are load-bearing numerical inputs, but they are not defined in terms of the paper's target production rates, so the reasoning is model-dependent rather than definitionally circular. A separate, non-circular arithmetic problem: recomputing Eq. (15) from the paper's central inputs gives, for B+->D+D*-K+, FF = 1.29e-4 x (0.473-0.809)/6.0e-4 ~ 10-17%, not 3.54+2.16-1.39%; all rows show a factor ~3 discrepancy equivalent to B[T->D*K]~0.16 instead of the quoted 0.47-0.81. This is an internal inconsistency/reproducibility failure, not a circularity, so it does not raise the circularity score beyond the modest credit for the overlapping-author input.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The calculation is an estimate that leans on several model inputs pulled from prior literature, especially the molecular hypothesis, the T–\bar D K* coupling from the authors' own previous work, and an arbitrary form-factor cutoff. No target observable is fitted, but the numerical output inherits all these choices.

free parameters (3)
  • binding energy E_b = 10 MeV
    Chosen among 5, 10, 15 MeV typical values in Ref. [92]; fixes the T0 mass and the effective coupling. Results would shift for other choices.
  • effective coupling g_{T \bar D K*} = 7.0 at Λ=1 GeV
    Taken from Ref. [92] (overlapping author group); depends on the molecular model, binding energy, and cutoff. The loop amplitudes are directly proportional to this coupling.
  • monopole form-factor cutoff parameter α = 1.0–2.0, central 1.5
    Introduced ad hoc in Eq. (8) via Λ = m_q3 + α Λ_QCD; not fixed from first principles. Branching ratios grow monotonically with α (Fig. 3), and the quoted uncertainties come only from this variation.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption T_{c\bar s1}^0 is an S-wave \bar D K* molecular state with I(J^P)=0(1+)
    Eq. (1); the production amplitude and cascade fit fractions rely entirely on this assumed structure. The quoted LHCb 2.7 GeV structure is not confirmed as a resonance.
  • domain assumption B+ weak decay amplitudes factorize into two hadronic matrix elements with a1=1.05
    Eq. (4) and Sec. II A; standard naive factorization with Wilson coefficients from Refs. [80–83].
  • ad hoc to paper Monopole form factor F(q^2) = (m_q3^2 - Λ^2)/(q^2 - Λ^2) regularizes the loop integrals
    Eq. (8); no first-principles derivation; α is varied 1.0–2.0 with central 1.5 chosen without external justification.
  • domain assumption Heavy-quark and chiral symmetry effective couplings in Eqs. (5) and (13) describe D( *)-vector-meson vertices
    Standard heavy-meson chiral perturbation theory relations with parameters β=0.9, ζ=-ζ1=0.1, λ=0.56 GeV^-1, gV=m_ρ/f_π from Refs. [89–91].
  • domain assumption Narrow-width factorization B[B+ → D(∗)+ T] × B[T → \bar D* K] approximates the cascade rate
    Eq. (14); assumes the T0 decays independently with no interference, finite-width corrections, or background contributions in the invariant-mass spectrum.
invented entities (1)
  • T_{c\bar s1}^0 as the \bar D K* molecular state
    purpose: Final-state resonance whose production rates and fit fractions are the subject of the paper
    No established resonance at 2.75 GeV exists; the only evidence cited is an unconfirmed 2.7 GeV structure in LHCb D*−K+ mass distributions (Fig. 1). The proposed search channels are the paper's predictions, not independent evidence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of $T_{\bar{c}\bar{s}1}^f(2750)$ production in the $B^+$ decays processes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FD5M2NPO

@misc{pith2026251118072,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: $T_\barc\bars1^f(2750)$ production in the $B^+$ decays processes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FD5M2NPO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.18072}
}
abstract

In the present work, we studied the \tcs state production through the meson loop mechanism in the $B^+$ meson decays, where \tcs is considered as a $\bar{D}K^*$ molecular state with $J^P=1^+$. By employing the effective Lagrangian approach, we estimated the branching ratio of the $B^+ \to D^+ T_{\bar{c}\bar{s}1}^0 $ and $B^+ \to D^{*+} T_{\bar{c}\bar{s}1}^0$ processes and found them to be on the order of $10^{-5}\sim 10^{-4}$. The fit fraction of \tcs in different processes was also estimated. We propose to search for \tcs in the $B^+ \to D^{*+}\bar{D}^{*-}K^+$ process, which should be accessible to the Belle II and LHCb Collaborations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.18072 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Distributions of two-body invariant masses of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Diagrams contributing to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The branching fractions fo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Singly heavy tetraquarks

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A hybrid quark model with gluon and meson exchange predicts that LHCb's T-c̄s̄0(2870) and T-cs̄0(2900) are compact tetraquarks, and that Ds0(2317), Ds1(2460), Tbs(5568), and Tcs(2327) are not.

  2. $T^a_{c\bar{s}0}(2900)$, $T_{cs0}^*(2870)^0$, and other singly-heavy tetraquark states

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    A mass splitting model anchored to X(4140) interprets LHCb's T^a_c sbar0(2900) and T_cs0*(2870)^0 as particular singly-heavy tetraquarks and forecasts several narrow states.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [92]

    Garc ´ıa-Tecocoatzi, Dian-Yong Chen, and Elena Santopinto

    Zi-Li Yue, Cheng-Jian Xiao, H. Garc ´ıa-Tecocoatzi, Dian-Yong Chen, and Elena Santopinto. Strong decays of the DK∗ and ¯DK∗ molecular states. arXiv:2509.25920 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  2. [1]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. Observation of a Charged Charmoniumlike Structure in e+e− → π+π− J/ψ at √s =4.26 GeV. Phys. Rev. Lett., 110:252001, 2013

    2013

  3. [2]

    Z. Q. Liu et al. Study of e+e− → π+π− J/ψ and Observa- tion of a Charged Charmoniumlike State at Belle. Phys. Rev. Lett., 110:252002, 2013. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 111, 019901 (2013)]

    2013

  4. [3]

    Observation of a narrow pentaquark state, Pc(4312)+, and of two-peak structure of the Pc(4450)+

    Roel Aaij et al. Observation of a narrow pentaquark state, Pc(4312)+, and of two-peak structure of the Pc(4450)+. Phys. Rev. Lett., 122(22):222001, 2019

    2019

  5. [4]

    Aubert et al

    B. Aubert et al. Observation of a narrow meson decaying to D+ sπ0 at a mass of 2.32-GeV /c2. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 90:242001, 2003

    2003

  6. [5]

    Besson et al

    D. Besson et al. Observation of a narrow resonance of mass 2.46GeV/c2 decaying to D∗+ s π0 and confirmation of the D∗ sJ(2317) state. Phys. Rev. D , 68:032002, 2003. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 75, 119908 (2007)]

    2003

  7. [6]

    Krokovny et al

    P. Krokovny et al. Observation of the DsJ(2317) and DsJ(2457) in B decays. Phys. Rev. Lett., 91:262002, 2003

    2003

  8. [7]

    Observation of a narrow meson decaying to D+ sπ0γ at a mass of 2.458-GeV/c2

    Bernard Aubert et al. Observation of a narrow meson decaying to D+ sπ0γ at a mass of 2.458-GeV/c2. Phys. Rev. D, 69:031101, 2004

    2004

Show all 92 references
  1. [8]

    Mikami et al

    Y . Mikami et al. Measurements of theDsJ resonance properties. Phys. Rev. Lett., 92:012002, 2004

    2004

  2. [9]

    Colangelo and F

    P. Colangelo and F. De Fazio. Understanding DsJ(2317). Phys. Lett. B, 570:180–184, 2003

    2003

  3. [10]

    Strong decays of DsJ(2317) and DsJ(2460)

    Wei Wei, Peng-Zhi Huang, and Shi-Lin Zhu. Strong decays of DsJ(2317) and DsJ(2460). Phys. Rev. D, 73:034004, 2006

    2006

  4. [11]

    Decays of D∗ s j(2317) and Ds j(2460) Mesons in the Quark Model

    Feng-Lin Wang, Xiao-Lin Chen, Da-Hai Lu, Shi-Lin Zhu, and Wei-Zhen Deng. Decays of D∗ s j(2317) and Ds j(2460) Mesons in the Quark Model. HEPNP, 30:1041–1047, 2006

    2006

  5. [12]

    Z. G. Wang. Structure of the axial-vector meson Ds1(2460). J. Phys. G, 34:753–765, 2007

    2007

  6. [13]

    Chiral Particle Decay of Heavy-Light Mesons in a Relativistic Potential Model

    Takayuki Matsuki and Koichi Seo. Chiral Particle Decay of Heavy-Light Mesons in a Relativistic Potential Model. Phys. Rev. D, 85:014036, 2012

    2012

  7. [14]

    The radia- tive decays of 0 ++ and 1 +− heavy mesons

    Hong-Wei Ke, Xue-Qian Li, and Yan-Liang Shi. The radia- tive decays of 0 ++ and 1 +− heavy mesons. Phys. Rev. D , 87(5):054022, 2013

    2013

  8. [15]

    Godfrey and Nathan Isgur

    S. Godfrey and Nathan Isgur. Mesons in a Relativized Quark Model with Chromodynamics. Phys. Rev. D , 32:189–231, 1985

    1985

  9. [16]

    Testing the nature of the D∗ sJ(2317)+ and DsJ(2463)+ states using radiative transitions

    Stephen Godfrey. Testing the nature of the D∗ sJ(2317)+ and DsJ(2463)+ states using radiative transitions. Phys. Lett. B , 568:254–260, 2003

    2003

  10. [17]

    Dynamically generated 0 + heavy mesons in a heavy chiral unitary approach

    Feng-Kun Guo, Peng-Nian Shen, Huan-Ching Chiang, Rong- Gang Ping, and Bing-Song Zou. Dynamically generated 0 + heavy mesons in a heavy chiral unitary approach. Phys. Lett. B, 641:278–285, 2006

    2006

  11. [18]

    Lyubovitskij, and Yong-Liang Ma

    Amand Faessler, Thomas Gutsche, Valery E. Lyubovitskij, and Yong-Liang Ma. Strong and radiative decays of the D∗ s0(2317) meson in the DK-molecule picture. Phys. Rev. D , 76:014005, 2007

    2007

  12. [19]

    Lyubovitskij, and Yong-Liang Ma

    Amand Faessler, Thomas Gutsche, Valery E. Lyubovitskij, and Yong-Liang Ma. D∗K molecular structure of the Ds1(2460) me- son. Phys. Rev. D, 76:114008, 2007

    2007

  13. [20]

    Grießhammer, Feng-Kun Guo, Christoph Hanhart, and Ulf-G

    Martin Cleven, Harald W. Grießhammer, Feng-Kun Guo, Christoph Hanhart, and Ulf-G. Meißner. Strong and radiative decays of the D∗ s0(2317) and Ds1(2460). Eur . Phys. J. A, 50:149, 2014

    2014

  14. [21]

    DK, DDK, and DDDK molecules–understanding the nature of the D∗ s0(2317)

    Tian-Wei Wu, Ming-Zhu Liu, Li-Sheng Geng, Emiko Hiyama, and Manuel Pavon Valderrama. DK, DDK, and DDDK molecules–understanding the nature of the D∗ s0(2317). Phys. Rev. D, 100(3):034029, 2019

    2019

  15. [22]

    Production of the Ds0(2317) and Ds1(2460) by kaon-induced reactions on a proton target

    HongQiang Zhu and Yin Huang. Production of the Ds0(2317) and Ds1(2460) by kaon-induced reactions on a proton target. Phys. Rev. D, 100(5):054031, 2019

    2019

  16. [23]

    Production of D∗ s0(2317) and Ds1(2460) in B decays as D(∗)K and D(∗) s η molecules

    Ming-Zhu Liu, Xi-Zhe Ling, Li-Sheng Geng, En-Wang, and Ju- Jun Xie. Production of D∗ s0(2317) and Ds1(2460) in B decays as D(∗)K and D(∗) s η molecules. Phys. Rev. D , 106(11):114011, 2022

    2022

  17. [24]

    Pionic and radiative transitions from T + c¯s0(2900) to D+ s1(2460) as a probe of the structure of D+ s1(2460)

    Zi-Li Yue, Cheng-Jian Xiao, and Dian-Yong Chen. Pionic and radiative transitions from T + c¯s0(2900) to D+ s1(2460) as a probe of the structure of D+ s1(2460). Eur . Phys. J. C, 83(8):769, 2023

    2023

  18. [25]

    Productions of D∗ s0(2317) and Ds1(2460) in B(s) and Λb(Ξb) decays

    Ming-Zhu Liu, Xi-Zhe Ling, and Li-Sheng Geng. Productions of D∗ s0(2317) and Ds1(2460) in B(s) and Λb(Ξb) decays. Phys. Rev. D, 109(5):056014, 2024

    2024

  19. [26]

    D∗ s0(2317) and B∗ s0 as Molec- ular States

    Hee-Jin Kim and Hyun-Chul Kim. D∗ s0(2317) and B∗ s0 as Molec- ular States. PTEP, 2024(7):073D01, 2024

    2024

  20. [27]

    Determining the width of D∗ s0(2317) by using T a c¯s0(2327) in a molecular frame

    Zi-Li Yue, Quan-Yun Guo, Dian-Yong Chen, and Elena Santopinto. Determining the width of D∗ s0(2317) by using T a c¯s0(2327) in a molecular frame. arXiv:2507.19641 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  21. [28]

    Radiative and pionic transitions from the Ds1(2460) to the D∗ s0(2317)

    Cheng-Jian Xiao, Dian-Yong Chen, and Yong-Liang Ma. Radiative and pionic transitions from the Ds1(2460) to the D∗ s0(2317). Phys. Rev. D, 93(9):094011, 2016

    2016

  22. [29]

    Terasaki

    K. Terasaki. BABAR resonance as a new window of hadron 7 physics. Phys. Rev. D, 68:011501, 2003

    2003

  23. [30]

    D∗+ s (2317) and D∗+ s (2460): Tetraquarks bound by the t Hooft instanton-induced interaction? Phys

    Veljko Dmitrasinovic. D∗+ s (2317) and D∗+ s (2460): Tetraquarks bound by the t Hooft instanton-induced interaction? Phys. Rev. D, 70:096011, 2004

    2004

  24. [31]

    Maiani, F

    L. Maiani, F. Piccinini, A. D. Polosa, and V . Riquer. Diquark- antidiquarks with hidden or open charm and the nature of X(3872). Phys. Rev. D, 71:014028, 2005

    2005

  25. [32]

    A review of the open charm and open bottom systems

    Hua-Xing Chen, Wei Chen, Xiang Liu, Yan-Rui Liu, and Shi- Lin Zhu. A review of the open charm and open bottom systems. Rept. Prog. Phys., 80(7):076201, 2017

    2017

  26. [33]

    Maiani, A

    L. Maiani, A. D. Polosa, and V . Riquer. Open charm tetraquarks in broken SU(3) F symmetry. Phys. Rev. D , 110(3):034014, 2024

    2024

  27. [34]

    ObservedDs(2317) and ten- tative D(2100–2300) as the charmed cousins of the light scalar nonet

    Eef van Beveren and George Rupp. ObservedDs(2317) and ten- tative D(2100–2300) as the charmed cousins of the light scalar nonet. Phys. Rev. Lett., 91:012003, 2003

    2003

  28. [35]

    Yu. A. Simonov and J. A. Tjon. The Coupled-channel analysis of the D and Ds mesons. Phys. Rev. D, 70:114013, 2004

    2004

  29. [36]

    A model-independent study of resonant struc- ture in B+→ D+D−K+ decays

    Roel Aaij et al. A model-independent study of resonant struc- ture in B+→ D+D−K+ decays. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 125:242001, 2020

    2020

  30. [37]

    Amplitude analysis of the B+ → D+D−K+ decay

    Roel Aaij et al. Amplitude analysis of the B+ → D+D−K+ decay. Phys. Rev. D, 102:112003, 2020

    2020

  31. [38]

    Observation of New Charmonium or Charmo- niumlike States in B+→ D∗±D∓K+ Decays

    Roel Aaij et al. Observation of New Charmonium or Charmo- niumlike States in B+→ D∗±D∓K+ Decays. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 133(13):131902, 2024

    2024

  32. [39]

    Observation of the Open-Charm Tetraquark Candidate T∗ cs0(2870)0 in the B−→ D−D0K0 S Decay

    Roel Aaij et al. Observation of the Open-Charm Tetraquark Candidate T∗ cs0(2870)0 in the B−→ D−D0K0 S Decay. Phys. Rev. Lett., 134(10):101901, 2025

    2025

  33. [40]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. First Observation of a Doubly Charged Tetraquark and Its Neutral Partner. Phys. Rev. Lett., 131(4):041902, 2023

    2023

  34. [41]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. Amplitude analysis of B0→ ¯D0D+ sπ− and B+→ D−D+ sπ+ decays. Phys. Rev. D, 108(1):012017, 2023

    2023

  35. [42]

    Study of Ds1(2460)+ → D+ sπ+π− in B → ¯D (∗) D+ sπ+π− decays

    Roel Aaij et al. Study of Ds1(2460)+ → D+ sπ+π− in B → ¯D (∗) D+ sπ+π− decays. Sci. Bull., 70:1432–1444, 2025

    2025

  36. [43]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. Review of particle physics. Phys. Rev. D , 110(3):030001, 2024

    2024

  37. [44]

    Possible molecular states of ¯D∗K∗(D∗K∗) and new exotic states X0(2900), X1(2900), T a cs0(2900)0 and T a cs0(2900)++

    Hong-Wei Ke, Yi-Fan Shi, Xiao-Hai Liu, and Xue-Qian Li. Possible molecular states of ¯D∗K∗(D∗K∗) and new exotic states X0(2900), X1(2900), T a cs0(2900)0 and T a cs0(2900)++. Phys. Rev. D, 106(11):114032, 2022

    2022

  38. [45]

    Heavy- strange meson molecules and possible candidates D∗ s0(2317), Ds1(2460), and X0(2900)

    Shu-Yi Kong, Jun-Tao Zhu, Dan Song, and Jun He. Heavy- strange meson molecules and possible candidates D∗ s0(2317), Ds1(2460), and X0(2900). Phys. Rev. D, 104(9):094012, 2021

    2021

  39. [46]

    How to understand the X(2900)? Eur

    Bo Wang and Shi-Lin Zhu. How to understand the X(2900)? Eur . Phys. J. C, 82(5):419, 2022

    2022

  40. [47]

    Hadronic molecules in B decays

    Hua-Xing Chen. Hadronic molecules in B decays. Phys. Rev. D, 105(9):094003, 2022

    2022

  41. [48]

    S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi, and H. Sundu. New scalar reso- nance X0(2900) as a molecule: mass and width. J. Phys. G , 48(8):085012, 2021

    2021

  42. [49]

    X0(2900) and X1(2900): Hadronic Molecules or Compact Tetraquarks

    Hua-Xing Chen, Wei Chen, Rui-Rui Dong, and Niu Su. X0(2900) and X1(2900): Hadronic Molecules or Compact Tetraquarks. Chin. Phys. Lett., 37(10):101201, 2020

    2020

  43. [50]

    Monte-Carlo based QCD sum rules analysis of X0(2900) and X1(2900)

    Halil Mutuk. Monte-Carlo based QCD sum rules analysis of X0(2900) and X1(2900). J. Phys. G, 48(5):055007, 2021

    2021

  44. [51]

    X0(2866) as a D∗ ¯K∗ molecular state

    Ming-Zhu Liu, Ju-Jun Xie, and Li-Sheng Geng. X0(2866) as a D∗ ¯K∗ molecular state. Phys. Rev. D, 102(9):091502, 2020

    2020

  45. [52]

    Study of the decays of S−wave ¯D∗K∗ hadronic molecules: The scalar X0(2900) and its spin partners XJ(J=1,2)

    Cheng-Jian Xiao, Dian-Yong Chen, Yu-Bing Dong, and Guang- Wei Meng. Study of the decays of S−wave ¯D∗K∗ hadronic molecules: The scalar X0(2900) and its spin partners XJ(J=1,2). Phys. Rev. D, 103(3):034004, 2021

    2021

  46. [53]

    Strong decays of ¯D ∗ K∗ molecules and the newly observed X0,1 states

    Yin Huang, Jun-Xu Lu, Ju-Jun Xie, and Li-Sheng Geng. Strong decays of ¯D ∗ K∗ molecules and the newly observed X0,1 states. Eur . Phys. J. C, 80(10):973, 2020

    2020

  47. [54]

    Decays of the fully open flavor state T 0 c¯s0 in a D∗K∗ molecule scenario

    Zi-Li Yue, Cheng-Jian Xiao, and Dian-Yong Chen. Decays of the fully open flavor state T 0 c¯s0 in a D∗K∗ molecule scenario. Phys. Rev. D, 107(3):034018, 2023

    2023

  48. [55]

    From the isovector molecular expla- nation of the newly T a0(++) c¯s (2900) to possible charmed-strange molecular pentaquarks

    Rui Chen and Qi Huang. From the isovector molecular expla- nation of the newly T a0(++) c¯s (2900) to possible charmed-strange molecular pentaquarks. arXiv:2208.10196, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  49. [56]

    S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi, and H. Sundu. Modeling the resonance T a cs0(2900)++ as a hadronic molecule D∗+K∗+. Phys. Rev. D , 107(9):094019, 2023

    2023

  50. [57]

    Coupled-channelD∗K∗−D∗ sρ interactions and the origin of Tc¯s0(2900)

    Man-Yu Duan, Meng-Lin Du, Zhi-Hui Guo, En Wang, and Dian-Yong Chen. Coupled-channelD∗K∗−D∗ sρ interactions and the origin of Tc¯s0(2900). Phys. Rev. D, 108(7):074006, 2023

    2023

  51. [58]

    Spectrum of the molecular tetraquarks: Unraveling the Tcs0(2900) and T a c¯s0(2900)

    Bo Wang, Kan Chen, Lu Meng, and Shi-Lin Zhu. Spectrum of the molecular tetraquarks: Unraveling the Tcs0(2900) and T a c¯s0(2900). Phys. Rev. D, 109(3):034027, 2024

    2024

  52. [59]

    Production of the newly observed ¯Tc¯s0 by kaon- induced reactions on a proton /neutron target

    Yin Huang, Hao Hei, Jing-wen Feng, Xurong Chen, and Rong Wang. Production of the newly observed ¯Tc¯s0 by kaon- induced reactions on a proton /neutron target. Phys. Rev. D , 108(7):076019, 2023

    2023

  53. [60]

    Scalar res- onance contributions in the Ds1(2460)+ → D+ sπ+π− reaction

    Zhong-Yu Wang, Yu-Shuai Li, and Si-Qiang Luo. Scalar res- onance contributions in the Ds1(2460)+ → D+ sπ+π− reaction. Phys. Rev. D, 111(7):076009, 2025

    2025

  54. [61]

    Molecular picture for X0(2900) and X1(2900)

    Jun He and Dian-Yong Chen. Molecular picture for X0(2900) and X1(2900). Chin. Phys. C, 45(6):063102, 2021

    2021

  55. [62]

    Studying the ¯D1K molecule in the Bethe–Salpeter equation approach

    Jing-Juan Qi, Zhen-Yang Wang, Zhu-Feng Zhang, and Xin- Heng Guo. Studying the ¯D1K molecule in the Bethe–Salpeter equation approach. Eur . Phys. J. C, 81(7):639, 2021

    2021

  56. [63]

    X1(2900) as a ¯D1K molecule

    Hao Chen, Hong-Rong Qi, and Han-Qing Zheng. X1(2900) as a ¯D1K molecule. Eur . Phys. J. C, 81(9):812, 2021

    2021

  57. [64]

    Marek Karliner and Jonathan L. Rosner. First exotic hadron with open heavy flavor: cs ¯u ¯d tetraquark. Phys. Rev. D , 102(9):094016, 2020

    2020

  58. [65]

    Open-charm tetraquark Xc and open-bottom tetraquark Xb

    Xiao-Gang He, Wei Wang, and Ruilin Zhu. Open-charm tetraquark Xc and open-bottom tetraquark Xb. Eur . Phys. J. C, 80(11):1026, 2020

    2020

  59. [66]

    Spectrum and rearrangement decays of tetraquark states with four di fferent flavors

    Jian-Bo Cheng, Shi-Yuan Li, Yan-Rui Liu, Yu-Nan Liu, Zong- Guo Si, and Tao Yao. Spectrum and rearrangement decays of tetraquark states with four di fferent flavors. Phys. Rev. D , 101(11):114017, 2020

    2020

  60. [67]

    Mass spec- tra and decays of open-heavy tetraquark states

    Tao Guo, Jianing Li, Jiaxing Zhao, and Lianyi He. Mass spec- tra and decays of open-heavy tetraquark states. Phys. Rev. D , 105(5):054018, 2022

    2022

  61. [68]

    Open-charm tetraquark candidate: Note on X0(2900)

    Jian-Rong Zhang. Open-charm tetraquark candidate: Note on X0(2900). Phys. Rev. D, 103(5):054019, 2021

    2021

  62. [69]

    Analysis of the X0(2900) as the scalar tetraquark state via the QCD sum rules

    Zhi-Gang Wang. Analysis of the X0(2900) as the scalar tetraquark state via the QCD sum rules. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A , 35(30):2050187, 2020

    2020

  63. [70]

    S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi, and H. Sundu. Vector resonance X1(2900) and its structure. Nucl. Phys. A, 1011:122202, 2021

    2021

  64. [71]

    ¨Ozdem and K

    U. ¨Ozdem and K. Azizi. Magnetic moment of the X1(2900) state in the diquark–antidiquark picture. Eur . Phys. J. A , 58(9):171, 2022

    2022

  65. [72]

    Triangle singularity as the origin of X0(2900) and X1(2900) observed in B+ → D+D−K+

    Xiao-Hai Liu, Mao-Jun Yan, Hong-Wei Ke, Gang Li, and Ju- Jun Xie. Triangle singularity as the origin of X0(2900) and X1(2900) observed in B+ → D+D−K+. Eur . Phys. J. C , 80(12):1178, 2020

    2020

  66. [73]

    X0(2900) and its heavy quark spin partners in molecular picture

    Mei-Wei Hu, Xue-Yi Lao, Pan Ling, and Qian Wang. X0(2900) and its heavy quark spin partners in molecular picture. Chin. Phys. C, 45(2):021003, 2021

    2021

  67. [74]

    The tetraquark system in a chiral quark model

    Gang Yang, Jialun Ping, and Jorge Segovia. The tetraquark system in a chiral quark model. Chin. Phys. C , 48(7):073106, 2024. 8

    2024

  68. [75]

    Uni- fied description of the Qs ¯q¯q molecular bound states, molecular resonances, and compact tetraquark states in the quark potential model

    Yan-Ke Chen, Wei-Lin Wu, Lu Meng, and Shi-Lin Zhu. Uni- fied description of the Qs ¯q¯q molecular bound states, molecular resonances, and compact tetraquark states in the quark potential model. Phys. Rev. D, 109(1):014010, 2024

    2024

  69. [76]

    X0(2900) and its spin partners productions in the B+ decay processes

    Zhuo Yu, Qi Wu, and Dian-Yong Chen. X0(2900) and its spin partners productions in the B+ decay processes. Eur . Phys. J. C, 84(9):985, 2024

    2024

  70. [77]

    R. L. Workman et al. Review of Particle Physics. PTEP, 2022:083C01, 2022

    2022

  71. [78]

    Covariant light front approach for s wave and p wave mesons: Its application to decay constants and form-factors

    Hai-Yang Cheng, Chun-Khiang Chua, and Chien-Wen Hwang. Covariant light front approach for s wave and p wave mesons: Its application to decay constants and form-factors. Phys. Rev. D, 69:074025, 2004

    2004

  72. [79]

    Soni, Aidos Issadykov, Akshay N

    Nakul R. Soni, Aidos Issadykov, Akshay N. Gadaria, Zhomart Tyulemissov, Janaki J. Patel, and Jignesh N. Pandya. Form factors and branching fraction calculations for Bs→ D(∗) s ℓ+νℓ in view of LHCb observation. Eur . Phys. J. Plus, 138(2):163, 2023

    2023

  73. [80]

    Stech, and M

    Manfred Bauer, B. Stech, and M. Wirbel. Exclusive Nonlep- tonic Decays of D, D(s), and B Mesons. Z. Phys. C , 34:103, 1987

    1987

  74. [81]

    P. A. Zyla et al. Review of Particle Physics. PTEP, 2020(8):083C01, 2020

    2020

  75. [82]

    Kramer, and Cai-Dian Lu

    Ahmed Ali, G. Kramer, and Cai-Dian Lu. Experimental tests of factorization in charmless nonleptonic two-body B decays. Phys. Rev. D, 58:094009, 1998

    1998

  76. [83]

    Ivanov, Jurgen G

    Mikhail A. Ivanov, Jurgen G. Korner, and Pietro Santorelli. Ex- clusive semileptonic and nonleptonic decays of the Bc meson. Phys. Rev. D, 73:054024, 2006

    2006

  77. [84]

    Fi- nal state interactions in hadronic B decays

    Hai-Yang Cheng, Chun-Khiang Chua, and Amarjit Soni. Fi- nal state interactions in hadronic B decays. Phys. Rev. D , 71:014030, 2005

    2005

  78. [85]

    Aoki et al

    S. Aoki et al. FLAG Review 2019: Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG). Eur . Phys. J. C, 80(2):113, 2020

    2019

  79. [86]

    Decay constants of D∗ sJ(2317) and DsJ(2460)

    Dae Sung Hwang and Do-Won Kim. Decay constants of D∗ sJ(2317) and DsJ(2460). Phys. Lett. B, 606:116–122, 2005

    2005

  80. [87]

    Bishai et al

    M. Bishai et al. Search for the decay B→ D+ s1(2536)X. Phys. Rev. D, 57:3847–3853, 1998

    1998

  81. [88]

    Produc- tion rates of hidden-charm pentaquark molecules in Λb decays

    Ya-Wen Pan, Ming-Zhu Liu, and Li-Sheng Geng. Produc- tion rates of hidden-charm pentaquark molecules in Λb decays. Phys. Rev. D, 108(11):114022, 2023

    2023

  82. [89]

    Charming penguins in B→ K∗π, K(ρ,ω,ϕ ) decays

    Claudia Isola, Massimo Ladisa, Giuseppe Nardulli, and Pietro Santorelli. Charming penguins in B→ K∗π, K(ρ,ω,ϕ ) decays. Phys. Rev. D, 68:114001, 2003

    2003

  83. [90]

    Falk and Michael E

    Adam F. Falk and Michael E. Luke. Strong decays of ex- cited heavy mesons in chiral perturbation theory. Phys. Lett. B, 292:119–127, 1992

    1992

  84. [91]

    Casalbuoni, A

    R. Casalbuoni, A. Deandrea, N. Di Bartolomeo, Raoul Gatto, F. Feruglio, and G. Nardulli. Phenomenology of heavy meson chiral Lagrangians. Phys. Rept., 281:145–238, 1997

    1997

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.