Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 47 references

Hidden-charm pentaquarks are classified by the flavor of their light quarks; only the SU(3) 1 and 8′ multiplets bind, explaining Pc and Pcs and predicting single- and double-strange partners.

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 ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-12 09:33 UTC pith:RQRUHQQL

load-bearing objection Clean SU(3) dictionary for hidden-charm molecules that places known Pc/Pcs states and gives concrete mass tables for the mixed single- and double-strange partners; predictions re-use the same fitted contacts, so they are model extrapolations rather than free forecasts. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.00411 v2 pith:RQRUHQQL submitted 2026-07-01 hep-ph hep-ex

Classifying the hidden-charm pentaquarks via a flavor mixing scheme

Kan Chen , Bo Wang This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-ex PACS 12.39.Hg14.20.Pt12.39.Fe
keywords hidden-charm pentaquarksmolecular statesSU(3) flavor symmetrychannel mixingPc and Pcs statessingle-strange pentaquarksdouble-strange pentaquarkscontact potential
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 paper proposes a single flavor-based classification for all molecular states made of a ground-state single-charm baryon and an anticharmed meson. Light-meson exchange is dominated by a contact term that respects SU(3) flavor symmetry; matrix elements of that term are attractive only for the flavor singlet and the primed octet. Consequently the observed non-strange Pc states sit in a pure |8′,1,½⟩ multiplet while the strange Pcs states sit in a broken |1,0,0⟩ singlet that mixes ΛcD¯s with ΞcD¯. The same rule immediately implies two further multiplets—broken |8′,0,1⟩ and |8′,−1,½⟩—whose attraction is generated by the analogous channel mixings Σc(*)D¯s(*)–Ξ′c(*)D¯(*) and Ξ′c(*)D¯s(*)–Ωc(*)D¯(*). Parameters fixed to the measured Pc and Pcs masses then yield concrete mass predictions for the entire single- and double-strange spectrum.

Core claim

All baryon–meson systems formed from the ground single-charm baryons and D¯(*)/D¯s(*) mesons can be classified by the SU(3) flavor representation of their light degrees of freedom; only the 1 and 8′ representations produce attraction, placing the observed Pc states in the pure |8′,1,½⟩ multiplet and the Pcs states in the broken |1,0,0⟩ singlet, while the same mixing mechanism generates bound states in the broken |8′,0,1⟩ and |8′,−1,½⟩ multiplets.

What carries the argument

Flavor-dominant contact potential V = g̃s λ1·λ2 + g̃a λ1·λ2 σ1·σ2 (with strange-meson suppression gx) whose SU(3) matrix elements select only the 1 and 8′ multiplets as attractive; channel mixing under broken SU(3) then maps those pure eigenstates onto physical coupled-channel systems.

Load-bearing premise

The two contact couplings and the strange-meson suppression factor extracted from the known Pc and Pcs masses remain universal for every other multiplet, including the unobserved single- and double-strange systems.

What would settle it

A high-statistics search for the predicted single-strange I=1 states near the ΣcD¯s and ΣcD¯*s thresholds (or the double-strange I=½ states near the Ξ′cD¯s and Ξ′cD¯*s thresholds) that finds no peaks within a few MeV of the masses listed in Table VI would falsify the claim.

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

If this is right

  • The non-strange Pc spectrum is essentially complete once the |8′,1,½⟩ multiplet is filled; no additional non-strange molecular states are expected from these channels.
  • Single-strange I=1 and double-strange I=½ hidden-charm bound states must exist, with masses fixed by the same parameters that reproduce Pc and Pcs.
  • Triple-strange Ωc(*)D¯s(*) systems are repulsive and therefore unbound within the model.
  • The mass patterns of the |8′,1,½⟩ and |8′,0,0⟩ multiplets remain nearly identical, providing a clean experimental test of residual SU(3) symmetry.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the predicted single-strange I=1 peaks appear, the same contact Lagrangian immediately organizes the entire five-flavor pentaquark spectrum, including open-charm partners.
  • Absence of the double-strange states would isolate the gx suppression factor as the weakest link and force a re-evaluation of strange-meson exchange in all molecular calculations.
  • The same selection rule applied to heavy-quark spin partners predicts a parallel tower of J=5/2 states whose discovery would confirm that hyperfine structure is controlled solely by the smaller g̃a term.

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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes an SU(3) flavor classification for S-wave molecular states of ground-state single-charm baryons (Λ_c, Ξ_c, Σ_c^{(*)}, Ξ_c'^{(*)}, Ω_c^{(*)}) and anticharmed mesons (D̄^{(*)}, D̄_s^{(*)}). Light degrees of freedom are organized into 1, 8, 8' and 10 representations; only the 1 and 8' multiplets are attractive because ⟨λ_1·λ_2⟩ is negative there (Table IV). Observed P_c states are assigned to the pure |8',1,1/2⟩ doublet and P_cs states to the broken |1,0,0⟩ singlet. The same contact operators (Eq. 2) with parameters fitted to P_c(4440)/P_c(4457) and P_cs(4338) are then used to generate bound/quasi-bound poles from the broken |8',0,1⟩ (Σ_c^{(*)}D̄_s^{(*)}-Ξ_c'^{(*)}D̄^{(*)}) and |8',-1,1/2⟩ (Ξ_c'^{(*)}D̄_s^{(*)}-Ω_c^{(*)}D̄^{(*)}) mixings; the resulting mass spectra appear in Table VI for two spin-assignment scenarios.

Significance. If the classification and the associated mass predictions hold, the work supplies a compact, falsifiable organizing principle that unifies the known P_c and P_cs states and forecasts concrete single- and double-strange partners (Table VI) that can be searched for in J/ψΛ, J/ψΞ and related final states. The systematic multiplet analysis, retention of both spin scenarios, explicit g_x trajectories (Figs. 1, 4, 5) and tabulated eigenvalues of the flavor and spin-spin operators constitute a clear, reproducible phenomenological framework that other groups can test or refine.

major comments (3)
  1. Sec. V and Table VI: the numerical masses for the unobserved |8',0,1⟩ and |8',-1,1/2⟩ states are obtained by re-inserting the same g̃_s, g̃_a (Eqs. 11–12) and g_x = 0.6 ± 0.1 into the identical two-channel Lippmann–Schwinger equation used for the input P_c/P_cs states. Because the off-diagonal attraction is generated solely by the strange-meson pieces scaled by g_x, any channel-dependent renormalization of those pieces (already acknowledged as model-dependent for the analogous Λ_c D̄_s–Ξ_c D̄ mixing in Sec. III versus Ref. [37]) can move or eliminate the poles. A quantitative estimate of this uncertainty—e.g., by varying the contact form or by comparing with an explicit one-boson-exchange potential—should be added before the numbers in Table VI can be regarded as robust predictions.
  2. Sec. II A, Eq. (2): the interaction is reduced to two contact operators generated by fictitious scalar and axial-vector fields. For near-threshold molecules the long-range one-pion-exchange tail is known to be important in many related systems; its omission is not justified beyond the statement that the contact terms already reproduce the input masses. At minimum the manuscript should demonstrate that the qualitative pattern of attraction (only 1 and 8') survives when a finite-range pion-exchange piece is restored, or should cite a controlled matching calculation that legitimizes the pure-contact truncation for the strange channels.
  3. Figs. 4–5 and Table VI: several poles appear only in one of the two spin scenarios or only at the edge of the g_x band. The text should explicitly flag which entries are common to both scenarios and the full physical g_x interval, and which are scenario- or g_x-dependent, so that experimental searches can prioritize the robust subset.
minor comments (4)
  1. Table II and Fig. 2: the notation |R,Y,I⟩ is introduced but the hypercharge Y is never defined in the main text (only in the caption of Table II). A one-line definition would help non-specialist readers.
  2. Figs. 1, 4 and 5: the green bands marking g_x = 0.6 ± 0.1 are helpful, yet the corresponding numerical mass windows are not listed in the figure captions; adding them would make the plots self-contained.
  3. Sec. III, paragraph after Eq. (14): the sentence comparing the present Λ_c D̄_s–Ξ_c D̄ mixing with Ref. [37] is important but terse; a short clause stating the opposite sign of the induced attraction would clarify the model dependence for the reader.
  4. Occasional typesetting artifacts remain (e.g., “mixin g”, “flavor”, missing spaces around subscripts). A careful proof-reading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Mass spectra in Table VI are obtained by re-inserting the same contact couplings (and gx) that were fitted to the input Pc/Pcs masses into the identical LSE for the new channels; the numerical 'predictions' therefore reduce to a re-application of those fitted constants under a universality assumption.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract; Sec. V (paragraphs preceding Table VI); Table VI]
    "Using parameters fitted from the measured Pc and Pcs states, we systematically present the predicted mass spectra for these single- and double-strange hidden-charm bound states. ... In Table VI, we further present our numerical results for the possible bound/quasi-bound states produced from the Σ(*)c D̄(*)s-Ξ'(*)c D̄(*) and Ξ'(*)c D̄(*)s-Ω(*)c D̄(*) mixings."

    The masses (and even the existence) of the poles in the new channels are obtained by feeding the identical numerical values of g̃s, g̃a (Eqs. 11-12) and gx = 0.6 ± 0.1 (green bands of Figs. 1, 4, 5) that were previously adjusted to the input Pc(4440), Pc(4457) and Pcs(4338) into the same contact potential (Eq. 2) and the same LSE (Eq. 21). The output spectrum is therefore a direct numerical consequence of those fitted constants under the assumption that the operators remain universal; no independent dynamical input enters the calculation of Table VI.

  2. self citation load bearing [Sec. III (parameter extraction); Eqs. (11)-(12)]
    "In Ref. [31], we assume the Pc(4440) and Pc(4457) as the I = 1/2 Σc D̄* molecular states ... We use the experimental masses of Pc(4440) and Pc(4457) as inputs to extract the numerical values of g̃s and g̃a, we obtain Scenario 1: g̃s = 8.28 GeV-2, g̃a = -1.46 GeV-2, Scenario 2: g̃s = 9.12 GeV-2, g̃a = 1.25 GeV-2."

    The entire subsequent analysis (attractiveness of the 1 and 8' representations, the value of gx, and all entries of Table VI) rests on the numerical values of the two contact couplings that were extracted in the authors' own prior work. While the fit itself is to external experimental masses, the load-bearing claim that those same numbers govern every other multiplet is justified only by the self-citation chain; no independent determination of g̃s, g̃a for the strange systems is supplied.

full rationale

The paper's group-theoretic classification of baryon-meson systems into SU(3) multiplets (Table II, Fig. 2) and the sign of the matrix elements ⟨λ1·λ2⟩ (Table IV) are independent of any fit and constitute genuine organizational content. However, the concrete mass values listed for the unobserved single- and double-strange states (Table VI) are generated by solving the two-channel Lippmann-Schwinger equation with precisely the same numerical values of g̃s, g̃a (Eqs. 11-12, taken from the authors' prior fit to Pc(4440)/Pc(4457)) and gx = 0.6 ± 0.1 (fixed to the mass of Pcs(4338)). Because the off-diagonal flavor-mixing pieces that produce the poles are scaled by this same gx, the locations of those poles are statistically forced once the parameters are held fixed; only the multiplet assignment itself is free of the fit. This is a standard model-building extrapolation rather than a definitional identity, so the circularity is partial (score 5) rather than total. No uniqueness theorem or self-definitional loop is present, and the self-citations to Refs. [19, 30, 31] merely supply the already-fitted numbers that the present work re-uses.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 3 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central numerical claims rest on three fitted couplings, a fixed cutoff, the assumption that light-meson exchange is saturated by a contact operator with exact SU(3)×SU(2) symmetry, and the further assumption that only the 1 and 8′ representations can bind. No new particles or forces are postulated beyond the molecular picture already used in the literature.

free parameters (4)
  • g̃s (scenario 1/2) = 8.28 / 9.12 GeV^{-2}
    Overall strength of the flavor-singlet contact force; fitted to Pc(4440) and Pc(4457) masses (Eqs. 11–12).
  • g̃a (scenario 1/2) = −1.46 / +1.25 GeV^{-2}
    Spin-spin contact strength; fitted simultaneously with g̃s to the same two Pc states.
  • gx = 0.6 ± 0.1
    Suppression factor for strange-meson exchange; fixed to 0.6 ± 0.1 so that the ΛcD̄s–ΞcD̄ pole reproduces Pcs(4338).
  • dipole cutoff Λ = 1.0 GeV
    Regularization scale of the form factor u(Λ); chosen by hand at 1.0 GeV and kept fixed for all systems.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Light-meson exchange between single-charm baryons and anticharmed mesons is saturated by a contact operator g̃s λ1·λ2 + g̃a λ1·λ2 σ1·σ2 that respects exact SU(3) flavor and SU(2) spin symmetry.
    Stated in Sec. II A and used for every matrix element thereafter; no derivation from QCD is given.
  • ad hoc to paper Only the SU(3) representations with negative ⟨λ1·λ2⟩ (the 1 and 8′) can form bound states; the 8 and 10 are repulsive.
    Follows from the positive sign of the fitted g̃s (Table IV); the selection rule is therefore data-driven rather than first-principles.
  • domain assumption S-wave contact interactions dominate; S–D mixing and three-body forces can be neglected for states near threshold.
    Implicit throughout the Lippmann-Schwinger solutions of Sec. V.
invented entities (1)
  • flavor-mixing classification scheme for hidden-charm molecules no independent evidence
    purpose: Organizes all ground-state baryon–meson pairs into pure or broken SU(3) multiplets and identifies which ones can bind.
    The scheme itself is the paper’s main conceptual contribution; it is a reorganization of existing degrees of freedom rather than a new dynamical object.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 28947 in / 3111 out tokens · 31863 ms · 2026-07-12T09:33:09.665895+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In this work, we propose a scheme to classify the molecular states consisting of ground single-charm baryons ($\Lambda_c$, $\Xi_c$, $\Sigma_c^{(*)}$, $\Xi_c^{\prime(*)}$, $\Omega_c^{(*)}$) and $\bar{D}^{(*)}/\bar{D}_s^{(*)}$ mesons. Within this framework, all considered baryon-meson systems are categorized according to the flavor components of their light degrees of freedom. We briefly illustrate how this classification scheme can consistently explain the experimentally observed $P_c$ and $P_{cs}$ states. This framework also predicts the existences of single-strange and double-strange hidden-charm bound states. The attractive interactions of these states arise from channel mixing between $\Sigma_c^{(*)}\bar{D}_s^{(*)}$ and $\Xi_c^{\prime(*)}\bar{D}^{(*)}$ for single-strange systems, and mixing between $\Xi_c^{\prime(*)}\bar{D}_s^{(*)}$ and $\Omega_c^{(*)}\bar{D}^{(*)}$ for double-strange systems, respectively. Using parameters fitted from the measured $P_c$ and $P_{cs}$ states, we systematically present the predicted mass spectra for these single- and double-strange hidden-charm bound states.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.00411 by Bo Wang, Kan Chen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The flavor wave functions of molecular hidden-charm p [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The baryon-meson thresholds related to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

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

47 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    (4) The operators λ 8 1λ 8 2 (λ 8 1λ 8 2σ 1 · σ 2), ∑3 i=1 λ i 1λ i 2 (∑3 i=1 λ i 1λ i 2σ 1 ·σ 2), and ∑7 j=4 λ j 1λ j 2 (∑7 j=4 λ j 1λ j 2σ 1 ·σ 2) account for the exchanges of isospin singlet, triplet, and t wo doublets light scalar (axial-vector) fictitious meson field s. The redefined coupling parameters ˜gs and ˜ga are propor- tional to g2 s m2 S and g2...

  2. [2]

    82 < g x < 1, this pole becomes a bound state. For the J P = 3 2 − poles, their behaviors can be discussed in a similar way, and for the J P = 5 2 − , we do not find any poles in scenario 1, thus we only illustrate the pole traject ory calculated from scenario 2. In Table VI, we further present our numerical results for the possible bound/quasi-bound state...

  3. [3]

    and Ξ ′(∗) c ¯D(∗) s − Ω (∗) c ¯D(∗) (I = 1 2 ) states via SU(3) break- ing, thus some of the states can not gain enough attractive forces to form bound/quasi-bound states. VI. SUMMARY In this work, we construct flavor wave functions built from single-charm baryons ( Λ c, Ξ c, Σ (∗) c , Ξ ′(∗) c , Ω (∗) c ) and an- ticharmed mesons ( ¯D(∗), ¯D(∗) s ) withi...

  4. [4]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Observation of J/ψp Resonances Con- sistent with Pentaquark States in Λ 0 b → J/ψK − p Decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 072001 (2015)

    2015

  5. [5]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Model-independent evidence for J/ψp contributions to Λ 0 b → J/ψpK − decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, no.8, 082002 (2016)

    2016

  6. [6]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Observation of a narrow pentaquark state,Pc(4312)+, and of two-peak structure of the Pc(4450)+, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, no.22, 222001 (2019)

    2019

  7. [7]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Observation of a J/ψ Λ Resonance Con- sistent with a Strange Pentaquark Candidate in B → J/ψ Λp Decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, no.3, 031901 (2023)

    2023

  8. [8]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Evidence of a J/ψ Λ structure and ob- servation of excited Ξ − states in the Ξ − b → J/ψ ΛK − decay, Sci. Bull. 66, 1278-1287 (2021)

    2021

  9. [9]

    Adachi et al

    I. Adachi et al. [Belle and Belle-II], Search for Pcs(4459) and Pcs(4338) in Υ(1S, 2S) inclusive decays at Belle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, no.4, 041901 (2025)

    2025

  10. [10]

    H. X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, The hidden-charm pentaquark and tetraquark states, Phys. Rept. 639, 1-121 (2016)

    2016

  11. [11]

    R. F. Lebed, R. E. Mitchell and E. S. Swanson, Heavy-Quark QCD Exotica, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 93, 143-194 (2017)

    2017

  12. [12]

    Esposito, A

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

    2017

  13. [13]

    F. K. Guo, C. Hanhart, U. G. Meißner, Q. Wang, Q. Zhao and B. S. Zou, Hadronic molecules, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, no.1, 015004 (2018) 13 [erratum: Rev. Mod. Phys. 94, no.2, 029901 (2022)]

    2018

  14. [14]

    A. Ali, J. S. Lange and S. Stone, Exotics: Heavy Pentaqua rks and Tetraquarks, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 97, 123-198 (2017)

    2017

  15. [15]

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

    2019

  16. [16]

    H. X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, Y . R. Liu and S. L. Zhu, An updated review of the new hadron states, Rept. Prog. Phys. 86, no.2, 026201 (2023)

    2023

  17. [17]

    L. Meng, B. Wang, G. J. Wang and S. L. Zhu, Chiral perturba - tion theory for heavy hadrons and chiral effective field theo ry for heavy hadronic molecules, Phys. Rept. 1019, 1-149 (2023)

    2023

  18. [18]

    X. Wang, X. Liu and Y . Gao, Colloquium: Hadron pro- duction in open-charm meson pairs at e+e− colliders, Rev. Mod. Phys. 98, no.2, 021001 (2026)

    2026

  19. [19]

    Gell-Mann, A Schematic Model of Baryons and Mesons, Phys

    M. Gell-Mann, A Schematic Model of Baryons and Mesons, Phys. Lett. 8, 214-215 (1964)

    1964

  20. [20]

    Zweig, An SU(3) model for strong interaction symmetr y and its breaking

    G. Zweig, An SU(3) model for strong interaction symmetr y and its breaking. V ersion 1,doi:10.17181/CERN-TH-401

    doi:10.17181/cern-th-401

  21. [21]

    Zweig, An SU(3) model for strong interaction symmetr y and its breaking

    G. Zweig, An SU(3) model for strong interaction symmetr y and its breaking. V ersion 2,doi:10.17181/CERN-TH-412

    doi:10.17181/cern-th-412

  22. [22]

    K. Chen, Z. Y . Lin and S. L. Zhu, Comparison between the PN ψ andP Λ ψ s systems, Phys. Rev. D 106, no.11, 116017 (2022)

    2022

  23. [23]

    F. L. Wang, R. Chen and X. Liu, Prediction of hidden-charm pentaquarks with double strangeness, Phys. Rev. D 103, no.3, 034014 (2021)

    2021

  24. [24]

    J. A. Mars´ e-V alera, V . K. Magas and A. Ramos, Double- Strangeness Molecular-Type Pentaquarks from Coupled- Channel Dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, no.9, 9 (2023)

    2023

  25. [25]

    L. Roca, J. Song and E. Oset, Molecular pen- taquarks with hidden charm and double strangeness, Phys. Rev. D 109, no.9, 094005 (2024)

    2024

  26. [26]

    Clymton, H

    S. Clymton, H. C. Kim and T. Mart, Double-strangeness hidden-charm pentaquarks, Phys. Rev. D 112, no.3, 034015 (2025)

    2025

  27. [27]

    Azizi, Y

    K. Azizi, Y . Sarac and H. Sundu, Investigation of hidden-charm double strange pentaquark candidate Pcss via its mass and strong decays, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, no.6, 543 (2022)

    2022

  28. [28]

    Z. G. Wang, Analysis of the hidden-charm pentaquark can di- dates in the J/ψ Ξ ∗ mass spectrum via the QCD sum rules, arXiv:2606.28095

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  29. [29]

    Z. G. Wang and Y . Liu, Analysis of the hidden-charm pen- taquark candidates in the J/ψ Ξ mass spectrum via the QCD sum rules, Nucl. Phys. B 1027, 117456 (2026)

    2026

  30. [30]

    V . V . Anisovich, M. A. Matveev, J. Nyiri, A. V . Sarantsev and A. N. Semenova, Nonstrange and strange pentaquarks with hid- den charm, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 30, no.32, 1550190 (2015)

    2015

  31. [31]

    P . G. Ortega, D. R. Entem and F. Fernandez, Strange hidde n- charmP Λ ψ s (4459) andP Λ ψ s (4338) pentaquarks and additional P Λ ψ s , P Σ ψ s and PN ψ ss candidates in a quark model approach, Phys. Lett. B 838, 137747 (2023)

    2023

  32. [32]

    Mutuk, [arXiv:2606.10122 [hep-ph]]

    H. Mutuk, [arXiv:2606.10122 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  33. [33]

    Chen and B

    K. Chen and B. Wang, From PN ψ and P Λ ψ s to ¯Tf cc: Symmetry analysis of the interactions in the (c¯q)(c¯q), (ccq)(c¯q), and (ccq)(ccq) dihadron systems, Phys. Rev. D 110, no.11, 116017 (2024)

    2024

  34. [34]

    Chen and B

    K. Chen and B. Wang, Flavor-spin symmetry of the PN ψ /HN Ω ccc and P Λ ψ s /H Λ Ω cccs molecular states, Phys. Rev. D 109, no.11, 114028 (2024)

    2024

  35. [35]

    T. A. Kaeding, Tables of SU(3) isoscalar factors, Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl. 61, 233-288 (1995)

    1995

  36. [36]

    F. L. Wang, X. D. Yang, R. Chen and X. Liu, Hidden-charm pentaquarks with triple strangeness due to the Ω (∗ ) c ¯D(∗ ) s inter- actions, Phys. Rev. D 103, no.5, 054025 (2021)

    2021

  37. [37]

    Z. Y . Yang, F. Z. Peng, M. J. Yan, M. S´ anchez S´ anchez and M. Pavon V alderrama, Molecular Pψ pentaquarks from light-meson exchange saturation, Phys. Rev. D 111, no.1, 014012 (2025)

    2025

  38. [38]

    Clymton, H

    S. Clymton, H. C. Kim and T. Mart, Triple-strangeness hi dden- charm pentaquarks, Phys. Rev. D 112, no.9, 094024 (2025)

    2025

  39. [39]

    Q. Meng, E. Hiyama, K. U. Can, P . Gubler, M. Oka, A. Hosaka and H. Zong, Compact sssc¯c pentaquark states predicted by a quark model, Phys. Lett. B 798, 135028 (2019)

    2019

  40. [40]

    Feijoo, W

    A. Feijoo, W. F. Wang, C. W. Xiao, J. J. Wu, E. Oset, J. Niev es and B. S. Zou, A new look at the Pcs states from a molecular perspective, Phys. Lett. B 839, 137760 (2023)

    2023

  41. [41]

    Clymton, H

    S. Clymton, H. C. Kim and T. Mart, Production mechanism o f hidden-charm pentaquark statesPc¯cs with strangenessS = − 1, Phys. Rev. D 112, no.1, 014041 (2025)

    2025

  42. [42]

    F. Z. Peng, M. Z. Liu, Y . W. Pan, M. S´ anchez S´ anchez and M. Pavon V alderrama, Five-flavor pentaquarks and other ligh t- and heavy-flavor symmetry partners of the LHCb hidden-charm pentaquarks, Nucl. Phys. B 983, 115936 (2022)

    2022

  43. [43]

    E. E. Garcia-Gonzales, V . K. Magas and A. Ramos, Compre- hensive study of hidden charm pentaquarks with an improved unitarization method, arXiv:2605.21205 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  44. [44]

    S. X. Nakamura and J. J. Wu, Pole determination of P Λ ψ s (4338) and possible P Λ ψ s (4255) in B → J/ψ Λp, Phys. Rev. D 108, no.1, L011501 (2023)

    2023

  45. [45]

    D. B. Leinweber, A. W. Thomas and R. D. Y oung, Physical nucleon properties from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 242002 (2004)

    2004

  46. [46]

    P . Wang, D. B. Leinweber, A. W. Thomas and R. D. Y oung, Chiral extrapolation of nucleon magnetic form factors, Phys. Rev. D 75, 073012 (2007)

    2007

  47. [47]

    Y . K. Chen, L. Meng, Z. Y . Lin and S. L. Zhu, Virtual states in the coupled-channel problems with an improved complex scal - ing method, Phys. Rev. D 109, no.3, 034006 (2024)

    2024