Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 226 references

Symmetry counting predicts low-energy compact tetraquarks are dominated by spin-2 states, matching the observed 2++ quantum numbers of X(6600), X(6900), and X(7100).

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 08:57 UTC pith:FZGKKS3C

load-bearing objection Solid symmetry bookkeeping for compact tetraquarks, but the central step from state counts to energy ordering is an assumption, not a derivation—worth refereeing, not desk-rejecting. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.02382 v2 pith:FZGKKS3C submitted 2026-07-02 hep-ph

Symmetry Analysis of Compact Tetraquark States and Implications for the Level Ordering of the Fully Charmed Candidates X(6600), X(6900), and X(7100)

Shuai Yin , Ti Gong , Jingya Zhu This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords compact tetraquark statesfully charmed tetraquarksinherent nodal surfacesJ^P distributionS4 representation theoryspin-statistics constraintschromomagnetic interactionX(6600) X(6900) X(7100)
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 asks whether pure group-theoretical constraints—the inherent nodal surface analysis of the four-body q\bar{q}q\bar{q} system—can explain why the fully charmed states X(6600), X(6900), and X(7100) all carry J^{PC}=2^{++}. Restricting the S4 symmetry of tetrahedral and square geometries to the quark-antiquark pair subgroup S2×S2 and counting the accessible orbital states up to L≤3, the paper finds that 2^+ states outnumber all other J^P values when both geometries are combined. The 2^+ dominance persists after a chromomagnetic interaction weight is added, suggesting that spatial symmetry, not dynamics, fixes the gross structure of the low-lying compact tetraquark spectrum. If correct, this gives a simple, parameter-free reason why the first fully charmed exotic states found are spin-2 rather than spin-0 or spin-1.

Core claim

Under spin-statistics and color-singlet constraints, the paper derives the allowed orbital-spin-flavor-color combinations for compact q\bar{q}q\bar{q} states by restricting S4 representations to the S2×S2 subgroup in the tetrahedral and square configurations. Counting the L≤3 accessible states yields a distribution dominated by J^P=2^+, followed by 2^-, 3^-, and 1^-, and the paper states the qualitative energy ordering E(2^+)<E(2^-)<E(3^-)<E(1^-). Adding a chromomagnetic-interaction weight does not remove the 2^+ dominance, and the distribution's shape closely tracks that of a three-flavor four-quark system. The paper therefore concludes that the experimentally established J^{PC}=2^{++} of X

What carries the argument

The inherent nodal surface (INS) framework, which classifies low-energy few-body states by the symmetry of the orbital wave function's nodal surface. The central technical step is the restriction of S4 irreducible representations down to the S2×S2 subgroup that separately permutes the quark pair and antiquark pair, combined with a count of L^π λ2 \bar{λ2} components for L≤3 in the tetrahedral (ETH) and square (Sqr) configurations. This count is then weighted by a Boltzmann-like factor for chromomagnetic energies to test whether dynamics alters the symmetry-dominated ordering.

Load-bearing premise

The paper equates the number of symmetry-accessible J^P states, counted with equal weight over the tetrahedral and square configurations, with the qualitative energy ordering of the low-lying spectrum; if this counting-as-ordering step fails, the 2^+ dominance conclusion does not follow.

What would settle it

A lattice QCD calculation or an experimental measurement that places a fully charmed tetraquark state with J^{PC}=0^{++} or 2^{-+} below the 2^{++} states would contradict the predicted ordering E(2^+)<E(2^-)<E(3^-)<E(1^-) and falsify the counting-as-ordering assumption.

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

If this is right

  • If the symmetry counting is correct, the lowest compact tetraquark states should have J^P=2^+ before 2^-, 3^-, or 1^- states appear, as stated in Eq. (9).
  • The observed J^{PC}=2^{++} assignment for X(6600), X(6900), and X(7100) is consistent with these resonances being low-lying compact tetraquarks rather than molecular or threshold effects.
  • The near-constant ratio of accessible-state counts between the tetraquark system and the three-flavor four-quark system (about 5.24–5.25) implies that the J^P envelope is largely insensitive to the detailed flavor-color organization.
  • Because 2^+ dominance survives the addition of chromomagnetic weights, spatial symmetry is the primary constraint on the low-energy spectrum and dynamics plays a secondary, perturbative role.
  • Additional dynamical mechanisms beyond CMI are needed to explain the detailed energy ordering among X(6600), X(6900), and X(7100) themselves.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the paper's reasoning is right, the equal-weight sum over the tetrahedral and square geometries is the fragile step; a dynamical model that weights these geometries differently could reverse the 2^+ ordering, so that sum deserves a dedicated calculation.
  • A concrete testable extension is to look for low-lying 2^+ tetraquark states in other doubly heavy systems (e.g., bottom-charm or bottom-bottom versions), which the same symmetry counting would place at the bottom of the spectrum.
  • The near-universal ratio for L≤3 hints that the nodal-surface counting may be a generic property of four-fermion systems beyond QCD, but that extrapolation goes beyond what the paper claims.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper uses the inherent-nodal-surface (INS) framework and S_4 symmetry to enumerate the J^P content of low-energy compact tetraquark states, assuming tetrahedral (ETH) and square (Sqr) spatial configurations and their partially symmetric variants, for orbital angular momentum L≤3. From the number of symmetry-allowed subspaces in each J^P channel (Table III), it infers a qualitative energy ordering E(2^+)<E(2^-)<E(3^-)<E(1^-) (Eq. 9), and argues that this ordering supports the interpretation of X(6600), X(6900), and X(7100), with experimentally measured J^{PC}=2^{++}, as low-lying compact tetraquark states. The paper also compares the compact-tetraquark count distribution with that of three-flavor four-quark systems, and introduces a chromomagnetic-interaction (CMI) weighting to show that the 2^+ dominance persists under moderate dynamical perturbations.

Significance. If the counting-as-ordering inference were valid, the paper would provide a crisp, falsifiable symmetry-based prediction for the level ordering of fully charmed tetraquarks, a topic of current interest. The group-theoretic enumeration in Tables I-III is explicit and checkable, and the comparison with Ref. [179] is a useful cross-check of the method. The paper does not rely on hidden numerical fits; the CMI parameters are declared. The central weakness is that the step from counting accessible Hilbert-space sectors to an energy ordering is asserted, not derived, and the specific conclusion is numerically fragile. The symmetry bookkeeping itself may be valuable even if the energy-ordering claim is substantially weakened.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III A, Table III, Eqs. (9)-(10)] The inference from accessible-state counts to an energy ordering is asserted rather than derived. The 'fewer nodal surfaces' principle applies to individual orbital wave functions, not to the number of allowed subspaces summed over L≤3 and all spin-color sectors. This matters because Table III shows that the ETH configuration alone has N(2^-)=152 > N(2^+)=128; the ordering E(2^+)<E(2^-)<E(3^-)<E(1^-) in Eq. (9) appears only after adding the Sqr counts with equal weight. No symmetry or dynamical argument fixes that weight; an ETH-only choice, or any weight that favors the geometry with the lower zero-point energy, reverses the ordering. The later caveat in Sec. IV that the final ordering depends on dynamics is in tension with Eq. (9).
  2. [Sec. III B, Eqs. (11)-(14), Fig. 4] The CMI analysis does not resolve the problem because it inherits the same equal-weight state-count distribution from Sec. III A. The parameters E1, E2=E1, E3=4E1, and theta are assumed or sampled, not derived or fitted to any observable; the statement that the 2^+ peak persists is therefore conditional on an unjustified prior. This would be acceptable as a heuristic illustration, but it does not validate Eq. (9) or its extension.
  3. [Sec. III C and Sec. I] The application to X(6600), X(6900), and X(7100) is framed in terms of J^{PC}=2^{++}, but the symmetry analysis counts only J^P states. C-parity is a good quantum number for the cc bar cc system and is not computed anywhere in the paper. Without showing which of the counted 2^+ subspaces have C=+, the consistency claim with the experimentally determined 2^{++} quantum numbers is not actually derived.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (12)] The symbols delta_{Z,S} and delta_{Z,A} are used in the CMI energy correction but are not defined explicitly; please define them as Kronecker deltas for the color/spin representations involved.
  2. [Sec. III A] The configurations 'ETH3' and 'Sqr3' are introduced without a clear definition beyond 'partially symmetric configurations'; please spell out how the partial symmetry is imposed, or point to the precise equations in Ref. [179].
  3. [Fig. 3 caption] The quantities N_a and N'_a are defined in the text, but the caption should also define them for the reader who encounters the figure first.
  4. [Sec. III C, Eqs. (16)-(17)] The superscript notation E^{cc bar c bar c}(...) is typographically awkward and appears inconsistently; consider defining a single shorthand for the fully charmed tetraquark sector.
  5. [Sec. IV] The sentence 'The predicted preference for 2+ states may explain why such states were among the first fully charmed tetraquark candidates observed' overstates the result, given the caveat in the same section that the final energy ordering depends on dynamics. Suggest softening to 'suggested preference'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the symmetry-derived ordering is a stated heuristic, not a fitted or self-referential prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that low-energy compact tetraquark states favor J^P=2^+—is obtained from group-theoretical state counting (Table III) combined with an explicit heuristic principle that accessible-state number provides a qualitative energy ordering. This is an interpretive assumption rather than a circular derivation: Eq. (9) is not an input to the counting, and the counting is not fitted to the experimental masses. The CMI parameters (E1, E2, E3, theta) are scanned or assigned by a stated hierarchy (Eq. 14), not adjusted to reproduce X(6600), X(6900), or X(7100), and the 2^+ dominance is reported as robust across the sampled theta. The comparison with the QCD sum-rule result and with the experimental J^PC=2^++ quantum numbers is used as a consistency check, not as a fitted constraint. References [179] and [185-193] supply the INS framework and accessibility tables; these are external prior works, not self-citations of the present authors. The weakest point—the count-to-energy inference and the equal weighting of ETH and Sqr configurations—is a scientific or methodological concern about the validity of the heuristic, but it does not reduce the conclusion to its inputs by construction. The paper itself acknowledges in Sec. IV that the final energy ordering may depend on additional dynamics, further indicating that the symmetry counting is not presented as a closed, self-validating derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces. Its free parameters are the CMI scale/temperature and configuration weights; the most consequential assumptions are the INS counting-as-ordering principle and the equal weighting of ETH/Sqr configurations.

free parameters (4)
  • E1 (CMI spin-energy scale) = not fitted; E2=E1, E3=4E1 assumed (Eq. 14)
    The CMI correction delta-E in Eq. (12) is parameterized by E1, E2, E3, but only ratios matter after normalization; the hierarchy is assumed, not derived.
  • theta = T/E3 (effective temperature) = sampled {-0.01, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, infinity}
    Controls the weight of CMI vs symmetry; the negative value is admitted as an unphysical mathematical extension.
  • Configuration weights = 1:1 for ETH:Sqr and ETH3:Sqr3
    The total accessible-state number sums configurations with equal weight; changing weights can alter the 2^+ vs 2^- ordering.
  • L truncation cutoff = L <= 3
    Only orbital angular momenta up to 3 are included; higher L states likely lie higher in energy but still contribute to counts.
axioms (5)
  • standard math Branching rules for S4 restricted to S2 x S2 (Eq. 8)
    The orbital symmetry decompositions used to produce Tables II and III are standard group theory, but they are not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption Spin-statistics and color-singlet constraints (Sec. II, Eqs. 6-7)
    The paper requires each quark and antiquark pair wavefunction to be antisymmetric and the color structure to form a singlet; this is standard for QCD bound states.
  • ad hoc to paper INS principle: fewer nodal surfaces imply lower energy; accessible-state count determines ordering (Sec. III A)
    The paper assumes that counting symmetry-allowed states with L <= 3 gives a qualitative energy ordering. This is not derived from a Hamiltonian and is the main load-bearing modeling choice.
  • ad hoc to paper Low-energy spatial configurations are ETH, Sqr, ETH3, and Sqr3 (Sec. III A)
    The tetrahedral and square geometries are assumed to characterize low-energy four-body correlations; no dynamical justification is given.
  • ad hoc to paper CMI hierarchy E2=E1, E3=4E1 (Eq. 14)
    The relative strength of spin vs color CMI contributions is fixed by hand, not derived from QCD or fit to data.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 17034 in / 14649 out tokens · 145489 ms · 2026-08-02T08:57:55.171682+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Motivated by recent experimental observations, we investigate the $J^P$ distribution of low-energy compact tetraquark states using symmetry analysis based on inherent nodal structures. Assuming tetrahedral and square configurations for the $qq\bar q\bar q$ system, we derive the allowed orbital structures from the restricted representations of $S_4$ onto $S_2\times S_2$ for $L\leq3$. The resulting accessible-state distribution indicates that low-energy compact tetraquark states predominantly favor $J^P=2^+$. We further find that the symmetry-driven distribution is qualitatively similar to that of the three-flavor four-quark system, and that the dominant $J^P=2^+$ pattern persists after including chromomagnetic interaction (CMI) effects. These results suggest that the low-lying compact tetraquark spectrum is primarily constrained by symmetry, while dynamics mainly affect the detailed state distribution. Applying this framework to the fully charmed candidates $X(6600)$, $X(6900)$, and $X(7100)$, we find that their observed $J^{PC}=2^{++}$ quantum numbers are consistent with a low-lying compact tetraquark interpretation. Additional dynamical mechanisms beyond CMI may be needed to explain the detailed energy ordering of fully charmed tetraquark states.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.02382 by Jingya Zhu, Shuai Yin, Ti Gong.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The positions of LQCD, phenomenology, and symmetr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic illustration of the positions of LQCD, phe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Construction of the body-fixed coordinate systems [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Schematic construction of the body-fixed coordinate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: J P distribution of the number of accessible states for (a) compact tetraquark states Na and (b) three-flavor four-quark systems N′ a , when the configuration space is restricted to the set {ETH, Sqr} or the set {ETH3, Sqr3}. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Distributions of the number of accessible states as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: J P distribution of the weighted normalized number of accessible states ρa for compact tetraquark states, for given values of the parameter θ, when the configuration space is restricted to (a) the set {ETH, Sqr} and (b) the set {ETH3, Sqr3}. several J P C cases, specifically 0 −+, 0 −−, 1 −+, 1 +−, 1 −−, and 2 ++, and it was found that the mass distributions of the fully charmed compact tetraquark states w… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Distributions of the weighted and normalized num [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Variation of the weighted normalized number of acc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_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

226 extracted references · 161 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Takahashiet al.(Particle Data Group), Int

    F. Takahashiet al.(Particle Data Group), Int. J. Mod. Phys. A41, 2630011 (2026)

    2026

  2. [2]

    [2] [2] [11] [2] [2] [2] [11]

  3. [3]

    [2] [2] [11] [2] [11] [11] [11]

  4. [4]

    [2] [2] [11] [11] [2] [11] [11]

  5. [5]

    [2] [2] [11] [11] [11] [2] [11]

  6. [6]

    [2] [11] [2] [2] [2] [11] [2]

  7. [7]

    [2] [11] [2] [2] [11] [2] [2]

  8. [8]

    [2] [11] [2] [11] [2] [2] [2]

  9. [9]

    [2] [11] [2] [11] [11] [11] [2]

  10. [10]

    [11] [2] [2] [2] [2] [11] [2]

  11. [11]

    [11] [2] [2] [2] [11] [2] [2]

  12. [12]

    [11] [2] [2] [11] [2] [2] [2]

  13. [13]

    [11] [2] [2] [11] [11] [11] [2]

  14. [14]

    [11] [11] [11] [2] [2] [2] [11]

  15. [15]

    [11] [11] [11] [2] [11] [11] [11]

  16. [16]

    [11] [11] [11] [11] [2] [11] [11]

  17. [17]

    [11] [11] [11] [11] [11] [2] [11]

  18. [18]

    [2] [2] [2] [2] [2] [11] [2]

  19. [19]

    [2] [2] [2] [2] [11] [2] [2]

  20. [20]

    [2] [2] [2] [11] [2] [2] [2]

  21. [21]

    [2] [2] [2] [11] [11] [11] [2]

  22. [22]

    [2] [11] [11] [2] [2] [2] [11]

  23. [23]

    [2] [11] [11] [2] [11] [11] [11]

  24. [24]

    [2] [11] [11] [11] [2] [11] [11]

  25. [25]

    [2] [11] [11] [11] [11] [2] [11]

  26. [26]

    [11] [2] [11] [2] [2] [2] [11]

  27. [27]

    [11] [2] [11] [2] [11] [11] [11]

  28. [28]

    [11] [2] [11] [11] [2] [11] [11]

  29. [29]

    [11] [2] [11] [11] [11] [2] [11]

  30. [30]

    [11] [11] [2] [2] [2] [11] [2]

  31. [31]

    [11] [11] [2] [2] [11] [2] [2]

  32. [32]

    [11] [11] [2] [11] [2] [2] [2]

  33. [33]

    good di- quarks

    [11] [11] [2] [11] [11] [11] [2] a surface is determined solely by geometric symmetry and independent of dynamics, it is called an invariant nodal surface (INS). The INS framework determines ac- cessible quantum states by solving the constraints im- posed by symmetry transformations, without requiring a specific interaction model. The general formalism fo...

  34. [34]

    Godfrey and J

    S. Godfrey and J. Napolitano, Rev. Mod. Phys.71, 1411 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9811410

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  35. [35]

    A. J. G. Hey and R. L. Kelly, Phys. Rept.96, 71 (1983)

    1983

  36. [36]

    Capstick and W

    S. Capstick and W. Roberts, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 45, S241 (2000), arXiv:nucl-th/0008028

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  37. [37]

    Klempt and J.-M

    E. Klempt and J.-M. Richard, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 1095 (2010), arXiv:0901.2055 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  38. [38]

    Crede and W

    V. Crede and W. Roberts, Rept. Prog. Phys.76, 076301 (2013), arXiv:1302.7299 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  39. [39]

    S. K. Choiet al.(Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 262001 (2003), arXiv:hep-ex/0309032

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  40. [40]

    S. K. Choiet al.(Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 142001 (2008), arXiv:0708.1790 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  41. [41]

    Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Phys

    M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 252001 (2013), arXiv:1303.5949 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  42. [42]

    Z. Q. Liuet al.(Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 252002 (2013), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 111, 019901 (2013)], arXiv:1304.0121 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  43. [43]

    Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Phys

    M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 112003 (2015), arXiv:1506.06018 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  44. [44]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), Phys

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 222002 (2014), arXiv:1404.1903 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  45. [45]

    Adlarsonet al.(W ASA-at-COSY), Phys

    P. Adlarsonet al.(W ASA-at-COSY), Phys. Rev. C90, 035204 (2014), arXiv:1408.4928 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  46. [46]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), Phys

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 072001 (2015), arXiv:1507.03414 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  47. [47]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), Sci

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), Sci. Bull.66, 1278 (2021), arXiv:2012.10380 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2021

  48. [48]

    Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Phys

    M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 102001 (2021), arXiv:2011.07855 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2021

  49. [49]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), Sci

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), Sci. Bull.65, 1983 (2020), arXiv:2006.16957 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 1983

  50. [50]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), Nature Phys.18, 751 (2022), arXiv:2109.01038 [hep-ex]

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), Nature Phys.18, 751 (2022), arXiv:2109.01038 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2022

  51. [51]

    Amsler and N

    C. Amsler and N. A. Tornqvist, Phys. Rept.389, 61 (2004)

    2004

  52. [52]

    Zhu, Int

    S.-L. Zhu, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A19, 3439 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0406204

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  53. [53]

    R. L. Jaffe, Phys. Rept.409, 1 (2005), arXiv:hep- ph/0409065

    arXiv 2005

  54. [54]

    E. S. Swanson, Phys. Rept.429, 243 (2006), arXiv:hep- ph/0601110

    arXiv 2006

  55. [55]

    Zhu, Int

    S.-L. Zhu, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E17, 283 (2008), arXiv:hep-ph/0703225

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  56. [56]

    Godfrey and S

    S. Godfrey and S. L. Olsen, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 58, 51 (2008), arXiv:0801.3867 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  57. [57]

    Drenska, R

    N. Drenska, R. Faccini, F. Piccinini, A. Polosa, F. Renga, and C. Sabelli, Riv. Nuovo Cim.33, 633 (2010), arXiv:1006.2741 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  58. [58]

    Esposito, A

    A. Esposito, A. L. Guerrieri, F. Piccinini, A. Pilloni, and A. D. Polosa, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A30, 1530002 (2015), arXiv:1411.5997 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  59. [59]

    H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rept.639, 1 (2016), arXiv:1601.02092 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  60. [60]

    Richard, Few Body Syst.57, 1185 (2016), arXiv:1606.08593 [hep-ph]

    J.-M. Richard, Few Body Syst.57, 1185 (2016), arXiv:1606.08593 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  61. [61]

    R. F. Lebed, R. E. Mitchell, and E. S. Swanson, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.93, 143 (2017), arXiv:1610.04528 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  62. [62]

    A. Ali, J. S. Lange, and S. Stone, Prog. Part. Nucl. 8 Phys.97, 123 (2017), arXiv:1706.00610 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  63. [63]

    S. L. Olsen, T. Skwarnicki, and D. Zieminska, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 015003 (2018), arXiv:1708.04012 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  64. [64]

    Karliner, J

    M. Karliner, J. L. Rosner, and T. Skwarnicki, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.68, 17 (2018), arXiv:1711.10626 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  65. [65]

    Liu, H.-X

    Y.-R. Liu, H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, and S.- L. Zhu, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.107, 237 (2019), arXiv:1903.11976 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  66. [66]

    Brambilla, S

    N. Brambilla, S. Eidelman, C. Hanhart, A. Nefediev, C.-P. Shen, C. E. Thomas, A. Vairo, and C.-Z. Yuan, Phys. Rept.873, 1 (2020), arXiv:1907.07583 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  67. [67]

    Guo, X.-H

    F.-K. Guo, X.-H. Liu, and S. Sakai, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.112, 103757 (2020), arXiv:1912.07030 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  68. [68]

    M. Y. Barabanovet al., Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.116, 103835 (2021), arXiv:2008.07630 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  69. [69]

    H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, Y.-R. Liu, and S.-L. Zhu, Rept. Prog. Phys.86, 026201 (2023), arXiv:2204.02649 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  70. [70]

    Mai, U.-G

    M. Mai, U.-G. Meißner, and C. Urbach, Phys. Rept. 1001, 1 (2023), arXiv:2206.01477 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  71. [71]

    Gell-Mann, Phys

    M. Gell-Mann, Phys. Lett.8, 214 (1964)

    1964

  72. [72]

    Zweig 10.17181/CERN-TH-401 (1964)

    G. Zweig 10.17181/CERN-TH-401 (1964)

    doi:10.17181/cern-th-401 1964

  73. [73]

    Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), Phys

    A. Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 111901 (2024), arXiv:2306.07164 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  74. [74]

    Liu, Sci

    X. Liu, Sci. Bull.69, 2802 (2024), arXiv:2407.13476 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  75. [75]

    F. Zhu, G. Bauer, and K. Yi, Chin. Phys. Lett.41, 111201 (2024), arXiv:2410.11210 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  76. [76]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 151902 (2023), arXiv:2304.08962 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  77. [77]

    Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), Nature648, 58 (2025), arXiv:2506.07944 [hep-ex]

    A. Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), Nature648, 58 (2025), arXiv:2506.07944 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  78. [78]

    Iwasaki, Prog

    Y. Iwasaki, Prog. Theor. Phys.54, 492 (1975)

    1975

  79. [79]

    Iwasaki, Phys

    Y. Iwasaki, Phys. Rev. Lett.36, 1266 (1976)

    1976

  80. [80]

    K.-T. Chao, Z. Phys. C7, 317 (1981)

    1981

Showing first 80 references.