A coupled-channel quark model study of possible $\Xi_{cc}^{(*)} K^{(*)}$ molecular states

Hongxia Huang; Jialun Ping; Qi Huang; Ye Yan; Yuheng Wu

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 158 references

A coupled-channel quark model study of possible $\Xi_{cc}^{()} K^{()}$ molecular states

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A coupled-channel quark model predicts five doubly charmed molecular states made of a Ξ_cc baryon and a kaon-type meson.

desk verdict A solid QDCSM calculation that confirms the Ξ_ccK bound state and adds two narrow Ξ_ccK* resonances; the new claims are conditional on the model's few-MeV accuracy, which is not established. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.18672 v1 pith:7CXNQCXQ submitted 2026-07-21 hep-ph

Ye Yan , Qi Huang , Yuheng Wu , Hongxia Huang , Jialun Ping This is my paper

classification hep-ph

keywords hadronicmoleculesdoublycharmedpentaquarksquarkdelocalizationcolorscreeningmodelcoupled-channelscatteringΞ_ccKmolecularstatesexotichadronsresonatinggroupmethod

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

This paper tries to establish that recently discovered doubly charmed baryons can bind to kaons (K, K*, and their excited partners) to form a family of exotic pentaquark-like molecules with quark content ccqq s-bar. Using a coupled-channel quark model, the authors compute both energy spectra and scattering phase shifts and identify three bound states and two narrow resonance states, all with isospin zero. If correct, the result gives concrete masses and decay signatures for experiments searching for hadrons beyond the standard quark-antiquark and three-quark picture. It also connects known charm-strange tetraquark candidates to a new class of doubly charmed pentaquarks via heavy-quark–diquark symmetry, providing a unified molecular picture.

What carries the argument

The central tool is the quark delocalization color screening model (QDCSM), a constituent-quark Hamiltonian in which the baryon and meson clusters can distort and overlap through a variationally determined mixing parameter, with color screening acting between clusters. The resonating group method (RGM) converts this into coupled-channel equations for the relative motion, and scattering phase shifts are computed with the Kohn-Hulthén–Kato method to distinguish genuine resonances from quasi-bound states. The channel set is motivated by heavy-antiquark–diquark symmetry, which maps known open-anticharm tetraquarks onto doubly charmed pentaquarks.

What would settle it

Measure the femtoscopic correlation function for Ξ_ccK pairs in high-energy collisions: if the 0(1/2^-) Ξ_ccK bound state exists, the correlation function should show a strong low-momentum enhancement near a mass of about 4.108 GeV. Absence of such an enhancement, or a lattice QCD calculation of Ξ_ccK scattering yielding no bound-state pole, would rule out the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the low-lying S-wave Ξ_cc(*) K(*) systems contain five isoscalar molecular states: three bound states with I(J^P)=0(1/2^-) Ξ_ccK, 0(3/2^-) Ξ*_ccK, and 0(5/2^-) Ξ*_ccK*, plus two resonant Ξ_ccK* states with 0(1/2^-) and 0(3/2^-) that emerge only after channel coupling. Scattering phase shifts confirm the bound states and give the resonances extremely small widths, about 0.1 MeV for the 1/2^- state and a few MeV for the 3/2^- state. After correcting theoretical thresholds to experimental and lattice masses, the states sit near 4.11, 4.17, 4.50, 4.51, and 4.56 GeV. The 0(1/2^-) Ξ_ccK state is singled out as the most robust prediction because it lies below all strong-decay

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that model parameters fixed in earlier fits to ordinary hadron scattering and spectra are accurate at the few-MeV level near these thresholds, even though the model's hadron masses deviate by up to 145 MeV while the claimed binding energies are only 1–18 MeV.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the prediction is right, the 0(1/2^-) Ξ_ccK state is stable against strong decay and can only decay weakly, making it a clean experimental target.
The two Ξ_ccK* resonances are predicted to be extremely narrow, providing distinctive peaks in channels such as Ξ_ccK, Λ_cD_s, Ξ*_ccK, and Λ_cD*_s.
Isospin-one channels are predicted to have no molecular states, so any observed I=1 doubly charmed pentaquark would contradict the model.
The predicted mass windows (around 4.11, 4.17, 4.50, 4.51, and 4.56 GeV) give concrete search ranges for future experiments and femtoscopic measurements.
Agreement with earlier hadronic-molecule calculations for the Ξ_ccK state strengthens the case that this particular state is not an artifact of one model.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: the paper's use of heavy-antiquark–diquark symmetry implies that if the observed charm-strange tetraquark candidates are indeed molecules, their doubly charmed pentaquark partners should exist with a similar multiplet structure; the five states predicted here are the quark-model realization of that symmetry argument.
Editorial inference: the planned femtoscopic correlation study of Ξ_ccK pairs could provide a nearly model-independent test, since a bound state would produce a characteristic enhancement in the correlation function that collider experiments can measure without reconstructing a resonance peak.
Editorial inference: because the claimed binding energies are only 1–18 MeV while the same Hamiltonian misses hadron masses by up to 145 MeV, the robust content of the prediction is probably the existence and quantum numbers of the multiplet, not the precise masses and widths.
Editorial inference: the sharp isospin selection rule (only I=0 states) is a falsifiable pattern that can be checked by comparing production rates of isospin partners in high-energy collisions.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The two things to know. First, this is a competent, internally consistent quark-model calculation, and the first QDCSM treatment of ccqq sbar molecules. Second, the only parts that are genuinely new—the two Ξ_ccK* resonances—rest on a model whose hadron masses miss experiment by up to 145 MeV while the claimed bindings are 1–18 MeV. Take the numbers as plausible targets, not predictions.

What is done well. The formalism is standard and described clearly. The authors check themselves: adiabatic potentials, RGM energy spectra, and KHK scattering phase shifts line up with one another. The phase-shift analysis shows the Ξ_ccK quasi-bound state in the 1/2- sector becoming a real narrow resonance (width ~0.1 MeV) and the 3/2- state with ~2-4 MeV width—that is a non-trivial cross-check. They also resolve the J^P degeneracy that the hidden-gauge work left open, which is a real improvement. The I=1 sector being all repulsive is consistent with earlier studies. The literature survey is honest; they credit the prior Ξ_ccK predictions clearly.

Where it is soft. The mass-deviation problem is real and load-bearing. Table II shows Ξ_cc theory at 3766 versus 3621 MeV observed, Σ at 1238 versus 1189. The binding energies are computed with the model's own thresholds. The mass-correction in Eq. (30) shifts thresholds to the physical values using component probabilities, but that is a kinematic shift. It assumes the interaction energy is unchanged when the threshold moves by 100+ MeV, and that assumption is not demonstrated. It might be fine for a loosely bound S-wave state, but for claims at the few-MeV level you need evidence, and they provide none. No uncertainty estimates, no code or data. So the Ξ_ccK bound state is safe mostly because several independent approaches agree; the two Ξ_ccK* resonances are new but fragile.

Who should read it: anyone working on hadronic molecules with charm, and experimentalists hunting for doubly charmed pentaquarks in LHCb or femtoscopy. It deserves a serious referee: the question is timely, the calculation is complete enough to engage with, and a good referee should push on the mass-correction assumption and ask for a calibration check against a known near-threshold heavy state. I would send it to review.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies possible doubly charmed pentaquark molecular states with quark content ccqq\bar s, specifically \Xi_{cc}^{(*)}K^{(*)} systems, using the quark delocalization color screening model (QDCSM) together with the resonating group method. Adiabatic potentials, bound-state energy spectra, and Kohn-Hulthén-Kato scattering phase shifts are computed for single- and coupled-channel configurations. The authors report three bound states in the isospin-zero sector, I(J^P)=0(1/2^-) \Xi_{cc}K, I(J^P)=0(3/2^-) \Xi^*_{cc}K, and I(J^P)=0(5/2^-) \Xi^*_{cc}K^*, and two narrow \Xi_{cc}K^* resonances with I(J^P)=0(1/2^-) and 0(3/2^-). No bound or resonance states are found for I=1. Corrected masses are obtained with a threshold-shift formula, and the \Xi_{cc}K state is highlighted as consistent with previous theoretical predictions.

Significance. If the predictions are correct, the paper provides a concrete, experimentally searchable family of doubly charmed molecular pentaquarks, with a robust prediction for the \Xi_{cc}K ground state that agrees with several independent approaches. The work uses a standard RGM/GCM formalism, and no parameters are fitted to the \Xi_{cc}^{(*)}K^{(*)} system, which is a genuine strength. The internal consistency among adiabatic potentials, bound-state calculations, and phase-shift analyses is also a positive feature. However, the quantitative significance is conditional: the model's hadron-mass errors are tens of MeV, the reported theoretical thresholds are not simply the sums of the Table II masses, and the mass-correction procedure assumes binding energies are unchanged when thresholds are shifted. These issues must be resolved before the few-MeV binding-energy predictions can be considered established.

major comments (3)

[Table II vs. Table III] The theoretical thresholds in Table III are not the sums of the corresponding hadron masses in Table II. For example, Table II gives M_Theo(\Xi_cc)=3766 MeV and M_Theo(K)=495 MeV, implying a \Xi_ccK threshold of 4261 MeV, but Table III lists E_Theo_th=4283 MeV; similarly, \Xi^*_ccK^* gives 3791+892=4683 MeV versus 4705 MeV. The offset of about 22 MeV is larger than the claimed binding energies of 3–18 MeV. Since E_B is defined as E_Theo_th−E_Theo, the bound-state conclusions in Section III.B depend critically on which threshold convention is used. The authors must reconcile Table II with Table III or explicitly explain why the asymptotic RGM threshold differs from the sum of the single-hadron masses; otherwise the existence of the predicted states is not established.
[Sec. III.C, Eq. (30)] The mass-correction formula Eq. (30) shifts the final masses by the weighted differences between experimental and theoretical thresholds while implicitly leaving the model binding energies unchanged. This is an uncontrolled approximation: shifting \Xi_cc by 145 MeV (3766 vs. 3621 MeV) changes reduced masses, kinetic energies, and channel couplings, so the near-threshold dynamics and binding energies cannot be assumed invariant. The paper would need a sensitivity study, an uncertainty estimate, or a validation on a known near-threshold heavy-flavor state to support few-MeV predictions from a model with tens-of-MeV mass errors. As written, the predicted masses and quantum numbers are not robust against this systematic uncertainty.
[Sec. III.C, I(J^P)=0(3/2^-)] The origin of the \Xi_ccK^* resonance in the 0(3/2^-) sector is not fully documented. The text states that a separate coupled-channel calculation including \Xi_ccK^* and \Xi^*_ccK^* produces a quasi-bound state about 12 MeV below the \Xi_ccK^* threshold, but Table III only shows the full coupling result relative to the \Xi^*_ccK threshold. No table or figure gives the eigenenergies, probabilities, or channel composition of this two-channel calculation. This information is needed to verify the claim that the resonance originates from channel coupling and to assess the quoted resonance parameters.

minor comments (4)

[General] The manuscript contains numerous typographical and rendering issues, including 'we perform' at the start of Section III, 'A very weakly bound state,' 'According to the phase shifts,,' and garbled figure content in the provided version. These should be corrected in the final submission.
[Table II] The theoretical D_s mass is 2053 MeV versus the experimental 1968 MeV, an 85 MeV deviation that is larger than most other entries. Since D_s appears in coupled channels, this deviation and its effect on the threshold structure should be discussed explicitly.
[Eq. (30)] The probabilities p_n entering the correction formula are not defined precisely. Please state how they are extracted from the coupled-channel wave function and whether they are stable under small variations of the model parameters.
[Table V] The quantity R is listed without definition; it should be stated as the rms baryon-meson separation (or equivalent) and the adopted \Xi^*_cc mass from Ref. [136] should be quoted explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the bound/resonance predictions are dynamical outputs of an externally calibrated Hamiltonian, not restatements of its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central predictions (Table III bound states; phase-shift resonances in Sec. III.C) are obtained by solving the QDCSM Hamiltonian (Eqs. 3-10) via RGM (Eqs. 13-25). No parameter is fitted to the Xi_cc^(*)K^(*) system: the quark masses, couplings, and color-screening parameters listed in Table I are adopted from previous fits to deuteron properties, NN/hyperon scattering, and hadron spectra (Refs. 118, 128, 129, 130), and the paper reproduces the constituent hadron masses in Table II as a consistency check. The small binding energies (1-18 MeV) are model outputs, and the quoted agreement with prior work (Refs. 110-113) is an external cross-check, not an input. The only notable self-referential element is the use of the same group's earlier parameter set [130] and model pedigree; because the values are stated in Table I and were calibrated to external data not including these predictions, this is not load-bearing and does not raise the circularity score. Equation (30) shifts theoretical masses by probability-weighted threshold differences; it does not install the claimed binding energies as inputs, and the states are already present in the uncorrected spectrum. The skeptic's concern that model mass errors up to 145 MeV exceed the few-MeV binding energies (Table II vs. Table III) is a quantitative robustness/accuracy problem for an effective model, not a circularity in the derivation chain. No circular step satisfies the quoted-reduction test required by the review rules.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The calculation uses about a dozen parameters fitted to external hadronic data and inherited from previous QDCSM papers; no parameters are fit to the Ξ_cc^(*)K^(*) channel in this work. The central predictions, however, are numerically sensitive to these inherited parameters, especially μ_qs and the confinement/chiral strengths, and no uncertainty analysis is provided.

free parameters (5)

quark masses m_{u,d}, m_s = m_{u,d}=313 MeV, m_s=573 MeV
Constituent quark masses from previous hadron spectroscopy fits; enter kinetic, OGE, and chiral interactions.
confinement and oscillator parameters a_c, V_{0qq}, V_{0q\bar q}, b = a_c=58.03 MeV fm^-2, V_0=-1.288/-0.201 fm^-2, b=0.518 fm
Color-confinement strength, zero-points and oscillator width fitted to hadron spectra/deuteron; directly set potential depth.
strong couplings α_s (qq, qc, cc, q sbar, c sbar) = 0.565, 0.467, 0.213, 1.783, 1.513
One-gluon exchange couplings fixed in previous QDCSM studies; determine short-range repulsion/attraction.
chiral coupling and cutoffs g_ch^2/4π, Λ_π,K,η = 0.54; 4.2, 5.2, 5.2 fm^-1
Goldstone boson exchange strength/cutoffs from πNN coupling and meson spectra.
color screening parameters μ_qq, μ_qs, μ_ss = 0.45, 0.19, 0.08 fm^-2
Screening parameters fit to deuteron and NN/hyperon scattering; μ_qs controls the K-baryon interaction crucial for binding.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The QDCSM Hamiltonian H = Σ(m_i+p_i^2/2m_i)-T_cm + ΣV(r_ij), with V = V_conf+V_OGE+V_χ, is a valid effective Hamiltonian for the ccqq sbar five-quark system.
Sec. II.A; the entire spectrum/scattering calculation is a solution of this Hamiltonian.
ad hoc to paper The color-screened confinement form f(r_ij) = r^2 inside a cluster and (1-e^{-μ r^2})/μ between clusters is appropriate at hadronic scales.
Eq. (5); this phenomenological form is not derived from QCD; it is a model postulate inherited from earlier QDCSM work.
domain assumption Only S-wave low-lying negative-parity states are considered; spin-orbit and tensor terms are omitted.
Sec. II.A: 'we mainly focus on the low-lying negative parity system of the S-wave, so the spin-orbit and tensor interactions are not included'; this excludes D-wave mixing that could affect near-threshold states.
domain assumption RGM frozen-cluster ansatz with antisymmetrization A=1-P14-P24-P34; internal quark wave functions are Gaussians with delocalization parameter ε determined variationally.
Sec. II.A/B, Eqs. (12)-(13); assumes two-cluster structure and neglects three-body correlations beyond delocalization.
standard math The physical η meson mixing angle and the experimental Goldstone boson masses are used in V_χ.
Sec. II.A around Eq. (10); standard input from PDG.
domain assumption The Ξ*_cc mass is taken from lattice QCD [136] and used in the mass correction, since no experimental value exists.
Sec. III.C, Table V; the corrected Ξ*_ccK and Ξ*_ccK* masses depend on this external input.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A coupled-channel quark model study of possible $\Xi_{cc}^{(*)} K^{(*)}$ molecular states." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7CXNQCXQ

@misc{pith2026260718672,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A coupled-channel quark model study of possible $\Xi_cc^(*) K^(*)$ molecular states},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7CXNQCXQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.18672}
}

abstract

Inspired by the recent experimental discovery of doubly charmed baryons, we investigate the possible $\Xi_{cc}^{(*)}K^{(*)}$ molecular systems within the framework of the quark delocalization color screening model. The energy spectra and scattering processes of the relevant baryon-meson systems are investigated to explore the dynamical properties of the possible molecular states. The spectrum calculations predict three bound states, namely the $I(J^P)=0(1/2^{-})$ $\Xi_{cc}K$, the $I(J^P)=0(3/2^{-})$ $\Xi_{cc}^{*}K$, and the $I(J^P)=0(5/2^{-})$ $\Xi_{cc}^{*}K^{*}$ molecular states. The scattering phase shift analysis further confirms two $\Xi_{cc}K^{*}$ resonance states with $I(J^P)=0(1/2^{-})$ and $0(3/2^{-})$, which originate from quasi-bound states through channel coupling. In particular, the $I(J^P)=0(1/2^{-})$ $\Xi_{cc}K$ bound state is consistent with previous theoretical studies, making it one of the most promising candidates for future experimental searches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.18672 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** (b), the Ξ∗ ccK channel exhibits the strongest attractive interaction among the four physical channels. The ΞccK∗ channel also possesses an attractive potential well, although it is less attractive than in the corresponding I(J P ) = 0(1/2 −) configuration. In contrast, the ΛcD∗ s channel remains predominantly repulsive throughout the interaction region. The Ξ∗ ccK∗ channel exhibits a slightly stronger attract… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: Adiabatic potentials for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: Scattering phase shifts for the Ξ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4: Scattering phase shifts for the Ξ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

158 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

[1]

Klempt and J

E. Klempt and J. M. Richard, Baryon spectroscopy, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1095 (2010)

2010
[2]

Liu, An overview of XYZ new particles, Chin

X. Liu, An overview of XYZ new particles, Chin. Sci. 11 Bull. 59, 3815 (2014)

2014
[3]

J. M. Richard, Exotic hadrons: review and perspectives, Few Body Syst. 57, 1185 (2016)

2016
[4]

M. R. Shepherd, J. J. Dudek and R. E. Mitchell, Search- ing for the rules that govern hadron construction, Na- ture 534, 487 (2016)

2016
[5]

F. K. Guo, C. Hanhart, U. G. Meißner, Q. Wang, Q. Zhao and B. S. Zou, Hadronic molecules, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 015004 (2018) [erratum: Rev. Mod. Phys. 94, 029901 (2022)]

2018
[6]

Albaladejo et al

M. Albaladejo et al. [JPAC], Novel approaches in hadron spectroscopy, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 127, 103981 (2022)

2022
[7]

Huang, C

H. Huang, C. Deng, X. Liu, Y. Tan and J. Ping, Tetraquarks and Pentaquarks from Quark Model Per- spective, Symmetry 15, 1298 (2023)

2023
[8]

M. Z. Liu, Y. W. Pan, Z. W. Liu, T. W. Wu, J. X. Lu and L. S. Geng, Three ways to decipher the nature of exotic hadrons: Multiplets, three-body hadronic molecules, and correlation functions, Phys. Rept. 1108, 1 (2025)

2025

Show all 158 references

[9]

H. Y. Cheng, Charmed baryons circa 2015, Front. Phys. (Beijing) 10, 101406 (2015)

2015
[10]

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

2017
[11]

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

2016
[12]

Hosaka, T

A. Hosaka, T. Iijima, K. Miyabayashi, Y. Sakai and S. Yasui, Exotic hadrons with heavy ﬂavors: X, Y , Z, and related states, PTEP 2016, 062C01 (2016)

2016
[13]

S. L. Olsen, T. Skwarnicki and D. Zieminska, Non- standard heavy mesons and baryons: Experimental ev- idence, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 015003 (2018)

2018
[14]

Kato and T

Y. Kato and T. Iijima, Open charm hadron spectroscopy at B-factories, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 105, 61 (2019)

2019
[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 (2019)

2019
[16]

Brambilla, S

N. Brambilla, S. Eidelman, C. Hanhart, A. Nefediev, C. P. Shen, C. E. Thomas, A. Vairo and C. Z. Yuan, The XYZ states: experimental and theoretical status and perspectives, Phys. Rept. 873, 1 (2020)

2020
[17]

L. Meng, B. Wang, G. J. Wang and S. L. Zhu, Chiral perturbation theory for heavy hadrons and chiral eﬀec- tive ﬁeld theory for heavy hadronic molecules, Phys. Rept. 1019, 1 (2023)

2023
[18]

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, 026201 (2023)

2023
[19]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Observation of the doubly charmed baryon Ξ ++ cc , Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 112001 (2017)

2017
[20]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], First Observation of the Doubly Charmed Baryon Decay Ξ ++ cc → Ξ+ cπ+, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 162002 (2018)

2018
[21]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Measurement of Ξ ++ cc production in pp collisions at √ s = 13 TeV, Chin. Phys. C 44, 022001 (2020)

2020
[22]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Precision measurement of the Ξ++ cc mass, JHEP 02, 049 (2020)

2020
[23]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Measurement of the Lifetime of the Doubly Charmed Baryon Ξ ++ cc , Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 052002 (2018)

2018
[24]

Ebert, R

D. Ebert, R. N. Faustov and V. O. Galkin, Masses of heavy baryons in the relativistic quark model, Phys. Rev. D 72, 034026 (2005)

2005
[25]

Roberts and M

W. Roberts and M. Pervin, Heavy baryons in a quark model, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 23, 2817 (2008)

2008
[26]

H. W. Lin, Review of Baryon Spectroscopy in Lattice QCD, Chin. J. Phys. 49, 827 (2011)

2011
[27]

K. U. Can, G. Erkol, B. Isildak, M. Oka and T. T. Taka- hashi, Electromagnetic structure of charmed baryons in Lattice QCD, JHEP 05, 125 (2014)

2014
[28]

Karliner and J

M. Karliner and J. L. Rosner, Baryons with two heavy quarks: Masses, production, decays, and detection, Phys. Rev. D 90, 094007 (2014)

2014
[29]

Z. S. Brown, W. Detmold, S. Meinel and K. Orginos, Charmed bottom baryon spectroscopy from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 90, 094507 (2014)

2014
[30]

Q. F. L¨ u, K. L. Wang, L. Y. Xiao and X. H. Zhong, Mass spectra and radiative transitions of doubly heavy baryons in a relativized quark model, Phys. Rev. D 96, 114006 (2017)

2017
[31]

L. Y. Xiao, K. L. Wang, Q. f. Lu, X. H. Zhong and S. L. Zhu, Strong and radiative decays of the doubly charmed baryons, Phys. Rev. D 96, 094005 (2017)

2017
[32]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Observation of the Doubly Charmed Baryon Ξcc+ with the LHCb Run 3 Detec- tor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 137, 021902 (2026)

2026
[33]

Aubert et al

B. Aubert et al. [BaBar], Observation of a narrow meson decaying toD+ sπ0 at a mass of 2.32-GeV/c 2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 242001 (2003)

2003
[34]

Besson et al

D. Besson et al. [CLEO], Observation of a narrow res- onance of mass 2.46-GeV/ 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
[35]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], A model-independent study of resonant structure in B+ → D+D−K + decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 242001 (2020)

2020
[36]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Amplitude analysis of the B+ → D+D−K + decay, Phys. Rev. D 102, 112003 (2020)

2020
[37]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Observation of an exotic nar- row doubly charmed tetraquark, Nature Phys. 18, 751 (2022)

2022
[38]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], First Observation of a Dou- bly Charged Tetraquark and Its Neutral Partner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 041902 (2023)

2023
[39]

Aaij et al

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

2023
[40]

M. L. Du, V. Baru, X. K. Dong, A. Filin, F. K. Guo, C. Hanhart, A. Nefediev, J. Nieves and Q. Wang, Coupled-channel approach to T + cc including three-body eﬀects, Phys. Rev. D 105, 014024 (2022)

2022
[41]

Albaladejo, T + cc coupled channel analysis and predic- tions, Phys

M. Albaladejo, T + cc coupled channel analysis and predic- tions, Phys. Lett. B 829, 137052 (2022)

2022
[42]

L. Meng, G. J. Wang, B. Wang and S. L. Zhu, Prob- ing the long-range structure of the T + cc with the strong and electromagnetic decays, Phys. Rev. D 104, 051502 (2021)

2021
[43]

Feijoo, W

A. Feijoo, W. H. Liang and E. Oset, D0D0π+ mass dis- tribution in the production of the Tcc exotic state, Phys. Rev. D 104, 114015 (2021)

2021
[44]

Fleming, R

S. Fleming, R. Hodges and T. Mehen, T + cc decays: Dif- ferential spectra and two-body ﬁnal states, Phys. Rev. 12 D 104, 116010 (2021)

2021
[45]

X. Z. Ling, M. Z. Liu, L. S. Geng, E. Wang and J. J. Xie, Can we understand the decay width of the T + cc state?, Phys. Lett. B 826, 136897 (2022)

2022
[46]

R. Chen, Q. Huang, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, Predicting an- other doubly charmed molecular resonance T ′+ cc (3876), Phys. Rev. D 104, 114042 (2021)

2021
[47]

T. W. Wu, Y. W. Pan, M. Z. Liu, S. Q. Luo, L. S. Geng and X. Liu, Discovery of the doubly charmed T + cc state implies a triply charmed Hcccc hexaquark state, Phys. Rev. D 105, L031505 (2022)

2022
[48]

Padmanath and S

M. Padmanath and S. Prelovsek, Signature of a Dou- bly Charm Tetraquark Pole in DD∗ Scattering on the Lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 032002 (2022)

2022
[49]

Y. Lyu, S. Aoki, T. Doi, T. Hatsuda, Y. Ikeda and J. Meng, Doubly Charmed Tetraquark T + cc from Lat- tice QCD near Physical Point, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 161901 (2023)

2023
[50]

Q. N. Wang, Z. Y. Yang and W. Chen, Exotic fully- heavy Q ¯QQ ¯Q tetraquark states in 8[Q ¯Q] ⊗ 8[Q ¯Q] color conﬁguration, Phys. Rev. D 104, 114037 (2021)

2021
[51]

X. K. Dong, F. K. Guo and B. S. Zou, A survey of heavy–heavy hadronic molecules, Commun. Theor. Phys. 73, 125201 (2021)

2021
[52]

L. R. Dai, J. Song and E. Oset, Evolution of genuine states to molecular ones: The Tcc(3875) case, Phys. Lett. B 846, 138200 (2023) [erratum: Phys. Lett. B 864, 139424 (2025)]

2023
[53]

Barnes, F

T. Barnes, F. E. Close and H. J. Lipkin, Implications of a DK molecule at 2.32 GeV, Phys. Rev. D 68, 054006 (2003)

2003
[54]

E. E. Kolomeitsev and M. F. M. Lutz, On Heavy light meson resonances and chiral symmetry, Phys. Lett. B 582, 39-48 (2004)

2004
[55]

van Beveren and G

E. van Beveren and G. Rupp, Observed Ds(2317) and tentative D(2100–2300) as the charmed cousins of the light scalar nonet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 012003 (2003)

2003
[56]

F. K. Guo, P. N. Shen, H. C. Chiang, R. G. Ping and B. S. Zou, Dynamically generated 0+ heavy mesons in a heavy chiral unitary approach, Phys. Lett. B 641, 278 (2006)

2006
[57]

Gamermann, E

D. Gamermann, E. Oset, D. Strottman and M. J. Vi- cente Vacas, Dynamically generated open and hidden charm meson systems, Phys. Rev. D 76, 074016 (2007)

2007
[58]

Faessler, T

A. Faessler, T. Gutsche, V. E. Lyubovitskij and Y. L. Ma, Strong and radiative decays of the D∗ s0(2317) meson in the DK molecule picture, Phys. Rev. D 76, 014005 (2007)

2007
[59]

Cleven, H

M. Cleven, H. W. Grießhammer, F. K. Guo, C. Han- hart and U. G. Meißner, Strong and radiative decays of the D∗ s0(2317) and Ds1(2460), Eur. Phys. J. A 50, 149 (2014)

2014
[60]

Mohler, C

D. Mohler, C. B. Lang, L. Leskovec, S. Prelovsek and R. M. Woloshyn, D∗ s0(2317) Meson and D-Meson-Kaon Scattering from Lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 222001 (2013)

2013
[61]

C. B. Lang, L. Leskovec, D. Mohler, S. Prelovsek and R. M. Woloshyn, Ds Mesons with DK and D*K Scat- tering Near Threshold, Phys. Rev. D 90, 034510 (2014)

2014
[62]

P. G. Ortega, J. Segovia, D. R. Entem and F. Fernan- dez, Molecular components in P-wave charmed-strange mesons, Phys. Rev. D 94, 074037 (2016)

2016
[63]

M. L. Du, F. K. Guo, U. G. Meißner and D. L. Yao, Study of open-charm 0 + states in unitarized chiral ef- fective theory with one-loop potentials, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 728 (2017)

2017
[64]

Chen and Q

R. Chen and Q. Huang, From the isovector molecular explanation of the newly T a0(++) c¯s (2900) to possible charmed-strange molecular pentaquarks, [arXiv:2208.10196 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[65]

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

2023
[66]

Z. L. Yue, C. J. Xiao and D. Y. Chen, Decays of the fully open ﬂavor state T 0 c¯s0 in aD∗K ∗ molecule scenario, Phys. Rev. D 107, 034018 (2023)

2023
[67]

M. Y. Duan, M. L. Du, Z. H. Guo, E. Wang and D. Y. Chen, Coupled-channel D∗K ∗ −D∗ sρ interactions and the origin of Tc¯s0(2900), Phys. Rev. D 108, 074006 (2023)

2023
[68]

H. W. Ke, Y. F. Shi, X. H. Liu and X. Q. 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, 114032 (2022)

2022
[69]

F. X. Liu, R. H. Ni, X. H. Zhong and Q. Zhao, Charmed- strange tetraquarks and their decays in the potential quark model, Phys. Rev. D 107, 096020 (2023)

2023
[70]

X. S. Yang, Q. Xin and Z. G. Wang, Analysis of the Tc¯s(2900) and related tetraquark states with the QCD sum rules, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 38, 2350056 (2023)

2023
[71]

D. K. Lian, W. Chen, H. X. Chen, L. Y. Dai and T. G. Steele, Strong decays of T a c¯s0(2900)++/0 as a fully open-ﬂavor tetraquark state, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 1 (2024)

2024
[72]

J. Wei, Y. H. Wang, C. S. An and C. R. Deng, Color ﬂux-tube nature of the states Tcs(2900) and T a c¯s(2900), Phys. Rev. D 106, 096023 (2022)

2022
[73]

P. G. Ortega, D. R. Entem, F. Fernandez and J. Segovia, Novel Tcs and Tc¯s candidates in a constituent-quark- model-based meson-meson coupled-channels calcula- tion, Phys. Rev. D 108, 094035 (2023)

2023
[74]

Molina and E

R. Molina and E. Oset, Tc¯s(2900) as a threshold eﬀect from the interaction of the D∗K ∗,D∗ sρ channels, Phys. Rev. D 107, 056015 (2023)

2023
[75]

M. Y. Duan, E. Wang and D. Y. Chen, Searching for the open ﬂavor tetraquark Tc¯s0(2900)++ in the process B+ →K +D+D−, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 681 (2024)

2024
[76]

Huang, H

Y. Huang, H. Hei, J. w. Feng, X. Chen and R. Wang, Production of the newly observed ¯Tc¯s0 by kaon-induced reactions on a proton/neutron target, Phys. Rev. D 108, 076019 (2023)

2023
[77]

B. Wang, K. Chen, L. Meng and S. L. Zhu, Spectrum of the molecular tetraquarks: Unraveling the Tcs0(2900) and ¯T a c¯s0(2900), Phys. Rev. D 109, 034027 (2024)

2024
[78]

Takahashi et al

F. Takahashi et al. [Particle Data Group], Review of Particle Physics, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 41, 2630011 (2026)

2026
[79]

H. X. Chen, W. Chen, R. R. Dong and N. Su, X0(2900) and X1(2900): Hadronic Molecules or Com- pact Tetraquarks, Chin. Phys. Lett. 37, 101201 (2020)

2020
[80]

M. Z. Liu, J. J. Xie and L. S. Geng, X0(2866) as a D∗ ¯K ∗ molecular state, Phys. Rev. D 102, 091502 (2020)

2020
[81]

Y. Xue, X. Jin, H. Huang and J. Ping, Tetraquarks with open charm ﬂavor, Phys. Rev. D 103, 054010 (2021)

2021
[82]

M. W. Hu, X. Y. Lao, P. Ling and Q. Wang, X0(2900) and its heavy quark spin partners in molecular picture, Chin. Phys. C 45, 021003 (2021). 13

2021
[83]

He and D

J. He and D. Y. Chen, Molecular picture for X0(2900) and X1(2900), Chin. Phys. C 45, 063102 (2021)

2021
[84]

S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi and H. Sundu, New scalar reso- nanceX0(2900) as a molecule: mass and width, J. Phys. G 48, 085012 (2021)

2021
[85]

Wang and S

B. Wang and S. L. Zhu, How to understand the X(2900)?, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 419 (2022)

2022
[86]

Molina, T

R. Molina, T. Branz and E. Oset, A new interpreta- tion for the D∗ s2(2573) and the prediction of novel exotic charmed mesons, Phys. Rev. D 82, 014010 (2010)

2010
[87]

Karliner and J

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

2020
[88]

X. G. He, W. Wang and R. Zhu, Open-charm tetraquark Xc and open-bottom tetraquark Xb, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 1026 (2020)

2020
[89]

Z. G. Wang, Analysis of the X0(2900) as the scalar tetraquark state via the QCD sum rules, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 35, 2050187 (2020)

2020
[90]

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

2021
[91]

G. J. Wang, L. Meng, L. Y. Xiao, M. Oka and S. L. Zhu, Mass spectrum and strong decays of tetraquark ¯ c¯sqq states, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 188 (2021)

2021
[92]

Q. F. L¨ u, D. Y. Chen and Y. B. Dong, Open charm and bottom tetraquarks in an extended relativized quark model, Phys. Rev. D 102, 074021 (2020)

2020
[93]

Tan and J

Y. Tan and J. Ping, X(2900) in a chiral quark model, Chin. Phys. C 45, 093104 (2021)

2021
[94]

R. M. Albuquerque, S. Narison, D. Rabetiarivony and G. Randriamanatrika, X0,1(2900) and ( D−K +) invari- ant mass from QCD Laplace sum rules at NLO, Nucl. Phys. A 1007, 122113 (2021)

2021
[95]

X. H. Liu, M. J. Yan, H. W. Ke, G. Li and J. J. Xie, Tri- angle singularity as the origin of X0(2900) andX1(2900) observed in B+ →D+D−K +, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 1178 (2020)

2020
[96]

T. J. Burns and E. S. Swanson, Kinematical cusp and resonance interpretations of the X(2900), Phys. Lett. B 813, 136057 (2021)

2021
[97]

Huang, J

Y. Huang, J. X. Lu, J. J. Xie and L. S. Geng, Strong decays of ¯D∗K ∗ molecules and the newly observed X0,1 states, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 973 (2020)

2020
[98]

C. J. Xiao, D. Y. Chen, Y. B. Dong and G. W. 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, 034004 (2021)

2021
[99]

Y. K. Chen, J. J. Han, Q. F. L¨ u, J. P. Wang and F. S. Yu, Branching fractions of B− → D−X0,1(2900) and their implications, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 71 (2021)

2021
[100]

H. Chen, H. R. Qi and H. Q. Zheng, X1(2900) as a ¯D1K molecule, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 812 (2021)

2021
[101]

Q. Y. Lin and X. Y. Wang, Searching for X0(2900) andX1(2900) through the kaon induced reactions, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 1017 (2022)

2022
[102]

L. R. Dai, R. Molina and E. Oset, Looking for the ex- otic X0(2866) and its J P = 1 + partner in the ¯B0 → D(∗)+K −K (∗)0 reactions, Phys. Rev. D 105, 096022 (2022)

2022
[103]

Bayar and E

M. Bayar and E. Oset, Method to observe the J P = 2+ partner of the X0(2866) in the B+ → D+D−K + reaction, Phys. Lett. B 833, 137364 (2022)

2022
[104]

Aaij et al

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

2015
[105]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Observation of a narrow pen- taquark state, Pc(4312)+, and of two-peak structure of the Pc(4450)+, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 222001 (2019)

2019
[106]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Observation of a J/ψΛ Reso- nance Consistent with a Strange Pentaquark Candidate in B− →J/ψΛ¯p Decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 031901 (2023)

2023
[107]

M. J. Savage and M. B. Wise, Spectrum of baryons with two heavy quarks, Phys. Lett. B 248, 177 (1990)

1990
[108]

Hu and T

J. Hu and T. Mehen, Chiral Lagrangian with heavy quark-diquark symmetry, Phys. Rev. D 73, 054003 (2006)

2006
[109]

F. K. Guo, C. Hidalgo-Duque, J. Nieves and M. P. Valderrama, Consequences of Heavy Quark Sym- metries for Hadronic Molecules, Phys. Rev. D 88, 054007 (2013)

2013
[110]

Hofmann and M

J. Hofmann and M. F. M. Lutz, Coupled-channel study of crypto-exotic baryons with charm, Nucl. Phys. A 763, 90 (2005)

2005
[111]

Z. H. Guo, Prediction of exotic doubly charmed baryons within chiral eﬀective ﬁeld theory, Phys. Rev. D 96, 074004 (2017)

2017
[112]

L. C. Sheng, J. Y. Huo, R. Chen, F. L. Wang and X. Liu, Exploring the mass spectrum and electromagnetic prop- erty of the Ξ ccK (∗) and Ξ cc ¯K (∗) molecules, Phys. Rev. D 110, 054044 (2024)

2024
[113]

Z. Y. Wang and Z. W. Long, Prediction of QQqq ¯s molecular pentaquarks within the extended local hid- den gauge approach, Phys. Rev. D 112, 056029 (2025)

2025
[114]

Q. S. Zhou, K. Chen, X. Liu, Y. R. Liu and S. L. Zhu, Surveying exotic pentaquarks with the typical QQqq ¯q conﬁguration, Phys. Rev. C 98, 045204 (2018)

2018
[115]

Xing and Y

Y. Xing and Y. Niu, The study of doubly charmed pen- taquark cc¯qqq with the SU(3) symmetry, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 978 (2021)

2021
[116]

S. Y. Li, Y. R. Liu, C. R. Shu and Z. G. Si, Doubly- charmed pentaquark states in a mass splitting model, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 140, 783 (2025)

2025
[117]

Rostami, A

S. Rostami, A. R. Olamaei, M. Malekhosseini and K. Azizi, Comprehensive mass predictions: from triply heavy baryons to pentaquarks, Eur. Phys. J. C 86, 708 (2026)

2026
[118]

G. H. Wu, L. J. Teng, J. L. Ping, F. Wang and J. T. Goldman, Quark delocalization, color screening, andNN intermediate range attraction: P waves, Phys. Rev. C 53, 1161 (1996)

1996
[119]

J. L. Ping, F. Wang and J. T. Goldman, Eﬀective baryon baryon potentials in the quark delocalization and color screening model, Nucl. Phys. A 657, 95 (1999)

1999
[120]

G. h. Wu, J. L. Ping, L. j. Teng, F. Wang and J. T. Gold- man, Quark delocalization, color screening model and nucleon baryon scattering, Nucl. Phys. A 673, 279 (2000)

2000
[121]

H. R. Pang, J. L. Ping, F. Wang and J. T. Goldman, Phenomenological study of hadron interaction models, Phys. Rev. C 65, 014003 (2002)

2002
[122]

J. L. Ping, F. Wang and J. T. Goldman, The d∗ dibaryon in the extended quark delocalization, color screening model, Phys. Rev. C 65, 044003 (2002)

2002
[123]

Y. Yan, X. Hu, Y. Wu, H. Huang, J. Ping and Y. Yang, Pentaquark interpretation of Λ c states in the quark 14 model, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 524 (2023)

2023
[124]

Y. Yan, X. Hu, H. Huang and J. Ping, Investigating excited Ω c states from pentaquark perspective, Phys. Rev. D 108, 094045 (2023)

2023
[125]

Huang, C

H. Huang, C. Deng, J. Ping and F. Wang, Possible pen- taquarks with heavy quarks, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 624 (2016)

2016
[126]

Huang and J

H. Huang and J. Ping, Investigating the hidden-charm and hidden-bottom pentaquark resonances in scattering process, Phys. Rev. D 99, 014010 (2019)

2019
[127]

F. Wang, G. h. Wu, L. j. Teng and J. T. Goldman, Quark delocalization, color screening, and nuclear in- termediate range attraction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2901 (1992)

1992
[128]

M. Chen, H. Huang, J. Ping and F. Wang, Quark model study of strange dibaryon resonances, Phys. Rev. C 83, 015202 (2011)

2011
[129]

Vijande, F

J. Vijande, F. Fernandez and A. Valcarce, Constituent quark model study of the meson spectra, J. Phys. G 31, 481 (2005)

2005
[130]

Y. Yan, Q. Huang, X. Zhu, H. Huang and J. Ping, In- vestigating Ξ resonances from a pentaquark perspective, Phys. Rev. D 110, 014021 (2024)

2024
[131]

M. Xu, M. Yu and L. Liu, Examining the crossover from hadronic to partonic phase in QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 092301 (2008)

2008
[132]

J. A. Wheeler, Molecular Viewpoints in Nuclear Struc- ture, Phys. Rev. 52, 1083 (1937)

1937
[133]

Kamimura, Chapter V

M. Kamimura, Chapter V. A Coupled Channel Varia- tional Method for Microscopic Study of Reactions be- tween Complex Nuclei, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 62, 236 (1977)

1977
[134]

D. L. Hill and J. A. Wheeler, Nuclear constitution and the interpretation of ﬁssion phenomena, Phys. Rev. 89, 1102 (1953)

1953
[135]

J. J. Griﬃn and J. A. Wheeler, Collective Motions in Nuclei by the Method of Generator Coordinates, Phys. Rev. 108, 311 (1957)

1957
[136]

Alexandrou and C

C. Alexandrou and C. Kallidonis, Low-lying baryon masses using Nf = 2 twisted mass clover-improved fermions directly at the physical pion mass, Phys. Rev. D 96, 034511 (2017)

2017
[137]

Ortiz-Pacheco and R

E. Ortiz-Pacheco and R. Bijker, Masses and radiative decay widths ofS- andP -wave singly, doubly, and triply heavy charm and bottom baryons, Phys. Rev. D 108, 054014 (2023)

2023
[138]

Hatsuda, K

T. Hatsuda, K. Morita, A. Ohnishi and K. Sasaki, pΞ− Correlation in Relativistic Heavy Ion Collisions with Nucleon-Hyperon Interaction from Lattice QCD, Nucl. Phys. A 967, 85 (2017)

2017
[139]

Haidenbauer, Coupled-channel eﬀects in hadron- hadron correlation functions, Nucl

J. Haidenbauer, Coupled-channel eﬀects in hadron- hadron correlation functions, Nucl. Phys. A 981, 1 (2019)

2019
[140]

Kamiya, T

Y. Kamiya, T. Hyodo, K. Morita, A. Ohnishi and W. Weise,K −p Correlation Function from High-Energy Nuclear Collisions and Chiral SU(3) Dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 132501 (2020)

2020
[141]

Collaboration et al

A. Collaboration et al. [ALICE], Unveiling the strong interaction among hadrons at the LHC, Nature 588, 232 (2020) [erratum: Nature 590, E13 (2021)]

2020
[142]

J. M. Torres-Rincon, A. Ramos and J. Ruf ´ ı, Two-body femtoscopy approach to the proton-deuteron correlation function, Phys. Rev. C 111, 044906 (2025)

2025
[143]

Jinno, Y

A. Jinno, Y. Kamiya, T. Hyodo and A. Ohnishi, Fem- toscopic study of the Λ α interaction, Phys. Rev. C 110, 014001 (2024)

2024
[144]

H. P. Li, C. W. Xiao, W. H. Liang, J. J. Wu, E. Wang and E. Oset, How to unravel the nature of the Σ ∗(1430)(1/2−) state from correlation functions,, Phys. Rev. D 110, 114018 (2024)

2024
[145]

Etminan, Exploring the φ −α interaction via femto- scopic study, Phys

F. Etminan, Exploring the φ −α interaction via femto- scopic study, Phys. Lett. B 866, 139564 (2025)

2025
[146]

Encarnaci´ on, M

P. Encarnaci´ on, M. Albaladejo, A. Feijoo and J. Nieve s, Spectroscopic and femtoscopic insights into vec- tor–baryon interactions in the strangeness −1 sector, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 1347 (2025)

2025
[147]

Agat˜ ao, P

B. Agat˜ ao, P. Brand˜ ao, A. Mart ´ ınez Torres, K. P. Khemchandani, L. M. Abreu and E. Oset, Correlation functions for n ¯Ds1(2460) and n ¯Ds1(2536), Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 1136 (2025)

2025
[148]

S. W. Liu and J. J. Xie, Studying the KΛ strong inter- action using femtoscopic correlation functions and the N ∗(1535), Phys. Rev. D 112, 034027 (2025)

2025
[149]

X. M. Tang, L. c. Sheng, Q. Huang and R. Chen, The recoil corrections, correlation functions and pos- sible double-strange hadronic molecules, Phys. Lett. B 870, 139896 (2025)

2025
[150]

Y. Yan, Q. Huang, Q. Wu, H. Huang and J. Ping, Pre- diction of p ¯Ω states and femtoscopic study, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 37, 126 (2026)

2026
[151]

J. X. Lin, P. Encarnaci´ on, M. Albaladejo and A. Feijoo , Signatures of odd-parity s-wave Ξ ∗ states in femtoscopic correlation functions, Phys. Lett. B 875, 140305 (2026)

2026
[152]

L. Y. Zhang, C. M. Ko, Y. G. Ma, Q. Y. Shou, K. J. Sun, R. Wang and S. Zhang, Shedding Light on (Anti-)nuclei Production with Pion-Nucleus Fem- toscopy, [arXiv:2511.10298 [nucl-th]]
[153]

Z. Zeng, B. Chen and J. Zhao, Relativistic corrections to hadron-hadron scattering phase shift and correlation function, Chin. Phys. C 50, 073101 (2026)

2026
[154]

A. S. Xiong, Q. W. Yuan, M. Z. Liu, F. S. Yu, Z. W. Liu and L. S. Geng, Solving the inverse source problem in femtoscopy with a toy model, Chin. Phys. C 50, 081001 (2026)

2026
[155]

B. E. Aboona et al. [STAR], First Observation of Deuteron-Λ Correlations at RHIC, Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 242303 (2026)

2026
[156]

Y. Yan, Y. Wu, Y. Tan, X. Hu, Q. Huang, H. Huang and J. Ping, Investigating the Ωφ interaction and correlation functions, Phys. Rev. C 113, 065204 (2026)

2026
[157]

Encarnaci´ on, A

P. Encarnaci´ on, A. Garc ´ ıa-Lorenzo, M. Albaladejo, A. Feijoo, J. Nieves and I. Vida˜ na, Coulomb Eﬀects in Momentum-Space Femtoscopy: A Case Study of the ¯KΩ System, [arXiv:2607.11321 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[158]

Zhang, X

K. Zhang, X. Wang and X. Luo, Spin Femtoscopy: A Framework for Revealing Genuine Spin Correlations, [arXiv:2607.00413 [nucl-th]]

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Klempt and J

E. Klempt and J. M. Richard, Baryon spectroscopy, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1095 (2010)

2010

[2] [2]

Liu, An overview of XYZ new particles, Chin

X. Liu, An overview of XYZ new particles, Chin. Sci. 11 Bull. 59, 3815 (2014)

2014

[3] [3]

J. M. Richard, Exotic hadrons: review and perspectives, Few Body Syst. 57, 1185 (2016)

2016

[4] [4]

M. R. Shepherd, J. J. Dudek and R. E. Mitchell, Search- ing for the rules that govern hadron construction, Na- ture 534, 487 (2016)

2016

[5] [5]

F. K. Guo, C. Hanhart, U. G. Meißner, Q. Wang, Q. Zhao and B. S. Zou, Hadronic molecules, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 015004 (2018) [erratum: Rev. Mod. Phys. 94, 029901 (2022)]

2018

[6] [6]

Albaladejo et al

M. Albaladejo et al. [JPAC], Novel approaches in hadron spectroscopy, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 127, 103981 (2022)

2022

[7] [7]

Huang, C

H. Huang, C. Deng, X. Liu, Y. Tan and J. Ping, Tetraquarks and Pentaquarks from Quark Model Per- spective, Symmetry 15, 1298 (2023)

2023

[8] [8]

M. Z. Liu, Y. W. Pan, Z. W. Liu, T. W. Wu, J. X. Lu and L. S. Geng, Three ways to decipher the nature of exotic hadrons: Multiplets, three-body hadronic molecules, and correlation functions, Phys. Rept. 1108, 1 (2025)

2025