Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Resolving the $T_{cc}^+$ with $\pi$ Exchange from Lattice QCD

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Pion exchange turns the T_cc+ from a virtual state into a complex pole.

desk verdict A serious lattice QCD paper that credibly changes T_cc+ from a real virtual state to a complex subthreshold pole once one-pion exchange is included; the main uncertainty is the K0 extrapolation below the left-hand cut. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.19009 v1 pith:VJRYBQ5L submitted 2026-07-21 hep-lat hep-phnucl-th

Nelson Pitanga Lachini , Raúl A. Briceño This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-lathep-phnucl-th PACS 12.38.Gc
keywords doublycharmedtetraquarkT_cc+one-pionexchangeleft-handcutfinite-volumescatteringlatticeQCDcomplexpoleDD*
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper reanalyzes the finite-volume $DD^*$ spectrum from lattice QCD at $m_\pi\approx391\,\mathrm{MeV}$ using a scattering formalism that keeps one-pion exchange explicit. It claims that once pion exchange is included nonperturbatively, the $T_{cc}^+$ is no longer a real-valued virtual bound state but a complex pole on the second sheet at $E_{\mathrm{pole}}=3854(15)-i\,25.5(14)\,\mathrm{MeV}$, corresponding to a width $\Gamma=54(14)\,\mathrm{MeV}$. The same analysis determines the $DD^*\pi$ coupling directly from the spectrum as $g=11.8(7)$, without using effective-field-theory input, and predicts that the pole moves toward the real axis as the pion mass approaches its physical value. The result matters because earlier analyses that neglected the one-pion-exchange left-hand cut could misidentify the state, and it sharpens the broader question of whether the $T_{cc}^+$ is better described as a compact tetraquark or a $DD^*$ molecule.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the finite-volume quantization condition $\det\big[(K_0)^{-1}+F_{\mathrm{pv}}+C_L\big]=0$, where $F_{\mathrm{pv}}$ is the standard two-body finite-volume function and $C_L$ is a new term that encodes one-pion exchange through the $DD^*\pi$ coupling $g$. This fixes $K_0$, the smooth short-distance kernel, and the physical amplitude is then reconstructed as $\mathcal{M}=\mathcal{M}_E+\mathcal{M}_{K_0}$, where $\mathcal{M}_E$ is the full one-pion-exchange ladder amplitude obtained from coupled integral equations. The pole is extracted by continuing to the second sheet through $\mathcal{M}^{\mathrm{II}}=\big[(\mathcal{M}^{\mathrm{I}})^{-1}+2i\rho\big]^{-1}$, with careful checks that the integration contour avoids the one-pion-exchange branch cuts for the energies in question. This separation of long-range pion physics from short-distance dynamics is what lets the paper determine both $g$ and the pole position from the lattice spectrum alone.

What would settle it

Compute the $DD^*\pi$ coupling independently from lattice three-point correlation functions and compare with $g=11.8(7)$; alternatively, generate finite-volume energies at physical pion mass or at additional volumes with levels lying closer to the subthreshold region and check whether the complex pole appears and moves toward the real axis as predicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

With the nearest left-hand cut from one-pion exchange made explicit, the isoscalar $J^P=1^+$ $DD^*$ amplitude below threshold no longer has a pole on the real-energy axis; instead, analytic continuation to the second sheet yields a complex pole at $E_{\mathrm{pole}}=3854(15)-i\,25.5(14)\,\mathrm{MeV}$, i.e. $\Gamma=54(14)\,\mathrm{MeV}$. This pole is present across every explored parametrization of the short-distance $K_0$ matrix, and replacing the $K_0$ polynomial with its inverse leaves the result unchanged. The paper also shows that the $DD^*\pi$ coupling and $K_0$ can be constrained simultaneously from the same 36 finite-volume energy levels, and that varying only the exchanged pion mass in the one-pion-exchange kernel pushes the pole toward the real axis as the pion mass is lowered.

Load-bearing premise

The extraction assumes that the fitted smooth $K_0$ polynomial remains valid when extrapolated from the energy region of the lattice levels down to the subthreshold pole, and that the integral equations can be analytically continued below the single-pion left-hand cut without encountering an undetected singularity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At $m_\pi\approx391\,\mathrm{MeV}$ the $T_{cc}^+$ must be regarded as a subthreshold complex pole rather than a real virtual bound state, so analyses that ignore the left-hand cut can misclassify it.
  • The $DD^*\pi$ coupling is determined directly from finite-volume spectra, giving $g=11.8(7)$, so this channel no longer needs external effective-field-theory input at this pion mass.
  • As the exchanged pion mass is lowered, the pole trajectory moves toward the real-energy axis, predicting a progressively narrower $T_{cc}^+$ as physical quark masses are approached.
  • Including one-pion exchange improves the spectrum fit quality, from $\chi^2/N_{\mathrm{dof}}\approx1.7$ with seven parameters down to $\chi^2/N_{\mathrm{dof}}\approx0.9$ with three to five parameters, meaning much of the short-distance freedom is absorbed by the pion-exchange ladder.
  • The same formalism is transferable to other channels with nearby left-hand cuts, such as the two-nucleon sector.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the predicted pole trajectory is correct, a physical-mass lattice calculation should find the $T_{cc}^+$ with a considerably smaller width, a test that could be performed with existing methodology in the next few years.
  • The $K_0$ parameters are scheme dependent, so direct comparisons with earlier K-matrix analyses should be made through the pole position and the coupling $g$, not through the individual $K_0$ coefficients.
  • A direct lattice QCD computation of the $DD^*\pi$ three-point vertex would provide an independent check of $g=11.8(7)$, which is currently inferred solely from the two-body energy spectrum.
  • The same framework could be extended to reactions with coupled channels and higher partial waves, where the one-pion-exchange left-hand cut may lie even closer to the energy region of interest.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reanalyzes the 36 finite-volume DD* energy levels of Ref. [14] at m_pi≈391 MeV using the finite-volume formalism of Ref. [28], which incorporates one-pion exchange nonperturbatively. The authors simultaneously fit the DD*pi coupling g and a smooth short-distance matrix K0; the reference fit uses four K0 parameters plus g and gives chi2/Ndof = 0.90, compared with 1.68 for a seven-parameter fit without OPE. Continuing the reconstructed amplitude to the second Riemann sheet, they find a complex subthreshold pole at E_pole = 3854(15) - i25.5(14) MeV (printed as -i255(14) in Eq. (4)), with an inferred width Gamma = 54(14) MeV, in contrast to the real virtual bound state found in Ref. [14]. The pole is reported for all K0 parametrizations in Table IV. The authors also study the dependence on the regulator alpha and the momentum cutoff, and explore the pole trajectory as the pion mass is lowered to about 300 MeV with g and K0 held fixed.

Significance. This is a timely and technically substantial reanalysis. If the result is robust, it changes the lattice-QCD picture of the T_cc+ at m_pi≈391 MeV from a real virtual bound state to a subthreshold complex pole generated by the interplay of OPE and short-range dynamics. The paper's strengths are that it constrains g and K0 simultaneously from the finite-volume spectrum alone, without external inputs; it demonstrates a clear improvement in fit quality with fewer parameters; it reports unitarity checks above threshold; it verifies the absence of contour pinching in the analytic continuation; and it shows pole stability across several K0 parametrizations and regulator values. The main caveat, detailed below, is that the pole lies on the other side of the OPE cut from the energy region in which K0 is fitted, so the systematic uncertainty on the complex pole is not fully quantified. Provided this is addressed, the work is likely to be influential for both lattice and phenomenological studies of near-threshold exotics.

major comments (1)
  1. [Sec. C 1, Eq. (4), Sec. B 2, Table IV] The central claim depends on an untested extrapolation of K0 below the one-pion left-hand cut. The quoted pole E_pole = 3854(15) - i25.5(14) MeV lies below the single-pion branch point E_lhc = m_D + sqrt(m_D*^2 - m_pi^2) ≈ 3858 MeV, while the 36 levels used to constrain K0 have their lowest energy just above that branch point (Sec. B 2, Fig. 6). The contour checks in Sec. C 1 (Figs. 10-12) show that the integral equations defining M_E can be deformed without pinching the OPE cuts, and the K0 polynomial is trivially continuable; however, those checks do not establish that the low-order polynomial form of K0 (Eqs. B2/B3, Table III) remains valid below the cut. Data above the cut cannot discriminate between K0 forms that agree there but differ below it, and the imaginary part of the pole is generated entirely by the OPE discontinuity in the continued amplitude. The spread of Im E across the variations in Table IV already spans roughly -37 to -17 MeV, and a more flexible K0 continuation could move the pole outside this range or return it to the real axis. I request an explicit robustness test that varies the K0 continuation below the lhc, for example by adding terms that vanish above the lhc or by using a parametrization that respects the analyticity domain of the amplitude, and that reports the resulting pole uncertainty.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (4)] The printed imaginary part -i255(14) MeV is inconsistent with the width Gamma = 54(14) MeV quoted immediately below and with Fig. 3, which uses Im E* = -25.5 MeV; the value should presumably be -i25.5(14) MeV.
  2. [Abstract and Conclusion] The abstract states that the paper predicts the pole moves closer to the real-energy axis as the pion mass approaches its physical value, but the calculation holds g and K0 fixed and varies only the pion mass in the OPE kernel. The text acknowledges this explicitly; the abstract should include the same caveat.
  3. [Sec. B 4] There is a typo in the sentence before Eq. (B6): 'Iit is useful' should read 'It is useful'.
  4. [Fig. 4] The labels 'with LHC' and 'without LHC' in the lower panel are not defined in the caption; please state explicitly that they refer to whether the one-pion left-hand cut is included in the analysis.
  5. [Sec. B 5, Table III] The statement that the bold-faced entry in Table III is the reference parametrization would be clearer if the corresponding row were labeled 'reference' in the table itself, rather than only in the caption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the T_cc+ complex pole is a genuine output of the fitted K0 and g, not a renamed input.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. The finite-volume quantization condition (Eq. 2) is used to fit the short-distance kernel K0 and the OPE coupling g to the 36 lattice levels from Ref. [14]. The physical amplitude is then reconstructed via Eq. (1), and the second-sheet pole is found by solving det[(M^I)^{-1}+2i rho]=0 (Eq. C19) after analytic continuation. Nothing in the input fixes the pole position or its imaginary part: g and K0 are constrained at real energies near and above the DD* threshold, while the pole appears as a zero of a determinant at a complex energy. The appearance of a complex (rather than real) pole is a consequence of the OPE cut structure in the continued amplitude, not an input. The cited formalism of Ref. [28] (and the continuation checks of Ref. [22]) is from the same group, but it is a parameter-free derivation from unitarity and analyticity that does not assume the T_cc+ pole; the present paper independently implements and solves the integral equations and reports new OPE partial-wave expressions. The conditional light-quark-mass trajectory is explicitly an extrapolation with K0 and g held fixed, not a derivation of the pole. The concern that K0 is fitted only above the one-pion left-hand cut while the pole lies below it is a legitimate systematic or correctness risk about the polynomial extrapolation, but it does not make the claim circular: the pole is not equivalent by construction to the fitted parameters. Score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the formalism of Ref. [28], the lattice spectrum of Ref. [14], and the assumed smoothness and analytic continuation of K0. No new entities are introduced; the main fitted inputs are the DD*pi coupling g, four K0 coefficients, and scheme parameters alpha and p_cut.

free parameters (4)
  • g (DD*pi coupling) = 11.8(7) (AIC average); 12.57(33) reference fit
    Fitted to the 36 finite-volume energy levels from Ref. [14] via the quantization condition Eq. (A2).
  • K0 matrix coefficients (reference fit) = gamma~0_3P2 = 37.2(5.0) a_t^2, gamma~0_3D1 = 927(507) a_t^4, gamma~0_3S1 = 3.40(41), gamma~1_3S1 = -41(25) a_t^2
    Four polynomial coefficients of K0 in (s - s_thr), fitted to the same spectrum.
  • alpha_hat (OPE cutoff parameter) = 170 (reference); 110 and 50 varied
    Scheme parameter in the cutoff function H(k*) = exp[-alpha(k*^2 - q*^2)]; fixed per fit and selected by AIC weighting.
  • p_cut (hard momentum cutoff) = a_t^2 p_cut^2 in {0.0347, 0.0462, 0.0809, ...}
    Hard cutoff for finite sums; chosen large enough that results are insensitive, with values differing per volume.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The finite-volume quantization condition Eq. (A2) of Ref. [28] correctly incorporates OPE nonperturbatively and reduces to the usual Luscher formalism when g=0.
    The entire analysis rests on this formalism; the paper applies it without independent derivation.
  • domain assumption The 36 finite-volume energy levels from Ref. [14] are accurate and unaffected by the OPE analysis.
    Reanalysis uses these data as input; systematic errors adopted from that paper.
  • domain assumption K0 can be represented by low-order polynomials in (s - s_thr) over the fitted range and in the extrapolation to the subthreshold pole.
    Parametrization forms B2/B3 are assumed; robustness is tested across variations but not proven.
  • domain assumption The integral equations can be analytically continued to the second sheet, with the pole within the domain of analyticity.
    The authors perform contour checks following Refs. [22,85,86], but this remains a technical assumption.
  • domain assumption Physical amplitudes are independent of the cutoff scheme (alpha) when the same scheme is used in finite and infinite volume.
    Stated in Sec. B 3 as assured by the formalism; checked by varying alpha.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Resolving the $T_{cc}^+$ with $\pi$ Exchange from Lattice QCD." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VJRYBQ5L

@misc{pith2026260719009,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Resolving the $T_cc^+$ with $\pi$ Exchange from Lattice QCD},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VJRYBQ5L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.19009}
}
abstract

We revisit the lattice QCD description of the doubly charmed tetraquark $T_{cc}^+$ using a finite-volume scattering formalism that incorporates one-pion exchange nonperturbatively, thereby making the nearest left-hand cut explicit while respecting unitarity and analyticity. We simultaneously determine the $D D^\star \pi$ coupling and the isoscalar $DD^\star$ scattering amplitude by reanalyzing the previously computed finite-volume $DD^\star$ spectrum below the $D^\star D^\star$ threshold, on lattices with pion mass $m_\pi\approx391~{\rm MeV}$. We find that the inclusion of pion exchange changes the $T_{cc}^+$ from a real-valued to a complex-valued pole in the second sheet of the $J^P=1^+$, $DD^\star$ amplitude below threshold. We further predict that the $T_{cc}^+$ pole will move closer to the real-energy axis as the pion mass approaches its physical value.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19009 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Finite-volume spectra in the rest-frame [000] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Absolute value of the physical-sheet isoscalar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. As in Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Example of partial-wave-projected OPE contribution used in the integral equation for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Lattice energies computed in Ref. [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. In the top panel, we show the values of ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Shown are the values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Shown is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Imaginary part of a partly on-shell OPE, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Domain-of-non-analyticity check for the OPE kernel in the complex momentum plane, following the criteria of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Shown are the complex-valued couplings at the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Analytic decomposition of two-body electroweak processes with left-hand cuts

    hep-lat 2026-07 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

    An on-shell decomposition of 2+J o2 electroweak amplitudes isolates OPE poles, logs, and triangle singularities, leaving only smooth short-distance functions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [28]

    A. B. Raposo, R. A. Brice˜ no, M. T. Hansen, and A. W. Jackura, JHEP06, 186 (2025), arXiv:2502.19375 [hep- lat]

    arXiv 2025

  2. [14]

    Whyte, D

    T. Whyte, D. J. Wilson, and C. E. Thomas (Hadron Spectrum), Phys. Rev. D111, 034511 (2025), arXiv:2405.15741 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2025

  3. [1]

    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

  4. [2]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), Nature Commun.13, 3351 (2022), arXiv:2109.01056 [hep-ex]

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), Nature Commun.13, 3351 (2022), arXiv:2109.01056 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2022

  5. [3]

    M.-L. Du, V. Baru, X.-K. Dong, A. Filin, F.-K. Guo, C. Hanhart, A. Nefediev, J. Nieves, and Q. Wang, Phys. Rev. D105, 014024 (2022), arXiv:2110.13765 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  6. [4]

    L. Meng, B. Wang, G.-J. Wang, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rept.1019, 1 (2023), arXiv:2204.08716 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  7. [5]

    M.-L. Du, A. Filin, V. Baru, X.-K. Dong, E. Epel- baum, F.-K. Guo, C. Hanhart, A. Nefediev, J. Nieves, and Q. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 131903 (2023), arXiv:2303.09441 [hep-ph]. 7 Ref. [22] did find that real bound-state poles are largely unaf- fected by left-hand cuts

    arXiv 2023

  8. [6]

    L. Meng, V. Baru, E. Epelbaum, A. A. Filin, and A. M. Gasparyan, Phys. Rev. D109, L071506 (2024), arXiv:2312.01930 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2024

Show all 97 references
  1. [7]

    Wang, Z.-Y

    J.-Z. Wang, Z.-Y. Lin, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D109, L071505 (2024), arXiv:2309.09861 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Z.-F. Sun, N. Li, and X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D110, 094025 (2024), arXiv:2405.00525 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Abolnikov, V

    M. Abolnikov, V. Baru, E. Epelbaum, A. A. Filin, C. Hanhart, and L. Meng, Phys. Lett. B860, 139188 (2025), arXiv:2407.04649 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  4. [10]

    S. M. Dawid, F. Romero-L´ opez, and S. R. Sharpe, JHEP 09, 058 (2025), arXiv:2505.05466 [nucl-th]

    2025

  5. [11]

    Padmanath and S

    M. Padmanath and S. Prelovsek, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 032002 (2022), arXiv:2202.10110 [hep-lat]

    2022 arXiv

  6. [12]

    S. Chen, C. Shi, Y. Chen, M. Gong, Z. Liu, W. Sun, and R. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B833, 137391 (2022), arXiv:2206.06185 [hep-lat]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Y. Lyu, S. Aoki, T. Doi, T. Hatsuda, Y. Ikeda, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 161901 (2023), 6 arXiv:2302.04505 [hep-lat]

    2023 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Collins, A

    S. Collins, A. Nefediev, M. Padmanath, and S. Prelovsek, Phys. Rev. D109, 094509 (2024), arXiv:2402.14715 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Prelovsek, E

    S. Prelovsek, E. Ortiz-Pacheco, S. Collins, L. Leskovec, M. Padmanath, and I. Vujmilovic, Phys. Rev. D112, 014507 (2025), arXiv:2504.03473 [hep-lat]

    2025 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Alharazin, A

    H. Alharazin, A. B. Raposo, J. Bulava, S. Dawid, J. R. Green, C. Morningstar, F. Romero-L´ opez, M. Salg, S. R. Sharpe, and A. Stump, in42th International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory(2026) arXiv:2602.17204 [hep- lat]

    2026

  11. [18]

    Stump and J

    A. Stump and J. R. Green, Phys. Rev. D113, 034513 (2026), arXiv:2510.26459 [hep-lat]

    2026

  12. [19]

    D. J. Wilson, J. J. Dudek, R. G. Edwards, and C. E. Thomas, (2026), arXiv:2602.09862 [hep-lat]

    2026

  13. [20]

    Chilikinet al.(Belle), Phys

    K. Chilikinet al.(Belle), Phys. Rev. D95, 112003 (2017), arXiv:1704.01872 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  14. [21]

    J. R. Green, A. D. Hanlon, P. M. Junnarkar, and H. Wittig, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 242003 (2021), arXiv:2103.01054 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  15. [22]

    S. M. Dawid, M. H. E. Islam, and R. A. Brice˜ no, Phys. Rev. D108, 034016 (2023), arXiv:2303.04394 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Meng and E

    L. Meng and E. Epelbaum, JHEP10, 051 (2021), arXiv:2108.02709 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Bubna, H.-W

    R. Bubna, H.-W. Hammer, F. M¨ uller, J.-Y. Pang, A. Rusetsky, and J.-J. Wu, JHEP05, 168 (2024), arXiv:2402.12985 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [25]

    A. B. Raposo and M. T. Hansen, JHEP08, 075 (2024), arXiv:2311.18793 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [26]

    S. M. Dawid, A. W. Jackura, and A. P. Szczepaniak, Phys. Lett. B864, 139442 (2025), arXiv:2411.15730 [hep- lat]

    2025 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Yu, G.-J

    K. Yu, G.-J. Wang, J.-J. Wu, and Z. Yang, JHEP04, 108 (2025), arXiv:2502.05789 [hep-lat]

    2025

  21. [29]

    M. T. Hansen, F. Romero-L´ opez, and S. R. Sharpe, JHEP06, 051 (2024), arXiv:2401.06609 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Rodas, L

    A. Rodas, L. Qiu, C. Fern´ andez-Ram´ ırez, V. Mathieu, G. Monta˜ na, A. Pilloni, and A. P. Szczepaniak, (2026), arXiv:2605.22957 [hep-lat]

    2026 arXiv

  23. [31]

    R. A. Briceno, Phys. Rev. D89, 074507 (2014), arXiv:1401.3312 [hep-lat]

    2014 arXiv

  24. [32]

    R. G. Edwards, B. Joo, and H.-W. Lin, Phys. Rev. D 78, 054501 (2008), arXiv:0803.3960 [hep-lat]

    2008 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Linet al.(Hadron Spectrum), Phys

    H.-W. Linet al.(Hadron Spectrum), Phys. Rev. D79, 034502 (2009), arXiv:0810.3588 [hep-lat]

    2009 arXiv

  26. [34]

    R. G. Edwards, N. Mathur, D. G. Richards, and S. J. Wallace (Hadron Spectrum), Phys. Rev. D87, 054506 (2013), arXiv:1212.5236 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  27. [35]

    L. Liu, G. Moir, M. Peardon, S. M. Ryan, C. E. Thomas, P. Vilaseca, J. J. Dudek, R. G. Edwards, B. Joo, and D. G. Richards (Hadron Spectrum), JHEP07, 126 (2012), arXiv:1204.5425 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Peardon, J

    M. Peardon, J. Bulava, J. Foley, C. Morningstar, J. Dudek, R. G. Edwards, B. Joo, H.-W. Lin, D. G. Richards, and K. J. Juge (Hadron Spectrum), Phys. Rev. D80, 054506 (2009), arXiv:0905.2160 [hep-lat]

    2009 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Michael, Nucl

    C. Michael, Nucl. Phys. B259, 58 (1985)

    1985

  30. [38]

    Luscher and U

    M. Luscher and U. Wolff, Nucl. Phys. B339, 222 (1990)

    1990

  31. [39]

    Blossier, M

    B. Blossier, M. Della Morte, G. von Hippel, T. Mendes, and R. Sommer, JHEP04, 094 (2009), arXiv:0902.1265 [hep-lat]

    2009 arXiv

  32. [40]

    J. J. Dudek, R. G. Edwards, M. J. Peardon, D. G. Richards, and C. E. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D82, 034508 (2010), arXiv:1004.4930 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  33. [41]

    J. J. Dudek, R. G. Edwards, and C. E. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D86, 034031 (2012), arXiv:1203.6041 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Lang and D

    N. Lang and D. J. Wilson (for the Hadron Spectrum Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 252001 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    Lang and D

    N. Lang and D. J. Wilson (Hadron Spectrum), JHEP07, 060 (2025), arXiv:2502.04232 [hep-lat]

    2025 arXiv

  36. [44]

    A. Woss, C. E. Thomas, J. J. Dudek, R. G. Edwards, and D. J. Wilson, JHEP07, 043 (2018), arXiv:1802.05580 [hep-lat]

    2018 arXiv

  37. [45]

    R. A. Briceno, J. J. Dudek, R. G. Edwards, and D. J. Wilson, Phys. Rev. D97, 054513 (2018), arXiv:1708.06667 [hep-lat]

    2018 arXiv

  38. [46]

    D. J. Wilson, R. A. Briceno, J. J. Dudek, R. G. Ed- wards, and C. E. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D92, 094502 (2015), arXiv:1507.02599 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Bulavaet al.(Baryon Scattering (BaSc)), Phys

    J. Bulavaet al.(Baryon Scattering (BaSc)), Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 051901 (2024), arXiv:2307.10413 [hep-lat]

    2024

  40. [48]

    D. J. Wilson, J. J. Dudek, R. G. Edwards, and C. E. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D91, 054008 (2015), arXiv:1411.2004 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  41. [49]

    A. J. Woss, D. J. Wilson, and J. J. Dudek (Hadron Spectrum), Phys. Rev. D101, 114505 (2020), arXiv:2001.08474 [hep-lat]

    2020 arXiv

  42. [50]

    W. I. Jay and E. T. Neil, Phys. Rev. D103, 114502 (2021), arXiv:2008.01069 [stat.ME]

    2021 arXiv

  43. [51]

    D. A. Pefkou, D. C. Hackett, and P. E. Shanahan, Phys. Rev. D105, 054509 (2022), arXiv:2107.10368 [hep-lat]

    2022 arXiv

  44. [52]

    A. W. Jackura and R. A. Brice˜ no, Phys. Rev. D109, 096030 (2024), arXiv:2312.00625 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Becirevic and F

    D. Becirevic and F. Sanfilippo, Phys. Lett. B721, 94 (2013), arXiv:1210.5410 [hep-lat]

    2013 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Egereret al.(HadStruc), Phys

    C. Egereret al.(HadStruc), Phys. Rev. D105, 034507 (2022), arXiv:2111.01808 [hep-lat]

    2022 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Dutrieux, R

    H. Dutrieux, R. G. Edwards, C. Egerer, J. Karpie, C. Monahan, K. Orginos, A. Radyushkin, D. Richards, E. Romero, and S. Zafeiropoulos (HadStruc), JHEP08, 162 (2024), arXiv:2405.10304 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Lin, Phys

    H.-W. Lin, Phys. Lett. B824, 136821 (2022), arXiv:2112.07519 [hep-lat]

    2022 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Alexandrouet al., Phys

    C. Alexandrouet al., Phys. Rev. D101, 034519 (2020), arXiv:1908.10706 [hep-lat]

    2020 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Bhattacharya, K

    S. Bhattacharya, K. Cichy, M. Constantinou, X. Gao, A. Metz, J. Miller, S. Mukherjee, P. Petreczky, F. Stef- fens, and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D108, 014507 (2023), arXiv:2305.11117 [hep-lat]

    2023 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Bhattacharya, K

    S. Bhattacharya, K. Cichy, M. Constantinou, X. Gao, A. Metz, J. Miller, S. Mukherjee, P. Petreczky, F. Steffens, and Y. Zhao, JHEP01, 146 (2025), arXiv:2410.03539 [hep-lat]

    2025 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Batelaan, J

    M. Batelaan, J. J. Dudek, and R. G. Edwards (Hadron Spectrum), Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 161904 (2025), arXiv:2506.09306 [hep-lat]

    2025 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Batelaan, J

    M. Batelaan, J. J. Dudek, and R. G. Edwards (Hadron Spectrum), Phys. Rev. D112, 074505 (2025), arXiv:2506.09305 [hep-lat]

    2025 arXiv

  54. [62]

    C. J. Shultz, J. J. Dudek, and R. G. Edwards, Phys. Rev. D91, 114501 (2015), arXiv:1501.07457 [hep-lat]. 7

    2015 arXiv

  55. [63]

    R. A. Brice˜ no and M. T. Hansen, Phys. Rev. D94, 013008 (2016), arXiv:1509.08507 [hep-lat]

    2016 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Baroni, R

    A. Baroni, R. A. Brice˜ no, M. T. Hansen, and F. G. Ortega-Gama, Phys. Rev. D100, 034511 (2019), arXiv:1812.10504 [hep-lat]

    2019 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Bernard, D

    V. Bernard, D. Hoja, U. G. Meissner, and A. Rusetsky, JHEP09, 023 (2012), arXiv:1205.4642 [hep-lat]

    2012 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Meißner, A

    U.-G. Meißner, A. Rusetsky, A. S. Sakthivasan, G. Schierholz, and J.-J. Wu, JHEP06, 164 (2026), arXiv:2602.23044 [hep-lat]

    2026 arXiv

  59. [67]

    R. A. Brice˜ no, A. W. Jackura, F. G. Ortega-Gama, and K. H. Sherman, Phys. Rev. D103, 114512 (2021), arXiv:2012.13338 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  60. [68]

    R. A. Brice˜ no, M. T. Hansen, and A. W. Jackura, Phys. Rev. D100, 114505 (2019), arXiv:1909.10357 [hep-lat]

    2019 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Moscoso, F

    J. Moscoso, F. G. Ortega-Gama, R. A. Brice˜ no, A. W. Jackura, C. Kacir, and A. N. Nicholson, (2026), arXiv:2602.20373 [hep-lat]

    2026

  62. [70]

    Bai˜ ao-Raposo, R

    A. Bai˜ ao-Raposo, R. A. Brice˜ no, N. Lang, F. G. Ortega- Gama, and B. Pol, (2026), in preparation

    2026

  63. [71]

    Bulavaet al.(Baryon Scattering), Phys

    J. Bulavaet al.(Baryon Scattering), Phys. Rev. C113, 024002 (2026), arXiv:2505.05547 [hep-lat]

    2026

  64. [72]

    H¨ orzet al., Phys

    B. H¨ orzet al., Phys. Rev. C103, 014003 (2021), arXiv:2009.11825 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Amarasinghe, R

    S. Amarasinghe, R. Baghdadi, Z. Davoudi, W. Detmold, M. Illa, A. Parreno, A. V. Pochinsky, P. E. Shana- han, and M. L. Wagman, Phys. Rev. D107, 094508 (2023), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 110, 119904 (2024)], arXiv:2108.10835 [hep-lat]

    2023 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Detmold, M

    W. Detmold, M. Illa, W. I. Jay, A. Parre˜ no, R. J. Perry, P. E. Shanahan, and M. L. Wagman (NPLQCD), Phys. Rev. D111, 114501 (2025), arXiv:2404.12039 [hep-lat]

    2025 arXiv

  67. [75]

    C. h. Kim, C. T. Sachrajda, and S. R. Sharpe, Nucl. Phys. B727, 218 (2005), arXiv:hep-lat/0507006

    2005 arXiv

  68. [76]

    N. H. Christ, C. Kim, and T. Yamazaki, Phys. Rev. D 72, 114506 (2005), arXiv:hep-lat/0507009

    2005 arXiv

  69. [77]

    M. T. Hansen and S. R. Sharpe, Phys. Rev. D86, 016007 (2012), arXiv:1204.0826 [hep-lat]

    2012 arXiv

  70. [78]

    R. A. Briceno and Z. Davoudi, Phys. Rev. D88, 094507 (2013), arXiv:1204.1110 [hep-lat]

    2013 arXiv

  71. [79]

    M. T. Hansen and S. R. Sharpe, Phys. Rev. D90, 116003 (2014), arXiv:1408.5933 [hep-lat]

    2014 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Jacob and G

    M. Jacob and G. C. Wick, Annals Phys.7, 404 (1959)

    1959

  73. [81]

    A. D. Martin and T. D. Spearman,Elementary Parti- cle Theory(North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1970)

    1970

  74. [82]

    A. W. Jackura, R. A. Brice˜ no, S. M. Dawid, M. H. E. Is- lam, and C. McCarty, Phys. Rev. D104, 014507 (2021), arXiv:2010.09820 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  75. [83]

    R. A. Brice˜ no, C. S. R. Costa, and A. W. Jackura, Phys. Rev. D111, 036029 (2025), arXiv:2409.15577 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  76. [84]

    R. A. Brice˜ no, M. T. Hansen, A. W. Jackura, R. G. Ed- wards, and C. E. Thomas, (2025), arXiv:2510.24894 [hep-lat]

    2025

  77. [85]

    D. D. Brayshaw, Phys. Rev.176, 1855 (1968)

    1968

  78. [86]

    S. M. Dawid, M. H. E. Islam, R. A. Briceno, and A. W. Jackura, Phys. Rev. A109, 043325 (2024), arXiv:2309.01732 [nucl-th]. 8 SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL A: Review of scattering formalism In this section, we review the main ingredients needed from the formalism presented in Ref. [28]...

    2024 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Let us first discuss the ingredients needed for the quantization condition, Eq

    Finite volume In what follows, we will use “⋆” to denote variables defined in the center-of-momentum frame (CMF). Let us first discuss the ingredients needed for the quantization condition, Eq. (A2). The standard finite-volume functionFfor theDD ⋆ system can be written as [31]...

  80. [88]

    (A2) for some total angular momentum and parityJ P , the physical scattering amplitude can then be reconstructed via Eq

    Infinite volume Given thatK JP 0 can be obtained from the quantization condition Eq. (A2) for some total angular momentum and parityJ P , the physical scattering amplitude can then be reconstructed via Eq. (A1). Let us now define the two terms appearing in that equation, start...

  81. [89]

    [28], we write the integral equations in the partial-wave-projected basis in the CMF

    Partial-wave-projected OPE forJ P = 1+ Following Ref. [28], we write the integral equations in the partial-wave-projected basis in the CMF. There, it was shown that the driving term in the integral equations takes the form EJP = 1 2 h CJP 1 +C JP 2 Q0(ζ+iϵ) + (p ⋆ i↔p ⋆ f) i ,...

  82. [90]

    Partial-wave-projected OPE forPwaves Using the same notation and building blocks as above, we can compactly write the diagonalP-wave OPE coefficients for the 3P0, 3P1, and 3P2 channels. For these partial waves, the coefficients are C 0− 1 (3P0→ 3P0) = g2 2 γ1γ3 β1 β4 + β3 β2 +...

  83. [91]

    We will use the same form as that found in Ref

    Reference parametrization forgfixed to zero For comparison purposes, we give here a parametrization obtained at fixedg= 0, i.e., using the L¨ uscher quantization condition. We will use the same form as that found in Ref. [14] as a reasonable description of the 36 finite-volume...

  84. [92]

    Reference parametrization forgas a fit parameter Here we use the quantization condition in Eq. (A2) to simultaneously constrain theD ⋆Dπcouplinggand the parameters of K 0 from finite-volume energies, allowing both to vary during the minimization of the spectrumχ 2 defined in R...

  85. [93]

    Given the formalism presented in Ref

    Choice of the Parameterα We study the sensitivity of the result above to the parameterαappearing in the cutoff function defined in (A13). Given the formalism presented in Ref. [28], this parameter must be nonzero. This is because all momentum integrals and sums appearing in th...

  86. [94]

    on the fly

    Sensitivity to the Momentum Cutoffp cut In practice, it is also necessary to introduce a hard momentum cutoff,p cut, for each given value of ˆα. This is to render the sums defining the finite-volume functionC L, defined in (A15), finite. This will, in turn, also truncate the m...

  87. [95]

    (B3) and (B2) and the possible partial waves listed in Table I

    Parametrization Variations We assess the dependence of the results on the form of the K 0 parametrization by employing variations based on Eqs. (B3) and (B2) and the possible partial waves listed in Table I. We also assess the dependence on the dimensionless cutoff parameter ˆ...

  88. [96]

    double-pole

    OPE-dependence of the finite-volume spectrum Given that this is the first implementation of this formalism in the analysis of the spectrum, we provide some qualitative examples on how the quantization condition depends on the value of the exchange couplinggentering the OPE. Fi...

  89. [97]

    Analytic continuation and checks The pole determinations quoted in the main text require evaluating the same integral equations at complex energies. Since the OPE kernel has logarithmic branch points, this continuation is meaningful only if the external on-shell point and the ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.