Strong decays of the possible $D^{*}K$ and $\bar{D}^{*}K$ molecules

Dian-Yong Chen; Elena Santopinto; Zi-Li Yue

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 99 references

Strong decays of the possible $D^{}K$ and $\bar{D}^{}K$ molecules

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper predicts that the isovector $D^*K$ molecule $T^a_{c\bar{s}1}(2470)$, if it exists, decays dominantly to $D_s^{*+}\pi^0$ with a width of 13--196 MeV, roughly a thousand times the width of its isoscalar partner…

desk verdict New molecular decay numbers for D*K/anti-D*K states, but the printed Eq. (14) gives the same isospin interference sign for the I=0 and I=1 amplitudes, so the headline 10^3 width hierarchy is not reproducible from the paper as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07957 v1 pith:4BF6IAUH submitted 2026-08-08 hep-ph

Zi-Li Yue , Dian-Yong Chen , Elena Santopinto This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-ph

keywords D*KmoleculeshadronicstrongdecayseffectiveLagrangianWeinbergcompositenessconditionisospinviolationD_s1(2460)T_cs0(2327)

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that a set of hadronic states near the $D^*K$ and $\bar{D}^*K$ thresholds can be understood as $S$-wave molecules, and that the known $D_{s1}(2460)$ is the isoscalar member of a doublet. Its unobserved isovector partner, $T^a_{c\bar{s}1}(2470)$, should have a dramatically different width: the paper computes $\Gamma(T^a\to D_s^{*+}\pi^0)\simeq 13$--$196$ MeV against $\Gamma(T^f\to D_s^{*+}\pi^0)\simeq 19$--$154$ keV, a gap of about three orders of magnitude. The reason is isospin: the isoscalar decays are isospin-violating or kinematically suppressed, while the isovector decay is allowed. If the calculation is right, the two partners are distinguishable by width alone, and the broad state should be searched for through its $D_s^{*}\pi^0$ decay.

What carries the argument

The machinery is an effective Lagrangian with Gaussian vertex form factors. Each molecular state is coupled to its constituents by a Lagrangian with the correlation function $\tilde{\Phi}(p_E^2)=\exp(-p_E^2/\Lambda^2)$; the coupling is fixed by Weinberg's compositeness condition $Z=1-\Pi'(m^2)=0$, which requires the bound state to be a pure composite of its components. Decay amplitudes are built from SU(4) heavy-meson Lagrangians, and for the isospin-violating isoscalar decays the $\eta$--$\pi^0$ mixing term is included. The single free parameter $\Lambda$ is varied over 1--3 GeV, producing the quoted ranges.

What would settle it

Take the $D_s^{*+}\pi^0$ invariant-mass distribution in high-statistics $B$-decay or $e^+e^-$ data and look near 2470 MeV: the paper predicts a broad enhancement with width between about 13 and 196 MeV, while a narrow resonance with width below 1 MeV at that mass, or the absence of any enhancement, would falsify the mass assignment and the claimed width hierarchy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that isospin, not dynamics, controls the widths of the proposed $D^*K$ molecules. With the four states $T^{f/a}_{c\bar{s}1}$ and $T^{f/a}_{\bar{c}\bar{s}1}$ treated as $S$-wave molecules, the isoscalar $T^f$ decays are suppressed by isospin violation (with $\eta$--$\pi^0$ mixing contributing) or by small phase space, so its widths are keV-scale; the isovector $T^a$ decay to $D_s^{*+}\pi^0$ is isospin-allowed, so its width reaches tens to hundreds of MeV. In the parameter range $\Lambda = 1$--$3$ GeV, the partial width for $T^f_{c\bar{s}1}\to D_s^{*+}\pi^0$ rises from 18.98 to 154.4 keV, while that for $T^a_{c\bar{s}1}\to D_s^{*+}\pi^0$ rises from 13.35 to 196.1 MeV. The charge-conjugate $\bar{D}^*K$ states decay, if $\bar{D}K$ molecular states exist, only into those states plus a pion, with widths of order $10^2$ keV.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes the unseen $T^a_{c\bar{s}1}$ has mass 2470 MeV, fixed by the analogy $m(T^a_{c\bar{s}1})-m(T^a_{c\bar{s}0}(2327))\approx m_{D^*}-m_D$, and that one Gaussian size parameter $\Lambda$ between 1 and 3 GeV describes both $D^*K$ and $DK$ molecules; a different mass for the state would change every computed width and could shrink or erase the three-orders-of-magnitude gap.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The unobserved isovector molecule $T^a_{c\bar{s}1}(2470)$ should be a broad state, with $\Gamma(T^a_{c\bar{s}1}\to D_s^{*+}\pi^0)$ in the range 13.35--196.1 MeV, so $D_s^{*}\pi^0$ is the natural discovery channel.
The known $T^f_{c\bar{s}1}(2460)$, identified with $D_{s1}(2460)$, stays narrow with keV-scale widths, consistent with the small experimental width of that state.
The isospin-allowed but kinematically suppressed transitions from $T^a_{c\bar{s}1}$ to $D_{s0}^{*}(2317)\pi^0$ and $T^a_{c\bar{s}0}(2327)\pi$ come out near 0.1--0.2 MeV, not broad.
The charge-conjugate $\bar{D}^*K$ molecules $T^{f/a}_{\bar{c}\bar{s}1}$, if they exist, should have widths of order $10^2$ keV through their transitions to $\bar{D}K$ molecular states plus a pion.
A measurement of the $D_s^{*+}\pi^0$ spectrum near 2470 MeV can therefore distinguish the isovector molecular picture from other interpretations of the $D_{s1}$ family.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper leaves implicit that the same isospin switch should control the widths of analogous $B^*K$ or $\bar{B}^*K$ molecules; testing that pattern would check whether the hierarchy is generic or specific to this mass region.
A testable extension is to repeat the calculation with a different vertex form factor, such as a monopole instead of a Gaussian: if the thousand-fold gap between isoscalar and isovector widths survives, the hierarchy is robust, and if not, it is driven by the assumed wave function.
Because the predicted width range is governed by the assumed 2470 MeV mass, the sharpest experimental check is to measure the mass and width of the state together; a mass closer to the $D^*K$ threshold would shrink the phase space and narrow the predicted width.

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

Short version: this is the next step in the authors' DK molecular program, and the new numbers are the decay widths for the isovector T^a_{c\bar{s}1}(2470) and the pionic transitions of the anti-D*K states. The calculation is not a disguised fit. The molecular couplings come from Weinberg's compositeness condition rather than from fitting the target widths, and the input hadronic couplings are tied to measured widths and QCD sum rules. That is a legitimate way to produce predictions, and the explicit amplitudes in Sec. III let a reader see what is being summed.

The soft spot is more serious than the reader's mass-and-cutoff worry. Eq. (14) writes both M_{T^f -> D_s* pi0} and M_{T^a -> D_s* pi0} as M_a + M_c + M_e - M_b - M_d - M_f. But the T^a wavefunction in Eq. (1) carries a relative minus between the D*+K0 and D*0K+ components, and the final pi0 vertex already contributes a sign between those two channels. With the same printed sign pattern for the I=0 and I=1 states, and with nearly equal couplings and masses, the two amplitudes have the same interference structure. That cannot produce the claimed factor of roughly 10^3 between 18.98-154.4 keV and 13.35-196.1 MeV. The hierarchy requires destructive interference for the isoscalar and constructive interference for the isovector. As printed, the T^a amplitude is the isospin-suppressed one, so the quoted T^a width is not reproducible from Eq. (14). If the code used the opposite sign, Eq. (14) has to be corrected; if Eq. (14) is literal, the abstract's main claim collapses. This is a load-bearing internal inconsistency, not a cosmetic typo.

The secondary issues are real but less decisive. The mass m(T^a)=2470 MeV is inferred from the D* - D mass splitting, and the Lambda scan alone changes the T^a -> D_s* pi0 width by a factor of about 15. The anti-D*K section in Sec. IV.D is only sketched. Those would matter after the sign issue is resolved.

Who should read it: hadron spectroscopists and experimentalists at LHCb/Belle II looking for unobserved charm-strange states. I would send this to a referee rather than desk reject it, because the method is standard, the inputs are quoted, and the isovector-broad/isoscalar-narrow picture is plausible and testable. But the referee's first job is to demand a corrected and sign-consistent version of Eq. (14) and a check that the quoted widths follow from it.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript postulates the existence of S-wave D*K and \bar{D}*K molecular states with isospin I=0 and I=1, named T^f_c\bar{s}1(2460), T^a_c\bar{s}1(2470), T^f_\bar{c}\bar{s}1(2460), and T^a_\bar{c}\bar{s}1(2470). Using an effective Lagrangian approach with Gaussian form factors and couplings fixed by Weinberg's compositeness condition, the authors compute strong decay widths for channels such as T^f/a_c\bar{s}1 -> D_s*+ pi0, D_s0*+ pi0, and T^a_c\bar{s}0 pi. The central claim is that the isovector state T^a_c\bar{s}1(2470) has a width roughly three orders of magnitude larger than the isoscalar T^f_c\bar{s}1(2460), while the \bar{c}\bar{s} counterparts have widths of order 100 keV. The analysis is presented as a way to guide experimental searches for these states.

Significance. If the central prediction holds, the paper provides a concrete and falsifiable experimental discriminator: the isovector partner of D_s1(2460) would be very broad (tens to hundreds of MeV), whereas the isoscalar is narrow (tens to hundreds of keV). A strength of the calculation is that the molecular couplings are not fitted to the target decay widths but are fixed by the compositeness condition, so the predicted hierarchy is not a disguised fit. However, the numerical predictions depend on a model cutoff Lambda and on an inferred mass for the unobserved T^a_c\bar{s}1 state, which limits the precision of the claims.

major comments (3)

[Sec. III.B, Eq. (14)] Eq. (14) gives the same non-mixing amplitude, M_a + M_c + M_e - M_b - M_d - M_f, for both T^f_c\bar{s}1 -> D_s*+ pi0 and T^a_c\bar{s}1 -> D_s*+ pi0. According to the molecular wave functions in Eq. (1) and the effective Lagrangians in Eq. (2), the relative sign between the D*+K0 diagrams (M_a, M_c, M_e) and the D*0K+ diagrams (M_b, M_d, M_f) must be positive for the I=0 state and negative for the I=1 state. As printed, the two amplitudes differ only by the small eta-pi mixing terms, which cannot produce the claimed factor of about 10^3 between Gamma(T^a -> D_s* pi0) = 13.35-196.1 MeV and Gamma(T^f -> D_s* pi0) = 18.98-154.4 keV. The sign structure in Eq. (14) is therefore internally inconsistent with the numerical results, and the central claim is not reproducible from the written amplitude unless an implicit sign convention is stated.
[Sec. IV.A and Fig. 5] The mass of T^a_c\bar{s}1 is not computed but is set to 2470 MeV using the ad hoc relation m(T^a_c\bar{s}1) - m(T^a_c\bar{s}0(2327)) ≈ m_D* - m_D. This mass enters the phase space of every computed width, and the paper does not investigate the sensitivity of Gamma(T^a -> D_s* pi0) to the assumed mass, in contrast to Fig. 7, which scans the mass of T^a_c\bar{s}0 for a related decay. Given that the quoted width range already spans a factor of about 15 over the Lambda scan, the authors should either justify this relation more strongly or provide a scan over the plausible mass range around 2470 MeV to show that the three-orders-of-magnitude hierarchy is robust.
[Sec. IV.D] The widths of the \bar{c}\bar{s} states T^f_\bar{c}\bar{s}1 and T^a_\bar{c}\bar{s}1 are quoted as 'several hundred keV' and 'about 0.1 keV' without any explicit amplitude, diagram, or numerical result shown. These statements appear to be qualitative estimates from analogy with the c\bar{s} transitions, but they are presented as results of the calculation. The authors should either provide the corresponding amplitudes and partial-width computations or clearly label these as estimates that are not derived within the presented framework.

minor comments (4)

[Eq. (11)] The factor in Eq. (11) is written as 'md - mu over ms - m sqrt(3)/4', which is ambiguous; please insert parentheses to clarify that the intended expression is ((md - mu)/(ms - m)) * sqrt(3)/4.
[Eq. (7)] The symbol P appears in the definition of the mass operator in Eq. (7) but is not defined; the authors should state explicitly that P is the four-momentum of the molecular state (elsewhere called p).
[Eq. (14)] The last three lines of Eq. (14) use the same left-hand side 'M_T^a_c\bar{s}1 -> T^a_c\bar{s}0 pi' for three different amplitude expressions; please add the pion charge (pi0, pi+, pi-) to distinguish the channels.
[Sec. I] There is a typo in the second paragraph: 'from of D_s1(2460)+ -> D_s+ pi+ pi-' should read 'from D_s1(2460)+ -> D_s+ pi+ pi-'; also, the phrase 'which further support' should be 'which further supports'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation found: couplings are fixed by Weinberg's compositeness condition, widths are new outputs, and the self-cited [81] couplings are auxiliary and externally benchmarked.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The couplings g_Tf and g_Ta for the D*K molecules are obtained in this paper from Weinberg's compositeness condition, Eq. (5), using the assumed masses and the explicit Gaussian correlation function (Eq. (4)); they are not fitted to the decay widths that are later quoted. The strong-interaction couplings entering the loop amplitudes (g_D*Dpi, g_K*Kpi, g_D*DsK, etc.) come from PDG widths and QCD sum rules, i.e., from external data independent of the present molecule-decay predictions. The central claim, Gamma(T^a_cs1->D_s*pi0) = 13.35-196.1 MeV versus Gamma(T^f_cs1->D_s*pi0) = 18.98-154.4 keV, is therefore a computed output of the amplitudes, not a re-labeled input. The only self-citation is [81] for the couplings of D_s0* and T_a_cs0, which enter the auxiliary pionic-transition widths; those couplings were benchmarked in the previous work against measured D_s0(2317)/T_cs0(2327) decays and are not inputs to the headline D_s*pi0 hierarchy. The T^a_cs1 mass (2470 MeV) and the cutoff scan Lambda in [1,3] GeV are stated model assumptions whose variation changes the numerical widths, but they are not fitted to the target results, so they are sensitivity inputs rather than circular elements. The apparent identical sign combination for T^f and T^a in Eq. (14) is an internal-consistency/correctness issue that the authors should check; it is not a circular reduction. Overall, no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The central results rest on four free inputs: the cutoff Lambda, the guessed mass of T^a_cs1, the molecular interpretation itself, and couplings borrowed from prior work. None of the widths are fitted to data, but the Lambda scan changes the headline number by more than an order of magnitude.

free parameters (2)

Lambda (Gaussian form-factor cutoff) = 1-3 GeV (scanned, not fitted)
Controls all widths; T^a_cs1 -> D_s*pi0 ranges from 13.35 to 196.1 MeV as Lambda goes from 1 to 3 GeV (Sec. IV.C).
m(T^a_cs1) = 2.470 GeV (input from mass-gap analogy)
Sets phase space for all T^a decays; inferred from m(T^a_cs0)=2.317 GeV plus m_D* - m_D (Sec. IV.A).

assumptions (7)

domain assumption T^f/a_cs1 and T^f/a_barcs1 are S-wave D*K/Dbar*K bound molecules
Postulated in Sec. II, Eq. (1); the paper does not solve a binding equation.
domain assumption The molecular coupling is fixed by Weinberg's compositeness condition Z=1-Pi'(m^2)=0
Eq. (5) converts the assumed bound-state structure into a coupling; assumes the state is purely composite.
domain assumption Gaussian correlation function with cutoff Lambda describes the internal distribution
Eq. (4); same Lambda is used for D*K and DK molecules in the pionic transition amplitudes (Sec. III.B).
domain assumption SU(4) and massive Yang-Mills effective Lagrangians describe meson vertices
Eq. (8) and Sec. III.A; couplings are taken from data or QCD sum rules.
domain assumption eta-pi0 mixing formula, Eq. (9), controls isospin-violating decays
Used for T^f -> D_s*pi0 and D_s0*pi0; mixing strength from current quark masses.
domain assumption D_s0*(2317) and T^a_cs0(2327) are DK molecules with couplings from Ref. [81]
These couplings enter Fig. 4 diagrams for T -> T_cs0 pi and T -> D_s0* pi; prior self-cited calculation is used as input.
ad hoc to paper The mass gap m(T^a_cs1)-m(T^a_cs0(2327)) equals m_D* - m_D
Sec. IV.A and Fig. 1 set the 2470 MeV mass; no dynamical derivation.

invented entities (3)

T^a_cs1(2470) independent evidence
purpose: I=1 D*K molecular partner of D_s1(2460); central object of the width prediction
Predicted mass 2470 MeV and a dominant D_s*pi0 width of 13-196 MeV; an LHCb search in that channel can confirm or exclude it.
T^f_barcs1(2460) independent evidence
purpose: I=0 Dbar*K molecule, treated as the antiparticle-side molecular counterpart of D_s1(2460)
Predicted isospin-violating width to T^f_barcs0 pi0 near 0.1 keV; this can be compared with measured D_s1 widths in principle.
T^a_barcs1(2470) independent evidence
purpose: I=1 Dbar*K molecular counterpart; predicted to decay to T^a_barcs0 pi
Predicted widths of order hundreds of keV to pionic final states, giving a searchable signature if such a state is produced.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Strong decays of the possible $D^{*}K$ and $\bar{D}^{*}K$ molecules." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4BF6IAUH

@misc{pith2026260807957,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Strong decays of the possible $D^*K$ and $\barD^*K$ molecules},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4BF6IAUH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07957}
}

abstract

Inspired by the rich spectrum of structures near the $D^{(*)}K^{(*)}/\bar{D}^{(*)}K^{(*)}$ thresholds, we postulate the existence of $S$-wave $D^{*}K$ and $\bar{D}^{*}K$ molecules, denoted as $T_{c\bar{s}1}^{f}(2460)$ with $I=0$ (corresponding to $D_{s1}(2460)$), $T_{c\bar{s}1}^{a}(2470)$ with $I=1$, $T_{\bar{c}\bar{s}1}^{f}(2460)$ with $I=0$, and $T_{\bar{c}\bar{s}1}^{a}(2470)$ with $I=1$, respectively. Using an effective Lagrangian approach, we investigate the strong decays of these molecular states. Our estimates indicate that the width of $T_{c\bar{s}1}^{a}(2470)$ is roughly three orders of magnitude larger than that of $T_{c\bar{s}1}^{f}(2460)$, while the widths of $T_{\bar{c}\bar{s}1}^{a/f}(2470)$ are of the same orders as that of $T_{c\bar{s}1}^{f}(2460)$. The present study may provide valuable clues for the experimental search for these molecular candidates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07957 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: The mass operators of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: Typical diagrams contributing to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4: Typical diagrams contributing to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5: (Color online.) The coupling constants [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7: The partial width of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8: (Color online) The partial decay widths of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

[1]

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

arXiv 2003
[2]

Uehara et al

S. Uehara et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 092001 (2010), arXiv:0912.4451 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2010
[3]

Abe et al

K. Abe et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 182002 (2005), arXiv:hep-ex/0408126

arXiv 2005
[4]

Ablikim et al

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

arXiv 2013
[5]

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

arXiv 2013
[6]

Aubert et al

B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 242001 (2003), arXiv:hep-ex/0304021

arXiv 2003
[7]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Sci. Bull. 70, 1432 (2025), arXiv:2411.03399 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2025
[8]

Besson et al

D. Besson et al. (CLEO), Phys. Rev. D 68, 032002 (2003), [Er- ratum: Phys.Rev.D 75, 119908 (2007)], arXiv:hep-ex/0305100

arXiv 2003

Show all 99 references

[9]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 242001 (2020), arXiv:2009.00025 [hep-ex]

2020
[10]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 101901 (2025), arXiv:2411.19781 [hep-ex]

2025
[11]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. D 102, 112003 (2020), arXiv:2009.00026 [hep-ex]

2020
[12]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 041902 (2023), arXiv:2212.02716 [hep-ex]

2023
[13]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. D 108, 012017 (2023), arXiv:2212.02717 [hep-ex]

2023
[14]

V . M. Abazovet al. (D0), Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 022003 (2016), arXiv:1602.07588 [hep-ex]

2016 arXiv
[15]

V . M. Abazov et al. (D0), Phys. Rev. D 97, 092004 (2018), arXiv:1712.10176 [hep-ex]

2018 arXiv
[16]

Aaij et al

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

2015 arXiv
[17]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 082002 (2016), arXiv:1604.05708 [hep-ex]

2016 arXiv
[18]

Mikami et al

Y . Mikami et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 012002 (2004), arXiv:hep-ex/0307052

2004 arXiv
[19]

Krokovny et al

P. Krokovny et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 262002 (2003), arXiv:hep-ex/0308019

2003 arXiv
[20]

Aubert et al

B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D 69, 031101 (2004), arXiv:hep-ex/0310050

2004 arXiv
[21]

Aubert et al

B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 181801 (2004), arXiv:hep-ex/0408041

2004 arXiv
[22]

Aubert et al

B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D 74, 032007 (2006), arXiv:hep-ex/0604030

2006 arXiv
[23]

Navas et al

S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

2024
[24]

Godfrey and N

S. Godfrey and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. D 32, 189 (1985)

1985
[25]

Godfrey, Phys

S. Godfrey, Phys. Lett. B 568, 254 (2003), arXiv:hep- ph/0305122

2003
[26]

Song, D.-Y

Q.-T. Song, D.-Y . Chen, X. Liu, and T. Matsuki, Phys. Rev. D 91, 054031 (2015), arXiv:1501.03575 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[27]

Colangelo, F

P. Colangelo, F. De Fazio, and R. Ferrandes, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 19, 2083 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0407137

2004 arXiv
[28]

Cleven, F.-K

M. Cleven, F.-K. Guo, C. Hanhart, and U.-G. Meissner, Eur. Phys. J. A 47, 19 (2011), arXiv:1009.3804 [hep-ph]

2011 arXiv
[29]

Guo, P.-N

F.-K. Guo, P.-N. Shen, and H.-C. Chiang, Phys. Lett. B 647, 133 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0610008

2007 arXiv
[30]

G. Q. Feng, X. H. Guo, and Z. H. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 2033 (2012)

2012
[31]

Xie, G.-Q

Z.-X. Xie, G.-Q. Feng, and X.-H. Guo, Phys. Rev. D 81, 036014 (2010)

2010
[32]

Zhang, H.-C

Y .-J. Zhang, H.-C. Chiang, P.-N. Shen, and B.-S. Zou, Phys. Rev. D 74, 014013 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0604271

2006 arXiv
[33]

Guo, P.-N

F.-K. Guo, P.-N. Shen, H.-C. Chiang, R.-G. Ping, and B.-S. Zou, Phys. Lett. B 641, 278 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0603072

2006 arXiv
[34]

Barnes, F

T. Barnes, F. E. Close, and H. J. Lipkin, Phys. Rev. D 68, 054006 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0305025

2003 arXiv
[35]

Chen and X.-Q

Y .-Q. Chen and X.-Q. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 232001 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0407062

2004 arXiv
[36]

Cleven, H

M. Cleven, H. W. Grießhammer, F.-K. Guo, C. Hanhart, and U.-G. Meißner, Eur. Phys. J. A50, 149 (2014), arXiv:1405.2242 [hep-ph]

2014 arXiv
[37]

Xiao, D.-Y

c.-J. Xiao, D.-Y . Chen, and Y .-L. Ma, Phys. Rev. D93, 094011 (2016), arXiv:1601.06399 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[38]

Faessler, T

A. Faessler, T. Gutsche, V . E. Lyubovitskij, and Y .-L. Ma, Phys. Rev. D 76, 014005 (2007), arXiv:0705.0254 [hep-ph]

2007 arXiv
[39]

Faessler, T

A. Faessler, T. Gutsche, V . E. Lyubovitskij, and Y .-L. Ma, Phys. Rev. D 76, 114008 (2007), arXiv:0709.3946 [hep-ph]

2007 arXiv
[40]

H.-L. Fu, H. W. Grießhammer, F.-K. Guo, C. Hanhart, and U.- G. Meißner, Eur. Phys. J. A 58, 70 (2022), arXiv:2111.09481 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[41]

Sakai, E

S. Sakai, E. Oset, and A. Ramos, Eur. Phys. J. A 54, 10 (2018), arXiv:1705.03694 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[42]

Liu, X.-Z

M.-Z. Liu, X.-Z. Ling, L.-S. Geng, En-Wang, and J.-J. Xie, Phys. Rev. D 106, 114011 (2022), arXiv:2209.01103 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[43]

Liu, X.-Z

M.-Z. Liu, X.-Z. Ling, and L.-S. Geng, Phys. Rev. D 109, 056014 (2024), arXiv:2312.01433 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[44]

Guo, U.-G

F.-K. Guo, U.-G. Meißner, W. Wang, and Z. Yang, JHEP 05, 138 (2014), arXiv:1403.4032 [hep-ph]

2014 arXiv
[45]

Albaladejo, D

M. Albaladejo, D. Jido, J. Nieves, and E. Oset, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 300 (2016), arXiv:1604.01193 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[46]

Z.-F. Sun, M. Bayar, P. Fernandez-Soler, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 93, 054028 (2016), arXiv:1510.06316 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[47]

Zhu and Y

H. Zhu and Y . Huang, Phys. Rev. D 100, 054031 (2019), arXiv:1904.06641 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[48]

F. S. Navarra, M. Nielsen, E. Oset, and T. Sekihara, Phys. Rev. D 92, 014031 (2015), arXiv:1501.03422 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[49]

Albaladejo, M

M. Albaladejo, M. Nielsen, and E. Oset, Phys. Lett. B 746, 305 (2015), arXiv:1501.03455 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[50]

P. G. Ortega, J. Segovia, D. R. Entem, and F. Fernandez, Phys. Rev. D 94, 074037 (2016), arXiv:1603.07000 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[51]

P. G. Ortega, J. Segovia, D. R. Entem, and F. Fern ´andez, EPJ Web Conf. 182, 02094 (2018), arXiv:1711.05495 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[52]

Albaladejo, P

M. Albaladejo, P. Fernandez-Soler, J. Nieves, and P. G. Ortega, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 722 (2018), arXiv:1805.07104 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[53]

Y .-R. Liu, X. Liu, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 79, 094026 (2009), arXiv:0904.1770 [hep-ph]

2009 arXiv
[54]

Zhang, Z.-W

Z.-L. Zhang, Z.-W. Liu, S.-Q. Luo, P. Chen, and Z.-H. Guo, Phys. Rev. D 110, 094037 (2024), arXiv:2409.05337 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[55]

A. M. Badalian, Y . A. Simonov, and M. A. Trusov, Phys. Rev. D 77, 074017 (2008), arXiv:0712.3943 [hep-ph]

2008 arXiv
[56]

F.-K. Guo, S. Krewald, and U.-G. Meissner, Phys. Lett. B 665, 157 (2008), arXiv:0712.2953 [hep-ph]

2008 arXiv
[57]

D. S. Hwang and D.-W. Kim, Phys. Lett. B 601, 137 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0408154

2004 arXiv
[58]

Y . A. Simonov and J. A. Tjon, Phys. Rev. D70, 114013 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0409361

2004 arXiv
[59]

Zhou and Z

Z.-Y . Zhou and Z. Xiao, Phys. Rev. D 84, 034023 (2011), arXiv:1105.6025 [hep-ph]

2011 arXiv
[60]

E. B. Gregory, F.-K. Guo, C. Hanhart, S. Krieg, and T. Luu, 9 Eur. Phys. J. A 61, 226 (2025), arXiv:2503.23954 [hep-lat]

2025 arXiv
[61]

Wang, Y .-S

Z.-Y . Wang, Y .-S. Li, and S.-Q. Luo, Phys. Rev. D111, 076009 (2025), arXiv:2412.06446 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[62]

L. Roca, J. M. Dias, and E. Oset, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 808 (2025), arXiv:2502.18401 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[63]

Tang, Y .-H

M.-N. Tang, Y .-H. Lin, F.-K. Guo, C. Hanhart, and U.- G. Meißner, Commun. Theor. Phys. 75, 055203 (2023), arXiv:2303.18225 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[64]

Liu, J.-J

M.-Z. Liu, J.-J. Xie, and L.-S. Geng, Phys. Rev. D 102, 091502 (2020), arXiv:2008.07389 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[65]

Molina and E

R. Molina and E. Oset, Phys. Lett. B811, 135870 (2020), [Erra- tum: Phys.Lett.B 837, 137645 (2023)], arXiv:2008.11171 [hep- ph]

2020 arXiv
[66]

He and D.-Y

J. He and D.-Y . Chen, Chin. Phys. C 45, 063102 (2021), arXiv:2008.07782 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[67]

Hu, X.-Y

M.-W. Hu, X.-Y . Lao, P. Ling, and Q. Wang, Chin. Phys. C45, 021003 (2021), arXiv:2008.06894 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[68]

S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi, and H. Sundu, J. Phys. G 48, 085012 (2021), arXiv:2008.13027 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[69]

Mutuk, J

H. Mutuk, J. Phys. G 48, 055007 (2021), arXiv:2009.02492 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[70]

Huang, J.-X

Y . Huang, J.-X. Lu, J.-J. Xie, and L.-S. Geng, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 973 (2020), arXiv:2008.07959 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[71]

Yue, C.-J

Z.-L. Yue, C.-J. Xiao, and D.-Y . Chen, Phys. Rev. D 107, 034018 (2023), arXiv:2212.03018 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[72]

Chen and Q

R. Chen and Q. Huang, (2022), arXiv:2208.10196 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[73]

S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi, and H. Sundu, Phys. Rev. D107, 094019 (2023), arXiv:2212.12001 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[74]

Ke, Y .-F

H.-W. Ke, Y .-F. Shi, X.-H. Liu, and X.-Q. Li, Phys. Rev. D106, 114032 (2022), arXiv:2210.06215 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[75]

Duan, M.-L

M.-Y . Duan, M.-L. Du, Z.-H. Guo, E. Wang, and D.-Y . Chen, Phys. Rev. D 108, 074006 (2023), arXiv:2307.04092 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[76]

B. Wang, K. Chen, L. Meng, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 109, 034027 (2024), arXiv:2309.02191 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[77]

Yue, C.-J

Z.-L. Yue, C.-J. Xiao, and D.-Y . Chen, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 769 (2023), arXiv:2308.15355 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[78]

Huang, H

Y . Huang, H. Hei, J.-w. Feng, X. Chen, and R. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 108, 076019 (2023), arXiv:2308.14148 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[79]

Z. Yu, Q. Wu, and D.-Y . Chen, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 985 (2024), arXiv:2310.12398 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[80]

Z.-Y . Yang, Q. Wang, and W. Chen, Phys. Rev. D111, 076030 (2025), arXiv:2412.02997 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[81]

Yue, Q.-Y

Z.-L. Yue, Q.-Y . Guo, D.-Y . Chen, and E. Santopinto, Eur. Phys. J. C 86, 33 (2026), arXiv:2507.19641 [hep-ph]

2026 arXiv
[82]

Faessler, T

A. Faessler, T. Gutsche, V . E. Lyubovitskij, and Y .-L. Ma, Phys. Rev. D 77, 114013 (2008), arXiv:0801.2232 [hep-ph]

2008 arXiv
[83]

Chen, Y .-B

D.-Y . Chen, Y .-B. Dong, M.-T. Li, and W.-L. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. A 52, 310 (2016)

2016
[84]

Y . Dong, A. Faessler, and V . E. Lyubovitskij, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 94, 282 (2017)

2017
[85]

Gutsche, T

T. Gutsche, T. Branz, A. Faessler, I. W. Lee, and V . E. Lyubovit- skij, Chin. Phys. C 34, 1185 (2010), arXiv:1001.1870 [hep-ph]

2010 arXiv
[86]

Weinberg, Phys

S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. 130, 776 (1963)

1963
[87]

Salam, Nuovo Cim

A. Salam, Nuovo Cim. 25, 224 (1962)

1962
[88]

van Kolck, Symmetry 14, 1884 (2022), arXiv:2209.08432 [hep-ph]

U. van Kolck, Symmetry 14, 1884 (2022), arXiv:2209.08432 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[89]

K. L. Haglin and C. Gale, Phys. Rev. C 63, 065201 (2001), arXiv:nucl-th/0010017

2001 arXiv
[90]

K. L. Haglin, Phys. Rev. C 61, 031902 (2000), arXiv:nucl- th/9907034

2000
[91]

Lin and C

Z.-w. Lin and C. M. Ko, Phys. Rev. C 62, 034903 (2000), arXiv:nucl-th/9912046

2000 arXiv
[92]

R. S. Azevedo and M. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. C69, 035201 (2004), arXiv:nucl-th/0310061

2004 arXiv
[93]

Kaymakcalan and J

O. Kaymakcalan and J. Schechter, Phys. Rev. D 31, 1109 (1985)

1985
[94]

H. Gomm, O. Kaymakcalan, and J. Schechter, Phys. Rev. D 30, 2345 (1984)

1984
[95]

Gasser and H

J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Annals Phys. 158, 142 (1984)

1984
[96]

Gasser and H

J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Nucl. Phys. B 250, 465 (1985)

1985
[97]

Pich, Rept

A. Pich, Rept. Prog. Phys. 58, 563 (1995), arXiv:hep- ph/9502366

1995
[98]

Z. G. Wang and S. L. Wan, Phys. Rev. D 74, 014017 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0606002

2006 arXiv
[99]

M. E. Bracco, A. Cerqueira, Jr., M. Chiapparini, A. Lozea, and M. Nielsen, Phys. Lett. B 641, 286 (2006), arXiv:hep- ph/0604167

2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

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

arXiv 2003

[2] [2]

Uehara et al

S. Uehara et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 092001 (2010), arXiv:0912.4451 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2010

[3] [3]

Abe et al

K. Abe et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 182002 (2005), arXiv:hep-ex/0408126

arXiv 2005

[4] [4]

Ablikim et al

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

arXiv 2013

[5] [5]

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

arXiv 2013

[6] [6]

Aubert et al

B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 242001 (2003), arXiv:hep-ex/0304021

arXiv 2003

[7] [7]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Sci. Bull. 70, 1432 (2025), arXiv:2411.03399 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2025

[8] [8]

Besson et al

D. Besson et al. (CLEO), Phys. Rev. D 68, 032002 (2003), [Er- ratum: Phys.Rev.D 75, 119908 (2007)], arXiv:hep-ex/0305100

arXiv 2003