Where is the next pentaquark state?

Hao-Song Li; Tao Li

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Where is the next pentaquark state?

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A chiral-perturbation analysis predicts two missing hidden-charm pentaquark states at 4.367 GeV and 4.379 GeV, both with spin-parity 1/2^-.

desk verdict The framework is sound and the predictions are concrete, but the paper's own search channel is kinematically dead: the predicted states lie 30–40 MeV below the J/psi Xi threshold. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.05495 v1 pith:6NZ64IK7 submitted 2025-02-08 hep-ph

Hao-Song Li , Tao Li This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-ph

keywords pentaquarkhidden-charmhadronicmoleculechiralperturbationtheorySU(3)flavoroctetJ/ψΞspectrummasspredictionLHCb

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 predicts two missing members of the SU(3) octet of hidden-charm molecular pentaquarks: a Sigma-like state P_{ψs}^{Σ} at 4.367 GeV and a doubly strange state P_{ψss}^{N} at 4.379 GeV, both with spin-parity 1/2^-. The prediction comes from heavy pentaquark chiral perturbation theory, using the measured masses of Pc(4312) and Pcs(4338) as inputs under the assumption that both are 8_1 members of the same octet. If it is right, the next observed pentaquark state should appear in the J/ψΞ mass spectrum rather than in the J/ψp or J/ψΛ spectra already searched, and the paper points to the amplitude analyses of Ω_b^- → J/$ψΞ^{0}$ K^- and B^- → J/ψΞ^- Λ̄ decays as the concrete place to look.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the set of NLO mass formulas of heavy pentaquark chiral perturbation theory (HPChPT), a low-energy effective theory for molecular pentaquarks made of an anti-charmed meson and a singly charmed baryon. The four-momentum decomposition p^μ = m0 v^μ + k^μ with v^μ = (1, 0) writes the physical mass as the bare mass m0 plus tree-level terms with low-energy constants b1 and b2 (for the 8_1 octet) plus one-loop self-energies from π, K, and η loops with coupling constants f1 and g1. The quark-model input f1 = 0.42, g1 = 0.25 together with the fitted values b2 = -0.108, b1 = -0.070, m0 = 4.466 GeV, fed into Eqs. (15)–(18), produce the two new masses.

What would settle it

Look for a narrow 1/2^- peak near 4.379 GeV (or 4.377 GeV in the 8_2 scenario) in the J/ψΞ invariant-mass distribution of Ω_b^- → J/$ψΞ^{0}$ K^- and B^- → J/ψΞ^- Λ̄ decays at LHCb; its absence would refute the prediction. A lattice QCD scan of the octet masses across pion masses, checking whether the P_{ψs}^{Σ} and P_{ψs}^{Λ} masses cross near M_π ≈ 0.378 GeV, would test the chiral extrapolation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the observed hidden-charm pentaquarks Pc(4312) and Pcs(4338) fix the unknown constants of the next-to-leading-order mass formulas for the full flavor octet of molecular pentaquarks, and that the remaining two octet members then have definite masses and quantum numbers: P_{ψs}^{Σ}(4367) and P_{ψss}^{N}(4379), each with J^P = 1/2^-. The paper's sharpest falsifiable statement is that LHCb should observe P_{ψss}^{N}(4379)^- and P_{ψss}^{N}(4379)^0 as resonances in the J/ψΞ invariant-mass distribution of the two specified weak decays. The authors also note that if the two input states instead belong to the alternative 8_2 representation, the predicted masses shift slightly to 4.363 GeV and 4.377 GeV.

Load-bearing premise

The prediction stands on assuming that Pc(4312) and Pcs(4338) are both 8_1 hidden-charm molecular pentaquarks, since their measured masses are the only inputs that pin down the fitted constants.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the 8_1 prediction holds, the J/ψΞ spectrum becomes the target for the next pentaquark discovery, with two specific weak-decay channels identified for amplitude analysis.
The assigned J^P = 1/2^- quantum numbers and the narrow predicted masses distinguish these states from ordinary kinematical reflections or threshold cusps in the J/ψΞ system.
The octet mass ordering N < Λ < Σ < N_{ψss} is a direct consequence and becomes testable once the new states are found.
The predicted chiral behavior — in particular, the crossing of P_{ψs}^{Σ} and P_{ψs}^{Λ} masses around M_π = 0.378 GeV — provides a quantitative target for lattice QCD chiral extrapolation.
The 8_2 scenario gives nearly degenerate predictions (4.363 and 4.377 GeV), so the two flavor assignments are distinguishable only through more precise measurements, not by peak position alone.

Reading between the lines

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

If the J/ψΞ search at the suggested masses comes up empty, the molecular-octet interpretation of Pc(4312) and Pcs(4338) would itself be weakened, since the same machinery yields its sharpest prediction from those two inputs.
The same NLO formalism could be extended to hidden-bottom analogues, where no pentaquark states have been observed yet, and the predicted mass gaps would tell experiments where to look in beauty decays.
The small mass gap between the 8_1 and 8_2 predictions suggests that decay patterns, rather than peak positions, may be the cleaner way to discriminate between the two flavor assignments.
The predicted M_π-crossing offers a sharp lattice test: computing the two octet masses at several pion masses would isolate the loop-induced chiral logarithms the calculation relies on.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The thing to know about this paper: it predicts two new hidden-charm pentaquark states with specific masses and spin-parity, but the experimental suggestion in the abstract and conclusion cannot work as written. The masses from Eqs. (20) and (21) are 4.367 and 4.379 GeV, while the J/psi Xi threshold is about 4.412 GeV (J/psi Xi^0) and 4.419 GeV (J/psi Xi^-). A state below threshold cannot decay on-shell to that final state, so it will not produce a peak in the J/psi Xi invariant-mass spectrum. The authors explicitly suggest LHCb look for P_N_psi_ss(4379) in that spectrum via Omega_b -> J/psi Xi K and B -> J/psi Xi Lambda-bar decays. That is kinematically inconsistent, and no LEC tweak fixes it.

The genuine strengths first. The paper is a straightforward extension of the authors' earlier HPChPT work, with two input masses (P_c(4312) and P_cs(4338)) fixing the LECs. The arithmetic checks out—plugging the stated b1, b2, m0 into Eqs. (15)-(18) reproduces the inputs. The predictions are concrete and falsifiable in principle, and the paper also flags the 8_2 alternative masses (4.363 and 4.377 GeV). The chiral extrapolation plots are a nice touch for lattice QCD.

The soft spots beyond the threshold problem are the ones the reader flagged. The value of b2 is hand-picked inside an interval set by quark-model inequalities, the 8_1 classification of the input states is assumed rather than justified, and there are no quantitative uncertainties on the predicted masses. That said, for a chiral perturbation calculation at NLO this is standard practice. The threshold issue is different—it is a physical inconsistency in the paper's central message, not a parameter uncertainty.

Who is this for? Hadron spectroscopists who care about pentaquark predictions and chiral extrapolations. The framework is worth taking seriously, but the paper needs major revision before it can be trusted as an experimental guide. As it stands, the most defensible statement is that P_Sigma(4367) and P_N_psi_ss(4379) are predicted bound states below J/psi Xi threshold, and the search should target their actual decay modes, not the J/psi Xi peak they explicitly propose. That is a significant change to the abstract.

I'd send it to peer review because the underlying model is legitimate and a referee could push the authors to fix the search channel and add error bars. But I would not cite it in its current form, and I'd be cautious about treating the masses as robust until the 8_1/8_2 ambiguity and the b2 selection are addressed.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript calculates next-to-leading-order masses of the SU(3) octet of hidden-charm molecular pentaquarks in heavy pentaquark chiral perturbation theory (HPChPT). Using P_c(4312) and P_cs(4338) as 8_1 inputs together with quark-model values for the axial couplings f1=0.42, g1=0.25, the authors fix the low-energy constants m0, b1, b2 and predict P_Sigma_psi_s(4367) and P_N_psi_ss(4379) with J^P=1/2^-, proposing LHCb searches in the J/psi Xi spectrum via Omega_b^- -> J/psi Xi^0 K^- and B^- -> J/psi Xi^- anti-Lambda decays. An 8_2 assignment is also considered and yields the slightly different masses 4363 and 4377 MeV.

Significance. If the framework and the assumptions hold, this is a first global octet mass calculation for hidden-charm molecular pentaquarks in HPChPT and provides analytic chiral extrapolation formulas that could be useful for lattice QCD. The paper is transparent about its assumptions and explicitly reports the 8_2 alternative, which is a virtue. The arithmetic is internally consistent: the stated LECs reproduce the two input masses 4.312 and 4.338 GeV. However, the headline predictions and the experimental recommendation are substantially weakened by two load-bearing issues: the parameter b2 is chosen by hand inside an interval rather than determined by data, and the proposed J/psi Xi discovery channel is kinematically closed for the predicted mass of P_N_psi_ss(4379). The useful core of the paper is the mass formula framework, but the central claim and the LHCb search suggestion need significant rework.

major comments (3)

[Abstract and final paragraph; Eq. (21)] The central experimental suggestion is kinematically inconsistent with the predicted mass. Equation (21) gives m(P_N_psi_ss)=4.379 GeV, while the lightest strong-decay threshold in the proposed J/psi Xi channel is m(J/psi)+m(Xi^0)=4.4118 GeV (and 4.4186 GeV for Xi^-) using PDG masses. A state at 4.379 GeV lies 33-40 MeV below this threshold, so it cannot decay on-shell to J/psi Xi and cannot produce a resonance peak in the J/psi Xi invariant-mass spectrum. The abstract and the final paragraph should either identify a different, kinematically open discovery channel for these states or present them as subthreshold bound states whose experimental signatures need to be worked out. This issue is independent of the LEC values and of the 8_1/8_2 assignment.
[p. 4, 'Further more...' and Fig. 2] The predicted central masses are not robust because b2 is chosen by hand inside an interval set by inequalities. With the two input masses fixed, Eqs. (15) and (17) leave one free parameter b2; the inequalities m(P_Sigma_psi_s)>m(P_Lambda_psi_s) and m(P_Sigma_psi_s)<m(P_N_psi_ss) only give -0.115<b2<-0.100. No criterion selects b2=-0.108. Varying b2 over the allowed interval moves m(P_Sigma_psi_s) from about 4.34 to 4.39 GeV and m(P_N_psi_ss) from about 4.37 to 4.39 GeV, so Eqs. (20)-(21) should be reported as bands rather than as the two precise values quoted in the abstract. The central values 4367 and 4379 MeV therefore overstate the predictive power of the calculation.
[p. 4, 'We suppose...' and final summary paragraph] The prediction is conditional on the 8_1 assignment of the two input states, but this assignment is not tested or argued from data. The paper itself notes that an 8_2 assignment would give m(P2_Sigma_psi_s)=4.363 GeV and m(P2_N_psi_ss)=4.377 GeV. Since the wave functions, and hence the coupling and decay patterns, differ between 8_1 and 8_2, the predicted masses and the suggested production/decay signatures are not unique. The authors should either provide additional arguments for the 8_1 classification or treat the 8_1/8_2 distinction as a systematic uncertainty in the central claim.

minor comments (6)

[p. 3 and p. 5] There are several typos and nonstandard usages: 'satisfing' after Eq. (8) should be 'satisfying'; 'reformation constant' in Eq. (11) should presumably be 'renormalization constant'; 'systematicaly' in the summary should be 'systematically'.
[Header after Abstract] The PACS numbers and Keywords fields are empty; they should be filled in.
[p. 4, fitting paragraph] The text uses 'P_psi(4312)' and 'P_Lambda_psi_s(4338)' in the fitting paragraph, while Table I and the formulas use superscripted P_N_psi and P_Lambda_psi_s; please unify the notation to avoid ambiguity.
[p. 4, Fig. 4] Fig. 4 is labelled 'Realistic uncertainties', but the text does not explain which parameters are varied to produce the grey band. Please specify the error budget and state explicitly whether the b2 interval of Eq. (19) is included.
[p. 4, constraint conditions] The sentence 'Since Sigma baryon is heavier than Lambda baryon... similarly, we have...' should be labelled as a model assumption rather than a direct consequence of the chiral Lagrangian; the inequalities m(P_Sigma_psi_s)>m(P_Lambda_psi_s) and m(P_Sigma_psi_s)<m(P_N_psi_ss) are inputs to the fit, not predictions of it.
[Eqs. (14)-(18)] Equation (14) contains a divergence proportional to R, but the text does not state explicitly how the LECs in Eqs. (1)-(2) absorb this divergence before the mass formulas (15)-(18) are obtained. A sentence on the renormalization scheme would help the reader.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the predicted masses are computed from LECs fixed by observed pentaquarks, with only a mild self-imposed ordering constraint on b2 and self-cited framework inputs.

other [Between Eqs. (17) and (21), paragraph beginning 'Further more, we obtain the remaining LEC through two simple constraint conditions.']
"Since Σ baryon is heavier than Λ baryon considering chromomagnetic spin-spin interactions in the quark model, similarly, we have mPΣψs > mPΛψs. Since s quark is heavier than u quark and d quark, we have mPΣψs < mP N ψss. With these two constraint conditions, we show the variations of hidden-charm pentaquark masses with b2 in Fig. 2 and obtain −0.115 < b2 < −0.100. We take b2 = −0.108, b1 = −0.070 and m0 = 4.466GeV. Finally, we predict two other types of hidden-charm pentaquark states PΣψs and P N ψss, mPΣψs = 4.367GeV, mP N ψss = 4.379GeV."

The range of b2 is selected by requiring the calculated masses to satisfy mPΣψs > mPΛψs and mPΣψs < mP N ψss. These inequalities involve the very quantities (mPΣψs and mP N ψss) that are later reported as predictions in Eqs. (20)-(21), so the mass ordering of the new states is imposed as an input rather than tested. This is not a complete reduction: m0 and b1 are still fixed by the observed masses of Pc(4312) and Pcs(4338), and the numerical central values follow from the mass formulas, not directly from the constraints. The step is therefore a mild self-consistency preselection rather than a fully circular derivation.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular: Eqs. (15)-(18) express the octet masses in terms of LECs, and the LECs m0, b1, b2 are fixed using the measured masses of Pc(4312) and Pcs(4338), with the new P_Sigma and P_N_psi_ss masses computed from those same parameters. The only circularity-adjacent step is the b2 window, which is chosen using inequalities that involve the predicted masses, thereby enforcing the predicted hierarchy by construction rather than by data; the numerical mass values themselves (4.367 and 4.379 GeV) are not reduced to inputs. The framework (HPChPT) and the couplings f1, g1, f4, g4 are taken from the authors' own Refs. [48,49]; this is a self-citation that is load-bearing for the overall scheme, but those prior works provide an independent formalism (chiral perturbation theory plus quark-model axial couplings) rather than an equation-level equivalent of the present predictions. The alternative 8_2 assignment yields nearly the same masses (4.363 and 4.377 GeV), so the numerical predictions are not uniquely an artifact of the 8_1 choice. Separately, the proposed J/psi Xi search channel appears kinematically questionable because the predicted P_N_psi_ss mass 4.379 GeV lies below the J/psi Xi threshold (~4.412 GeV); that is a correctness concern, not a circularity. On balance, no full circular reduction is present, so the score is 2.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The model has multiple layers of input: a molecular composition, an SU(3) octet assignment, quark-model coupling constants, and a hand-picked LEC b2. Each layer is an assumption the reader pays for; the paper does not independently justify the molecular picture or the classification of the input states.

free parameters (9)

m0 (8_1 scenario) = 4.466 GeV
Bare octet pentaquark mass LEC; fixed by reproducing m(P_N_psi) = 4.312 GeV and m(P_Lambda_psi_s) = 4.338 GeV.
b1 = -0.070
LEC in leading-order chiral Lagrangian (Eq. 1); fixed together with m0 by the two input masses.
b2 = -0.108
LEC; not fixed by data but chosen within the interval -0.115 < b2 < -0.100 that enforces the quark-model mass orderings.
f1 = 0.42
Pseudo-vector coupling estimated from the quark model as f1 = (1/3) g_A; enters loop corrections in Eqs. (15)-(18).
g1 = 0.25
Pseudo-vector coupling estimated as g1 = (1/5) g_A; enters loop corrections.
m0 (8_2 scenario) = 4.365 GeV
Bare mass for the alternative 8_2 assignment, with c1 = 0.021 and c2 = -0.036.
c1 = 0.021
LEC for the 8_2 leading-order Lagrangian (Eq. 2).
c2 = -0.036
LEC for the 8_2 leading-order Lagrangian; determined in the alternative scenario.
f4, g4 = 0
8_2 loop couplings set to zero in the quark model; this makes NLO loop contributions vanish for 8_2 states.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The observed pentaquark states are hadronic molecules composed of a singly charmed baryon and an anti-charmed meson.
The paper states it works in the hadronic molecular picture; all mass formulas assume this composition.
domain assumption Pc(4312) and Pcs(4338) belong to the 8_1 flavor octet of hidden-charm molecular pentaquarks.
This lets the paper use their measured masses to fix the LECs; the alternative 8_2 assignment gives different predictions.
domain assumption The quark-model coupling estimates f1 = (1/3) g_A, g1 = (1/5) g_A, f4 = g4 = 0 are valid.
These values enter the NLO loop corrections and are imported from a quark-model pion-decay analogy, not derived in HPChPT.
ad hoc to paper The mass orderings m(P_Sigma_psi_s) > m(P_Lambda_psi_s) and m(P_Sigma_psi_s) < m(P_N_psi_ss) hold from chromomagnetic spin-spin interactions.
These inequalities select the allowed b2 interval and therefore influence the central predictions.
standard math SU(3) flavor group theory: 3 ⊗ 3 ⊗ 3 = 1 ⊕ 8_1 ⊕ 8_2 ⊕ 10.
Standard group-theoretic decomposition used to build the octet pentaquark wave functions.
domain assumption NLO chiral perturbation theory is a valid truncation for these states.
The paper works to NLO and assumes the omitted higher orders are small for the mass predictions.

invented entities (3)

P_psi_s^Sigma(4367) independent evidence
purpose: Predicted hidden-charm strange pentaquark state in the 8_1 octet with J^P = 1/2^- and mass 4.367 GeV.
Falsifiable through LHCb searches in J/psi Xi spectra; the paper recommends specific decay channels.
P_psi_ss^N(4379) independent evidence
purpose: Predicted hidden-charm double-strange pentaquark state with J^P = 1/2^- and mass 4.379 GeV.
Falsifiable via J/psi Xi spectrum in Omega_b^- -> J/psi Xi^0 K^- and B^- -> J/psi Xi^- Lambda-bar decays.
P_psi_s^Sigma(4363) and P_psi_ss^N(4377) (8_2 alternatives) independent evidence
purpose: Alternative predicted states if the input pentaquarks are assigned to the 8_2 octet instead of 8_1.
The paper computes different masses for the 8_2 assignment; these are also testable but mutually exclusive with the 8_1 predictions.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Where is the next pentaquark state?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6NZ64IK7

@misc{pith2026250205495,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Where is the next pentaquark state?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6NZ64IK7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.05495}
}

abstract

The LHCb Collaboration has observed two types of hidden-charm pentaquark states $P_{\psi}^N$ and $P_{\psi s}^{\Lambda}$ since 2015. In this work, we predict two other types of hidden-charm pentaquark states $P_{\psi s}^{\Sigma}(4367)$ and $P_{\psi ss}^{N}(4379)$ within the framework of heavy pentaquark chiral perturbation theory. We suggest the LHCb Collaboration to observe $P_{\psi ss}^{N}(4379)^{-}$ and $P_{\psi ss}^{N}(4379)^0$ with $J^P=\frac{1}{2}^{-}$ in the $J/\psi \Xi$ spectrum through amplitude analyses of $\Omega_b^- \to J/\psi \Xi^0 K^-$ decays and $B^- \to J/\psi \Xi^- \bar{\Lambda}$ decays.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.05495 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: The variations of hidden-charm pentaquark masses [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4: The hidden-charm pentaquark masses with uncer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

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

Masses of hidden-charm pentaquark states with $J^P = \frac{3}{2}^-$
hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Using two LHCb pentaquark masses as inputs, this paper predicts the masses of the unseen P_Sigma_psi_s and P_Nss states from next-to-leading-order chiral perturbation theory.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Observation ofJ/ψp Resonances Consistent with Pentaquark States in Λ0 b → J/ψK −p Decays,

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], “Observation ofJ/ψp Resonances Consistent with Pentaquark States in Λ0 b → J/ψK −p Decays,” Phys. Rev. Lett.115 (2015), 072001

work page 2015
[2]

Observation of a narrow pen- taquark state, Pc(4312)+, and of two-peak structure of the Pc(4450)+,

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 (2019) no.22, 222001

work page 2019
[3]

Evidence of aJ/ψΛ structure and observation of excitedΞ− states in the Ξ− b → J/ψΛK − decay,

R. Aaijet al. [LHCb], “Evidence of aJ/ψΛ structure and observation of excitedΞ− states in the Ξ− b → J/ψΛK − decay,” Sci. Bull.66 (2021), 1278-1287

work page 2021
[4]

Observation of a J/ψΛ Resonance Consistent with a Strange Pentaquark Candidate in B- →J/ψΛp¯ Decays,

R. Aaijet al. [LHCb], “Observation of a J/ψΛ Resonance Consistent with a Strange Pentaquark Candidate in B- →J/ψΛp¯ Decays,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023) no.3, 031901

work page 2023
[5]

The hidden- charm pentaquark and tetraquark states,

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

work page 2016
[6]

An overview ofXY Znew particles,

X. Liu, “An overview ofXY Znew particles,” Chin. Sci. Bull. 59 (2014), 3815-3830

work page 2014
[7]

The XYZ states revisited,

C. Z. Yuan, “The XYZ states revisited,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 33 (2018) no.21, 1830018

work page 2018
[8]

Non- standard heavy mesons and baryons: Experimental evi- dence,

S. L. Olsen, T. Skwarnicki and D. Zieminska, “Non- standard heavy mesons and baryons: Experimental evi- dence,” Rev. Mod. Phys.90 (2018) no.1, 015003

work page 2018

Show all 50 references

[9]

Hadronic molecules,

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

2018
[10]

Chi- ral perturbation theory for heavy hadrons and chiral ef- fective field theory for heavy hadronic molecules,

L. Meng, B. Wang, G. J. Wang and S. L. Zhu, “Chi- ral perturbation theory for heavy hadrons and chiral ef- fective field theory for heavy hadronic molecules,” Phys. Rept. 1019 (2023), 1-149

2023
[11]

Prediction of hidden charm strange molecular baryon states with heavy quark spin symmetry,

C. W. Xiao, J. Nieves and E. Oset, “Prediction of hidden charm strange molecular baryon states with heavy quark spin symmetry,” Phys. Lett. B799 (2019), 135051

2019
[12]

Can discovery of hidden charm strange pentaquark states help determine the spins ofPc(4440) and Pc(4457) ?,

M. Z. Liu, Y. W. Pan and L. S. Geng, “Can discovery of hidden charm strange pentaquark states help determine the spins ofPc(4440) and Pc(4457) ?,” Phys. Rev. D103 (2021) no.3, 034003

2021
[13]

The Pcs(4459) pentaquark from a combined effective field theory and phenomenological perspective,

F. Z. Peng, M. J. Yan, M. Sánchez Sánchez and M. P. Valderrama, “The Pcs(4459) pentaquark from a combined effective field theory and phenomenological perspective,” Eur. Phys. J. C81 (2021) no.7, 666

2021
[14]

Pcs(4459) and other possible molecular states from Ξ(∗) c ¯D(∗) and Ξ′ c ¯D(∗) in- teractions,

J. T. Zhu, L. Q. Song and J. He, “Pcs(4459) and other possible molecular states from Ξ(∗) c ¯D(∗) and Ξ′ c ¯D(∗) in- teractions,” Phys. Rev. D103 (2021) no.7, 074007

2021
[15]

Insights into the nature of the Pcs(4459),

M. L. Du, Z. H. Guo and J. A. Oller, “Insights into the nature of the Pcs(4459),” Phys. Rev. D104 (2021) no.11, 114034

2021
[16]

Strong decays of the newly Pcs(4459) as a strange hidden-charm Ξc ¯D∗ molecule,

R. Chen, “Strong decays of the newly Pcs(4459) as a strange hidden-charm Ξc ¯D∗ molecule,” Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) no.2, 122

2021
[17]

Strong decays of the Pcs(4459) as a Ξc ¯D∗ molecule,

F. Yang, Y. Huang and H. Q. Zhu, “Strong decays of the Pcs(4459) as a Ξc ¯D∗ molecule,” Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 64 (2021) no.12, 121011

2021
[18]

C. R. Deng, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) no.11, 116021 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.116021 [arXiv:2202.13570 [hep-ph]]

2022 arXiv
[19]

Z. G. Wang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 35 (2020) no.01, 2050003

2020
[20]

J. B. Cheng and Y. R. Liu, Phys. Rev. D100 (2019) no.5, 054002

2019
[21]

X. Z. Weng, X. L. Chen, W. Z. Deng and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) no.1, 016014

2019
[22]

R. Zhu, X. Liu, H. Huang and C. F. Qiao, Phys. Lett. B 797 (2019), 134869

2019
[23]

Pimikov, H

A. Pimikov, H. J. Lee and P. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D101 (2020) no.1, 014002

2020
[24]

M. Z. Liu, Y. W. Pan, Z. W. Liu, T. W. Wu, J. X. Lu and L. S. Geng, Phys. Rept.1108 (2025), 1-108

2025
[25]

X. Liu, Y. Tan, X. Chen, D. Chen, H. Huang and J. Ping, Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) no.7, 074001

2024
[26]

J. J. Wu, R. Molina, E. Oset and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010), 232001

2010
[27]

W. L. Wang, F. Huang, Z. Y. Zhang and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. C 84 (2011), 015203

2011
[28]

Z. C. Yang, Z. F. Sun, J. He, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, Chin. Phys. C 36 (2012), 6-13

2012
[29]

S. G. Yuan, K. W. Wei, J. He, H. S. Xu and B. S. Zou, Eur. Phys. J. A48 (2012), 61

2012
[30]

J. J. Wu, T. S. H. Lee and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. C85 (2012), 044002

2012
[31]

C. W. Xiao, J. Nieves and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013), 056012

2013
[32]

Uchino, W

T. Uchino, W. H. Liang and E. Oset, Eur. Phys. J. A52 (2016) no.3, 43

2016
[33]

Karliner and J

M. Karliner and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015) no.12, 122001

2015
[34]

M. Z. Liu, F. Z. Peng, M. Sánchez Sánchez and M. P. Valderrama, Phys. Rev. D98(2018) no.11, 114030. 6

2018
[35]

Sakai, H

S. Sakai, H. J. Jing and F. K. Guo, Phys. Rev. D100 (2019) no.7, 074007

2019
[36]

M. L. Du, V. Baru, F. K. Guo, C. Hanhart, U. G. Meißner, J. A. Oller and Q. Wang, JHEP 08 (2021), 157

2021
[37]

F. Z. Peng, M. J. Yan, M. S. Sánchez and M. Pavon Valderrama, Phys. Lett. B846 (2023), 138207

2023
[38]

Feijoo, W

A. Feijoo, W. F. Wang, C. W. Xiao, J. J. Wu, E. Oset, J. Nieves and B. S. Zou, Phys. Lett. B 839 (2023), 137760

2023
[39]

B. Wang, K. Chen, L. Meng and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) no.7, 074035

2024
[40]

Fernández-Ramírez et al

C. Fernández-Ramírez et al. [JPAC], Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (2019) no.9, 092001

2019
[41]

M. I. Eides, V. Y. Petrov and M. V. Polyakov, Mod. Phys. Lett. A35 (2020) no.18, 2050151

2020
[42]

T. J. Burns and E. S. Swanson, Phys. Rev. D106 (2022) no.5, 054029

2022
[43]

Phenomenological Lagrangians,

S. Weinberg, “Phenomenological Lagrangians,” Physica A 96, 327 (1979)

1979
[44]

Gasser and H

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

1984
[45]

Gasser and H

J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Nucl. Phys. B250 (1985), 465-516

1985
[46]

Bernard, N

V. Bernard, N. Kaiser and U. G. Meissner, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 4 (1995), 193-346

1995
[47]

Scherer, Adv

S. Scherer, Adv. Nucl. Phys.27 (2003), 277

2003
[48]

H. S. Li, Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) no.11, 114039

2024
[49]

H. S. Li, F. Guo, Y. D. Lei and F. Gao, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) no.9, 094027

2024
[50]

B. Wang, L. Meng and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) no.3, 034018

2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Observation ofJ/ψp Resonances Consistent with Pentaquark States in Λ0 b → J/ψK −p Decays,

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], “Observation ofJ/ψp Resonances Consistent with Pentaquark States in Λ0 b → J/ψK −p Decays,” Phys. Rev. Lett.115 (2015), 072001

work page 2015

[2] [2]

Observation of a narrow pen- taquark state, Pc(4312)+, and of two-peak structure of the Pc(4450)+,

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 (2019) no.22, 222001

work page 2019

[3] [3]

Evidence of aJ/ψΛ structure and observation of excitedΞ− states in the Ξ− b → J/ψΛK − decay,

R. Aaijet al. [LHCb], “Evidence of aJ/ψΛ structure and observation of excitedΞ− states in the Ξ− b → J/ψΛK − decay,” Sci. Bull.66 (2021), 1278-1287

work page 2021

[4] [4]

Observation of a J/ψΛ Resonance Consistent with a Strange Pentaquark Candidate in B- →J/ψΛp¯ Decays,

R. Aaijet al. [LHCb], “Observation of a J/ψΛ Resonance Consistent with a Strange Pentaquark Candidate in B- →J/ψΛp¯ Decays,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023) no.3, 031901

work page 2023

[5] [5]

The hidden- charm pentaquark and tetraquark states,

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

work page 2016

[6] [6]

An overview ofXY Znew particles,

X. Liu, “An overview ofXY Znew particles,” Chin. Sci. Bull. 59 (2014), 3815-3830

work page 2014

[7] [7]

The XYZ states revisited,

C. Z. Yuan, “The XYZ states revisited,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 33 (2018) no.21, 1830018

work page 2018

[8] [8]

Non- standard heavy mesons and baryons: Experimental evi- dence,

S. L. Olsen, T. Skwarnicki and D. Zieminska, “Non- standard heavy mesons and baryons: Experimental evi- dence,” Rev. Mod. Phys.90 (2018) no.1, 015003

work page 2018