Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

On the possible existence of a $S=-3, \, I=1$ pentaquark

T0 review · 3 major / 3 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 A triply strange pentaquark, the Psss, is predicted to be dynamically generated from kaon–Xi scattering, with next-to-leading-order chiral forces providing the attraction.

desk verdict A solid, honest first NLO unitarized chiral analysis of the S=-3 sector whose central pentaquark prediction is real but strongly parameter-dependent, so the paper deserves refereeing rather than rejection. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18248 v1 pith:ECIEYFLI submitted 2024-11-27 hep-ph hep-thnucl-th

Albert Feijoo , Isaac Vidaña This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-thnucl-th
keywords pentaquarkstrangeness-3coupledchannelschiralunitaryapproachnext-to-leadingorderfemtoscopiccorrelationsexotichadronbaryonresonances
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 asks whether the exotic $S=-3$, $I=1$ pentaquark $P_{sss}$ exists as a dynamically generated state of a kaon and a Xi baryon. It computes the coupled-channel scattering amplitude from the chiral Lagrangian through next-to-leading order and finds that the NLO terms provide the attraction that leading order lacks. With one set of low-energy constants the state is a zero-width bound state near 1800.8 MeV, about 10 MeV below threshold; with another it becomes a broad resonance near 2151.6 MeV with a width near 399 MeV. If such a state exists it would be a manifestly exotic pentaquark with three strange quarks, and the paper shows that femtoscopic correlation functions of $\bar{K}\Xi$ pairs could reveal it.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the unitarized coupled-channel scattering amplitude obtained by solving the Bethe-Salpeter equation with a factorized on-shell kernel, $T = (1 - VG)^{-1}V$, where $V$ is the chiral interaction kernel and $G$ is the two-particle loop function. The kernel is built from the Weinberg-Tomozawa contact term, direct and crossed Born terms, and the tree-level NLO terms of the SU(3) chiral Lagrangian; the NLO low-energy constants $b_D,b_F,b_0,d_1,\dots,d_4$ are carried over from fits in other strangeness sectors. All contributions are projected onto $s$-waves, and poles of $T$ in the complex energy plane identify the dynamically generated states. The same amplitude feeds the two-particle correlation formula used for femtoscopy, which is why those observables can carry a direct signal of the state.

What would settle it

Measure the $K^-\Xi^0$ correlation function at low relative momentum in heavy-ion collisions: the VBC scenario predicts a clear enhancement above one at small momentum, while the BCN scenario gives a nearly flat correlation below one; a measured correlation consistent with unity across all momenta would rule out both predicted poles.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors' central claim is that a strangeness $S=-3$, isospin $I=1$ pentaquark, denoted $P_{sss}$, is generated dynamically from the $\bar{K}\Xi$ interaction once the chiral Lagrangian is expanded to next-to-leading order. At leading order the $\bar{K}\Xi$ potential is shallow and repulsive; the NLO terms, through the chiral-symmetry-breaking pieces proportional to the $b_i$ low-energy constants, supply the attraction needed to form a pole in the unitarized amplitude. The pole appears in all three charge sectors $Q=-1,-2,0$, with quantum numbers $J^P = 1/2^-$, and its minimal quark content is exotic. Depending on the model used to fix the low-energy constants, the $P_{sss}$ is either a bound state at about 1800.8 MeV with zero width (VBC parameter set) or a resonance at about 2151.6 MeV with width about 399 MeV (BCN set); the same calculation also produces a companion molecular $\Omega^*$ state in the $I=0$ channel.

Load-bearing premise

The prediction rests on assuming that the force parameters tuned in other strangeness sectors stay the same in the strangeness -3 sector via SU(3) symmetry, since no data exist there to fix them directly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the VBC parameter set is right, the $P_{sss}$ is a narrow, zero-width bound state about 10 MeV below the $\bar{K}\Xi$ threshold, making femtoscopic correlations a promising direct probe.
  • If the BCN set is right, the state becomes a broad resonance with width near 399 MeV, which would be hard to isolate in inclusive spectra but could still leave a trace in correlation functions.
  • The result implies that leading-order chiral dynamics alone cannot generate the state; any future extraction of the $\bar{K}\Xi$ amplitude from data must include the NLO terms.
  • A measurement of the $K^-\Xi^0$ invariant mass in a $\Omega_b^- \to J/\psi K^- \Xi^0$ decay, or of $\bar{K}\Xi$ femtoscopic correlations, would constrain the NLO low-energy constants and decide between the bound and broad scenarios.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the VBC scenario is realized, the zero-width $P_{sss}$ is essentially a $\bar{K}\Xi$ molecule, and its production rate in heavy-ion collisions would likely track the coalescence probability of $K$ and $\Xi$; this connection is not developed in the paper.
  • The same NLO-attraction mechanism could be probed in the octet-decuplet $S=-3$ sector: if the transferred low-energy constants also attract there, the spectrum of $\Omega^*$ states would be enriched, offering an independent test.
  • Because the two parameter sets bracket the possibilities, the paper effectively predicts a dichotomy of a narrow near-threshold state or a broad resonance; a scan over other allowed low-energy-constant values would show whether the state can disappear entirely, which the paper does not perform.
  • The predicted correlation functions are computed for a single source size; comparing predictions across source sizes would separate the bound-state signal from threshold kinematics.
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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies the S=-3, I=1 sector of meson-baryon scattering and claims that the Kbar-Xi interaction dynamically generates a triply strange pentaquark Psss. Using unitarized coupled-channel chiral perturbation theory at next-to-leading order, the authors find poles in both considered LEC sets: with the VBC parameters a zero-width bound state at 1800.79 MeV appears, while with the BCN parameters a broad resonance at 2151.61 MeV with width 399.18 MeV is obtained (Tables IV–V). They also compute Kbar-Xi femtoscopic correlation functions as a proposed experimental probe. The abstract states that the inclusion of NLO terms is crucial for providing the attraction that binds the pentaquark, but the paper itself emphasizes that the S=-3 sector does not constrain the LECs and that the results depend on the parametrization.

Significance. If the VBC scenario is realized, the predicted narrow bound state just below the Kbar-Xi threshold is a concrete, falsifiable prediction that could be tested by femtoscopic measurements, and extending NLO UChPT to the S=-3 sector is a useful step. The paper is also commendably explicit about the lack of scattering data and about the resulting model dependence. However, the BCN versus VBC dichotomy means the central existence claim is not robust in its present form: the same framework yields either a bound state or a 400 MeV wide resonance depending on the LEC set, so the predictive power is conditional unless a sensitivity analysis or an additional constraint is supplied.

major comments (3)
  1. [Formalism and Discussion, Tables IV–V] The two LEC sets considered, BCN and VBC, produce qualitatively different Psss poles: VBC gives a zero-width bound state at 1800.79 MeV, while BCN gives a resonance at 2151.61 MeV with width 399.18 MeV. The abstract's claim that NLO terms are 'crucial' is therefore not uniform, and the text itself states that for BCN the NLO attraction is negligible below about 2000 MeV. Since the paper provides no criterion to prefer one parametrization, the central assertion that the Psss exists as a dynamically generated state is not robust. The authors should either quantify the range of LEC values over which the pole survives or weaken the conclusion to a scenario-dependent possibility.
  2. [Eq. (2) and the paragraph fixing al(mu) ~ -2] The subtraction constants are fixed to al = -2 at mu = 630 MeV following Ref. [69] with no sensitivity study. Because the pole arises from a delicate balance between the repulsive WT term and attractive NLO pieces, and because the two LEC sets already bracket very different outcomes, varying al over a natural range could remove the pole or change its width substantially. A scan over al (e.g., from -3 to -1) is needed to establish that the Psss is not an artifact of the regularization choice.
  3. [Tables IV–V and Conclusions] Pole masses are quoted to 0.01 MeV (e.g., 1800.79 MeV) with no uncertainties. The LECs from BCN and VBC carry fit errors and differ substantially, yet no error propagation or covariance analysis is provided. The authors should either propagate the LEC uncertainties or explicitly label the results as illustrative; the present numerical precision is not supported by the input parameter knowledge.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Text near Fig. 3 and Table III caption] There are several typographical errors: 'Furtheremore' in the paragraph after Fig. 3, 'compilated' before Table V, and 'as it s should' in the Table III caption; these should be corrected.
  2. [Fig. 4 caption and paragraph below Eq. (6)] The source size is fixed to 1.1 fm without discussion of its uncertainty; since correlation functions depend strongly on the source, adding a brief remark or a range would improve the reproducibility of the predictions.
  3. [References and statements about ongoing ALICE analysis] The statement that Kbar-Xi correlation functions are 'currently being analyzed' by ALICE is vague; if possible, give a public reference or remove the claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the Psss pole and femtoscopic correlation functions are genuine predictions; the self-cited LEC inputs are independent fits to data in other strangeness sectors.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: (1) take the SU(3) chiral Lagrangian up to NLO; (2) import f, D, F and the LECs bD, bF, b0, d1...4 from the BCN and VBC parametrizations, which were obtained by fitting to K-p scattering/branching-ratio data and to ALICE K-Lambda femtoscopic data, respectively; (3) unitarize with the Bethe-Salpeter equation in the S=-3 coupled channels using natural subtraction constants (a_l=-2 at mu=630 MeV); (4) search for poles in the amplitude; (5) compute Koonin-Pratt correlation functions from the same amplitudes. At no point is the Psss state or the S=-3 CF used as input to constrain f, D, F, any LEC, or any subtraction constant. The paper explicitly states 'given the lack of scattering data in the S=-3 sector, one has no possibility to constrain the LECs properly', so the SU(3) transfer is acknowledged as an assumption, not disguised as a first-principles constraint. The self-citations [72]-[74] and [78]-[79] are to prior fits whose inputs are external data sets; under the stated criteria these are real evidence and do not constitute circularity. The fact that BCN and VBC give different states (broad 2152 MeV vs. bound 1800.8 MeV) is a robustness/parameter-sensitivity concern, not a circularity. The authors' own caveats that the existence and location 'depend on the parametrization of the UChPT scheme' further confirm that no quantity is being predicted from itself. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central calculation leans on standard chiral perturbation theory plus three classes of external inputs: LECs fitted in other strangeness sectors and transferred by SU(3), natural-size subtraction constants, and assumed source parameters for the femtoscopic plots. None of these is constrained by S=-3 data, so the ledger is dominated by imported parameters rather than invented entities.

free parameters (4)
  • BCN NLO LEC set (bD, bF, b0, d1-d4) = Values from Ref. [73] (not listed numerically)
    Fitted to K- p -> phi B S=-1 data and Kbar-N threshold observables; transferred to S=-3 by assumed SU(3); yields Psss at 2151.61 MeV with width 399.18 MeV.
  • VBC NLO LEC set (bD, bF, b0, d1-d4) = Values from Ref. [74] (not listed numerically)
    Fitted to high-precision K- Lambda femtoscopic data in S=-2; transferred to S=-3; yields bound Psss at 1800.79 MeV with zero width.
  • Subtraction constants a_l(mu) = -2 at mu = 630 MeV
    Natural-size choice from Ref. [69]; no S=-3 data; shifts the loop function and hence pole positions.
  • Femtoscopic source size and channel weights = R = 1.1 fm, omega_ji = 1
    Assumed Gaussian source and equal production weights; not varied or fitted; affects CF magnitude and shape in Fig. 4.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Effective SU(3) symmetry transfers LEC values from S=-1 and S=-2 fits to the S=-3 sector.
    Stated in Formalism and Discussion: 'the SU(3) symmetry is effectively assumed to assign the values of f, D, F and the LECs'. No S=-3 data exist to check it.
  • standard math Bethe-Salpeter equation factorizes on-shell; off-shell parts are absorbed into renormalization.
    Standard UChPT procedure cited to Refs. [67,68]; used to obtain Eq. (1).
  • standard math Dimensional regularization with one subtraction constant per channel and physical hadron masses.
    Standard regularization in the approach; subtraction constants introduced in Eq. (2).
  • domain assumption Truncation of the chiral Lagrangian at NLO is sufficient for the Kbar-Xi interaction in this energy region.
    The paper compares WT, Born, and NLO pieces and asserts NLO is needed, but does not estimate higher-order corrections.
invented entities (2)
  • Psss pentaquark (S=-3, I=1, J^P=1/2^-)
    purpose: Central predicted exotic state generated as a pole in the Kbar Xi amplitude.
    No experimental observation; predicted mass depends on LEC set: 1800.79 MeV (VBC, bound) or 2151.61 MeV (BCN, broad).
  • Molecular Omega* state
    purpose: Collateral I=0 prediction from the same kernel, bound at 1707.24 MeV in the VBC model.
    Not observed; the authors compare it to Omega(2012) but discard that assignment due to width, and note a virtual state from Ref. [66].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the possible existence of a $S=-3, \, I=1$ pentaquark." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ECIEYFLI

@misc{pith2026241118248,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the possible existence of a $S=-3, \, I=1$ pentaquark},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ECIEYFLI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18248}
}
abstract

We analyze the possible existence of a strangeness $S=-3$, isospin $I=1$ pentaquark state $P_{sss}$ generated dynamically from the $\bar{K}\Xi$ interaction. We employ a unitarized scheme in coupled channels based on the chiral Lagrangian expanded up to next-to-leading order (NLO), and show that the inclusion of the NLO terms is crucial to provide the necessary attraction that favors the existence of such triply strange pentaquark. The $\bar{K}\Xi$ femtoscopic correlation functions are calculated as example of a possible experimental measurement in which a direct signal of the $P_{sss}$ state could be observed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18248 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Feynman diagrams for meson-baryon interaction: WT t [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: (Color on-line) Modulus square of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: (Color-online) Modulus square of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: (Color on-line) Correlation functions of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.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. Investigation of full heavy $ QQQQ'\bar{Q}$ pentaquark candidates

    hep-ph 2025-02 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    QCD sum rules predict a pentaquark with three charm quarks, one bottom quark, and an anti-charm quark near 11.38 GeV, and a pentaquark with three bottom quarks, one charm quark, and an anti-bottom quark near 21.0 GeV,...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [69]

    J. A. Oller and U. G. Meissner, Phys. Lett. B 500, 263 (2001), hep-ph/0011146

    arXiv 2001

  2. [1]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 072001 (2015), 1507.03414

    arXiv 2015

  3. [2]

    J.-J. Wu, R. Molina, E. Oset, and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. Lett . 105, 232001 (2010), 1007.0573

    arXiv 2010

  4. [3]

    J.-J. Wu, R. Molina, E. Oset, and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. C 84, 015202 (2011), 1011.2399

    arXiv 2011

  5. [4]

    Yang, Z.-F

    Z.-C. Yang, Z.-F. Sun, J. He, X. Liu, and S.-L. Zhu, Chin. P hys. C 36, 6 (2012), 1105.2901

    arXiv 2012

  6. [5]

    C. W. Xiao, J. Nieves, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 88, 056012 (2013), 1304.5368

    arXiv 2013

  7. [6]

    Karliner and J

    M. Karliner and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 122001 (2015), 1506.06386

    arXiv 2015

  8. [7]

    W. L. Wang, F. Huang, Z. Y . Zhang, and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. C 84, 015203 (2011), 1101.0453

    arXiv 2011

Show all 91 references
  1. [8]

    S. G. Y uan, K. W. Wei, J. He, H. S. Xu, and B. S. Zou, Eur. Phys. J. A 48, 61 (2012), 1201.0807. 7

    2012 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 062001 (2022), 2108.04720

    2022

  3. [10]

    R. Chen, X. Liu, X.-Q. Li, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 132002 (2015), 1507.03704

    2015 arXiv

  4. [11]

    He, Phys

    J. He, Phys. Lett. B 753, 547 (2016), 1507.05200

    2016 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Liu, Y .-W

    M.-Z. Liu, Y .-W. Pan, F.-Z. Peng, M. S´ anchez S´ anchez,L.-S. Geng, A. Hosaka, and M. Pavon V alderrama, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 242001 (2019), 1903.11560

    2019 arXiv

  6. [13]

    M.-L. Du, V . Baru, F.-K. Guo, C. Hanhart, U.-G. Meißner, J. A. Oller, and Q. Wang, JHEP 08, 157 (2021), 2102.07159

    2021 arXiv

  7. [14]

    H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, T. G. Steele, and S.-L. Zhu, P hys. Rev. Lett. 115, 172001 (2015), 1507.03717

    2015 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Wang, Eur

    Z.-G. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 70 (2016), 1508.01468

    2016 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Wang, Int

    Z.-G. Wang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 35, 2050003 (2020), 1905.02892

    2020 arXiv

  10. [17]

    P . G. Ortega, D. R. Entem, and F. Fern´ andez, Phys. Lett.B 764, 207 (2017), 1606.06148

    2017 arXiv

  11. [18]

    W. Park, A. Park, S. Cho, and S. H. Lee, Phys. Rev. D 95, 054027 (2017), 1702.00381

    2017 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Weng, X.-L

    X.-Z. Weng, X.-L. Chen, W.-Z. Deng, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 100, 016014 (2019), 1904.09891

    2019 arXiv

  13. [20]

    R. Zhu, X. Liu, H. Huang, and C.-F. Qiao, Phys. Lett. B 797, 134869 (2019), 1904.10285

    2019 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Deng, Phys

    C.-R. Deng, Phys. Rev. D 105, 116021 (2022), 2202.13570

    2022 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Guo, U.-G

    F.-K. Guo, U.-G. Meißner, W. Wang, and Z. Yang, Phys. Rev . D 92, 071502 (2015), 1507.04950

    2015 arXiv

  16. [23]

    X.-H. Liu, Q. Wang, and Q. Zhao, Phys. Lett. B 757, 231 (2016), 1507.05359

    2016 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Mikhasenko (2015), 1507.06552

    M. Mikhasenko (2015), 1507.06552

    2015 arXiv

  18. [25]

    S. X. Nakamura, A. Hosaka, and Y . Yamaguchi, Phys. Rev. D 104, L091503 (2021), 2109.15235

    2021 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Hofmann and M

    J. Hofmann and M. F. M. Lutz, Nucl. Phys. A 763, 90 (2005), hep-ph/0507071

    2005 arXiv

  20. [27]

    B. Wang, L. Meng, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 101, 034018 (2020), 1912.12592

    2020 arXiv

  21. [28]

    V . V . Anisovich, M. A. Matveev, J. Nyiri, A. V . Sarantsev, and A. N. Semenova, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 30, 1550190 (2015), 1509.04898

    2015 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Wang, Eur

    Z.-G. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 142 (2016), 1509.06436

    2016 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Feijoo, V

    A. Feijoo, V . K. Magas, A. Ramos, and E. Oset, Eur. Phys. J . C 76, 446 (2016), 1512.08152

    2016 arXiv

  24. [31]

    J.-X. Lu, E. Wang, J.-J. Xie, L.-S. Geng, and E. Oset, Phy s. Rev. D 93, 094009 (2016), 1601.00075

    2016 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Chen, L.-S

    H.-X. Chen, L.-S. Geng, W.-H. Liang, E. Oset, E. Wang, an d J.-J. Xie, Phys. Rev. C 93, 065203 (2016), 1510.01803

    2016 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Shen, H.-J

    C.-W. Shen, H.-J. Jing, F.-K. Guo, and J.-J. Wu, Symmetr y 12, 1611 (2020), 2008.09082

    2020 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Sci. Bull. 66, 1278 (2021), 2012.10380

    2021

  28. [35]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 031901 (2023), 2210.10346

    2023 arXiv

  29. [36]

    H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, and X.-H. Liu, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 409 (2021), 2011.01079

    2021 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Chen, Chin

    H.-X. Chen, Chin. Phys. C 46, 093105 (2022), 2011.07187

    2022 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Liu, Y .-W

    M.-Z. Liu, Y .-W. Pan, and L.-S. Geng, Phys. Rev. D 103, 034003 (2021), 2011.07935

    2021 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Feijoo, W.-F

    A. Feijoo, W.-F. Wang, C.-W. Xiao, J.-J. Wu, E. Oset, J. Nieves, and B.-S. Zou, Phys. Lett. B 839, 137760 (2023), 2212.12223

    2023 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Karliner and J

    M. Karliner and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. D 106, 036024 (2022), 2207.07581

    2022 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Wang and X

    F.-L. Wang and X. Liu, Phys. Lett. B 835, 137583 (2022), 2207.10493

    2022 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Yan, F.-Z

    M.-J. Yan, F.-Z. Peng, M. S´ anchez S´ anchez, and M. Pavon V alderrama, Phys. Rev. D 107, 074025 (2023), 2207.11144

    2023 arXiv

  36. [43]

    ¨Ozdem, Phys

    U. ¨Ozdem, Phys. Lett. B 836, 137635 (2023), 2208.07684

    2023 arXiv

  37. [44]

    P . G. Ortega, D. R. Entem, and F. Fernandez, Phys. Lett. B 838, 137747 (2023), 2210.04465

    2023 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Wang, H.-Y

    F.-L. Wang, H.-Y . Zhou, Z.-W. Liu, and X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 106, 054020 (2022), 2208.10756

    2022 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Peng, M.-J

    F.-Z. Peng, M.-J. Yan, M. S´ anchez S´ anchez, and M. P . V alder- rama, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 666 (2021), 2011.01915

    2021 arXiv

  40. [47]

    C. W. Xiao, J. J. Wu, and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. D 103, 054016 (2021), 2102.02607

    2021 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Zhu, L.-Q

    J.-T. Zhu, L.-Q. Song, and J. He, Phys. Rev. D 103, 074007 (2021), 2101.12441

    2021 arXiv

  42. [49]

    T. J. Burns and E. S. Swanson, Phys. Lett. B 838, 137715 (2023), 2208.05106

    2023 arXiv

  43. [50]

    S. X. Nakamura and J. J. Wu, Phys. Rev. D 108, L011501 (2023), 2208.11995

    2023 arXiv

  44. [51]

    L. Meng, B. Wang, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 107, 014005 (2023), 2208.03883

    2023 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Wu and D.-Y

    Q. Wu and D.-Y . Chen, Phys. Rev. D 109, 094003 (2024), 2402.14467

    2024 arXiv

  46. [53]

    F.-L. Wang, R. Chen, and X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 103, 034014 (2021), 2011.14296

    2021 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Ferretti and E

    J. Ferretti and E. Santopinto, JHEP 04, 119 (2020), 2001.01067

    2020 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Azizi, Y

    K. Azizi, Y . Sarac, and H. Sundu, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 543 (2022), 2112.15543

    2022 arXiv

  49. [56]

    J. A. Mars´ e-V alera, V . K. Magas, and A. Ramos, Phys. Rev . Lett. 130, 091903 (2023), 2210.02792

    2023 arXiv

  50. [57]

    L. Roca, J. Song, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 109, 094005 (2024), 2403.08732

    2024 arXiv

  51. [58]

    Song, M.-Y

    J. Song, M.-Y . Duan, L. Roca, and E. Oset, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 1055 (2024), 2406.14895

    2024 arXiv

  52. [59]

    Nakano et al

    T. Nakano et al. (LEPS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 012002 (2003), hep-ex/0301020

    2003 arXiv

  53. [60]

    Martinez Torres and E

    A. Martinez Torres and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 092001 (2010), 1008.4978

    2010 arXiv

  54. [61]

    Martinez Torres and E

    A. Martinez Torres and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. C 81, 055202 (2010), 1003.1098

    2010 arXiv

  55. [62]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  56. [63]

    E. E. Kolomeitsev and M. F. M. Lutz, Phys. Lett. B 585, 243 (2004), nucl-th/0305101

    2004 arXiv

  57. [64]

    Xu, J.-J

    S.-Q. Xu, J.-J. Xie, X.-R. Chen, and D.-J. Jia, Commun. T heor. Phys. 65, 53 (2016), 1510.07419

    2016 arXiv

  58. [65]

    W. L. Wang, F. Huang, Z. Y . Zhang, and F. Liu, J. Phys. G 35, 085003 (2008)

    2008

  59. [66]

    Gamermann, C

    D. Gamermann, C. Garcia-Recio, J. Nieves, and L. L. Salc edo, Phys. Rev. D 84, 056017 (2011), 1104.2737

    2011 arXiv

  60. [67]

    Oset and A

    E. Oset and A. Ramos, Nucl. Phys. A 635, 99 (1998), nucl- th/9711022

    1998

  61. [68]

    Hyodo and D

    T. Hyodo and D. Jido, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 67, 55 (2012), 1104.4474

    2012 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Scherer, Adv

    S. Scherer, Adv. Nucl. Phys. 27, 277 (2003), hep-ph/0210398

    2003 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Gasser, H

    J. Gasser, H. Leutwyler, and M. E. Sainio, Phys. Lett. B 253, 252 (1991)

    1991

  64. [72]

    Neutrinos and Dark Matter in Astro and Particle Physics

    applied to the S = −2 sector, the SU(3) symmetry is effectively assumed to assign the values of f , D, F and the LECs bD, bF , b0 and d1...4. In particular, we take these values from the BCN [73] and VBC [74] models to have larger casu- istry. In the BCN model, the parameters ...

    2012

  65. [73]

    Feijoo, V

    A. Feijoo, V . V alcarce Cadenas, and V . K. Magas, Phys. Le tt. B 841, 137927 (2023), [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 853, 138660 (2024)], 2303.01323

    2023 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Feijoo, V

    A. Feijoo, V . Magas, and A. Ramos, Phys. Rev. C 99, 035211 (2019), 1810.07600

    2019 arXiv

  67. [75]

    V . M. Sarti, A. Feijoo, I. Vida˜ na, A. Ramos, F. Giacosa, T. Hy- odo, and Y . Kamiya, Phys. Rev. D 110, L011505 (2024), 2309.08756

    2024 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Bazzi et al

    M. Bazzi et al. (SIDDHARTA), Phys. Lett. B 704, 113 (2011), 8 1105.3090

    2011 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Lett. B 845, 138145 (2023), 2305.19093

    2023 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Borasoy, R

    B. Borasoy, R. Nissler, and W. Weise, Eur. Phys. J. A 25, 79 (2005), hep-ph/0505239

    2005 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Ramos, A

    A. Ramos, A. Feijoo, and V . K. Magas, Nucl. Phys. A 954, 58 (2016), 1605.03767

    2016 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Feijoo, D

    A. Feijoo, D. Gazda, V . Magas, and A. Ramos, Symmetry 13, 1434 (2021), 2107.10560

    2021 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Ikeno, G

    N. Ikeno, G. Toledo, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 101, 094016 (2020), 2003.07580

    2020 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Jia et al

    S. Jia et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. D 100, 032006 (2019), 1906.00194

    2019 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Mikhasenko, Exotic hadrons from LHCb (2023), plenary talk on behalf of LHCb col- laboration at MESON2023, Krakow, URL https://indico.meson.if.uj.edu.pl/event/3/contributions/370/at

    M. Mikhasenko, Exotic hadrons from LHCb (2023), plenary talk on behalf of LHCb col- laboration at MESON2023, Krakow, URL https://indico.meson.if.uj.edu.pl/event/3/contributions/370/at

    2023

  76. [84]

    L. Roca, M. Mai, E. Oset, and U.-G. Meißner, Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 218 (2015), 1503.02936

    2015 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Feijoo, V

    A. Feijoo, V . K. Magas, A. Ramos, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 92, 076015 (2015), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 95, 039905 (2017)], 1507.04640

    2015 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Feijoo, V

    A. Feijoo, V . M. Sarti, J. Nieves, A. Ramos, and I. Vida˜ n a (2024), 2411.10245

    2024 arXiv

  79. [87]

    S. E. Koonin, Phys. Lett. B 70, 43 (1977)

    1977

  80. [88]

    Pratt, Phys

    S. Pratt, Phys. Rev. D 33, 1314 (1986)

    1986

  81. [89]

    Ohnishi, K

    A. Ohnishi, K. Morita, K. Miyahara, and T. Hyodo, Nucl. P hys. A 954, 294 (2016), 1603.05761

    2016 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Haidenbauer, Nucl

    J. Haidenbauer, Nucl. Phys. A 981, 1 (2019)

    2019

  83. [91]

    Albaladejo, A

    M. Albaladejo, A. Feijoo, J. Nieves, E. Oset, and I. Vida ˜ na (2024), 2410.08880

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

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