Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 57 references

The hidden-charm pentaquark states Pc(4312), Pc(4440), and Pc(4457) should be produced in e+e− → p pbar J/psi collisions with cross sections around 50 fb, showing a clear double peak near 4.45 GeV.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 21:30 UTC pith:L5RKU6XG

load-bearing objection A clean but fragile effective-Lagrangian calculation: the differential shapes are worth keeping, but the quoted cross sections are hostage to an unanchored form-factor cutoff. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.16041 v1 pith:L5RKU6XG submitted 2026-07-17 hep-ph

P_(c)(4312), P_(c)(4440), and P_(c)(4457) productions in e⁺ e⁻ collisions

Quan-Yun Guo , Dian-Yong Chen This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords hidden-charm pentaquarksPc(4312)Pc(4440)Pc(4457)e+e− collisionsJ/psi p invariant massvector meson dominanceeffective Lagrangian
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper predicts where and how to see the three hidden-charm pentaquarks in electron-positron annihilation. Treating the Pc states as hadronic molecules with established spin-parity assignments, it computes cross sections for e+e− → pbar Pc of roughly 47–57 fb at center-of-mass energy 6 GeV. It then folds in the Pc → J/psi p decay to predict e+e− → p pbar J/psi at about 35 fb, with three narrow peaks in the J/psi p mass spectrum and a resolvable double peak corresponding to Pc(4440) and Pc(4457). The angular distributions of the final particles differ between JP=1/2− and JP=3/2− states, offering a way to confirm the quantum numbers. The result matters because a future tau-charm factory could accumulate tens of thousands of such events per year.

Core claim

The central claim is that e+e− collisions at energies a few GeV above threshold are a viable discovery channel for the hidden-charm pentaquarks. Using the vector-meson-dominance coupling of the virtual photon to J/psi and effective Lagrangians for the Pc J/psi p vertices, the paper finds cross sections for e+e− → pbar Pc(4312), Pc(4440), Pc(4457) of (46.6, 57.4, 55.1) fb at sqrt(s)=6 GeV, with uncertainties from the form-factor cutoff. Including Pc and anti-Pc intermediate states, the total e+e− → p pbar J/psi cross section is 34.6 fb, dominated by the Pc(4457)/anti-Pc(4457) contribution. The J/psi p invariant mass distribution shows three narrow structures, with the two around 4.44 and 4.46

What carries the argument

The calculation rests on the effective Lagrangian amplitudes for e+e− → pbar Pc, built from (i) vector meson dominance for the photon–J/psi coupling, (ii) Lagrangians for Pc J/psi p vertices with JP=1/2− and 3/2− couplings, and (iii) a hadronic form factor at each vertex with a cutoff Lambda_r. The cross section for e+e− → p pbar J/psi is obtained by letting the Pc propagate and decay to J/psi p, giving amplitudes that are quadratic in the Pc J/psi p couplings and summing over Pc and anti-Pc exchange. The form-factor cutoff is the single parameter that sets the overall scale.

Load-bearing premise

The whole rate prediction hinges on the form-factor cutoff Lambda_r being 3.0 GeV in the timelike-photon process; this value is borrowed from other reactions with no direct data to anchor it, and changing it from 2.5 to 3.5 GeV swings the cross section by an order of magnitude.

What would settle it

Measure e+e− → p pbar J/psi at sqrt(s)=6 GeV at a tau-charm factory and look at the J/psi p invariant mass. If no narrow structures appear near 4.31, 4.44, and 4.46 GeV, or if the total cross section is well below about 10 fb, the central prediction fails. Alternatively, a direct measurement of e+e− → pbar Pc(4312) would settle the form-factor scale.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • At sqrt(s)=6 GeV the predicted e+e− → p pbar J/psi cross section of about 35 fb translates to roughly 3×10^4 events per year at a future tau-charm factory with 200 days of running, assuming 10% branching fraction for Pc → J/psi p.
  • The J/psi p invariant mass spectrum should show three narrow signals; the double peak near 4.45 GeV from Pc(4440) and Pc(4457) can be resolved.
  • Polar-angle and helicity distributions of the final proton and J/psi separate JP=1/2− from JP=3/2− assignments, so production data can discriminate the quantum numbers.
  • The Pc(4457) contribution dominates the p pbar J/psi cross section, roughly twice that of Pc(4440), which helps in interpreting the signal.
  • The cross sections scale linearly with the assumed Pc → J/psi p branching fraction, so independent measurements of that branching fraction directly rescale the expected yields.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the true form-factor cutoff for the timelike photon is close to the 0.5 GeV used in photoproduction analogues, the predicted cross sections could drop by more than an order of magnitude, making the signal unobservable at a tau-charm factory; the paper's event-yield claims then rest entirely on the analogy to Lambda_c(2910)/Lambda_c(2940) production.
  • A null result at a tau-charm factory with integrated luminosity of a few inverse ab would not disprove the molecular interpretation of the Pc states; it could instead indicate a smaller cutoff or a smaller Pc → J/psi p branching fraction, breaking the degeneracy between these parameters.
  • The same VMD-plus-molecular framework should apply to the strange pentaquark partners Pcs(4459) and Pcs(4380) in e+e− → p bar-Lambda J/psi or similar channels, giving a prediction that can be tested in the same data set.
  • Since the interference between Pc and anti-Pc contributions is negligible at 7 GeV but the anti-Pc reflections sit above 5 GeV in the J/psi p spectrum, an energy scan could separate genuine pentaquark signals from kinematic reflections in a model-independent way.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper uses an effective-Lagrangian plus vector-meson-dominance approach to compute cross sections for e+e− → pbar P_c(4312), P_c(4440), P_c(4457), and for the subsequent e+e− → p pbar J/ψ process through P_c and anti-P_c intermediate states. With a hadronic form-factor cutoff Λ_r = 3.0 GeV and an assumed branching fraction B(P_c → J/ψ p) = 10%, it reports cross sections of tens of fb at √s = 6 GeV, predicts a dominant P_c(4457) contribution, and claims that a two-peak splitting signal around 4.45 GeV in the J/ψ p invariant-mass spectrum could be observed at STCF. The paper also proposes angular distributions as a way to distinguish the 1/2− and 3/2− assignments.

Significance. If robust, the predictions would open a new production channel for hidden-charm pentaquark states at e+e− colliders and provide a concrete experimental strategy for determining their spin-parity quantum numbers. The amplitude formalism is standard, the calculation is transparent, and the angular-distribution results are potentially useful. However, the numerical predictions are controlled by an unanchored form-factor cutoff and by an assumed branching fraction; the claimed observability also rests on neglecting non-resonant continuum contributions. The paper's positive contribution is therefore mainly a framework and a set of qualitative signatures, not a quantitative prediction at the level claimed in the abstract.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III.A, Eq. (6)] The central numerical results are governed by the cutoff Λ_r in the form factor F(k_i, m_i, Λ_r) = Λ_r^4/[Λ_r^4 + (k_i^2 − m_i^2)^2]. At √s = 6 GeV, the virtual photon has k^2 = 36 GeV^2, so (k^2 − m_ψ^2) ≈ 26.4 GeV^2. For Λ_r = 3.0 GeV, F ≈ 0.104; for Λ_r = 0.5 GeV, the value used in the photoproduction analogues cited in Refs. [38,39], F ≈ 9×10^−5. Because cross sections scale as |F|^2 (or higher powers when two form factors enter, as in Eq. (7)), this changes the predicted rates by orders of magnitude. The paper's uncertainty band Λ_r = 2.5–3.5 GeV does not cover this range. The analogy to Λ_c(2910)/Λ_c(2940) production in pbar-p, π-p and γ-n processes is not a constraint for a highly virtual timelike photon. Until Λ_r is anchored by data or by a physically justified argument, the quoted central cross sections and the resulting STCF event-yield estimate are not supported.
  2. [Sec. II.B, Figs. 6–7] The e+e− → p pbar J/ψ amplitude in Eq. (7) includes only the P_c and anti-P_c exchange diagrams of Fig. 2. No non-resonant continuum, direct J/ψ production, or other background contributions are computed. The abstract's statement that 'a splitting signal can be observed around 4.45 GeV' is an observability claim, but observability requires a signal-to-background estimate. Without a model for the continuum, the plots in Figs. 6–7 show only the signal lineshape, not the expected spectrum. In addition, the only previous estimate cited for e+e− → p pbar J/ψ, Ref. [46], gives O(4 fb), whereas the present calculation gives 34.6 fb at the same energy; the discrepancy is not discussed. The authors should either include a non-resonant continuum model or explicitly state that the results are signal-only upper limits and cannot support the 'can be observed' claim.
  3. [Sec. III.A, Table I, Eq. (9)] The input B(P_c → J/ψ p) = 10% is chosen without a strong constraint. Table I lists theoretical estimates ranging from 0.1% to 84% depending on the framework, and the choice 10% appears to follow Refs. [38,39,41], not a consensus value. For e+e− → pbar P_c the cross section scales linearly with this branching fraction, as stated. However, for e+e− → p pbar J/ψ, two P_cψp vertices appear in Eq. (7), so the cross section scales roughly as the square of the branching fraction, not linearly. The paper's own B = 3% example giving ~10^3 events confirms this, but the central value and uncertainty band are quoted only for B = 10%. Since B is unmeasured and spans orders of magnitude, the results should be presented as a function of B, or at least with a conservative range that includes the theoretical spread.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. II.C] The text says 'With the amplitudes in Eq. (5)' immediately before Eq. (12); the relevant amplitudes are those in Eq. (7), not Eq. (5). The equation cross-reference should be corrected.
  2. [Sec. III.A] The sentence 'The cross sections scale linearly with these branching fractions' is imprecise for the three-body process because two P_cψp vertices are present in Eq. (7); the scaling is quadratic there. The subsequent B = 3% exercise is consistent with quadratic scaling, so the wording should be corrected.
  3. [Captions and text] There are several typographical errors: 'structurAl' in Fig. 6 caption, 'diagrams (a) amd (b)' in Sec. II.B, 'bule dashed' in Fig. 6, 'two-bdoy' in Sec. III.B, and 'structurel' in Sec. III.C. These should be cleaned up.
  4. [References] Reference [14] is incomplete as printed: 'Z. Y. Bai, D. Y. Chen, Qi-Huang, X. Liu, S. Q. Luo and J. Z. Wang, [arXiv:2602.19887 [hep-ph])' lacks a title and journal information. Please complete this entry.
  5. [Fig. 4 vs. Fig. 8] Section III.B states that the differential cross sections, especially for e+e− → pbar P_c(4457), are 'very weakly dependent on cosθ,' while Fig. 8-(a) shows a pronounced cosθ dependence for P_c(4457) in the three-body process. The distinction between the two-body and three-body angular distributions should be stated explicitly to avoid apparent contradiction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No material circularity: the cross sections are a model application of explicitly stated inputs (PDG masses/widths, assumed Br(Pc→J/ψp)=10%, and a borrowed cutoff), with no target data fitted and no prediction used to set parameters.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained as a model calculation. Inputs are: PDG masses/widths of the Pc states (Eq. 1), an assumed branching fraction B(Pc→J/ψp)=10% (Sec. III.A), the J/ψ→e+e− decay constant from data, and the form-factor cutoff Λ_r=3.0 GeV chosen by analogy with Λ_c(2910)/Λ_c(2940) production. The couplings g_{PcψN} are derived from Eq. (9) using these inputs, then used in the amplitudes Eqs. (4)–(8) to produce the quoted cross sections. No target cross section is fitted, and no output quantity is fed back into the inputs. The paper is transparent that the process has no current measurement: it states 'no experimental measurements currently exist for the process of interest' and that Λ_r is 'expected to be distinct' from the 0.5 GeV used in photoproduction. The 10% branching-fraction choice follows in part from the authors' previous work [41], but the paper also tabulates independent theoretical estimates (Refs. [34]–[57]) and explicitly notes that 'the cross sections scale linearly with these branching fractions,' so the self-citation is not load-bearing. The predicted 'splitting signal around 4.45 GeV' is a consequence of inserting the PDG masses and widths of Pc(4440) and Pc(4457) into Breit-Wigner propagators; it is a model projection, not a derivation of those states' existence. The main numerical caveat—that Λ_r is unanchored and the quoted 2.5–3.5 GeV range may not cover plausible smaller cutoffs—is a parameter-sensitivity / physics-risk issue, not circularity, and is partially acknowledged in Section III.A. Overall, the central derivation does not reduce by construction to its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The calculation rests on a molecular interpretation of the Pc states, assumed effective Lagrangians, VMD, a phenomenological form factor with a hand-picked cutoff, and an implicit neglect of non-resonant background.

free parameters (2)
  • Hadronic form-factor cutoff Λ_r = 3.0 GeV (varied 2.5–3.5 GeV)
    Appears in Eq. (6); chosen by analogy with Λ_c(2910)/Λ_c(2940) production studies, not fixed by data for this process. Cross sections vary by an order of magnitude over the stated range.
  • Branching fraction B(Pc→J/ψp) = 10%
    Used to fix the g_PcψN couplings in Table II. Theoretical estimates range from 0.1% to 84% (Table I); the paper notes cross sections scale linearly with B.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Pc(4312), Pc(4440), and Pc(4457) are Σ_c D̄ / Σ_c D̄* molecular states with JP = 1/2−, 1/2−, 3/2− respectively.
    Used to select the effective Lagrangians in Eq. (2) and the spin assignments throughout; based on Refs [22–26], but the nature of the Pc states is not established.
  • domain assumption The PcψN vertices have the forms of Eq. (2), with γ5γμ for 1/2− and a derivative Rarita-Schwinger coupling for 3/2−.
    Phenomenological Lagrangian from molecular-model literature (Refs [39–41]); no first-principles justification.
  • domain assumption Vector meson dominance for the γ-J/ψ coupling, Eq. (3), with fψ fixed from Γ(J/ψ→e+e−).
    Standard VMD approximation; non-VMD contributions are ignored.
  • ad hoc to paper The form factor of Eq. (6), F = Λ_r^4/[Λ_r^4 + (k_i^2 − m_i^2)^2], with Λ_r = 3 GeV.
    Phenomenological regulator; exponent and cutoff are chosen, not derived, and the cross sections vary by an order of magnitude over the quoted Λ_r range.
  • ad hoc to paper e+e−→p p̄J/ψ receives only the Pc and anti-Pc exchange contributions of Fig. 2; non-resonant continuum is omitted.
    The amplitudes in Eq. (12) include only the four resonance diagrams; no background is estimated, so the 'observable splitting signal' claim is conditional on continuum being small.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 15854 in / 13543 out tokens · 117287 ms · 2026-08-01T21:30:55.064682+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In the present work, we propose to investigate the productions of $P_{c}(4312)$, $P_{c}(4440)$, and $P_{c}(4457)$ in the $e^{+} e^{-} \rightarrow p \bar{p} J/\psi$ process. By using an effective Lagrangian approach, we estimate the cross section for the processes under consideration. For the $e^{+} e^{-} \rightarrow \bar{p} P_{c}(4312)$, $e^{+} e^{-} \rightarrow \bar{p} P_{c}(4440)$, and $e^{+} e^{-} \rightarrow \bar{p} P_{c}(4457)$ processes, the cross sections are evaluated to be ($46.6^{+88.4}_{-34.5}$) fb, ($57.4^{+109}_{-42.5}$) fb, and ($55.1^{+105}_{-40.8}$) fb at $\sqrt{s}=6$ GeV, respectively, where the central values are estimated with $\Lambda_{r}=3.0$ GeV, and the uncertainties are resulted from the variations of $\Lambda_{r}$ from 2.5 to 3.5 GeV. Considering that the $P_{c}$ states can decay into $J/\psi p$, we estimate the cross sections for $e^{+} e^{-} \rightarrow p \bar{p} J/\psi$ and the differential cross sections depending on the $J/\psi p$ invariant mass. At $\sqrt{s}=6$ GeV, the cross sections for $e^{+} e^{-} \rightarrow p \bar{p} J/\psi$ are estimated to be ($34.6^{+68.0}_{-26.0}$) fb. Moreover, our estimations indicate that the cross section resulted from the $P_{c}(4457)$ and $\bar{P}_{c}(4457)$ intermediate states is dominant. In the $J/\psi p$ invariant mass spectrum, a splitting signal can be observed around 4.45 GeV, with the two peaks corresponding to $P_{c}(4440)$ and $P_{c}(4457)$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.16041 by Dian-Yong Chen, Quan-Yun Guo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Diagram contributing to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Diagrams contributing to the process of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: (Color online.) The cross sections for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: (Color online.) The di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: (Color online.) The cross sections for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: (Color online.) The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: (Color online.) The same as Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: (Color online.) The polar angle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    S. K. Choiet al.[Belle], Observation of a narrow charmonium- like state in exclusiveB ± →K ±π+π− J/ψdecays, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 262001 (2003)

    2003

  2. [2]

    S. K. Choiet al.[Belle], Observation of a resonance-like struc- ture in thepi ±ψ′ mass distribution in exclusiveB→Kπ ±ψ′ decays, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 142001 (2008)

    2008

  3. [3]

    Z. Q. Liuet al.[Belle], Study ofe +e− →π +π− J/ψand Ob- servation of a Charged Charmoniumlike State at Belle, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 252002 (2013). [erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 019901 (2013)]

    2013

  4. [4]

    Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Observation of a Charged Char- moniumlike StructureZ c(4020) and Search for theZ c(3900) in e+e−→π +π−hc, Phys

    M. Ablikimet al.[BESIII], Observation of a Charged Char- moniumlike StructureZ c(4020) and Search for theZ c(3900) in e+e−→π +π−hc, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, no.24, 242001 (2013)

    2013

  5. [5]

    Aubertet al.[BaBar], Observation of a charmed baryon de- caying toD 0 pat a mass near 2.94 GeV/c 2, Phys

    B. Aubertet al.[BaBar], Observation of a charmed baryon de- caying toD 0 pat a mass near 2.94 GeV/c 2, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 012001 (2007)

    2007

  6. [6]

    Abeet al.[Belle], Experimental Constraints on the Spin and Parity of theΛ c(2880)+, Phys

    K. Abeet al.[Belle], Experimental Constraints on the Spin and Parity of theΛ c(2880)+, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 262001 (2007)

    2007

  7. [7]

    Y . B. Liet al.[Belle], Evidence of a new excited charmed baryon decaying toΣ c(2455)0,++π±, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, no.3, 031901 (2023)

    2023

  8. [8]

    Aubertet al.[BaBar], Observation of a Narrow Meson De- caying toD + sπ0 at a Mass of 2.32 GeV/c 2, Phys

    B. Aubertet al.[BaBar], Observation of a Narrow Meson De- caying toD + sπ0 at a Mass of 2.32 GeV/c 2, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 242001 (2003)

    2003

  9. [9]

    Bessonet al.[CLEO], Observation of a Narrow Resonance of Mass 2.46 GeV/c 2 Decaying toD ∗+ s π+ and Confirmation of theD∗ sJ(2317) State, Phys

    D. Bessonet al.[CLEO], Observation of a Narrow Resonance of Mass 2.46 GeV/c 2 Decaying toD ∗+ s π+ and Confirmation of theD∗ sJ(2317) State, Phys. Rev. D68, 032002 (2003)

    2003

  10. [10]

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

    2018

  11. [11]

    A. Ali, J. S. Lange and S. Stone, Exotics: Heavy Pentaquarks and Tetraquarks, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.97, 123-198 (2017)

    2017

  12. [12]

    S. L. Olsen, T. Skwarnicki and D. Zieminska, Nonstandard heavy mesons and baryons: Experimental evidence, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, no.1, 015003 (2018)

    2018

  13. [13]

    Y . R. Liu, H. X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, Pen- taquark and Tetraquark states, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.107, 237- 320 (2019)

    2019

  14. [14]

    Z. Y . Bai, D. Y . Chen, Qi-Huang, X. Liu, S. Q. Luo and J. Z. Wang, [arXiv:2602.19887 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  15. [15]

    Aaijet al.[LHCb], Observation ofJ/ψpResonances Con- sistent with Pentaquark States inΛ 0 b→J/ψK − pDecays, Phys

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], Observation ofJ/ψpResonances Con- sistent with Pentaquark States inΛ 0 b→J/ψK − pDecays, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 072001 (2015)

    2015

  16. [16]

    Aaijet al.[LHCb], Model-independent evidence forJ/ψp contributions toΛ 0 b →J/ψpK − decays, Phys

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], Model-independent evidence forJ/ψp contributions toΛ 0 b →J/ψpK − decays, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, no.8, 082002 (2016)

    2016

  17. [17]

    Aaijet al.[LHCb], Evidence for exotic hadron contributions toΛ 0 b →J/ψpπ − decays, Phys

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], Evidence for exotic hadron contributions toΛ 0 b →J/ψpπ − decays, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, no.8, 082003 (2016)

    2016

  18. [18]

    Aaijet al.[LHCb], Observation of a narrow pentaquark state, Pc(4312)+, and of two-peak structure of theP c(4450)+, Phys

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], Observation of a narrow pentaquark state, Pc(4312)+, and of two-peak structure of theP c(4450)+, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, no.22, 222001 (2019)

    2019

  19. [19]

    Aaijet al.[LHCb], Evidence of aJ/ψΛstructure and obser- vation of excitedΞ − states in theΞ − b →J/ψΛK − decay, Sci

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], Evidence of aJ/ψΛstructure and obser- vation of excitedΞ − states in theΞ − b →J/ψΛK − decay, Sci. Bull.66, 1278-1287 (2021)

    2021

  20. [20]

    Aaijet al.[LHCb], Observation of aJ/ψΛresonance con- sistent with a strange pentaquark candidate inB − →J/ψΛ¯p decays, Phys

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], Observation of aJ/ψΛresonance con- sistent with a strange pentaquark candidate inB − →J/ψΛ¯p decays, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, no.3, 031901 (2023)

    2023

  21. [21]

    Navaset al.[Particle Data Group], Review of particle physics, Phys

    S. Navaset al.[Particle Data Group], Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D110, no.3, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  22. [22]

    He, ¯DΣ∗ c and ¯D∗Σc interactions and the LHCb hidden- charmed pentaquarks, Phys

    J. He, ¯DΣ∗ c and ¯D∗Σc interactions and the LHCb hidden- charmed pentaquarks, Phys. Lett. B753(2016), 547-551

    2016

  23. [23]

    R. Chen, X. Liu, X. Q. Li and S. L. Zhu, Identifying exotic hidden-charm pentaquarks, Phys. Rev. Lett.115(2015) no.13, 132002

    2015

  24. [24]

    R. Chen, Z. F. Sun, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, Strong LHCb evi- dence supporting the existence of the hidden-charm molecular pentaquarks, Phys. Rev. D100, no.1, 011502 (2019)

    2019

  25. [25]

    He, Study ofP c(4457),P c(4440), andP c(4312) in a quasipo- tential Bethe-Salpeter equation approach, Eur

    J. He, Study ofP c(4457),P c(4440), andP c(4312) in a quasipo- tential Bethe-Salpeter equation approach, Eur. Phys. J. C79, no.5, 393 (2019)

    2019

  26. [26]

    M. Z. Liu, Y . W. Pan, F. Z. Peng, M. S ´anchez S ´anchez, L. S. Geng, A. Hosaka and M. Pavon Valderrama, Emergence of a complete heavy-quark spin symmetry multiplet: seven molec- ular pentaquarks in light of the latest LHCb analysis, Phys. Rev. Lett.122(2019) no.24, 242001

    2019

  27. [27]

    H. X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, T. G. Steele and S. L. Zhu, To- wards exotic hidden-charm pentaquarks in QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett.115(2015) no.17, 172001

    2015

  28. [28]

    R. F. Lebed, The Pentaquark Candidates in the Dynamical Di- quark Picture, Phys. Lett. B749(2015), 454-457

    2015

  29. [29]

    Z. G. Wang, Analysis ofP c(4380) andP c(4450) as pentaquark states in the diquark model with QCD sum rules, Eur. Phys. J. 10 C76(2016) no.2, 70

    2016

  30. [30]

    G. N. Li, X. G. He and M. He, Some Predictions of Diquark Model for Hidden Charm Pentaquark Discovered at the LHCb, JHEP12(2015), 128

    2015

  31. [31]

    X. H. Liu, Q. Wang and Q. Zhao, Understanding the newly ob- served heavy pentaquark candidates, Phys. Lett. B757(2016), 231-236

    2016

  32. [32]

    F. K. Guo, U. G. Meißner, W. Wang and Z. Yang, How to reveal the exotic nature of the Pc(4450), Phys. Rev. D92(2015) no.7, 071502

    2015

  33. [33]

    U. G. Meißner and J. A. Oller, Testing theχ c1 pcomposite na- ture of theP c(4450), Phys. Lett. B751(2015), 59-62

    2015

  34. [34]

    C. J. Xiao, Y . Huang, Y . B. Dong, L. S. Geng and D. Y . Chen, Exploring the molecular scenario ofP c(4312),P c(4440), and Pc(4457), Phys. Rev. D100, no.1, 014022 (2019)

    2019

  35. [35]

    Y . J. Xu, C. Y . Cui, Y . L. Liu and M. Q. Huang, Partial decay widths ofP c(4312) as a ¯DΣc molecular state, Phys. Rev. D102, no.3, 034028 (2020)

    2020

  36. [36]

    Z. Y . Yang, J. Song, W. H. Liang and E. Oset,P c(4440) and Pc(4457) decay into ¯DΣc and ¯DΛc and the spin of theP c states, Eur. Phys. J. C85, no.9, 954 (2025)

    2025

  37. [37]

    Wu and D

    Q. Wu and D. Y . Chen, Production ofP c states fromΛ b decay, Phys. Rev. D100, no.11, 114002 (2019)

    2019

  38. [38]

    Q. Wang, X. H. Liu and Q. Zhao, Photoproduction of hidden charm pentaquark statesP + c (4380) andP + c (4450), Phys. Rev. D 92(2015), 034022

    2015

  39. [39]

    X. Y . Wang, X. R. Chen and J. He, Possibility to study pen- taquark statesP c(4312),P c(4440), andP c(4457) inγp→J/ψp reaction, Phys. Rev. D99, no.11, 114007 (2019)

    2019

  40. [40]

    X. Y . Wang, J. He, X. R. Chen, Q. Wang and X. Zhu, Pion- induced production of hidden-charm pentaquarksP c(4312), Pc(4440), andP c(4457), Phys. Lett. B797, 134862 (2019)

    2019

  41. [41]

    J. Liu, D. Y . Chen and J. He, Double exotic state productions in pion and kaon induced reactions, Eur. Phys. J. C81, no.11, 965 (2021)

    2021

  42. [42]

    H. P. Peng, Y . H. Zheng and X. R. Zhou, Super Tau-Charm Facility of China, Physics49, no.8, 513-524 (2020)

    2020

  43. [43]

    Achasov, X

    M. Achasov, X. C. Ai, R. Aliberti, L. P. An, Q. An, X. Z. Bai, Y . Bai, O. Bakina, A. Barnyakov and V . Blinov,et al.STCF conceptual design report (V olume 1): Physics & detector, Front. Phys. (Beijing)19, no.1, 14701 (2024)

    2024

  44. [44]

    X. C. Ai, J. Bao, L. P. An, S. Z. An, Z. Cao, Y . Bai, M. Chang, Z. H. Bai, F. Chen and O. Bakina,et al.Conceptual design re- port of the Super Tau-Charm Facility: the accelerator, Nucl. Sci. Tech.36, no.12, 242 (2025)

    2025

  45. [45]

    C. Yu, Z. Duan, S. Gu, Y . Guo, X. Huang, D. Ji, H. Ji, Y . Jiao, Z. Liu and Y . Peng,et al.BEPCII Performance and Beam Dynamics Studies on Luminosity, doi:10.18429/JACoW- IPAC2016-TUY A01

    doi:10.18429/jacow-

  46. [46]

    X. Y . Zhang, Y . L. Song and F. K. Guo, Production ofJ/ψp¯pin electron-positron collisions, Phys. Lett. B872, 140007 (2026)

    2026

  47. [47]

    Bauer and D

    T. Bauer and D. R. Yennie, Corrections to VMD in the photo- production of vector mesons I: Mass dependence of amplitudes, Phys. Lett. B60, 165-168 (1976)

    1976

  48. [48]

    Bauer and D

    T. Bauer and D. R. Yennie, Corrections to Diagonal VDM in the Photoproduction of Vector Mesons. 2. Phi-omega Mixing, Phys. Lett. B60, 169-171 (1976)

    1976

  49. [49]

    T. H. Bauer, R. D. Spital, D. R. Yennie and F. M. Pipkin, The Hadronic Properties of the Photon in High-Energy Interactions, Rev. Mod. Phys.50, 261 (1978). [erratum: Rev. Mod. Phys.51, no.2, 407 (1979)]

    1978

  50. [50]

    Haidenbauer and G

    J. Haidenbauer and G. Krein, The Reactionp¯p→ ¯Λ− c Λ+ c close to threshold, Phys. Lett. B687, 314-319 (2010)

    2010

  51. [51]

    Y . Dong, A. Faessler, T. Gutsche and V . E. Lyubovitskij, Role of the hadron moleculeΛ c(2940) in thep¯p→pD 0 ¯Λc(2286) annihilation reaction, Phys. Rev. D90, no.9, 094001 (2014)

    2014

  52. [52]

    J. He, Z. Ouyang, X. Liu and X. Q. Li, Production of charmed baryonΛ c(2940)+ at PANDA, Phys. Rev. D84, 114010 (2011)

    2011

  53. [53]

    J. J. Xie, Y . B. Dong and X. Cao, Role of theΛ + c (2940) in the π− p→D −D0 preaction close to threshold, Phys. Rev. D92, no.3, 034029 (2015)

    2015

  54. [54]

    X. Y . Wang, A. Guskov and X. R. Chen,Λ ∗ c(2940)+ photopro- duction offthe neutron, Phys. Rev. D92, no.9, 094032 (2015)

    2015

  55. [55]

    G. J. Wang, L. Y . Xiao, R. Chen, X. H. Liu, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, Probing hidden-charm decay properties ofP c states in a molecular scenario, Phys. Rev. D102, no.3, 036012 (2020)

    2020

  56. [56]

    Cao and J

    X. Cao and J. p. Dai, Confronting pentaquark photoproduction with new LHCb observations, Phys. Rev. D100, no.5, 054033 (2019)

    2019

  57. [57]

    Y . H. Lin and B. S. Zou, Strong decays of the latest LHCb pen- taquark candidates in hadronic molecule pictures, Phys. Rev. D 100, no.5, 056005 (2019)

    2019