Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

The paper argues that the measured branching fractions of B^{+(0)} → Dbar^{0(-)} D*_{s0}(2317)^+ are compatible with, and to a large extent explained by, the DK molecular component of the D*_{s0}(2317), using a two-parameter rescattering mo

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

2026-08-03 13:49 UTC pith:LHCRLIOC

load-bearing objection A useful consistency check for the DK-molecule picture that under-delivers on its strong conclusion; the constant-A assumption needs testing before accepting the claim. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.22604 v2 pith:LHCRLIOC submitted 2025-12-27 hep-ph

The B⁺⁽⁰⁾ to bar D⁰⁽⁻⁾ D^(*)_(s0)(2317)^+ decays and the molecular structure of D^*_(s0)(2317)

Wei-Hong Liang , Zhuo-Ran Hu , Eulogio Oset This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords D*_{s0}(2317)DK moleculeB meson decayshadronic rescatteringbranching fractionmolecular statecoupled channelsexotic hadrons
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.

The paper tries to establish that the D*_{s0}(2317) meson, whose internal structure is debated, behaves as a DK molecular state in B-meson decays. Instead of relying on the factorization approximation for the weak vertex, the authors use measured B→Dbar DK branching fractions to fix the amplitude, then let the DK pair rescatter into the resonance through known strong-interaction couplings. They obtain a branching fraction (0.58±0.16)×10^{-3}, compatible with the experimental average (0.96±0.23)×10^{-3}. The conclusion is that a sizable fraction of the D*_{s0}(2317) must be the DK molecule, though the lower centroid leaves room for other components.

Core claim

The central result is the computation of the B^{+(0)} → Dbar^{0(-)} D*_{s0}(2317)^+ branching fractions from the DK molecular picture. The production amplitude combines external and internal emission weights A and Aβ, with A fixed by the measured B→Dbar DK rates and β allowed in [−0.2, 0.2]; the DK components then rescatter into the D*_{s0}(2317) via loop functions and couplings from a coupled-channel analysis. Averaging over the input uncertainties yields B[B^+ → Dbar^0 D*_{s0}(2317)^+] = (0.58±0.16)×10^{-3}, compared with the experimental (0.96±0.23)×10^{-3}. The authors conclude the data 'certainly' support a sizable DK molecular component of the D*_{s0}(2317), with the prediction that th

What carries the argument

The key object is the two-parameter production amplitude t_{B^+} = A[G_{K^0D^+} g_{K^0D^+} + (1+β)G_{K^+D^0} g_{K^+D^0}] (and its B^0 counterpart), where G are the DK loop functions, g the resonance couplings to each DK charge channel (taken from a coupled-channel analysis, g_KD ≈ 8191 MeV), A fixes the external-emission strength from B→Dbar DK data, and β weights internal emission. This amplitude builds the D*_{s0}(2317) purely from DK rescattering, so the comparison with data tests the molecular hypothesis.

Load-bearing premise

The entire calculation assumes the D*_{s0}(2317) is produced in these B decays only through its DK molecular component, so that the amplitude is the DK rescattering loop times the resonance coupling; if a nonmolecular (direct) production mechanism contributes at a comparable level, the inferred 'sizable molecular fraction' would not follow.

What would settle it

A measurement of the B^{+(0)} → Dbar^{0(-)} D*_{s0}(2317)^+ branching fraction that lies above roughly 0.8×10^{-3} with a total uncertainty below 0.1×10^{-3} would exceed the molecular-only prediction (whose upper edge is ~0.76×10^{-3} with 2% coupling uncertainty), indicating a missing nonmolecular contribution. Conversely, a precise measurement showing B^+ and B^0 rates differing by more than a few percent would contradict the near-equality implied by the nearly identical DK couplings.

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

If this is right

  • If the molecular picture is right, the B^+ and B^0 rates into Dbar D*_{s0} should be nearly equal (within ~1.5% coupling difference), a testable prediction.
  • The small inferred β (between -0.2 and 0.2) is consistent with large-N_c expectations, so the model is internally consistent.
  • With only a 2% upward shift in the couplings, the prediction (0.76×10^{-3}) overlaps the experimental upper range, meaning the molecular mechanism can saturate the observed rate.
  • The residual gap between 0.58 and 0.96, taken at face value, indicates that other nonmolecular production mechanisms are not excluded and could contribute up to ~40% of the rate.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The method's separation of weak and strong dynamics suggests a general strategy for extracting molecular fractions from B weak decays without relying on factorization; an extension to bottom analogs of D*_{s0} could sharpen the picture.
  • A dedicated measurement of the B^+/B^0 ratio, currently blurred by errors, would discriminate the molecular mechanism from production through a compact c sbar state, which could give a different isospin dependence.
  • The paper's implied molecular fraction of ~60% (centroid) sits below the ~72% from lattice QCD; a precise new measurement of the total branch could probe the missing component.
  • The assumption that DK rescattering alone produces the resonance could be tested by looking for the same resonant enhancement in other production channels, such as B_s decays, where the DK threshold dynamics differ.

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 / 3 minor

Summary. Assuming that the D*_{s0}(2317) is a DK/D_s eta molecule, the authors compute the branching fractions of B+ -> \bar D0 D*_{s0}(2317)+ and B0 -> D- D*_{s0}(2317)+ using measured B -> \bar D D K rates. The weak amplitude A is extracted from B+ -> \bar D0 K0 D+ via Eq. (27), the internal-emission weight beta is varied in the prior range [-0.2, 0.2], and the DK rescattering amplitude to the D*_{s0} is built from loop functions and couplings taken from the authors' previous molecular-model papers, Refs. [30,55]. The central result, Eq. (36), is B[B+ -> \bar D0 D*_{s0}(2317)+] = (0.58 +/- 0.16) x 10^-3, compared with the averaged experimental value (0.96 +/- 0.23) x 10^-3 of Eq. (5). The authors conclude that the data support a sizable KD molecular component of the D*_{s0}(2317), while allowing room for nonmolecular contributions.

Significance. The paper's strategy is attractive: instead of using factorized weak form factors from semileptonic decays, it uses measured B -> \bar D D K branching fractions as the weak input, thereby concentrating on the strong rescattering that forms the D*_{s0}. This is a nontrivial and useful cross-check of the molecular picture. The authors are also appropriately cautious, explicitly acknowledging that nonmolecular contributions may exist. The main limitation is that the comparison is not an independent test of the molecular hypothesis: the amplitude in Eqs. (30)-(31) contains only DK rescattering, with the molecular couplings and loop functions taken from the authors' own model, and the weak amplitude A is assumed to be constant over the Dalitz plot. Within those assumptions the algebra is internally consistent and the predicted rate is compatible with experiment within errors, but the central claim is more fragile than the closing sentence suggests.

major comments (3)
  1. [II, Eq. (27)] The extraction of A^2/Gamma_B+ assumes that the weak amplitude A is independent of M_inv(K0 D+) over the whole Dalitz plot. Eq. (27) is then integrated over M_inv to fix A from the measured rate, but the same A is used in Eq. (30) at the fixed point M_inv = M_D*_{s0}, which lies below the DK threshold. Since the Dalitz range is large, form-factor or energy dependence of the weak vertex could make the value relevant for the D*_{s0} loop differ substantially from the phase-space average. The authors cite BaBar and LHCb Dalitz analyses, Refs. [36,37], but do not use them to test this constancy. Given that the predicted centroid is already 39% below the data, a momentum-dependent A could shift the prediction in either direction. This is a load-bearing point for the quoted central value.
  2. [II.A, Eqs. (30)-(31)] The production amplitude contains exclusively the DK rescattering terms constructed from molecular couplings. No direct or nonmolecular production of the D*_{s0} is included. Because A is fitted to the full observed B -> \bar D D K rates, any nonmolecular contribution present in those data is automatically transferred into the DK channel in this procedure. Consequently, the comparison with the measured B -> \bar D D*_{s0} rate can at best show consistency with a molecular component; it cannot, by itself, establish that a 'sizable fraction' of D*_{s0} is molecular unless independent control of the nonmolecular production is provided. A minimal improvement would be to add a constant direct-production term and show how the inferred molecular fraction changes.
  3. [III, Eq. (36)] The quoted error, (0.58 +/- 0.16) x 10^-3, propagates only the experimental uncertainties in the input branching fractions and the assumed beta range. The couplings g_KD and the loop functions G, which enter linearly in the amplitude and quadratically in the rate, are taken from Refs. [30,55] without an estimated systematic uncertainty. The discussion of a 2% increase in the coupling is an ad hoc sensitivity statement, not a systematic error budget. Moreover, beta is not determined from data; it is only varied over a prior range. Thus the 'solid conclusion' in the final paragraph is based on a model-dependent amplitude whose dominant theoretical uncertainties are not quantified.
minor comments (3)
  1. [II, Eqs. (4)-(5) and II.A] The final state D_s+ eta appears repeatedly (Eqs. (4), (5), and the sentence before Eq. (30)), but the D*_{s0}(2317) lies below the D_s eta threshold and cannot decay to that channel; the physically correct final state is D_s+ pi0, as in Eqs. (1)-(2) and Ref. [58]. This is presumably a typographical error, but it should be corrected throughout.
  2. [II.A] The loop functions G_{K0D+} and G_{K+D0} in Eqs. (30)-(31) are not defined in the text; the reader is referred to Refs. [30,55]. Since these are central to the numerical result, at least the definition and regularization scheme should be reproduced or summarized.
  3. [Abstract] The abstract states that the method uses 'two free parameters' to describe the six rates. In fact A is fixed from one measured branching fraction and beta is only varied in a range; the target rates are not fitted but predicted. The phrase 'two free parameters' is therefore misleading.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the B→D̄D*_s0 rate is a model-based prediction benchmarked against independent data, not a refit of the target observable.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: (i) use the measured B→D̄DK branching fractions, Eqs. (19)–(26), to fix the weak amplitude A via Eq. (27); (ii) use loop functions G and molecular couplings g from the authors' prior work (Refs. [30,55]) to construct the rescattering amplitudes, Eqs. (30)–(31); (iii) compute the B→D̄D*_s0 branching fraction, Eq. (36), and compare it with the experimental value, Eq. (5). The predicted rate is not forced by the input: it depends on the model-dependent product G·g and on the D*_s0 mass/phase space, so a different strong-interaction picture would give a different number. The comparison with data is therefore a genuine consistency test, not a quantity equal to an input by construction. β is not fitted to the D*_s0 data; it is scanned over a theory-motivated range. The paper explicitly leaves room for nonmolecular contributions and states the result as compatibility, not uniqueness. Self-citations appear (Refs. [30,35,55] include authors of the present paper), but they supply model couplings and a lattice-QCD-based reanalysis; the central numerical prediction is still checked against independent B-decay data not used to build the amplitude. Concerns about a constant weak vertex A or neglected direct production are model assumptions/correctness risks, not circular reductions. Accordingly, no circular step meeting the evidence bar is identified.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central calculation depends on two parameters fitted to the input B→Dbar D K data (A and β), plus a strong-interaction coupling from prior work by the same group. No new particles or entities are introduced. The molecular D*_s0 assumption and the hadronization mechanism are the main domain assumptions; if either fails, the quantitative conclusion changes.

free parameters (3)
  • A^2/Γ_B+ (overall weak amplitude squared) = Determined from B(B+→Dbar0 K0D+) = (1.36±0.24)×10^-3 via Eq. (27)
    Normalizes all amplitudes in Eqs. (17)-(18) and the final rates; fitted to an input branching fraction, not predicted.
  • β (internal emission weight) = Sampled as Gaussian with β=0±0.2; data suggest β≈-0.1 in the range [-0.2,0.2]
    Relative weight of internal emission versus external emission; constrained from the four B→Dbar D K rates, not derived from first principles.
  • g_KD (D*_s0→DK coupling) = g_KD = 8191 MeV, average of g_K0D+ = 8252.26 - i69.15 MeV and g_K+D0 = 8129.49 + i75.70 MeV
    Taken from Ref. [30] (same group); the central amplitude is linear in this coupling, and the paper notes a 2% coupling uncertainty changes the rate by 4%.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption D*_s0(2317) is a molecular state with DK and D_sη components, and B→Dbar D*_s0 proceeds only through DK rescattering as in Eqs. (30)-(31).
    This is the molecular hypothesis under test; if direct or nonmolecular production is significant, the inferred molecular fraction is invalid.
  • domain assumption The q-qbar hadronization and external/internal emission amplitudes of Eqs. (6)-(18) describe B→Dbar D K, with ηD_s terms cancelling between mechanisms.
    Standard quark-model weak-decay mechanism; relies on the flavor P-matrix and the large-N_c expectation β~1/3.
  • domain assumption The couplings g_KD and loop functions G from Refs. [30,55] correctly describe DK final-state interactions at the D*_s0 mass.
    Central strong-interaction input, not re-derived in this paper and from overlapping author groups.
  • domain assumption The D*_s0(2317)+ → D_s+π0 branching fraction essentially exhausts the D*_s0 width (BESIII), so measured B→Dbar D*_s0; D*_s0→D_sπ rates represent total D*_s0 production.
    Used to compare the predicted total production rates with the experimental values in Eqs. (1)-(5).
  • domain assumption The B0/B+ width ratio Γ_B0/Γ_B+ = 1.08 and the averaging of compatible B+ and B0 rates in Eqs. (25)-(26) are valid.
    Normalization and data-combination step used to convert B0 rates to the B+ scale and to enforce the model's isospin relations.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 10288 in / 16745 out tokens · 174074 ms · 2026-08-03T13:49:16.493327+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We have conducted a study of the $B^{+(0)} \to \bar D^{0(-)} D^{*}_{s0}(2317)^+$ reactions from the perspective that the $D^*_{s0}(2317)$ resonance is a molecular state of the $DK$ and $D_s \eta$ components. We have followed a method to evaluate the branching fractions obtaining information from the experimental data on the $B^+\to \bar D^0 K^+ D^0$, $B^+\to \bar D^0 K^0 D^+$, $B^0 \to D^- K^+ D^0$, $B^0 \to D^- K^0 D^+$ reactions, which have the $D^0 K^+$ and $D^+ K^0$ pairs in the final state. The approach concentrates the dynamics of the weak process in the branching ratios of these reactions and pays attention to the propagation of the $DK$ components and their strong interaction to form the $D^*_{s0}(2317)$ resonance. By means of two free parameters, we are able to describe these six rates, showing consistency with the molecular picture of the $D^*_{s0}(2317)$ state.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.22604 by Eulogio Oset, Wei-Hong Liang, Zhuo-Ran Hu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: for B− decay with external emission and Cabibbo allowed decay. The hadronization of the ¯cs pair proceeds as follows sc¯ → X i s q¯iqi c¯ = X i P3i Pi4 = (P 2 )34, (6) where P is the qq¯ matrix, most conveniently written in terms of mesons as P =   √1 2 π 0 + √1 3 η + √1 6 η ′ π+ K+ D¯ 0 π− − √1 2 π 0 + √1 3 η + √1 6 η ′ K0 D− K− K¯ 0 − √1 3 η + q 2 3 η ′ D− s D0 D+ D+ s ηc   . (7) Then, negl… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. External emission for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Internal emission for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Final state interaction for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Correlation function and bound state from the $K D_{s0}^*(2317)$ interaction

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    The K D_s0*(2317) system develops a narrow resonance 40 MeV below threshold under the fixed-center molecular assumption, producing a characteristic correlation function for strong attraction.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 45 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Godfrey and N

    S. Godfrey and N. Isgur, Mesons in a Relativized Quark Model with Chromodynamics, Phys. Rev. D32, 189 (1985)

    1985

  2. [2]

    Ebert, V

    D. Ebert, V. O. Galkin, and R. N. Faustov, Mass spec- trum of orbitally and radially excited heavy - light mesons in the relativistic quark model, Phys. Rev. D57, 5663 (1998), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 59, 019902 (1999)], arXiv:hep-ph/9712318

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  3. [3]

    Godfrey, Testing the nature of theD ∗ sJ (2317)+ and DsJ (2463)+ states using radiative transitions, Phys

    S. Godfrey, Testing the nature of theD ∗ sJ (2317)+ and DsJ (2463)+ states using radiative transitions, Phys. Lett. B568, 254 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0305122

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  4. [4]

    Ishida, M

    S. Ishida, M. Ishida, T. Komada, T. Maeda, M. Oda, K. Yamada, and I. Yamauchi, TheD s(2317) and Ds(2463) mesons as scalar and axial vector chiralons in the covariant level classification scheme, AIP Conf. Proc. 717, 716 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0310061

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  5. [5]

    F. E. Close and E. S. Swanson, Dynamics and decay of heavy-light hadrons, Phys. Rev. D72, 094004 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0505206

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  6. [6]

    Wang, Radiative decays of theD s0(2317), Ds1(2460) and the related strong coupling constants, Phys

    Z.-G. Wang, Radiative decays of theD s0(2317), Ds1(2460) and the related strong coupling constants, Phys. Rev. D75, 034013 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0612225

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  7. [7]

    Wei, P.-Z

    W. Wei, P.-Z. Huang, and S.-L. Zhu, Strong decays of DsJ (2317) andD sJ (2460), Phys. Rev. D73, 034004 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0510039

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  8. [8]

    Colangelo and F

    P. Colangelo and F. De Fazio, UnderstandingD sJ (2317), Phys. Lett. B570, 180 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0305140

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  9. [9]

    J. L. Goity and W. Roberts, Radiative transitions in heavy mesons in a relativistic quark model, Phys. Rev. D64, 094007 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0012314

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  10. [10]

    Liu, Y.-M

    X. Liu, Y.-M. Yu, S.-M. Zhao, and X.-Q. Li, Study on decays ofD ∗ sJ (2317) andD sJ (2460) in terms of the CQM model, Eur. Phys. J. C47, 445 (2006), arXiv:hep- ph/0601017

    arXiv 2006

  11. [11]

    Wang, X.-L

    F.-L. Wang, X.-L. Chen, D.-H. Lu, S.-L. Zhu, and W.- Z. Deng, Decays ofD ∗ sj(2317) andD sj(2460) Mesons in the Quark Model, HEPNP30, 1041 (2006), arXiv:hep- ph/0604090

    arXiv 2006

  12. [12]

    van Beveren and G

    E. van Beveren and G. Rupp, ObservedD s(2317) and tentativeD(2100–2300) as the charmed cousins of the light scalar nonet, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 012003 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0305035

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  13. [13]

    Barnes, F

    T. Barnes, F. E. Close, and H. J. Lipkin, Implications of a DK molecule at 2.32 GeV, Phys. Rev. D68, 054006 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0305025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  14. [14]

    Chen and X.-Q

    Y.-Q. Chen and X.-Q. Li, A Comprehensive four-quark interpretation ofD s(2317),D s(2457) andD s(2632), Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 232001 (2004), arXiv:hep- ph/0407062

    arXiv 2004

  15. [15]

    E. E. Kolomeitsev and M. F. M. Lutz, On Heavy light meson resonances and chiral symmetry, Phys. Lett. B 582, 39 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0307133

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  16. [16]

    Gamermann, E

    D. Gamermann, E. Oset, D. Strottman, and M. J. Vi- cente Vacas, Dynamically generated open and hidden charm meson systems, Phys. Rev. D76, 074016 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0612179

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  17. [17]

    Guo, P.-N

    F.-K. Guo, P.-N. Shen, and H.-C. Chiang, Dynamically generated 1 + heavy mesons, Phys. Lett. B647, 133 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0610008

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  18. [18]

    Yang, G.-J

    Z. Yang, G.-J. Wang, J.-J. Wu, M. Oka, and S.- L. Zhu, Novel Coupled Channel Framework Connect- ing the Quark Model and Lattice QCD for the Near- thresholdD s States, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 112001 (2022), arXiv:2107.04860 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    Liu, X.-Z

    M.-Z. Liu, X.-Z. Ling, L.-S. Geng, En-Wang, and J.-J. Xie, Production ofD ∗ s0(2317) andD s1(2460) inBdecays asD (∗)KandD (∗) s ηmolecules, Phys. Rev. D106, 114011 (2022), arXiv:2209.01103 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  20. [20]

    W. A. Bardeen, E. J. Eichten, and C. T. Hill, Chiral Multiplets of Heavy - Light Mesons, Phys. Rev. D68, 054024 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0305049

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  21. [21]

    Faessler, T

    A. Faessler, T. Gutsche, V. E. Lyubovitskij, and Y.-L. Ma, Strong and radiative decays of theD ∗ s0(2317) meson in theDK-molecule picture, Phys. Rev. D76, 014005 6 (2007), arXiv:0705.0254 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  22. [22]

    Gamermann, L

    D. Gamermann, L. R. Dai, and E. Oset, Radiative de- cay of the dynamically generated open and hidden charm scalar meson resonancesD ∗ s0(2317) andX(3700), Phys. Rev. C76, 055205 (2007), arXiv:0709.2339 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  23. [23]

    M. F. M. Lutz and M. Soyeur, Radiative and isospin- violating decays ofD s-mesons in the hadrogenesis con- jecture, Nucl. Phys. A813, 14 (2008), arXiv:0710.1545 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  24. [24]

    Cleven, H

    M. Cleven, H. W. Grießhammer, F.-K. Guo, C. Hanhart, and U.-G. Meißner, Strong and radiative decays of the D∗ s0(2317) andD s1(2460), Eur. Phys. J. A50, 149 (2014), arXiv:1405.2242 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  25. [25]

    H.-L. Fu, H. W. Grießhammer, F.-K. Guo, C. Hanhart, and U.-G. Meißner, Update on strong and radiative de- cays of theD ∗ s0(2317) andD s1(2460) and their bottom cousins, Eur. Phys. J. A58, 70 (2022), arXiv:2111.09481 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  26. [26]

    L. Liu, K. Orginos, F.-K. Guo, C. Hanhart, and U.- G. Meissner, Interactions of charmed mesons with light pseudoscalar mesons from lattice QCD and implications on the nature of theD ∗ s0(2317), Phys. Rev. D87, 014508 (2013), arXiv:1208.4535 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  27. [27]

    X.-Y. Guo, Y. Heo, and M. F. M. Lutz, On chiral extrap- olations of charmed meson masses and coupled-channel reaction dynamics, Phys. Rev. D98, 014510 (2018), arXiv:1801.10122 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  28. [28]

    N. N. Achasov and G. N. Shestakov, Phenomenological description of theD ∗ s0(2317)→D sπ0 decay, Phys. Rev. D112, 096004 (2025), arXiv:2508.15224 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Xie, G.-Q

    Z.-X. Xie, G.-Q. Feng, and X.-H. Guo, Analyzing D∗ s0(2317)+ in theDKmolecule picture in the Beth- Salpeter approach, Phys. Rev. D81, 036014 (2010)

    2010

  30. [30]

    Su, W.-T

    P.-S. Su, W.-T. Lyu, W.-H. Liang, and E. Oset, TheD ∗ s0(2317)+ decay toD + s π0 andD ∗+ s γ(2025), arXiv:2512.07421 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Mohler, C

    D. Mohler, C. B. Lang, L. Leskovec, S. Prelovsek, and R. M. Woloshyn,D ∗ s0(2317) Meson andD-Meson-Kaon Scattering from Lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 222001 (2013), arXiv:1308.3175 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  32. [32]

    C. B. Lang, L. Leskovec, D. Mohler, S. Prelovsek, and R. M. Woloshyn,D s Mesons withDKandD ∗KScat- tering Near Threshold, Phys. Rev. D90, 034510 (2014), arXiv:1403.8103 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  33. [33]

    G. S. Bali, S. Collins, A. Cox, and A. Sch¨ afer, Masses and decay constants of theD ∗ s0(2317) andD s1(2460) from Nf = 2 lattice QCD close to the physical point, Phys. Rev. D96, 074501 (2017), arXiv:1706.01247 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  34. [34]

    G. K. C. Cheung, C. E. Thomas, D. J. Wilson, G. Moir, M. Peardon, and S. M. Ryan (Hadron Spectrum), DK I= 0,D ¯K I= 0,1 scattering and theD ∗ s0(2317) from lattice QCD, JHEP02, 100, arXiv:2008.06432 [hep- lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  35. [35]

    Mart ´ ınez Torres, E

    A. Mart ´ ınez Torres, E. Oset, S. Prelovsek, and A. Ramos, Reanalysis of lattice QCD spectra lead- ing to theD ∗ s0(2317) andD ∗ s1(2460), JHEP05, 153, arXiv:1412.1706 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  36. [36]

    J. P. Leeset al.(BaBar), Dalitz plot analyses ofB 0 → D−D0K + andB + → ¯D0D0K + decays, Phys. Rev. D 91, 052002 (2015), arXiv:1412.6751 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  37. [37]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), Dalitz plot analysis ofB 0 s → ¯D0K −π+ decays, Phys

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), Dalitz plot analysis ofB 0 s → ¯D0K −π+ decays, Phys. Rev. D90, 072003 (2014), arXiv:1407.7712 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  38. [38]

    Albaladejo, D

    M. Albaladejo, D. Jido, J. Nieves, and E. Oset,D ∗ s0(2317) andDKscattering inBdecays from BaBar and LHCb data, Eur. Phys. J. C76, 300 (2016), arXiv:1604.01193 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  39. [39]

    Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Review of particle physics, Phys

    S. Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  40. [40]

    S. K. Choiet al.(Belle), Measurements ofB→ ¯DD∗+ s0 (2317) decay rates and a search for isospin part- ners of theD ∗+ s0 (2317), Phys. Rev. D91, 092011 (2015), [Addendum: Phys.Rev.D 92, 039905 (2015)], arXiv:1504.02637 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  41. [41]

    Aubertet al.(BaBar), Study ofB→D (∗)+ sJ ¯D(∗) decays, Phys

    B. Aubertet al.(BaBar), Study ofB→D (∗)+ sJ ¯D(∗) decays, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 181801 (2004), arXiv:hep- ex/0408041

    arXiv 2004

  42. [42]

    W. M. Yaoet al.(Particle Data Group), Review of Par- ticle Physics, J. Phys. G33, 1 (2006)

    2006

  43. [43]

    Le Yaouanc, L

    A. Le Yaouanc, L. Oliver, O. Pene, J. C. Raynal, and V. Morenas, On P wave meson decay constants in the heavy quark limit of QCD, Phys. Lett. B520, 59 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0107047

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  44. [44]

    Cheng and W.-S

    H.-Y. Cheng and W.-S. Hou,Bdecays as spectroscope for charmed four quark states, Phys. Lett. B566, 193 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0305038

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  45. [45]

    Cheng, HadronicBdecays involving even par- ity charmed mesons, Phys

    H.-Y. Cheng, HadronicBdecays involving even par- ity charmed mesons, Phys. Rev. D68, 094005 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0307168

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  46. [46]

    Hsieh, C.-H

    R.-C. Hsieh, C.-H. Chen, and C.-Q. Geng, The Difficulty in the decay constants and spectra ofD ∗ sJ , Mod. Phys. Lett. A19, 597 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0312232

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  47. [47]

    Datta and P

    A. Datta and P. J. O’donnell, Understanding the nature ofD s(2317) andD s(2460) through nonleptonicBdecays, Phys. Lett. B572, 164 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0307106

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  48. [48]

    Datta, Extracting beta and the newD sJ reso- nances, Int

    A. Datta, Extracting beta and the newD sJ reso- nances, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A19, 5501 (2004), arXiv:hep- ph/0407330

    arXiv 2004

  49. [49]

    Cheng, C.-K

    H.-Y. Cheng, C.-K. Chua, and C.-W. Hwang, Covariant light front approach for s wave and p wave mesons: Its application to decay constants and form-factors, Phys. Rev. D69, 074025 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0310359

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  50. [50]

    D. S. Hwang and D.-W. Kim, Decay constants of D∗ sJ (2317) andD sJ (2460), Phys. Lett. B606, 116 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0410301

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  51. [51]

    C. E. Thomas, Non-leptonic weak decays ofBtoD s and Dmesons, Phys. Rev. D73, 054016 (2006), arXiv:hep- ph/0511169

    arXiv 2006

  52. [52]

    Cheng and C.-K

    H.-Y. Cheng and C.-K. Chua, Production of P-wave Charmed Mesons in HadronicBDecays, Phys. Rev. D 74, 034020 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0605073

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  53. [53]

    Zhang, M.-G

    Z.-Q. Zhang, M.-G. Wang, Y.-C. Zhao, Z.-L. Guan, and N. Wang, ProbingD ∗ s0(2317) in the decays ofBto two charmed mesons, Phys. Rev. D103, 116030 (2021), arXiv:2105.02688 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  54. [54]

    Faessler, T

    A. Faessler, T. Gutsche, S. Kovalenko, and V. E. Lyubovitskij,D ∗ s0(2317) andD s1(2460) mesons in two- bodyB-meson decays, Phys. Rev. D76, 014003 (2007), arXiv:0705.0892 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  55. [55]

    Ikeno, G

    N. Ikeno, G. Toledo, and E. Oset, Model independent analysis of femtoscopic correlation functions: An applica- tion to theD s0(2317), Phys. Lett. B847, 138281 (2023), arXiv:2305.16431 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  56. [56]

    Chau, Quark Mixing in Weak Interactions, Phys

    L.-L. Chau, Quark Mixing in Weak Interactions, Phys. Rept.95, 1 (1983). 7

    1983

  57. [57]

    Z.-F. Sun, M. Bayar, P. Fernandez-Soler, and E. Oset, D∗ s0(2317)+ in the decay ofB c intoJ/ψDK, Phys. Rev. D93, 054028 (2016), arXiv:1510.06316 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  58. [58]

    Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Measurement of the absolute branching fraction ofD ∗± s0 (2317)→π 0D± s , Phys

    M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Measurement of the absolute branching fraction ofD ∗± s0 (2317)→π 0D± s , Phys. Rev. D 97, 051103 (2018), arXiv:1711.08293 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018