Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Determining the width of $D_{s0}^{*}(2317)$ by using $T_{c\bar{s}0}^{a}(2327)$ in a molecular frame

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The D_s0*(2317) width is pinned between 63 and 209 keV by its molecular partner.

desk verdict A transparent molecular-model calculation gives a testable 63–209 keV width for the D_s0*(2317); the main caveats are model dependence and an over-assertive 'stringent' claim, not the error propagation flagged in the stress test. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.19641 v1 pith:MDW4WL55 submitted 2025-07-25 hep-ph

Zi-Li Yue , Quan-Yun Guo , Dian-Yong Chen , Elena Santopinto This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords D_s0*(2317)T_cs0(2327)DKmoleculehadronicmolecularstateeffectiveLagrangiancompositenessconditionisospinviolationexotichadron
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 tries to determine the decay width of the charm–strange meson D_s0*(2317) by treating it and the newly observed T_cs0(2327) as the two isospin partners of the same DK molecule. Using an effective Lagrangian with a single Gaussian size parameter, it first reproduces the measured width of T_cs0(2327), which pins down the model parameter range. In that same range, the calculated width of D_s0*(2317) comes out between 63 and 209 keV, far below the current experimental upper limit of 3.8 MeV. If correct, this turns that loose bound into a sharp, testable prediction and supports the DK molecular interpretation of both states.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a Gaussian correlation function Phi($y^{2}$), whose Fourier form exp(-$p_E^{2}$/$Lambda^{2}$) fixes the spatial size of the DK molecule, together with the compositeness condition, which sets the molecule–two-meson coupling so that the state is a pure bound state. The same Lambda controls both molecular states, and a set of SU(4)-inspired effective Lagrangians converts the molecular loop diagrams into the D_s+ pi0 widths. The eta–pi mixing amplitude enters the isospin-violating D_s0* decay.

What would settle it

A direct measurement of the D_s0*(2317) width that is either larger than about 3 MeV (near the current upper limit) or clearly incompatible with the 63–209 keV band would falsify the prediction. Alternatively, a lattice QCD calculation of the D_s0* width from DK scattering that yields a value far outside this band would do the same.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Both D_s0*(2317) (I=0) and T_cs0(2327) (I=1) are treated as pure DK molecules with the same Gaussian distribution of the D and K mesons, parametrized by the scale Lambda. The T_cs0(2327) width, measured with large uncertainty, is reproduced for Lambda between 1.27 and 2.65 GeV under the assumption that D_s+ pi0 is its dominant decay channel. Applying this same Lambda range to the isospin-violating decay D_s0*(2317) -> D_s+ pi0, including eta–pi mixing, gives a width between 63.0 and 209 keV. This is the paper's central quantitative claim: the width of D_s0*(2317) lies an order of magnitude below the current experimental upper limit.

Load-bearing premise

The whole calibration rests on the premise that D_s0*(2317) and T_cs0(2327) are DK molecules with the same Gaussian size parameter; if their internal structures differ, measuring the T width tells us little about the D_s0* width.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A direct high-precision measurement of the D_s0*(2317) width below about 200 keV would confirm the DK molecular picture; a measurement above about 3 MeV would rule it out.
  • More precise data on the T_cs0(2327) width would narrow the allowed Lambda range and therefore the predicted D_s0* width band.
  • The same framework naturally explains why T_cs0 is broad (tens of MeV) while D_s0* is very narrow: the former decays via isospin-allowed channels, the latter only via isospin violation.
  • A lattice QCD calculation that directly computes the D_s0* width from DK scattering can be compared against the 63–209 keV band as a test of the molecular assumption.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the common-Lambda assumption is dropped, the argument loses its calibration step; testing a different form factor (e.g., a dipole instead of a Gaussian) would show how much of the 63–209 keV band is model-determined.
  • The method could be recycled for other SU(3)/SU(4) molecular pairs where one broad partner is measured and the narrow partner is only bounded experimentally.
  • The large uncertainty in the measured T_cs0 width makes the derived band wider than ideal; a future measurement with even a factor-of-two smaller error would directly shrink the D_s0* width prediction.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper treats the LHCb open-charm tetraquark candidate T_{c\bar{s}0}^{a}(2327) and the D_{s0}^{*}(2317) as I=1 and I=0 DK molecules with J^P=0^+, respectively, using an effective Lagrangian approach with Gaussian form factors and Weinberg's compositeness condition. The coupling constants are fixed as functions of a single size parameter Λ; the T width is then used to constrain Λ, and the same Λ range is used to predict Γ(D_{s0}^{*}\to D_s\pi^0)=63.0–209 keV, far below the PDG upper limit of 3.8 MeV. The calculation is transparent and the presentation is clear, but the quoted prediction rests on several unquantified model assumptions and on an incomplete propagation of the experimental width uncertainty.

Significance. The idea of using the measured width of the I=1 partner to calibrate the size parameter and then predict the width of the I=0 partner is timely and potentially valuable: if robust, it would convert an upper limit into a specific width window for the D_{s0}^{*}(2317). The paper's strengths are its explicit amplitudes, the consistent use of the compositeness condition, and the fact that the final width interval is a concrete falsifiable prediction. However, the central claim is not yet supported at the level of a stringent limitation, because the experimental width error in Eq. (1) is not propagated into the Λ range and because several coupling and form-factor inputs are treated as exact. With the requested uncertainty analysis, the paper would make a useful contribution to the molecular interpretation of both states.

major comments (4)
  1. [IV.B, Eq. (1)] The quoted Λ range 1.27–2.65 GeV is obtained by intersecting the computed T width with the central experimental value 96 MeV at each of the three masses considered; the asymmetric experimental uncertainty 96±16^{+170}_{-23} MeV in Eq. (1) is not propagated. Since the computed Γ_T(Λ) decreases steeply below the lower crossing, the −23 MeV edge would be crossed at some Λ below 1.27, and the +170 MeV edge may allow Λ above 2.65 if the model curve reaches 266 MeV within or beyond the plotted range. The resulting D_{s0}^{*} width range 63–209 keV is therefore not a rigorous limitation. The authors should propagate the full experimental band through the calibration, or explicitly justify why only the central width is used.
  2. [II, IV.A] The entire transfer of the Λ constraint rests on the assumption that T_{c\bar{s}0}^{a}(2327) and D_{s0}^{*}(2317) share the same Gaussian size parameter Λ and the same functional form of the correlation function. This is a strong model assumption, particularly because the two states have different isospin and because one is below while the other is above the DK threshold. The paper does not test the stability of the predicted 63–209 keV range under alternative form factors or under a separate Λ for the D_{s0}^{*}. Without such a test, the predictive content of the calibration is not established.
  3. [III.A, IV.A] The amplitudes rely on the equality g_{DD_sK^*}=g_{D^*D_sK} under SU(4) symmetry, while the paper itself notes that SU(4) is strongly broken, and the input g_{D^*D_sK}=2.02 from QCD sum rules is treated as exact. These couplings appear in both the T width used for calibration and the D_{s0}^{*} width that is predicted, so the final limits should include the uncertainty in the QCD sum-rule value and in the SU(4) relation. A simple variation of the ratio g_{DD_sK^*}/g_{D^*D_sK} over a plausible range would show how load-bearing this assumption is.
  4. [III.A, Eq. (9), Eq. (16)] The η–π^0 mixing strength is fixed through Eq. (9) using current quark masses and a condensate parameter, and the couplings g_{D^*Dη} and g_{K^*Kη} are derived via Eq. (16) with f_π/f_η. No uncertainties in these quantities are propagated. Because the η–π^0 mixing diagrams contribute to the isospin-violating D_{s0}^{*}\to D_s\pi^0 width that is the paper's central output, these input errors should be reflected in the final range before the result is presented as a stringent limitation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [III] There are typos: 'inverstigate' should be 'investigate' and 'increses' should be 'increases'.
  2. [References] Reference [1] does not appear to be Gell-Mann's 1964 paper on quarks; it cites an arXiv article by Gell-Mann and Hartle and should be corrected.
  3. [Throughout] The notation for the states is used inconsistently (D_{s0}^{*}(2317) versus D_{s0}^{*+}(2317), and T_{c\bar{s}0}^{a}(2327) versus T_{c\bar{s}0}^{a+}(2327)); the symbols should be defined clearly at first use.
  4. [IV.B] The sentence 'Considering both the uncertainties in the mass and the width' is misleading because the quoted Λ sub-ranges are crossings with the central width only; the figure caption for the light gray band should state which uncertainty it represents.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the D_s0* width is computed after calibrating Λ against the T_cs0 width, so the central result is model-dependent but not definitionally forced.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a calibration-then-prediction structure, not a circular one. The only free parameter is the Gaussian size parameter Λ, which enters the molecular couplings through the compositeness condition and the decay amplitudes through the form factor. Λ is fixed by matching the computed Γ(T_cs0→Dsπ0) to the LHCb measured width (Eq. (1)); the paper calls this 'reproduce' rather than 'predict', which is an honest description. The central quantity, Γ(D_s0*→Dsπ0), is then evaluated with the same Λ in Fig. 7 and Eq. (15). No input D_s0* width is used to determine any parameter, and no equation reduces the D_s0* prediction to the T_cs0 width by construction: the two amplitudes differ in sign structure, isospin weights, η-π mixing contributions, and the separately computed couplings g_T and g_Ds0*. The common-Λ assumption and the Gaussian-form-factor choice are genuine model assumptions that make the prediction conditional, but they are not tautological inputs. There are minor self-citations—Ref. [30] for η-π0 mixing and Ref. [60] for the Gaussian form factor—but they are accompanied by external Refs. [29], [58], [59], [61], and [62], and they are not the load-bearing justification for the central numerical claim. A separate, non-circular concern is that the quoted Λ range 1.27–2.65 GeV appears to be obtained from crossings of the computed width with the central experimental value 96 MeV at the three mass values, while the asymmetric experimental width error 96±16+170/−23 MeV is not fully propagated; this is an error-propagation/statistical issue, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the molecular interpretation of both states, the compositeness condition, the Gaussian form factor with a common scale Λ, and several effective couplings taken from data or QCD sum rules. The only genuinely fitted parameter is Λ, calibrated on the T width; all other inputs are carried from prior literature.

free parameters (2)
  • Λ (Gaussian size parameter) = 1.27-2.65 GeV (range)
    Controls the momentum-space width of the Gaussian correlation function in Eq. (5). The range is obtained by matching the computed T_cs0(2327) width to the LHCb measurement (Fig. 6) and then used for the D_s0* width prediction (Fig. 7).
  • η-π0 mixing strength = not quoted; adopted from Refs. [29,30]
    Appears in Eq. (13) as the factor multiplying the amplitudes with g_D*Dπ replaced by g_D*Dη; the numerical value is taken from earlier work and its uncertainty is not propagated into the final width range.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption T_cs0(2327) and D_s0*(2317) are pure DK molecular states with I(JP)=1(0+) and 0(0+), respectively.
    Stated in Section II and used throughout; supported by lattice QCD [54] and amplitude analysis [55] but not established.
  • domain assumption Weinberg's compositeness condition Z=0 fixes the molecular couplings.
    Eq. (6); assumes no residual field renormalization beyond the D-K loop, i.e., the states are entirely composite.
  • domain assumption A single Gaussian form factor with scale Λ describes the internal structure of both molecules.
    Eq. (5); the same Λ is assumed for the I=1 and I=0 states, which is the key premise enabling the width transfer.
  • domain assumption SU(4) relation g_DDsK* = g_D*DsK holds; other couplings are taken from experiment or QCD sum rules.
    Section IV.A; the paper acknowledges SU(4) is strongly broken and uses it mainly for sign conventions, but the equality of these two couplings is assumed without quantified uncertainty.
  • domain assumption The D_s^+ π^0 channel saturates the T_cs0^a+ width.
    Assumption stated in the abstract; kinematically the only open strong channel for a 0+ state below DK threshold, but the paper does not compute other possible modes.
  • domain assumption The η-π0 mixing Lagrangian and mixing strength from Refs. [29,30] are valid.
    Eqs. (9) and (13); the numerical value of the mixing parameter is not given in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Determining the width of $D_{s0}^{*}(2317)$ by using $T_{c\bar{s}0}^{a}(2327)$ in a molecular frame." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MDW4WL55

@misc{pith2026250719641,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Determining the width of $D_s0^*(2317)$ by using $T_c\bars0^a(2327)$ in a molecular frame},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MDW4WL55}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.19641}
}
abstract

Motivated by the recent observation of the open-charm tetraquark $T_{c\bar{s}0}^{a}(2327)$ by the LHCb Collaboration, as well as results from Lattice QCD calculations, we consider the $T_{c\bar{s}0}^{a}(2327)$ and the $D_{s0}^{*}(2317)$ as $DK$ molecular states, with $I(J^{P})$ equal to $1(0^{+})$ and $0(0^{+})$, respectively, and we investigate their strong decay behavior in an effective Lagrangian approach. Within the model parameter range, we can reproduce the $T_{c\bar{s}0}^{a}(2327)$ experimental decay width, with the assumption that the $D_{s}^{+}\pi^{0}$ is the dominant decay channel of the $T_{c\bar{s}0}^{a+}(2327)$. In the same parameter range, we can establish a stringent limitation for the decay width of the $D_{s0}^{*}(2317)$, which is $(63.0-209)~\mathrm{keV}$ being significantly smaller than the PDG upper limit value.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.19641 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The mass operators of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The typical diagrams contributing to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The typical diagrams contributing to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: (Color online.) The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: The partial decay width of the isospin violation process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. $T_{\bar{c}\bar{s}1}^f(2750)$ production in the $B^+$ decays processes

    hep-ph 2025-11 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A model calculation predicts that a \bar D K* molecular tetraquark candidate, T_{c\bar s1}^0, should appear in B+ → D(*)+ \bar D* K decays at the 10^-4 level, with the largest fit fraction in B+ → D*+ D*- K+.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [29]

    Faessler, T

    A. Faessler, T. Gutsche, V . E. Lyubovitskij and Y . L. Ma, Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007), 014005 doi:10.1103 /PhysRevD.76.014005 [arXiv:0705.0254 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2007

  2. [1]

    Decoherent Histories Quantum Mechanics and Copenhagen Quantum Mechanics

    M. Gell-Mann and J. B. Hartle, [arXiv:2110.15471 [quant-ph]]

    work page Pith review arXiv

  3. [2]

    Aubert et al

    B. Aubert et al. [BaBar], Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (2003), 242001 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.242001 [arXiv:hep-ex /0304021 [hep-ex]]

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.90.242001 2003

  4. [3]

    Besson et al

    D. Besson et al. [CLEO], Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003), 032002 [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007), 119908] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.68.032002 [arXiv:hep-ex /0305100 [hep-ex]]

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.68.032002 2003

  5. [4]

    S. K. Choi et al. [Belle], Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003), 262001 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.262001 [arXiv:hep-ex /0309032 [hep-ex]]

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.91.262001 2003

  6. [5]

    Aubert et al

    B. Aubert et al. [BaBar], Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005), 031501 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.031501 [arXiv:hep-ex /0412051 [hep-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.71.031501 2005

  7. [6]

    S. K. Choi et al. [Belle], Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011), 052004 doi:10.1103 /PhysRevD.84.052004 [arXiv:1107.0163 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2011

  8. [7]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. [Belle], Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 (2005), 182002 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.182002 [arXiv:hep-ex /0408126 [hep-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.94.182002 2005

Show all 73 references
  1. [8]

    Uehara et al

    S. Uehara et al. [Belle], Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 (2010), 092001 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.092001 [arXiv:0912.4451 [hep- ex]]

    2010 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020), 112003 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.112003 [arXiv:2009.00026 [hep- ex]]

    2020

  3. [10]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) no.1, 012017 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.012017 [arXiv:2212.02717 [hep- ex]]

    2023

  4. [11]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Nature Phys. 18 (2022) no.7, 751-754 doi:10.1038 /s41567-022-01614-y [arXiv:2109.01038 [hep-ex]]

    2022

  5. [12]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII], Phys. Rev. Lett.110 (2013), 252001 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.252001 [arXiv:1303.5949 [hep- ex]]

    2013 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Z. Q. Liu et al. [Belle], Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (2013), 252002 [erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013), 019901] doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.252002 [arXiv:1304.0121 [hep- ex]]

    2013 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII], Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (2021) no.10, 102001 doi:10.1103 /PhysRevLett.126.102001 [arXiv:2011.07855 [hep-ex]]

    2021

  8. [15]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. Lett.127 (2021) no.8, 082001 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.082001 [arXiv:2103.01803 [hep-ex]]

    2021

  9. [16]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII], Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013) no.24, 242001 doi:10.1103 /PhysRevLett.111.242001 [arXiv:1309.1896 [hep-ex]]

    2013 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. [Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) no.3, 030001 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001

    2024 doi

  11. [18]

    Godfrey, Phys

    S. Godfrey, Phys. Lett. B 568 (2003), 254-260 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2003.06.049 [arXiv:hep-ph /0305122 [hep-ph]]

    2003 doi

  12. [19]

    Godfrey and N

    S. Godfrey and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. D 32 (1985), 189-231 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.32.189

    1985 doi

  13. [20]

    Zhu and Y

    H. Zhu and Y . Huang, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) no.5, 054031 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.054031 [arXiv:1904.06641 [hep- ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [21]

    F. S. Navarra, M. Nielsen, E. Oset and T. Sekihara, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) no.1, 014031 doi:10.1103 /PhysRevD.92.014031 [arXiv:1501.03422 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Albaladejo, M

    M. Albaladejo, M. Nielsen and E. Oset, Phys. Lett. B 746 (2015), 305-310 doi:10.1016 /j.physletb.2015.05.019 [arXiv:1501.03455 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  16. [23]

    F. K. Guo, U. G. Meißner, W. Wang and Z. Yang, JHEP 05 (2014), 138 doi:10.1007 /JHEP05(2014)138 [arXiv:1403.4032 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Z. X. Xie, G. Q. Feng and X. H. Guo, Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010), 036014 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.81.036014

    2010 doi

  18. [25]

    Y . J. Zhang, H. C. Chiang, P. N. Shen and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006), 014013 doi:10.1103 /PhysRevD.74.014013 [arXiv:hep-ph/0604271 [hep-ph]]

    2006 arXiv

  19. [26]

    F. K. Guo, P. N. Shen, H. C. Chiang, R. G. Ping and B. S. Zou, Phys. Lett. B 641 (2006), 278-285 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2006.08.064 [arXiv:hep-ph /0603072 [hep-ph]]

    2006 doi

  20. [27]

    Barnes, F

    T. Barnes, F. E. Close and H. J. Lipkin, Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003), 054006 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.68.054006 [arXiv:hep- ph/0305025 [hep-ph]]

    2003

  21. [28]

    Y . Q. Chen and X. Q. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004), 232001 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.232001 [arXiv:hep-ph /0407062 [hep-ph]]

    2004 doi

  22. [30]

    c. J. Xiao, D. Y . Chen and Y . L. Ma, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) no.9, 094011 doi:10.1103 /PhysRevD.93.094011 [arXiv:1601.06399 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Cleven, H

    M. Cleven, H. W. Grießhammer, F. K. Guo, C. Han- hart and U. G. Meißner, Eur. Phys. J. A 50 (2014), 149 doi:10.1140/epja/i2014-14149-y [arXiv:1405.2242 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Albaladejo, D

    M. Albaladejo, D. Jido, J. Nieves and E. Oset, Eur. Phys. 7 J. C 76 (2016) no.6, 300 doi:10.1140 /epjc/s10052-016-4144-3 [arXiv:1604.01193 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  25. [33]

    H. L. Fu, H. W. Grießhammer, F. K. Guo, C. Han- hart and U. G. Meißner, Eur. Phys. J. A 58 (2022) no.4, 70 doi:10.1140 /epja/s10050-022-00724-8 [arXiv:2111.09481 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Z. F. Sun, M. Bayar, P. Fernandez-Soler and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) no.5, 054028 doi:10.1103 /PhysRevD.93.054028 [arXiv:1510.06316 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  27. [35]

    F. K. Guo, C. Hanhart, S. Krewald and U. G. Meissner, Phys. Lett. B 666 (2008), 251-255 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2008.07.060 [arXiv:0806.3374 [hep- ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  28. [36]

    M. F. M. Lutz and M. Soyeur, Nucl. Phys. A 813 (2008), 14-95 doi:10.1016 /j.nuclphysa.2008.09.003 [arXiv:0710.1545 [hep-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Dmitrasinovic, Phys

    V . Dmitrasinovic, Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004), 096011 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.70.096011

    2004 doi

  30. [38]

    Dmitrasinovic, Phys

    V . Dmitrasinovic, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 (2005), 162002 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.162002

    2005 doi

  31. [39]

    H. X. Zhang, W. L. Wang, Y . B. Dai and Z. Y . Zhang, Commun. Theor. Phys. 49 (2008), 414-420 doi:10.1088/0253- 6102/49/2/35 [arXiv:hep-ph/0607207 [hep-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Hayashigaki and K

    A. Hayashigaki and K. Terasaki, Prog. Theor. Phys.114 (2006), 1191-1200 doi:10.1143 /PTP.114.1191 [arXiv:hep-ph/0410393 [hep-ph]]

    2006 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Nielsen, Phys

    M. Nielsen, Phys. Lett. B 634 (2006), 35-38 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2006.01.042 [arXiv:hep-ph /0510277 [hep-ph]]

    2006 doi

  34. [42]

    Z. L. Zhang, Z. W. Liu, S. Q. Luo, P. Chen and Z. H. Guo, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) no.9, 094037 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.094037 [arXiv:2409.05337 [hep- ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    A. M. Badalian, Y . A. Simonov and M. A. Trusov, Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008), 074017 doi:10.1103 /PhysRevD.77.074017 [arXiv:0712.3943 [hep-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  36. [44]

    A. M. Badalian, Y . A. Simonov and M. A. Trusov, PoS CON- FINEMENT8 (2008), 102 doi:10.22323/1.077.0102

    2008 doi

  37. [45]

    J. Y . Wu and M. Q. Huang, [arXiv:1406.5804 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  38. [46]

    F. K. Guo, S. Krewald and U. G. Meissner, Phys. Lett. B 665 (2008), 157-163 doi:10.1016 /j.physletb.2008.06.008 [arXiv:0712.2953 [hep-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  39. [47]

    D. S. Hwang and D. W. Kim, Phys. Lett. B601 (2004), 137-143 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2004.09.040 [arXiv:hep-ph /0408154 [hep-ph]]

    2004 doi

  40. [48]

    D. S. Hwang and D. W. Kim, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.9 (2005), 63-66 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/9/1/008

    2005 doi

  41. [49]

    Y . A. Simonov and J. A. Tjon, Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004), 114013 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.70.114013 [arXiv:hep- ph/0409361 [hep-ph]]

    2004

  42. [50]

    Z. Y . Zhou and Z. Xiao, Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011), 034023 doi:10.1103 /PhysRevD.84.034023 [arXiv:1105.6025 [hep-ph]]

    2011 arXiv

  43. [51]

    C. H. Chen and H. n. Li, Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004), 054002 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.69.054002 [arXiv:hep-ph /0307075 [hep-ph]]

    2004 doi

  44. [52]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], [arXiv:2411.03399 [hep-ex]]

  45. [53]

    Gershon [LHCb], doi:10.17181 /CERN.7XZO.HPH7 [arXiv:2206.15233 [hep-ex]]

    T. Gershon [LHCb], doi:10.17181 /CERN.7XZO.HPH7 [arXiv:2206.15233 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv

  46. [54]

    E. B. Gregory, F. K. Guo, C. Hanhart, S. Krieg and T. Luu, [arXiv:2503.23954 [hep-lat]]

    arXiv

  47. [55]

    Z. Y . Wang, Y . S. Li and S. Q. Luo, Phys. Rev. D 111 (2025) no.7, 076009 doi:10.1103 /PhysRevD.111.076009 [arXiv:2412.06446 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  48. [56]

    M. N. Tang, Y . H. Lin, F. K. Guo, C. Hanhart and U. G. Meißner, Commun. Theor. Phys. 75 (2023) no.5, 055203 doi:10.1088/1572-9494/accc1f [arXiv:2303.18225 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  49. [57]

    F. K. Guo and B. S. Zou, [arXiv:2504.21442 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  50. [58]

    Faessler, T

    A. Faessler, T. Gutsche, V . E. Lyubovitskij and Y . L. Ma, Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007), 114008 doi:10.1103 /PhysRevD.76.114008 [arXiv:0709.3946 [hep-ph]]

    2007 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Faessler, T

    A. Faessler, T. Gutsche, V . E. Lyubovitskij and Y . L. Ma, Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008), 114013 doi:10.1103 /PhysRevD.77.114013 [arXiv:0801.2232 [hep-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  52. [60]

    D. Y . Chen, Y . B. Dong, M. T. Li and W. L. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. A 52 (2016) no.10, 310 doi:10.1140/epja/i2016-16310-0

    2016 doi

  53. [61]

    Y . Dong, A. Faessler and V . E. Lyubovitskij, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 94 (2017), 282-310 doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2017.01.002

    2017 doi

  54. [62]

    Gutsche, T

    T. Gutsche, T. Branz, A. Faessler, I. W. Lee and V . E. Lyubovitskij, Chin. Phys. C 34 (2010) no.9, 1185-1190 doi:10.1088/1674-1137/34/9/007 [arXiv:1001.1870 [hep-ph]]

    2010 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. 130 (1963), 776-783 doi:10.1103/PhysRev.130.776

    1963 doi

  56. [64]

    Salam, Nuovo Cim

    A. Salam, Nuovo Cim. 25 (1962), 224-227 doi:10.1007/BF02733330

    1962 doi

  57. [65]

    van Kolck, Symmetry 14 (2022), 1884 doi:10.3390/sym14091884 [arXiv:2209.08432 [hep-ph]]

    U. van Kolck, Symmetry 14 (2022), 1884 doi:10.3390/sym14091884 [arXiv:2209.08432 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  58. [66]

    K. L. Haglin and C. Gale, Phys. Rev. C 63 (2001), 065201 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.63.065201 [arXiv:nucl-th /0010017 [nucl-th]]

    2001 doi

  59. [67]

    K. L. Haglin, Phys. Rev. C 61 (2000), 031902 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.61.031902 [arXiv:nucl-th /9907034 [nucl-th]]

    2000 doi

  60. [68]

    Z. w. Lin and C. M. Ko, Phys. Rev. C 62 (2000), 034903 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.62.034903 [arXiv:nucl-th /9912046 [nucl-th]]

    2000 doi

  61. [69]

    R. S. Azevedo and M. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. C 69 (2004), 035201 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.69.035201 [arXiv:nucl-th /0310061 [nucl-th]]

    2004 doi

  62. [70]

    Kaymakcalan and J

    O. Kaymakcalan and J. Schechter, Phys. Rev. D 31 (1985), 1109 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.31.1109

    1985 doi

  63. [71]

    H. Gomm, O. Kaymakcalan and J. Schechter, Phys. Rev. D 30 (1984), 2345 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.30.2345

    1984 doi

  64. [72]

    Z. G. Wang and S. L. Wan, Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006), 014017 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.014017 [arXiv:hep-ph /0606002 [hep-ph]]

    2006 doi

  65. [73]

    M. E. Bracco, A. Cerqueira, Jr., M. Chiapparini, A. Lozea and M. Nielsen, Phys. Lett. B 641 (2006), 286-293 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2006.08.058 [arXiv:hep-ph /0604167 [hep-ph]]

    2006 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.