An interpretation of the fully-charmed scalar state $X(6200)$ as a molecular di-meson

E. V. Veliev; H. Da\u{g}; H. Sundu; J. Y. S\"ung\"u; \"O. E. Demircan

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 49 references

An interpretation of the fully-charmed scalar state $X(6200)$ as a molecular di-meson

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper predicts that X(6200), if an $\eta_c\eta_c$ molecule, gets lighter and more weakly coupled as temperature rises toward 155 MeV.

desk verdict A competent but assumption-driven thermal QCD sum rule study of X(6200) as an eta_c eta_c molecule: the T=0 mass matches, but the predicted thermal drop is largely written in by the ad hoc s(T) ansatz. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08589 v1 pith:MUS5KVBN submitted 2025-06-10 hep-ph

Ö. E. Demircan , H. Dağ , H. Sundu , J. Y. Süngü , E. V. Veliev This is my paper

classification hep-ph PACS 12.38.-t12.38.Lg

keywords X(6200)fully-charmedexotichadroneta_cmoleculethermalQCDsumrulestemperature-dependentmassgluoncondensate0++scalarstateheavy-ioncollisions

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 sets out to predict how the newly observed fully-charmed state X(6200) behaves in hot strongly interacting matter, under the hypothesis that it is a weakly bound molecule of two $\eta_c$ mesons with $J^{PC}=0^{++}$. Using thermal QCD sum rules up to dimension four, it derives temperature-dependent sum rules for the state's mass and decay constant. The central result is that both quantities fall as the temperature rises: at $T=0$ the mass is $6201.74\pm57.82$ MeV and the decay constant is $(2.31\pm0.18)\times10^{-2}$ GeV$^4$, while at $T=0.14$ GeV, close to $T_c=155$ MeV, the mass has dropped about 7% to $5782.43\pm37.42$ MeV and the decay constant has dropped about 62% to $(0.88\pm0.05)\times10^{-2}$ GeV$^4$. If this is right, X(6200) is a sensitive probe of hot QCD matter, and its thermal softening should be visible in heavy-ion collisions.

What carries the argument

The calculation rests on the thermal correlation function $\Pi(p,T)=i\int d^4x\, e^{ip\cdot x}\langle\Omega|\mathcal{T}J(x)J^\dagger(0)|\Omega\rangle$, built from the interpolating current $J(x)=(\bar c_a i\gamma_5 c_a)(\bar c_b i\gamma_5 c_b)$ for two pseudoscalar $\eta_c$ mesons. Wick-contracting the charm fields produces a QCD-side spectral density, while the phenomenological side is a single pole plus continuum; Borel transformation and quark-hadron duality connect the two sides. The mass and decay constant are extracted as $m(T)=\sqrt{\Pi'/\Pi}$ and $f^2(T)=e^{m^2/M^2}\Pi/m^2$, where the Borel-transformed function $\Pi$ is integrated up to a temperature-dependent continuum threshold $s(T)=s_0(1-(T/T_c)^8)+16m_c^2(T/T_c)^8$. This threshold ansatz, with its eighth-power interpolation between $s_0$ and $16m_c^2$, is the mechanism that carries the predicted thermal drop.

What would settle it

Recompute the sum rules with a continuum-threshold temperature dependence not of the assumed $s(T)=s_0(1-(T/T_c)^8)+16m_c^2(T/T_c)^8$ form, or compute the thermal spectral function directly on the lattice for the $J^{PC}=0^{++}$ $\eta_c\eta_c$ channel; if the pole mass moves by much less than the predicted ~7% between $T=0$ and $T=0.14$ GeV, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the X(6200) resonance, interpreted as an $\eta_c\eta_c$ molecular state with $J^{PC}=0^{++}$, has a mass and a decay constant that both decrease monotonically as the temperature of the medium rises. At zero temperature the computed values reproduce earlier QCD sum-rule results for this molecule, and as the temperature approaches $T_c=155$ MeV the decrease accelerates, with the decay constant falling much faster than the mass. The thermal trend is read as a reduction of the state's binding strength in hot matter, making fully-charmed molecular states natural probes of the quark-gluon plasma and of hadronic matter under extreme conditions.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes a particular un-derived temperature dependence for the energy cutoff that separates the ground state from higher resonances, and the predicted 7% mass drop and 62% decay-constant drop are largely consequences of that choice.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

At $T=0$ the sum rules reproduce the mass and decay constant obtained in earlier QCD sum-rule studies of the $\eta_c\eta_c$ molecule, which supports reading X(6200) as a molecular state.
Approaching $T_c=155$ MeV, the mass drops by about 7% and the decay constant by about 62%, with the decrease steepening near $T_c$.
In heavy-ion collisions, X(6200) should appear with a reduced mass and a much weaker coupling to the $\eta_c\eta_c$ channel than in vacuum.
Fully-charmed molecular states of this kind can serve as thermal probes of quark-gluon plasma and of matter in the early universe or in astrophysical environments.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the threshold function $s(T)$ is chosen rather than derived, the quantitative sizes of the predicted drops are less secure than the qualitative falling trend; a physically motivated threshold could shift the numbers substantially.
A lattice-QCD calculation of the thermal spectral function in the $J^{PC}=0^{++}$ double-$\eta_c$ channel could test the predicted pole-mass shift without relying on the threshold ansatz.
Repeating the same thermal sum-rule analysis for the alternative compact tetraquark assignment of X(6200) could show whether the melting pattern distinguishes molecular from compact fully-charmed structures.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Worth a look if you care about fully-heavy exotics in medium, but keep the caveats in hand. What is actually new: the temperature-dependent mass and decay constant of X(6200) modeled as an eta_c eta_c molecule with J^PC=0++, plus explicit thermal spectral densities in the appendix. The T=0 mass comes out at about 6.20 GeV, consistent with the LHCb peak and with the earlier Agaev et al. sum rule. The calculation follows standard TQCDSR steps, and the analytical expressions are given in full, which is more than many papers in this area do. Credit where due: this is a competent, transparent application of a known method to a newly observed state.

The soft spots are real and they are central. The thermal prediction is controlled by Eq. (19), the parametrization s(T) = s0(1-(T/Tc)^8) + 16mc^2(T/Tc)^8. The exponent 8 and the endpoint 16mc^2 are asserted, not derived. The paper itself notes that heavy-heavy thresholds deviate from the light-quark behavior cited for this form, but then uses it anyway without a separate treatment. Since the sum rule integrals are cut at s(T), the falling mass and decay constant are largely a restatement of the assumed threshold collapse. The stress-test's phrasing is fair: the 7% mass drop and 62% decay-constant drop are not independent predictions of the OPE. Second, the errors are not propagated into the temperature curves. Table 3 gives uncertainties at T=0 and T=0.14 only, and it is odd that the T=0.14 error is smaller than the T=0 error; the statistical significance of the drop is therefore not established. Third, the continuum window looks physically strained: s0 around 44-45 GeV^2 is far above the eta_c eta_c threshold near 35.6 GeV^2, and the paper does not defend the interpretation of the continuum in that region. The closing paragraph about extra dimensions, supersymmetry, and dark matter is unsupported and should go. The T=0 benchmark leans on a sum rule from an overlapping group, but that is not disqualifying given the explicit expressions here.

The qualitative direction—thermal suppression and melting—is plausible and consistent with other TQCDSR studies. The calculation is internally coherent under its stated assumptions. But the headline numbers are conditioned on an unvalidated ansatz. This paper deserves a serious referee: the question is meaningful, the method is standard, and the presentation is honest about the parametrization even if it does not justify it. A referee should ask for a sensitivity analysis of the thermal results to the s(T) functional form, proper error propagation, and removal of the speculative remarks. I would not desk-reject it, but I would send it back for revision.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the fully-charmed scalar state X(6200) observed by LHCb, assuming it is an eta_c eta_c molecular state with J^{PC}=0^{++}, and computes its mass and decay constant as functions of temperature using thermal QCD sum rules (TQCDSR) up to dimension four. The authors derive the correlation function with a di-pseudoscalar interpolating current, perform a Borel transformation, and apply a temperature-dependent continuum threshold. Their central result is that both the mass and the decay constant decrease as temperature approaches T_c = 155 MeV, with a benchmark at T = 0.14 GeV giving a mass of 5782.43 ± 37.42 MeV (about 7% below the T=0 value of 6201.74 ± 57.82 MeV) and a decay constant of 0.88 ± 0.05 × 10^{-2} GeV^4 (about 62% below the T=0 value of 2.31 ± 0.18 × 10^{-2} GeV^4). The T=0 results are claimed to be consistent with previous QCD sum rule literature.

Significance. If established, a robust prediction of the thermal melting of a fully-heavy molecular state would be of interest for heavy-ion phenomenology and for understanding the behavior of exotic hadrons in hot QCD matter. The paper has notable strengths: it provides explicit analytic expressions for the spectral densities and dimension-four contributions in Appendix A without truncation, which is valuable for reproducibility and independent checks; it also includes a T=0 benchmark that matches an earlier QCD sum rule result for the same state. However, the central thermal claim rests on an assumed parametrization of the continuum threshold, Eq. (19), whose functional form and endpoint are not derived or independently validated. The manuscript itself acknowledges that heavy-heavy systems require a separate treatment, yet applies the light-quark motivated ansatz anyway. Because the Borel integrals in Eqs. (13)–(15) are truncated at s(T), the predicted decreases are largely imprinted by this ansatz rather than by the OPE. The quoted uncertainties are also not propagated through the temperature dependence.

major comments (3)

[Section 2, Eq. (19) and the paragraph following it] The temperature-dependent continuum threshold s(T) = s0(1-(T/Tc)^8) + 16mc^2(T/Tc)^8 is the key input that drives the thermal behavior, since the Borel integrals in Eqs. (13)–(15) are cut at s(T). The exponent 8 and the endpoint 16mc^2 are asserted without derivation or independent constraint. More importantly, the manuscript itself states, immediately after Eq. (19), that for heavy-heavy quark systems this behavior deviates significantly and necessitates a separate treatment as in Refs. [46,47], but no such separate treatment is given. As a consequence, the predicted 7% mass drop and 62% decay-constant drop are largely a restatement of the assumed threshold trajectory rather than a prediction of the OPE. The authors should either derive s(T) from first principles (e.g., from the thermal behavior of the relevant condensates), or treat the functional form as a model parameter and demonstrate the sensitivity of the results to its exponent and endpoint.
[Table 3 and Figure 4] The uncertainties quoted in Table 3 are not propagated through the temperature dependence. Figure 4 shows only single curves for m(T) and f(T) with no error bands, and the 7% and 62% changes are quoted without any uncertainty. Furthermore, the reported error at T = 0.14 GeV (37.42 MeV) is smaller than the error at T = 0 (57.82 MeV), which is counterintuitive unless the sources of uncertainty are not propagated through the thermal inputs. The authors should describe exactly how the errors in Table 3 were obtained, include all sources (mc, condensate value, s0 window, and the parameters of Eq. (19)), and present confidence bands for the thermal curves.
[Section 2, pole contribution and Table 1] The Borel window M^2 = 5–6.5 GeV^2 is relatively low compared with the partonic threshold 16mc^2 ≈ 25.8 GeV^2, and the manuscript reports a pole contribution that falls from 86% to 54% over the analysis window. It is not stated whether this pole-contribution range refers to the T=0 M^2 window or to the entire temperature range used in Figure 4. If the 54% lower value applies at T = 0.14 GeV, then at the highest temperature the continuum contribution is comparable to the ground-state contribution, which substantially weakens the reliability of the extracted m(T) and f(T). The authors should specify the pole-contribution range as a function of temperature and either restrict the Borel window to maintain a robust pole dominance or discuss the implications of large continuum contamination.

minor comments (4)

[Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including 'guarentee' (Section 2), 'condansates' (Section 2), and 'expicitly' (Section 2). These should be corrected.
[Eq. (19) and Refs. [46,47]] The manuscript cites Refs. [46,47] for the temperature dependence of s(T), but those references concern light-light and heavy-light systems. Given that the text explicitly notes heavy-heavy systems behave differently, the applicability of the same functional form should be justified explicitly or the discussion should be revised.
[Section 3, Discussion] The concluding paragraph mentions implications for 'extra dimensions, supersymmetry, or dark matter.' This is unsupported by the analysis and should be removed or replaced with a more grounded statement about possible experimental consequences.
[Eqs. (14) and (15)] The notation Π(M^2, s(T), T) is used both for the Borel-transformed correlation function and, via the derivative Π', for the mass sum rule in Eq. (15). The definition of Π' as d/d(-1/M^2) is standard, but the authors should clarify which object is meant in each equation, especially since the derivative acts on a function that also depends on s(T) and M^2.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Thermal prediction is imprinted by the unproven s(T) ansatz of Eq. (19); the mass and decay-constant drops restate the assumed threshold collapse rather than arising from the OPE.

ansatz smuggled in via citation [Section 2, Eq. (19) with Eqs. (13)-(15).]
"The temperature-dependent continuum threshold s(T) is parametrized as s(T) = s0 [1 − (T/Tc)^8] + 16m^2_c (T/Tc)^8 ... In contrast, for heavy-heavy quark systems, this behavior deviates significantly, necessitating a separate treatment, as discussed in Refs [46, 47]."

Eq. (19) forces s(T) to fall from s0 ≈ 44–45 GeV^2 to 16 m_c^2 ≈ 25.8 GeV^2 as T approaches Tc. The mass and decay constant are extracted from the Borel-transformed integral in Eq. (13), which is cut at s(T), via Eqs. (14) and (15). Lowering the upper integration limit changes Π and Π′ in the direction already visible at T = 0 in Fig. 3, where smaller s0 lowers both m and f. Hence the reported 7% mass drop and 62% decay-constant drop are a restatement of the assumed threshold trajectory rather than an independent consequence of the thermal OPE. The cited support [46,47] concerns light-light and heavy-light systems, and the paper itself concedes that heavy-heavy systems require a separate treatment, so the ansatz is imported without independent justification.

full rationale

The central thermal claim is not self-contained: the monotonic decrease of s(T) in Eq. (19) directly determines the monotonic decrease of the extracted mass and decay constant because the sum-rule integrals in Eqs. (13)-(15) terminate at s(T). The only cited basis for this threshold parametrization, Refs. [46,47], is explicitly stated by the authors to apply to lighter systems, while heavy-heavy systems deviate and need a separate treatment that is not provided. I do not count the T = 0 calibration as circular: the LHCb peak gives an external mass anchor, and the choice of s0 window is standard sum-rule practice. The self-citation to Ref. [14] is not load-bearing for the thermal result. Nevertheless, because the paper's main quantitative prediction of a 7% mass drop and a 62% decay-constant drop is essentially imprinted by the hand-imposed threshold ansatz, a partial circularity score of 6 is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The calculation rests on standard QCD sum rule machinery plus two hand-placed modeling choices: the molecular interpolating current and the s(T) parametrization. The latter largely controls the thermal drop, so the free parameters strongly determine the central result. No new particles or forces are postulated.

free parameters (4)

Continuum threshold s0 = 44 to 45 GeV^2
Chosen as the working window that gives stable mass and decay constant at T=0; the T=0 mass in Table 3 is sensitive to this choice.
Borel parameter window M^2 = 5 to 6.5 GeV^2
Auxiliary parameter window selected by stability criteria; the final temperature curves use M^2 = 5.75 GeV^2.
Temperature exponent in s(T) = 8
Eq. (19) uses (T/Tc)^8 with no derivation. This exponent controls how fast the continuum threshold shrinks and therefore the size of the predicted mass and decay-constant drop.
Effective coupling rescaling factor g^2(T)/g^2_pert(T) = 2.096
Adopted in Eq. (18) from thermal lattice and perturbative matching literature; the thermal evolution of the perturbative contribution depends on this factor.

assumptions (5)

ad hoc to paper X(6200) is an eta_c eta_c molecular state with J^PC = 0++, described by the di-pseudoscalar interpolating current of Eq. (3).
The paper assumes this interpretation; the same observed state could be a compact tetraquark or a J/psi J/psi molecule, as discussed in refs. [10] to [13].
ad hoc to paper The temperature-dependent continuum threshold has the form of Eq. (19), s(T) = s0(1-(T/Tc)^8) + 16mc^2(T/Tc)^8.
This ansatz is stated without derivation and is the main driver of the falling mass and decay constant.
domain assumption Quark-hadron duality at finite temperature: the continuum contributions in the QCD and phenomenological sides cancel above s(T).
Standard assumption of QCD sum rules, invoked when passing from Eq. (13) to Eq. (14); not proven at finite temperature.
domain assumption The thermal coupling g^2(T) = 2.096 g^2_pert(T) of Eq. (18) is valid over the studied temperature range, with values frozen below 100 MeV.
Taken from refs. [44,45]; the factor 2.096 is an external calibration, and the lower-temperature freeze is an approximation.
domain assumption Truncation of the operator product expansion at dimension four is sufficient for the eta_c eta_c molecular system.
The paper includes perturbative terms and dimension-4 gluon condensates; higher-dimensional condensates are neglected without a quantitative estimate.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An interpretation of the fully-charmed scalar state $X(6200)$ as a molecular di-meson." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MUS5KVBN

@misc{pith2026250608589,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An interpretation of the fully-charmed scalar state $X(6200)$ as a molecular di-meson},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MUS5KVBN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08589}
}

abstract

The LHCb Collaboration recently observed new structures in the invariant mass spectrum of $J/\psi J/\psi$ meson pairs produced in proton-proton collisions, including a narrow peak around $6.2$ GeV. This study investigates the thermal behavior of this newly discovered fully-charm resonance, assuming it to be an $\eta_c\eta_c$ molecule with quantum numbers $J^{PC} = 0^{++}$. Employing thermal QCD sum rules up to dimension four, we analyze the temperature dependence of the mass and the decay constant. Our results indicate that both physical quantities decrease as the temperature rises. Notably, at zero temperature, the mass and decay constant of the state are consistent with those reported in the existing literature. These findings are expected to provide valuable insights for future experimental investigations in this field.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08589 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** X(6200) (J P C=0 ++) ηcηc molecule structure. This paper is structured as follows. Section 2 presents the methodology used to analyze the hadronic properties of X(6200) at finite temperatures, employing TQCDSR up to dimension four. The derivation of the sum rules, the interpolating currents used, and the relevant operator product expansion (OPE) terms are detailed in this section. Then, we discuss the numerical resu… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Stability analysis of the mass and decay constant of X(6200) versus M2 or different values of continuum thresholds s0. ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ● M2=6.50 GeV2 ▼ M2=5.75 GeV2 ■ M2=5.00 GeV2 44.0 44.2 44.4 44.6 44.8 45.0 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 s0(GeV2 ) m (GeV) ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ● M2=6.50 GeV2 ▼ M2=5.75 GeV2 ■ M2=5.00 GeV2 44.0 44.2 … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Dependence of the vacuum spectroscopic characteristics of the X(6200) state on the continuum threshold parameter s0, evaluated at selected M2 values. The curves plotted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Dependence of the mass and decay constant of the X(6200) state on temperature, at fixed M2 = 5.75 GeV2 at selected values of s0. These results underscore the importance of considering thermal effects into theoretical models of the X(6200) state. The observed sensitivit…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

[1]

Godfrey and S

S. Godfrey and S. L. Olsen, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.58, 51-73 (2008)

2008
[2]

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

2018
[3]

H. X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, Y. R. Liu and S. L. Zhu, Rept. Prog. Phys.86, no.2, 026201 (2023)

2023
[4]

Brambilla, S

N. Brambilla, S. Eidelman, C. Hanhart, A. Nefediev, C. P. Shen, C. E. Thomas, A. Vairo and C. Z. Yuan, Phys. Rept.873, 1-154 (2020)

2020
[5]

R. M. Albuquerque, J. M. Dias, K. P. Khemchandani, A. Mart ´ ınez Torres, F. S. Navarra, M. Nielsen and C. M. Zanetti, J. Phys. G46, no.9, 093002 (2019)

work page 2019
[6]

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

work page 2017
[7]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Sci. Bull.65, 1983 (2020)

work page 2020
[8]

Gell-Mann, Phys

M. Gell-Mann, Phys. Lett.8, 214 (1964)

1964

Show all 49 references

[9]

Iwasaki, Prog

Y. Iwasaki, Prog. Theor. Phys.54, 492 (1975)

1975
[10]

A. V. Nefediev, Eur. Phys. J. C81, no.8, 692 (2021)

2021
[11]

R. N. Faustov, V. O. Galkin and E. M. Savchenko, Symmetry14, no.12, 2504 (2022)

2022
[12]

X. K. Dong, V. Baru, F. K. Guo, C. Hanhart and A. Nefediev, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, no.13, 132001 (2021)

2021
[13]

Y. L. Song, Y. Zhang, V. Baru, F. K. Guo, C. Hanhart and A. Nefediev, Phys. Rev. D111, no.3, 034038 (2025)

2025
[14]

S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi, B. Barsbay and H. Sundu, Eur. Phys. J. Plus138, no.10, 935 (2023)

2023
[15]

E. V. Shuryak, Phys. Rept.61, 71-158 (1980)

1980
[16]

J. W. Harris and B. M¨ uller, Eur. Phys. J. C84, no.3, 247 (2024)

2024
[17]

G. K. Krintiras [ATLAS and CMS], Nuovo Cim. C47, no.4, 148 (2024)

2024
[18]

Stoecker, Nucl

H. Stoecker, Nucl. Phys. A750, 121-147 (2005)

2005
[19]

Elfner and B

H. Elfner and B. M¨ uller, J. Phys. G50, no.10, 103001 (2023)

2023
[20]

Prozorova [STAR], PoSDIS2024, 175 (2025)

V. Prozorova [STAR], PoSDIS2024, 175 (2025)

2025
[21]

V. V. Torres [ALICE], PoSICHEP2024, 612 (2025)

2025
[22]

Fukushima, [arXiv:2501.01907 [hep-ph]]

K. Fukushima, [arXiv:2501.01907 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[23]

J. Zhao, J. Aichelin, P. B. Gossiaux and K. Werner, Phys. Rev. D109, no.5, 054011 (2024)

2024
[24]

Mishra, A

A. Mishra, A. Kumar and S. P. Misra, Phys. Rev. D110, no.1, 014003 (2024)

2024
[25]

J. Y. S¨ ung¨ u, A. T¨ urkan, H. Sundu and E. V. Veliev, Eur. Phys. J. C82, no.5, 453 (2022)

2022
[26]

J. Y. S¨ ung¨ u, A. T¨ urkan and E. Veli Veliev, Acta Phys. Polon. B50, 1501 (2019)

2019
[27]

T¨ urkan, H

A. T¨ urkan, H. Da˘ g, J. Y. S¨ ung¨ u and E. Veli Veliev, EPL126, no.5, 51001 (2019)

2019
[28]

G¨ ung¨ or, H

E. G¨ ung¨ or, H. Sundu, J. Y. S¨ ung¨ u and E. V. Veliev, Few Body Syst.64, no.3, 53 (2023)

2023
[29]

J. Y. S¨ ung¨ u, A. T¨ urkan, E. Sertbakan and E. V. Veliev, Eur. Phys. J. C80, no.10, 943 (2020)

2020
[30]

Azizi and N

K. Azizi and N. Er, Phys. Rev. D101, no.7, 074037 (2020)

2020
[31]

Azizi and N

K. Azizi and N. Er, Phys. Lett. B811, 135979 (2020)

2020
[32]

J. Y. S¨ ung¨ u and N. Er, J. Phys. G51, no.12, 125001 (2024)

2024
[33]

E. V. Veliev, K. Azizi, H. Sundu and G. Kaya, Rom. J. Phys.59-63, no.1-2, 140 (2014)

2014
[34]

E. V. Veliev, K. Azizi, H. Sundu, G. Kaya and A. T¨ urkan, Eur. Phys. J. A47, 110 (2011)

2011
[35]

Bozkır, A

G. Bozkır, A. T¨ urkan and K. Azizi, Eur. Phys. J. A59, no.11, 267 (2023)

2023
[36]

Er and K

N. Er and K. Azizi, Eur. Phys. J. C82, no.5, 397 (2022)

2022
[37]

M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, and V. I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B147, 385 (1979)

1979
[38]

A. I. Bochkarev and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Nucl. Phys. B268, 220 (1986)

1986
[39]

Andronic, P

A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, K. Redlich and J. Stachel, Nature561, no. 7723, 321 (2018)

2018
[40]

Y. Aoki, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz and K. K. Szabo, Phys. Lett. B643, 46 (2006) X(6200)as a molecular di-meson state16

2006
[41]

Steinbrecher, [HotQCD Collaboration], Nucl

P. Steinbrecher, [HotQCD Collaboration], Nucl. Phys. A982, 847 (2019)

2019
[42]

C. S. Fischer, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.105, 1-60 (2019)

2019
[43]

Mallik, Phys

S. Mallik, Phys. Lett. B416, 373-378 (1998)

1998
[44]

Kaczmarek, F

O. Kaczmarek, F. Karsch, F. Zantow and P. Petreczky, Phys. Rev. D70, 074505 (2004) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D72, 059903 (2005)]

2004
[45]

Morita and S

K. Morita and S. H. Lee, Phys. Rev. C77, 064904 (2008)

2008
[46]

C. A. Dominguez, M. Loewe, J. C. Rojas and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D81, 014007 (2010)

2010
[47]

C. A. Dominguez, M. Loewe, J. C. Rojas and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D83, 034033 (2011)

2011
[48]

Navaset al.[Particle Data Group], Phys

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

2024
[49]

Narison, Int

S. Narison, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A33, no.10, 1850045 (2018)

2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Godfrey and S

S. Godfrey and S. L. Olsen, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.58, 51-73 (2008)

2008

[2] [2]

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

2018

[3] [3]

H. X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, Y. R. Liu and S. L. Zhu, Rept. Prog. Phys.86, no.2, 026201 (2023)

2023

[4] [4]

Brambilla, S

N. Brambilla, S. Eidelman, C. Hanhart, A. Nefediev, C. P. Shen, C. E. Thomas, A. Vairo and C. Z. Yuan, Phys. Rept.873, 1-154 (2020)

2020

[5] [5]

R. M. Albuquerque, J. M. Dias, K. P. Khemchandani, A. Mart ´ ınez Torres, F. S. Navarra, M. Nielsen and C. M. Zanetti, J. Phys. G46, no.9, 093002 (2019)

work page 2019

[6] [6]

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

work page 2017

[7] [7]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Sci. Bull.65, 1983 (2020)

work page 2020

[8] [8]

Gell-Mann, Phys

M. Gell-Mann, Phys. Lett.8, 214 (1964)

1964