Holographic tetraquarks and the newly observed $T_{cc}^{+}$ at LHCb

Ismail Zahed; Maciej A. Nowak; Yizhuang Liu

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Holographic tetraquarks and the newly observed $T_{cc}^{+}$ at LHCb

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Heavy tetraquarks form as Efimov bound states in holographic QCD, with charm near the observed T_cc+.

desk verdict An original and potentially important mechanism for double-heavy tetraquarks, but the paper does not actually demonstrate that the Efimov condition holds, and the abstract overclaims relative to the body. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02497 v3 pith:P5N7K3XT submitted 2019-09-05 hep-ph nucl-th

Yizhuang Liu , Maciej A. Nowak , Ismail Zahed This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phnucl-th

keywords heavytetraquarksEfimovstatesholographicQCDsphaleronquarksymmetryexotichadronsT_cc+bindingenergies

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 show that a heavy tetraquark with two heavy quarks and two light quarks, denoted $QQ\bar q\bar q$, can bind as an Efimov state in a holographic model of QCD, rather than as a pion-exchange molecule. The construction binds the lightest heavy-light meson multiplet $(0^-,1^-)$ to a bosonic sphaleron configuration inside the bulk geometry; the resulting $1/\rho^2$ potential is attractive enough to generate a scale-invariant tower of bound states when a specific coefficient is negative. Numerically, only S-wave states with $N_Q\le 3$ are bound, carrying quantum numbers $IJ=00,01$, with binding energies of order $-(0.04)$ to $-(0.11)$ GeV. For charm quarks the binding is weaker and comparable to the observed $T_{cc}^+$; for bottom and mixed bottom-charm the model predicts stable tetraquarks. If correct, these would be the first hadrons whose binding is dominated by the Efimov mechanism.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the flavored sphaleron: a saddle-point gauge-field configuration with Chern-Simons number $1/2$ and zero baryon number that sits at the top of a tunneling path between vacua. The paper's collective-coordinate quantization of the sphaleron gives the same Hamiltonian as the holographic baryon but with charge parameters $\alpha_{0,1,2}(0)\approx(+6,-0.034,+0.165)$; for S-waves the potential becomes $g_0(0)/\rho^2$ with $g_0(0)+1/4<0$. This inverse-square attraction is what binds the heavy meson multiplet into a compact tetraquark, and the bound-state energies obey the Efimov geometric ratio $e_{0,n+1}/e_{0,n}=e^{-2\pi/\nu_0}$ with $\nu_0=\sqrt{-1/4-g_0(0)}$.

What would settle it

Independently recomputing the sphaleron coefficients $\alpha_{0,1,2}(0)$, or a lattice scan finding no $IJ=00^+$ or $01^+$ charm tetraquark bound by tens of MeV, would settle the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that doubly heavy tetraquarks of the form $QQ\bar q\bar q$ emerge as Efimov bound states in the holographic model when the heavy-light meson doublet is coupled to a flavored sphaleron. In the heavy-quark limit the radial equation for the S-wave reduces to an inverse-square potential $g_0(0)/\rho^2$; for the sphaleron path the coefficient satisfies $g_0(0)+1/4<0$, so scale invariance generates an infinite geometric series of states with energy ratio $e^{-2\pi/\nu_0}$. The numerical solution gives bound states only for $l=0$ and $N_Q\le 3$, with degenerate $IJ=00^+$ and $01^+$ assignments and binding energies listed in Table I: about $-0.10$ GeV for bottom, $-0.08$ GeV for mixed bottom-charm, and $-0.04$ to $-0.07$ GeV for charm, depending on the 't Hooft coupling. The charm binding is comparable to the observed $T_{cc}^+$.

Load-bearing premise

The whole binding mechanism depends on the sphaleron-path coefficients $\alpha_{0,1,2}(0)$ from the companion paper making $g_0(0)+1/4<0$; if that inequality is not satisfied, the inverse-square potential is not attractive enough and no Efimov bound states form.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Bottom tetraquarks are predicted to be strongly bound, at roughly $-0.09$ to $-0.11$ GeV, consistent with quark-model and lattice estimates for the double-bottom state.
Mixed bottom-charm tetraquarks are bound at around $-0.06$ to $-0.09$ GeV.
Charm tetraquarks are bound but more weakly, with the repulsive $m_H$ correction penalizing $cc\bar q\bar q$; the charm state is the closest holographic analogue of $T_{cc}^+$.
Because $e^{-2\pi/\nu_0}\sim 10^{-3}$, the Efimov tower truncates to at most two, and probably one, bound radial excitation.
The states carry $IJ=00^+$ and $01^+$ and are degenerate spin-parity partners, a signature distinguishing them from pion-exchange molecules.

Reading between the lines

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

If the paper is right, the Efimov energy ratio $e^{-2\pi/\nu_0}\sim 10^{-3}$ predicts that any second radial excitation of the tetraquark should sit almost at threshold, so a dedicated search just below the two-meson threshold could confirm or rule out the tower.
The same sphaleron-binding construction should extend to other exotics, because the $1/\rho^2$ attraction is topological rather than flavor-specific; heavy pentaquarks or baryon-antibaryon states might bind the same way.
The repulsive $m_H$-dependent term explains why charm binds less than bottom; if confirmed, it suggests the charm tetraquark should be visibly narrower than conventional molecular states, a measurement-separable prediction.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague, here's my read on 1909.02497. The genuinely new idea is the extension of the same authors' instanton-plus-heavy-meson construction for baryons to the sphaleron sector of holographic QCD, interpreting QQ̄q̄q tetraquarks as Efimov states. That yields concrete binding energies for bb̄, bc̄, and cc̄ in Table I, plus a topological realization of the Savage-Wise symmetry. If correct, this is a new binding mechanism in hadron spectroscopy, not just another molecular model.

What the paper does well: the construction is a natural continuation of their earlier heavy baryon work, the comparisons to lattice and quark model estimates are honest, and the authors are upfront that the Efimov series truncates to at most two states. The citation pattern is fine—self-citation is expected in a program like this—though the heavy reliance on the companion paper [54] is exactly where the trouble starts.

The soft spots are not minor. The load-bearing step is the Efimov condition g0(0)+1/4 < 0, and it is not derived here. It depends entirely on the sphaleron path parameters α0,1,2(0) ≈ (+6, -0.034, +0.165) quoted from [54], with no sensitivity analysis. If those numbers shift a little, the inverse-square potential becomes repulsive and there are no Efimov tetraquarks.

There is also an internal inconsistency in the stated limit. The text says the minimal ν0 ≈ 6/5 occurs for mH → ∞. But in that limit Eq. (3) gives Q(0) → 0 because q(0)=0, so g0(0)+1/4 = 1/4 > 0. The Efimov condition cannot follow in that limit. The calculation presumably works only for finite mH where the λ/mH correction is large, but the paper never says so. This is not a matter of error bars; it is the central condition of the paper and needs to be fixed or explained.

Finally, the abstract I was given claims a fit to the Tcc+ and a width prediction, but the body text (the September 2019 v1) contains no such analysis. That abstract-body gap is a serious editorial problem and should be resolved in any revision.

Bottom line: the idea deserves a serious referee. A referee should go to [54], check the sphaleron parameters, ask about the mH limit, and require the abstract to match the body. I would not cite it yet, but I would bring it to a reading group if the companion paper is available.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that doubly heavy tetraquarks of the form QQ q̄ q̄ emerge as Efimov bound states in holographic QCD. The construction binds the lightest heavy-light meson multiplet (0^-,1^-) to a flavored sphaleron path in the Witten-Sakai-Sugimoto model, using the same charge formula previously derived for heavy baryons. The authors argue that for S-waves (l=0) and NQ ≤ 3 the inverse-square potential becomes attractive, g0(0)+1/4 < 0, producing an Efimov series. Their numerical results, Table I, give binding energies of order 0.04–0.11 GeV for bottom, bottom-charm, and charm tetraquarks, with the bottom state deepest, and they identify the states as non-molecular, strongly bound tetraquarks.

Significance. If the construction is correct, the paper provides a genuinely new mechanism for tetraquark binding: a holographic analogue of the Callan-Klebanov effect acting around a sphaleron rather than an instanton, with the Efimov phenomenon supplying the binding. The paper makes falsifiable quantitative predictions for the relative bindings of bb, bc, and cc tetraquarks and identifies specific quantum numbers IJ = 00,01. I checked one possible algebraic objection, namely that the m_H → ∞ limit of Eq. (3) would give Q(0)=0 and destroy the Efimov condition; this concern does not land, because only the λ/m_H term vanishes in that limit while the α1 and α2 terms survive. For the quoted sphaleron parameters and Nc=3, NQ=2, those terms yield g0(0)+1/4 < 0, so the paper's central condition is internally consistent. The main weaknesses are the mismatch between the abstract and the body, and the lack of a self-contained derivation and sensitivity analysis for the quantitative table.

major comments (2)

[Abstract and main text] The abstract claims that fixing the parameters of the model at the empirical mass of Tcc+ allows predictions for the bindings of bottom-charm and bottom tetraquarks, and that the charm binding is comparable to the Tcc+ value. The body contains no such fit: Table I is obtained from the sphaleron-path charge formula without any input from Tcc+ data, and the comparisons in Section 5 are made to lattice results [29] and quark-model estimates [28]. This is not a minor wording issue; the abstract advertises an empirical determination that the paper does not perform. The authors should either include the Tcc+ fit and the resulting predictions in the body, or revise the abstract to match the actual content of the paper.
[§5, Eqs. (6)–(8), Table I] The quantitative central claim rests on Table I, but the text gives no derivation of the entries. The passages 'A numerical analysis shows...' and 'Numerically, the minimal value ν0 ≈ 6/5 occurs...' are stated without displaying the values of m_H, M1 (or κ MKK), the resulting g0(0), or the renormalization prescription; the reader is referred to the companion paper [54] for these details. Furthermore, no sensitivity analysis is provided for the sphaleron parameters α0,1,2(0) ≈ (+6,-0.034,+0.165) quoted from [54]. Since the entire Efimov mechanism depends on the inequality g0(0)+1/4 < 0, a modest shift in α1 or α2 could change the sign and remove all predicted states. Please show the explicit inputs for the three rows of Table I and demonstrate that the predicted bindings are robust within the uncertainties of the companion paper.

minor comments (6)

[Section numbering] The paper contains two sections numbered 5, namely 'Holographic heavy tetraquark' and 'Efimov states'; the second should be renumbered as Section 6.
[Eq. (3)] The symbol NQ is first used in Eq. (3) but only defined later in the text as the number of bound mesons; please define it at first occurrence.
[Table I] The table header 'QQ¯q ¯q GeV' is ambiguous; please use explicit quark content such as QQ ar q ar q and indicate which column corresponds to which flavor combination.
[Notation] The text uses inconsistent notation for the tetraquark, sometimes 'QQ¯q¯q' and sometimes 'QQ¯q ¯q'; please harmonize the LaTeX so that the bars over the light quarks are clear.
[Section 6] There is a typo in 'supersymmertry' in the final paragraph; it should be 'supersymmetry'.
[Eq. (9)] Equation (9) gives the ratio of successive bound-state energies as e^{-2π/ν0}; please clarify the sign convention for e0,n0 since bound states should have negative energies.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Load-bearing Efimov parameters and renormalization are imported from the authors' companion paper [54], making the central derivation a self-citation chain.

self citation load bearing [Section 5 (Holographic heavy tetraquark), Eqs. (3), (6), (8), and Table I]
"only the values of the parameters entering the charge (3) for k = 0 (sphaleron path) are needed, i.e. α 0, 1, 2(0) ≈ (+6, −0. 034, +0. 165). ... More details regarding this construction are presented in [54]. ... For the details of the renormalization of the equation for the Efimov states we refer to [54], and here we only state the main results. Numerically, the minimal value ν0 ≈ 6 5 occurs on the sphaleron path, for Nc = 3, NQ = 2 and mH → ∞."

The bound-state condition g0(0)+1/4<0 in Eq. (8), the quoted value ν0≈6/5, and the binding energies in Table I all depend on the sphaleron charge parameters α0,1,2(0) and on the renormalization of the 1/ρ² potential. Both are explicitly delegated to [54], a companion paper by the same authors. The present letter does not derive these load-bearing inputs from its own equations; accepting the self-citation is what produces the Efimov tetraquarks. Thus the central 'holographic Efimov' prediction reduces to the authors' prior work rather than to a self-contained first-principles derivation. Independent lattice and quark-model comparisons for bottom tetraquarks provide external phenomenological support, but they do not validate the holographic mechanism imported from [54].

full rationale

The paper's own equations do not by themselves secure the Efimov condition: Eq. (8) requires g0(0)+1/4<0, and with l=0 Eq. (6) gives g0(0)=2m0Q(0). The charge Q(0) is taken from Eq. (3) with sphaleron parameters α0,1,2(0)≈(+6,−0.034,+0.165), and the renormalization that defines the bound states is relegated to [54]. Both are same-author companion papers, so the binding-energy table is not derived in this letter; it is imported from the authors' prior work. This is load-bearing self-citation, not a mere bibliographic courtesy. However, the paper compares its bottom-tetraquark binding to independent lattice and quark-model estimates, and the λ/flavor dependence in Table I is a specific, falsifiable output. The claim is therefore not equivalent to its inputs by construction, and the central idea retains independent phenomenological content. The abstract's statement that parameters are fixed to the empirical Tcc+ mass is not implemented in the body; if it had been, the cc entry would be an input rather than a prediction, while the bc and bb entries would still be genuine extrapolations. On balance, the derivation is partially reliant on unshown same-author results, but not fully circular; score 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the holographic model, the extension of the meson-soliton binding formula from instantons to sphalerons, and three numerical parameters taken from companion papers. No new free parameters are fitted to tetraquark data in the body text, but λ, m_H, and M1 are external model inputs with unstated numerical values.

free parameters (4)

't Hooft coupling λ = 10, 15, 20 (chosen range)
Binding energies in Table I are evaluated at these three values; the paper does not determine λ independently.
heavy-light meson mass m_H = not specified numerically
Mass of the (0-,1-) multiplet that binds to the sphaleron; taken from the heavy baryon sector [39], but the numerical values used for Table I are not stated.
sphaleron path parameters α0, α1, α2 = +6, -0.034, +0.165
Quoted from companion paper [54]; these numbers determine the sign and strength of the inverse-square potential and hence the existence of Efimov states.
instanton mass scale M1 ~ κ M_KK = not specified
Sets the energy scale; fixed in the heavy baryon sector, but the specific value is not given in this paper.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The Witten-Sakai-Sugimoto model is a valid holographic description of large-Nc QCD at strong coupling.
The entire calculation is done in this model; no validation is repeated here.
ad hoc to paper The heavy-light meson multiplet couples to the sphaleron through the same charge formula (3) derived for the instanton in [39].
This extension from instanton to sphaleron is the core modeling step; it is stated without derivation in this paper.
ad hoc to paper The sphaleron path values α0,1,2(0) ≈ (+6, -0.034, +0.165) produce g0(0)+1/4 < 0, so the inverse-square potential is attractive enough for an Efimov series.
The existence of bound states hinges on this numerical condition, which is quoted from [54] and not re-derived.
domain assumption The heavy quark limit with leading λ/m_H corrections is sufficient for the binding energies.
The paper keeps only the leading heavy mass correction in Eq. (3) and assumes the Efimov spectrum from the singular potential is not destabilized.

invented entities (1)

Holographic tetraquark molecule (heavy meson multiplet bound to a flavored sphaleron) independent evidence
purpose: Provides a topological mechanism for a bosonic tetraquark state with quantum numbers 00+/01+.
The predicted binding energies in Table I are a falsifiable handle, although they depend on model parameters not independently determined here.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Holographic tetraquarks and the newly observed $T_{cc}^{+}$ at LHCb." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P5N7K3XT

@misc{pith2026190902497,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Holographic tetraquarks and the newly observed $T_cc^+$ at LHCb},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P5N7K3XT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02497}
}

abstract

We describe a heavy and exotic tetraquark state as a holographic molecule, by binding the lightest heavy-light meson $(0^-, 1^-)$ multiplet to a flavored sphaleron, in the bulk of the Witten-Sakai-Sugimoto model. Bound tetraquark states emerge as Efimov states in the heavy quark limit, with a binding energy for charm tetraquark comparable to the $T_{cc}^+$ recently reported by the LHCb, but a substantially smaller width, for a large but finite $^\prime$t Hooft coupling. Fixing the parameters of the model at the empirical mass of $T_{cc}^+$ allows us to predict the bindings of the undiscovered so far bottom-charm and bottom tetraquarks, when interpreted as Efimov states.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

Exploring the spectroscopic features of double-strangeness tetraquark states
hep-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Model calculations suggest a bound double-strange tetraquark state with I(JP)=0(1+) at about 1310 MeV and a resonance near 1783 MeV.
Engineering Confining Dilatons: A WKB Inverse Problem in Holographic QCD
hep-ph 2025-09 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

A WKB inversion of power-law Regge trajectories yields a non-quadratic holographic dilaton Φ(z)=(κz)^(2−α) that the authors then test on charmonium, bottomonium, and tetraquark candidates.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[54]

Sonnenschein and D

J. Sonnenschein and D. Weissman, Nucl. Phys. B 920 (2017) 319

work page 2017
[29]

Liu and I

Y. Liu and I. Zahed, Phys. Lett. B 762, 362 (2016); Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 26, 1740017 (2017); Phys. Lett. B 769, 314 (2017)

work page 2016
[28]

E. S. Swanson, Phys. Rept. 429, 243 (2006)

2006
[1]

These hadrons embody in a remarkable way some key aspects of QCD: the sponta- neous breaking of chiral symmetry for the light quarks, and a heavy quark spin ﬂip symmetr [7, 8]

Introduction Hadrons composed of heavy ( Q) and light ( q) quarks have received considerable interest lately, due to the ﬂurry of results stemming from electron and hadron colliders [1–6]. These hadrons embody in a remarkable way some key aspects of QCD: the sponta- neous breaking of chiral symmetry for the light quarks, and a heavy quark spin ﬂip symmetr...

work page
[2]

The meson eﬀective theory is chieﬂy chiral, consisting of the light mesons

Strange solitonic baryons In the large number of colors limit, QCD truncates to an eﬀective theory of weakly coupled mesons where baryons are solitons. The meson eﬀective theory is chieﬂy chiral, consisting of the light mesons. Once the eﬀective mesonic description is ﬁxed, the baryonic description follows with no new parameters. The soliton is usually ch...

work page
[3]

Conﬁnement follows from a stack of colored D4-branes, in the double limit of a large number of colors and strong coupling, with the string tension ﬁxed by the apparent horizon

Holographic light baryons In holographic QCD, conﬁnement and chiral symmetry breaking can be addressed simultaneously for instance in the Witten- Sakai-Sugimoto model [33]. Conﬁnement follows from a stack of colored D4-branes, in the double limit of a large number of colors and strong coupling, with the string tension ﬁxed by the apparent horizon. The spo...

work page
[4]

The inertial parameters are mk=1 = 16 π 2aNc, ω 2 k=1 = 1 6

The k = 1 labels the instanton path with topological charge 1. The inertial parameters are mk=1 = 16 π 2aNc, ω 2 k=1 = 1 6 . The charge Q(k = 1) = Nc/ (40π 2a) with a = 1 / (216π 3), characterizes the U(1) topological self- repulsion within the instanton. The ﬁrst two contributions in (1) are the kinetic Lapla- cian in R4, and the last harmonic contributi...

work page
[5]

Heavy baryons emerge by binding a 5-dimensional (0 −, 1−) spin-1 multiplet to the ﬂavored instanton in bulk

Holographic exotic baryons Recently, two of us extended the holographic approach to the descrip- tion of heavy-light mesons and baryons with manifest chiral and heavy quark symmetry [39]. Heavy baryons emerge by binding a 5-dimensional (0 −, 1−) spin-1 multiplet to the ﬂavored instanton in bulk. In the heavy mass limit, the spin-1 meson transmutes to a sp...

work page

Show all 67 references

[6]

Holographic heavy tetraquark The pre- dicted tetraquark in the context of the quark model is more challenging to describe using a topological molec- ular formulation since it is a boson and not a fermion. Here we propose to bind a heavy multiplet (0 −, 1−) to a sphaleron path ...
[7]

The explicit tetraquark states can now be obtained by seeking the eigenstates of (1) for k = 0

More details regarding this construction are presented in [54]. The explicit tetraquark states can now be obtained by seeking the eigenstates of (1) for k = 0. Speciﬁ- cally, the radial equation for the reduced wavefunction Rnl = unl/ρ 3 2 following from (1) after inserting (3...
[8]

The quantization condition converts this continuous symme- try into a discrete one - the states accumulate at the rate e0, (n+1)0 e0,n 0 = e− 2π ν 0 (9) with ν0 = √ −1/ 4 − g0(0)

Eﬁmov states For small distances and S-waves, (6) reduces to −u′′ n0 + g0(0) ρ2 un0 ≈ e0,n 0 un0 (8) For g0(0) + 1 4 < 0, the potential in (8) is singular but attractive and leads a priori to inﬁnitely many bound states, due to the conformal or scale invariance. The quantizati...
[9]

For bottom tetraquarks the binding appears to be consistent with recent estimates based on the quark model, and persists for charm tetraquarks although in a weaker form

Discussions and conclusions We have sug- gested that a heavy and strongly coupled tetraquark emerges in holography as an Eﬁmov state by binding a heavy meson multiplet (0 −, 1−) to a sphaleron path in D8-D¯ 8, with quantum numbers (00 +, 01+). For bottom tetraquarks the bindin...

2017
[10]

Bondar et al

A. Bondar et al. [Belle Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 122001 (2012)

2012
[11]

Ablikim et al

M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 252001 (2013)

2013
[12]

V. M. Abazov et al. [D0 Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, no. 2, 022003 (2016)

2016
[13]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, no. 2, 022003 (2017)

2017
[14]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015) 072001

2015
[15]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, no. 18, 182001 (2017)

2017
[16]

E. V. Shuryak, Nucl. Phys. B 198, 83 (1982); N. Isgur and M. B. Wise, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66 (1991) 1130

1982
[17]

M. A. Nowak, I. Zahed and M. Rho, Phys. Lett. B 303, 130 (1993) 5

1993
[18]

M. A. Nowak, M. Rho and I. Zahed, Phys. Rev. D 48, 4370 (1993) M. A. Nowak, M. Rho and I. Zahed, Acta Phys. Polon. B 35, 2377 (2004)

1993
[19]

W. A. Bardeen and C. T. Hill, Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994) 409 W. A. Bardeen, E. J. Eichten and C. T. Hill, Phys. Rev. D 68, 054024 (2003)

1994
[20]

Aubert et al

B. Aubert et al. [BaBar Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 242001 (2003)

2003
[21]

Besson et al

D. Besson et al. [CLEO Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 68, 032002 (2003) Erratum: [Phys. Rev. D 75, 119908 (2007)]

2003
[22]

M. B. Voloshin and L. B. Okun, JETP Lett. 23, 333 (1976) [Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 23, 369 (1976)]

1976
[23]

N. A. Tornqvist, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 556 (1991); N. A. Tornqvist, Phys. Lett. B 590, 209 (2004)

1991
[24]

Karliner and J

M. Karliner and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015) no.12, 122001; M. Karliner, Acta Phys. Polon. B 47, 117 (2016)

2015
[25]

C. E. Thomas and F. E. Close, Phys. Rev. D 78, 034007 (2008)

2008
[26]

Ohkoda, Y

S. Ohkoda, Y. Yamaguchi, S. Yasui, K. Sudoh and A. Hosaka, Phys. Rev. D 86, 034019 (2012)

2012
[27]

M. T. AlFiky, F. Gabbiani and A. A. Petrov, Phys. Lett. B 640, 238 (2006); I. W. Lee, A. Faessler, T. Gutsche and V. E. Lyubovitskij, Phys. Rev. D 80, 094005 (2009); M. Cleven, F. K. Guo, C. Hanhart and U. G. Meiss- ner, Eur. Phys. J. A 47, 120 (2011); X. W. Kang and J. A. Oll...

2006
[30]

J. P. Ader, J. M. Richard and P. Taxil, Phys. Rev. D 25, 2370 (1982); S. Zouzou, B. Silvestre-Brac, C. Gignoux and J. M. Richard, Z. Phys. C 30, 457 (1986)

1982
[31]

A. V. Manohar and M. B. Wise, Nucl. Phys. B 399, 17 (1993); N. Brambilla et al. , Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1534 (2011); J. M. Richard, Few Body Syst. 57, no. 12, 1185 (2016)

1993
[32]

D. O. Riska and N. N. Scoccola, Phys. Lett. B 299, 338 (1993)

1993
[33]

Nielsen, F

M. Nielsen, F. S. Navarra and S. H. Lee, Phys. Rept. 497, 41 (2010)

2010
[34]

Chernyshev, M

S. Chernyshev, M. A. Nowak and I. Zahed, Phys. Rev. D 53, 5176 (1996)

1996
[35]

M. J. Savage and M. B. Wise, Phys. Lett. B 248, 177 (1990)

1990
[36]

Karliner, EPJ Web Conf

M. Karliner, EPJ Web Conf. 130, 01003 (2016)

2016
[37]

Karliner, J

M. Karliner, J. L. Rosner and T. Skwarnicki, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 68, 17 (2018); M. Karliner and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, no. 20, 202001 (2017); E. J. Eichten and C. Quigg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, no. 20, 202002 (2017); A. Czarnecki, B. Leng and M. B. Voloshin, ...

2018
[38]

Francis, R

A. Francis, R. J. Hudspith, R. Lewis and K. Maltman, Phys. Rev. D 99, no. 5, 054505 (2019)

2019
[39]

J. M. Maldacena, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 38, 1113 (1999) [Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 231 (1998)]; E. Witten, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 505 (1998)

1999
[40]

Erlich, E

J. Erlich, E. Katz, D. T. Son and M. A. Stephanov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 261602 (2005); L. Da Rold and A. Po- marol, Nucl. Phys. B 721, 79 (2005)

2005
[41]

S. Hong, S. Yoon and M. J. Strassler, JHEP 0604, 003 (2006); N. R. F. Braga, M. A. Martin Contreras and S. Diles, Europhys. Lett. 115, no. 3, 31002 (2016)

2006
[42]

Sakai and S

T. Sakai and S. Sugimoto, Prog. Theor. Phys. 113, 843 (2005); Prog. Theor. Phys. 114, 1083 (2005)

2005
[43]

H. Hata, T. Sakai, S. Sugimoto and S. Yamato, Prog. Theor. Phys. 117 (2007) 1157

2007
[44]

Hashimoto, T

K. Hashimoto, T. Sakai and S. Sugimoto, Prog. Theor. Phys. 120 (2008) 1093; K. Y. Kim and I. Zahed, JHEP 0809, 007 (2008)

2008
[45]

Hata and M

H. Hata and M. Murata, Prog. Theor. Phys. 119, 461 (2008)

2008
[46]

Hashimoto, N

K. Hashimoto, N. Iizuka, T. Ishii and D. Kadoh, Phys. Lett. B 691, 65 (2010)

2010
[47]

P. H. C. Lau and S. Sugimoto, Phys. Rev. D 95, no. 12, 126007 (2017)

2017
[48]

Liu and I

Y. Liu and I. Zahed, Phys. Rev. D 95, no. 5, 056022 (2017); Phys. Lett. B 769, 314 (2017); Phys. Rev. D 95, no. 11, 116012 (2017)

2017
[49]

Paredes and P

A. Paredes and P. Talavera, Nucl. Phys. B 713, 438 (2005); J. Erdmenger, N. Evans and J. Grosse, JHEP 0701, 098 (2007); C. P. Herzog, S. A. Stricker and A. Vuorinen, JHEP 0805, 070 (2008); Y. Bai and H. C. Cheng, JHEP 1308, 074 (2013); K. Hashimoto, N. Ogawa and Y. Yamaguchi, ...

2005
[50]

S. w. Li, Phys. Rev. D 96, no. 10, 106018 (2017)

2017
[51]

C. G. Callan, Jr. and I. R. Klebanov, Nucl. Phys. B 262, 365 (1985)

1985
[52]

Zahed and G

I. Zahed and G. E. Brown, Phys. Rept. 142, 1 (1986); Multifaceted Skyrmion, Eds. M. Rho and I. Zahed, World Scientiﬁc, 2016

1986
[53]

Rossi and G

G. Rossi and G. Veneziano, JHEP 1606, 041 (2016)

2016
[55]

H. G. Dosch, G. F. de Teramond and S. J. Brodsky, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) no.7, 074010

2015
[56]

M. Rho, D. O. Riska and N. N. Scoccola, Z. Phys. A 341, 343 (1992); J. Schechter, A. Subbaraman, S. Vaidya and H. Weigel, Nucl. Phys. A 590, 655 (1995) Erratum: [Nucl. Phys. A 598, 583 (1996)]; N. Itzhaki, I. R. Klebanov, P. Ouyang and L. Rastelli, Nucl. Phys. B 684, 264 (2004...

1992
[57]

N. N. Scoccola, D. O. Riska and M. Rho, Phys. Rev. D 92, no. 5, 051501 (2015)

2015
[58]

M. A. Nowak, M. Praszalowicz, M. Sadzikowski and J. Wasiluk, Phys. Rev. D 70, 031503 (2004)

2004
[59]

Fujiwara, T

T. Fujiwara, T. Kugo, H. Terao, S. Uehara and K. Ya- mawaki, Prog. Theor. Phys. 73, 926 (1985)

1985
[60]

Luscher, Phys

M. Luscher, Phys. Lett. 70B, 321 (1977). B. M. Schechter, Phys. Rev. D 16, 3015 (1977)

1977
[61]

D. M. Ostrovsky, G. W. Carter and E. V. Shuryak, Phys. Rev. D 66, 036004 (2002)

2002
[62]

Shuryak and I

E. Shuryak and I. Zahed, Phys. Rev. D 67, 014006 (2003)

2003
[63]

Y. Liu, M. A. Nowak and I. Zahed, arXiv:1904.05189 [hep-ph]

1904 arXiv
[64]

Eﬁmov, Phys

V. Eﬁmov, Phys. Lett. 33B, 563 (1970)

1970
[65]

Naidon and S

P. Naidon and S. Endo, Rept. Prog. Phys. 80, no. 5, 056001 (2017)

2017
[66]

S. R. Beane, P. F. Bedaque, L. Childress, A. Kryjevski, J. McGuire and U. van Kolck, Phys. Rev. A 64, 042103 (2001); E. Braaten and D. Phillips, Phys. Rev. A 70, 052111 (2004)

2001
[67]

Stoll and T

M. Stoll and T. Kohler, Phys. Rev. A 72 , 022714 (2005)

2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [54]

Sonnenschein and D

J. Sonnenschein and D. Weissman, Nucl. Phys. B 920 (2017) 319

work page 2017

[2] [29]

Liu and I

Y. Liu and I. Zahed, Phys. Lett. B 762, 362 (2016); Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 26, 1740017 (2017); Phys. Lett. B 769, 314 (2017)

work page 2016

[3] [28]

E. S. Swanson, Phys. Rept. 429, 243 (2006)

2006

[4] [1]

These hadrons embody in a remarkable way some key aspects of QCD: the sponta- neous breaking of chiral symmetry for the light quarks, and a heavy quark spin ﬂip symmetr [7, 8]

Introduction Hadrons composed of heavy ( Q) and light ( q) quarks have received considerable interest lately, due to the ﬂurry of results stemming from electron and hadron colliders [1–6]. These hadrons embody in a remarkable way some key aspects of QCD: the sponta- neous breaking of chiral symmetry for the light quarks, and a heavy quark spin ﬂip symmetr...

work page

[5] [2]

The meson eﬀective theory is chieﬂy chiral, consisting of the light mesons

Strange solitonic baryons In the large number of colors limit, QCD truncates to an eﬀective theory of weakly coupled mesons where baryons are solitons. The meson eﬀective theory is chieﬂy chiral, consisting of the light mesons. Once the eﬀective mesonic description is ﬁxed, the baryonic description follows with no new parameters. The soliton is usually ch...

work page

[6] [3]

Conﬁnement follows from a stack of colored D4-branes, in the double limit of a large number of colors and strong coupling, with the string tension ﬁxed by the apparent horizon

Holographic light baryons In holographic QCD, conﬁnement and chiral symmetry breaking can be addressed simultaneously for instance in the Witten- Sakai-Sugimoto model [33]. Conﬁnement follows from a stack of colored D4-branes, in the double limit of a large number of colors and strong coupling, with the string tension ﬁxed by the apparent horizon. The spo...

work page

[7] [4]

The inertial parameters are mk=1 = 16 π 2aNc, ω 2 k=1 = 1 6

The k = 1 labels the instanton path with topological charge 1. The inertial parameters are mk=1 = 16 π 2aNc, ω 2 k=1 = 1 6 . The charge Q(k = 1) = Nc/ (40π 2a) with a = 1 / (216π 3), characterizes the U(1) topological self- repulsion within the instanton. The ﬁrst two contributions in (1) are the kinetic Lapla- cian in R4, and the last harmonic contributi...

work page

[8] [5]

Heavy baryons emerge by binding a 5-dimensional (0 −, 1−) spin-1 multiplet to the ﬂavored instanton in bulk

Holographic exotic baryons Recently, two of us extended the holographic approach to the descrip- tion of heavy-light mesons and baryons with manifest chiral and heavy quark symmetry [39]. Heavy baryons emerge by binding a 5-dimensional (0 −, 1−) spin-1 multiplet to the ﬂavored instanton in bulk. In the heavy mass limit, the spin-1 meson transmutes to a sp...

work page