Finding a clean process $B^- \to K^- D^0 K^0$ to probe absolutely exotic four-quark states

Dian-Yong Chen; En Wang; Guan-Ying Wang; Man-Yu Duan; Xiang Liu; Yun Liang

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 41 references

Finding a clean process $B^- \to K^- D^0 K^0$ to probe absolutely exotic four-quark states

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper predicts that Tcs0(2900)^0, treated as a D*0K*0 molecule, contributes a (9.72±3.92)% fit fraction to the D0K0 invariant mass spectrum of B−→K−D0K0, making that decay a clean discriminator between molecular and compact-tetraquark i

desk verdict Good clean-channel proposal, but the 'predicted' fit fraction is a fit output and the paper never shows the Tcs signal is actually required. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.01382 v2 pith:SYV3AWXR submitted 2026-01-04 hep-ph

Man-Yu Duan , Guan-Ying Wang , Yun Liang , En Wang , Xiang Liu , Dian-Yong Chen This is my paper

classification hep-ph

keywords Tcs0(2900)tetraquarkD*K*moleculeexotichadronBmesondecayinvariantmassspectrumspectroscopymolecularstate

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 proposes B−→K−D0K0 as the cleanest place to look for the exotic four-quark state Tcs0(2900)^0. If Tcs0(2900)^0 is a D*0K*0 molecule, the authors find it should leave a clear peak in the D0K0 mass spectrum, with a fit fraction of about (9.72±3.92)%, and that this channel is free of the conventional-meson backgrounds that clutter other B decays. A fit to the existing data reproduces the measured K−K0, D0K0, and D0K− distributions with χ²/d.o.f. ≈ 1.07. Because the D0K0 final state receives contributions only from isovector exotics, this process could settle whether Tcs0(2900)^0 is a molecular state or a compact tetraquark.

What carries the argument

The central object is Tcs0(2900)^0 as a D*0K*0 molecular state. The key machinery is the coupled production-decay amplitude: B− emits a D*0K*0 pair via external W emission, the pair rescatters through a two-meson loop into the molecular resonance, and the resonance propagates through a Breit-Wigner and decays to D0K0. The D*0K*0 coupling is fixed by the compositeness condition with λ̃=1, and the D0K0 coupling is fixed by the assumed 65% branching fraction; the loop integral is regularized dimensionally and includes K* width effects. The resulting amplitude, combined with rho/a0 background amplitudes and fitted to data, carries the argument.

What would settle it

A high-statistics measurement of the D0K0 invariant mass distribution in B−→K−D0K0: if no peak near 2892 MeV with a fit fraction around 10% emerges, or if the spectrum can be described equally well without Tcs0(2900)^0, the molecular interpretation fails. A model-independent check would extract the resonance parameters and compare the width and line shape to the molecular prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Treating Tcs0(2900)^0 as an S-wave D*0K*0 molecule, the paper shows that the decay B−→K−D0K0 proceeds through the production and rescattering of D*0K*0 into the molecular state, which then decays to D0K0. Including rho(770), rho(1450), and a0(980) contributions to the K−K0 system, the model fits the reported invariant mass distributions well and attributes a (9.72±3.92)% fit fraction to Tcs0(2900)^0 in the D0K0 spectrum. The authors argue this channel is clean because only possible isovector states like Tcs0(2900)^0 contribute; conventional charmed-strange mesons, the isoscalar X0,1(2900) states, and charmonium backgrounds are all absent.

Load-bearing premise

The prediction rests on Tcs0(2900)^0 being a purely molecular D*0K*0 state (λ̃=1) with a 65% branching fraction to D0K0; if the state has a compact tetraquark core or a different DK coupling, the predicted signal and fit fraction change, and the fit cannot tell them apart because the signal is just a Breit-Wigner peak.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the molecular picture is correct, a high-statistics measurement of B−→K−D0K0 should reveal a D0K0 enhancement near 2892 MeV with a fit fraction around (9.72±3.92)%.
Because the D0K0 channel excludes conventional-meson backgrounds, observing that peak would be direct evidence for an absolutely exotic four-quark state.
The K−K0 near-threshold structure is explained by rho and a0 contributions, so the D0K0 peak is the only exotic signature needed in this decay.
Comparing the measured D0K0 line shape to the predicted molecular production amplitude would help distinguish D*K* molecules from compact tetraquarks or threshold effects.
The D0K− spectrum is reproduced through interference among the included resonances, implying no additional state is needed there.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural extension is to apply the same rescattering-plus-Breit-Wigner analysis to the charged partner Tcs0(2900)++ in a comparably clean final state, which would test isospin symmetry of the molecular picture.
Because the signal is a Breit-Wigner built from the molecular hypothesis, confirming the interpretation likely requires matching not just the peak position but also the predicted width and normalization; a compact-tetraquark model might produce a similar peak, so production rates in multiple channels would be needed.
The near-flat projection of the molecular state onto the K−K0 spectrum means future analyses can concentrate statistics on the D0K0 observable rather than the crowded K−K0 region.
A testable extension would compute the same fit fraction in a compact-tetraquark model; if the two predictions differ by more than the quoted uncertainty, this channel becomes a direct experimental arbiter between the two pictures.

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

Short version: the channel choice is sensible and worth pursuing, but the central quantitative claim — a (9.72±3.92)% fit fraction — is not a prediction of the molecular model. It is a fit output controlled by the free parameter a4, fitted to the very Belle II D0K0 distribution the paper says it explains. The paper never shows a fit with a4=0, so we don't know if the Tcs0 peak is statistically required.

What is genuinely new: the use of B−→K−D0K0 as a clean probe. The arguments for cleanliness — no charmonium states, no X0,1(2900), only isovector contributions — are sound. The fit to the Belle II spectra looks reasonable (χ2/dof=1.07), and the authors are transparent about listing a4 as a free parameter. The machinery (compositeness, loop functions, spectral convolution) is standard and not mishandled in any obvious way.

The soft spots are the ones you'd expect. First, the 'estimate' language in the abstract is misleading: the fit fraction is a fit output, not a prediction. The molecular model fixes the line shape, not the rate. Second, there is no no-signal fit and no Δχ2, so the significance of the Tcs0 term is unquantified. Third, the model includes only the resonant contributions; no nonresonant background term is allowed, which could bias the whole fit. Fourth, the uncertainty on R only includes a4 and B(B−→K−D0K0); the compositeness coupling, the assumed 65% DK branching fraction, and the loop parameters α and μ are not propagated, and some are taken from the authors' own earlier papers. Fifth, Eq. (8) defines the reduced mass with D0 and K0 masses instead of D* and K* — likely a typo, but it changes the coupling if taken literally. Finally, the paper's claim that this channel can discriminate molecular vs compact tetraquark pictures is not backed by analysis: a compact tetraquark with the same J^P, mass, and width would give a very similar BW peak in D0K0, and no comparison is made.

None of these are fatal to the basic suggestion. The channel is interesting and the fit is a legitimate first look. But as it stands, the evidence for the Tcs contribution is inconclusive.

Who gets value: hadron spectroscopy phenomenologists and the Belle II/LHCb groups looking for Tcs0(2900) in B decays. I would send it to a referee — the idea deserves the attention.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes B−→K−D0K0 as a clean channel to search for the neutral T_cλs0(2900)^0 in the D*K* molecular picture. The authors construct an amplitude containing a T_cλs0(2900)^0 contribution with a loop-modified Breit-Wigner shape, together with ρ(770), ρ(1450), and a0(980) contributions, and fit the Belle II invariant mass distributions for K−K0, D0K0, and D0K−. They report a good fit (χ²/d.o.f. = 1.07) and a T_cλs0(2900)^0 fit fraction R = (9.72±3.92)%, arguing that this establishes a significant molecular component and that the channel can help distinguish molecular from compact-tetraquark interpretations.

Significance. If the molecular interpretation and the quantitative claim were robust, this would be a valuable contribution: the channel B−→K−D0K0 is indeed cleaner than previously considered final states, with no charmonium or isoscalar X0,1(2900) background, and the fit achieves a good description of three measured spectra. The paper also incorporates the K* width via a convolution, which is a physically sensible refinement. However, the central quantitative claim is weakened by the fact that the T_cλs0 amplitude normalization is a free fit parameter, and the analysis does not yet demonstrate that the data require the T_cλs0 term or prefer the molecular line shape over a compact-tetraquark Breit-Wigner. The strengths are the clear identification of a promising experimental channel and a reasonable phenomenological model for the background resonances.

major comments (4)

[Numerical results, Eq. (11), Table I] The T_cλs0(2900)^0 amplitude in Eq. (11) contains the free parameter a4, which is fitted to the same Belle II D0K0 distribution that the paper then claims the T_cλs0 state explains. Consequently the quoted fit fraction R=(9.72±3.92)% is an output of the fit, not a prediction of the molecular model. To support the central claim, the authors should report the fit without the T_cλs0 term (a4=0) and give the change in χ² or a likelihood-ratio test. Without this, the statement that T_cλs0 is 'essential for describing the D0K0 invariant mass distribution' is not established.
[Summary and numerical results] The paper claims that the analysis can help clarify the nature of T_cλs0(2900) and discriminate between molecular and compact-tetraquark interpretations, but no such discrimination is demonstrated. The T_cλs0 line shape in Eq. (11) is a loop-modified Breit-Wigner with a free normalization; a compact tetraquark of the same mass, width and J^P=0^+ would produce a nearly identical Breit-Wigner peak in D0K0. The authors should fit the data with a pure Breit-Wigner for the T_cλs0 signal and compare the fit quality or the extracted parameters. In the present form, the data description cannot distinguish the two scenarios.
[Model, Eq. (3) and numerical results] No nonresonant background is included in the amplitude. The fit includes only resonant contributions (ρ, ρ′, a0, T_cλs0), but B-decay Dalitz plots typically contain a smooth nonresonant component. If such a component is present, the fitted a4 (and therefore the T_cλs0 fit fraction) may absorb part of the background. The authors should test the stability of R by adding a constant or phase-space-motivated nonresonant amplitude to the fit, or explicitly justify its omission.
[Uncertainties, Eq. (8), Eq. (9)] The quoted uncertainty on R, stated to arise from the fitting error of a4 and the experimental uncertainty in B(B−→K−D0K0), omits important model dependences. In particular, the assumed branching fraction B(T_cλs0→D0K0)=65% (from Ref. [11], which gives 60–70%), the loop parameters α and μ, the compositeness parameter λ̃, and the K* width smearing all enter the T_cλs0 amplitude or coupling and are not varied. The uncertainty on R is therefore likely underestimated. The authors should propagate these model uncertainties or at least show the sensitivity of R to the B=60–70% range and to reasonable variations of α and μ.

minor comments (4)

[Eq. (2) and surrounding text] The sentence 'The function G(MD0K0, mD0, mK0) is the two-meson loop integral for the D0K0 intermediate state' appears to be a typo: the arguments in Eq. (2) are (M_D0K0, m_D*0, m_K*0), and the loop is for the D*K* intermediate state, not D0K0.
[Eq. (8)] The reduced mass μ is defined as m_D0 m_K0/(m_D*0 + m_K*0), but for a D*K* molecular state one would expect μ = m_D*0 m_K*0/(m_D*0 + m_K*0). Please clarify why the D0 and K0 masses are used in the compositeness condition rather than the constituent D* and K* masses.
[Fig. 4] The purple curves in panels (a) and (c) are described as the projection of the T_cλs0 contribution, but the curve in panel (a) appears nearly flat and close to zero in the plotted range. This is plausible given the Dalitz projection, but a brief explanation or a logarithmic inset would help the reader see what the T_cλs0 contribution actually does in K−K0 and D0K− spectra.
[Table I] The parameters a1, a2, a3 and a4 have different dimensions, but the table gives no units or indication of the dimension of each coefficient. Adding a column with units (or stating that the ai are in GeV with the appropriate power) would improve readability.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The headline fit fraction is a free-parameter fit output, not a molecular-model prediction.

fitted input called prediction [Eq. (11), Table I, and 'Numerical results' (fit fraction R = (9.72±3.92)%)]
"For convenience in fitting, we recast the Tc¯s0(2900)0 amplitude [Eq. (3)] as tT0c¯s0 = a4 G(MD0K0,mD∗0,mK∗0) gT0c¯s0D∗0K∗0 gT0c¯s0D0K0 /(M2D0K0−m2T0c¯s0+imT0c¯s0ΓT0c¯s0) (11), where a4 absorbs the overall constant 3C21. ... The coupling strengths ai (i=1,...,4) and relative phases ϕi (i=1,...,3) are treated as free parameters, determined by fitting the K−K0, D0K0, and D0K− invariant mass distributions from the Belle II Collaboration [37]."

The central quantitative claim—that Tc¯s0(2900)0 has a fit fraction of (9.72±3.92)% in B−→K−D0K0—is obtained by fitting the a4-normalized Tcs amplitude to the very Belle II D0K0 distribution it is then used to explain. Since a4 is a free parameter, the molecular model fixes only the line shape (through G and the Breit-Wigner denominator), not the rate or statistical significance. The quoted R is therefore a curve-fit output, not an independent prediction of the molecular hypothesis. No fit with a4=0 or with a pure Breit-Wigner of the same mass and width is shown, so the data cannot be said to require the molecular line shape or to discriminate it from a compact tetraquark peak.

full rationale

The paper's main evidence for the molecular interpretation is the D0K0 fit fraction R=(9.72±3.92)%. That number is not derived from the molecular hypothesis alone: the Tcs amplitude in Eq. (11) contains a free normalization a4, fitted to the Belle II data (Table I). Thus the 'estimate' reduces to a fit output, with the model supplying only a modified line shape. The paper does not report a no-Tcs fit, a significance test for a4, or a comparison with a compact-tetraquark Breit-Wigner, so the claim that the data establish a significant molecular contribution is not supported. Other inputs (loop parameters, compositeness coupling, and the 65% DK branching fraction) come from prior work by the same group, but because a4 absorbs the overall rate they are not the main source of circularity. The proposed channel itself is a legitimate and testable idea; the circularity is specifically that the headline numerical result is the output of a fit to the data it claims to predict. Hence a moderate score of 6, rather than higher, because the line-shape calculation and the process suggestion are independent content, while the evidential prediction is not.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces; Tcs0(2900)^0 is already experimentally observed. The main external inputs are the molecular hypothesis, the compositeness condition, the assumed DK branching fraction, and a set of free amplitudes fitted to Belle II data. These choices carry most of the model dependence in the quoted fit fraction.

free parameters (9)

a1 (ρ(770) strength) = 1115.41 ± 153.66
Free normalization of the ρ(770) contribution, fitted to Belle II K−K0 and D0K− invariant mass distributions.
a2 (ρ(1450) strength) = 317.62 ± 16.51
Free normalization of the ρ(1450) contribution, fitted to the same Belle II distributions.
a3 (a0(980) strength) = 1388.11 ± 88.46
Free normalization of the a0(980) contribution, fitted to the same Belle II distributions.
a4 (Tcs0(2900)^0 strength) = 4868.88 ± 962.05
Overall strength of the Tcs0(2900)^0 amplitude in Eq. (11). This parameter is fitted to the D0K0 data and directly controls the quoted fit fraction.
Relative phases φ1, φ2, φ3 = 0.97 ± 0.12, 6.25 ± 2.60, 2.95 ± 0.43
Relative phases between the four resonant amplitudes, fitted to the data.
Loop subtraction constant α = -1.474
Subtraction constant in the dimensional-regularized loop function, taken from previous D*K* studies (Refs. 15, 23, 24) by the same group. It is a fitted input from other analyses and is not varied in the uncertainty estimate.
Loop regularization scale μ = 1500 MeV
Scale in the loop function, chosen from prior D*K* studies. The numerical results depend on this choice.
Compositeness parameter λ̃ = 1
Set to 1, i.e. a purely molecular D*K* bound state. No uncertainty from this assumption is propagated.
Assumed branching fraction B(Tcs0→D0K0) = 65%
Taken as the central value of Ref [11], whose authors overlap with this paper. It fixes the DK coupling and therefore the signal normalization; no independent determination is cited.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption External W-emission factorization of B−→K−D*0K*0
Eq. (1) assumes the color-favored external W-emission diagram in Fig. 1(a) dominates the production amplitude; penguin and other diagrams are not considered.
standard math Effective J=0 projection V(0)=1/3 δij
Follows Refs [19,20] for projecting vector-vector systems onto scalar quantum numbers. Standard in this framework but model-dependent for the molecular vertex.
standard math Weinberg compositeness condition
Eq. (8) uses the Weinberg compositeness relation to fix the Tcs0→D*K* coupling, assuming a purely molecular bound state.
domain assumption Dimensional regularized loop function with fixed α and μ
Eq. (5) uses subtraction constant and scale taken from previous D*K* studies; the loop amplitude and hence fit fraction depend on these choices.
domain assumption No nonresonant background and only four resonances
The total amplitude in Eq. (12) contains no background term and only ρ(770), ρ(1450), a0(980), and Tcs0(2900)^0. This is not justified and could bias the fitted Tcs0 fraction.
standard math K* finite-width spectral convolution
The convolution in Eq. (7) is a standard treatment of the K* width and is not the main source of model dependence.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Finding a clean process $B^- \to K^- D^0 K^0$ to probe absolutely exotic four-quark states." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SYV3AWXR

@misc{pith2026260101382,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Finding a clean process $B^- \to K^- D^0 K^0$ to probe absolutely exotic four-quark states},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SYV3AWXR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.01382}
}

abstract

Motivated by the observations of $T_{c\bar{s}0}(2900)^0$ and $T_{c\bar{s}0}(2900)^{++}$, we propose to search for $\tcsbar^0$ in the cleaner process $B^- \to K^- D^0 K^0$. In the $D^*K^*$ molecular picture, our estimates suggest that $T_{c\bar{s}0}(2900)^0$ should contribute significantly to the $D^0 K^0$ invariant mass distribution in $B^- \to K^- D^0 K^0$, as reported by the Belle II Collaboration. The corresponding fit fraction is estimated to be $(9.72\pm 3.92)\%$ or $(7.09\pm 5.88)\%$ in different fitting schemes. Further precise measurements of this process at Belle II and LHCb could be helpful for clarifying the nature of $T_{c\bar{s}0}(2900)$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.01382 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: A sketch diagram of (a) the production of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: Feynman diagram for the contribution from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The model reproduces the Belle II data well. In the K −K 0 spectrum [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

[11]

Z. L. Yue, C. J. Xiao and D. Y . Chen, Phys. Rev. D 107, no.3, 034018 (2023)

2023
[1]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. Lett.131, no.4, 041902 (2023)

2023
[2]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. D 108, no.1, 012017 (2023)

2023
[3]

X. S. Yang, Q. Xin and Z. G. Wang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 38, no.11, 2350056 (2023)

2023
[4]

F. X. Liu, R. H. Ni, X. H. Zhong and Q. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 107, no.9, 096020 (2023)

2023
[5]

J. Wei, Y . H. Wang, C. S. An and C. R. Deng, Phys. Rev. D106, no.9, 096023 (2022)

2022
[6]

Dmitraˇsinovi´c, [arXiv:2301.05471 [hep-ph]]

V . Dmitraˇsinovi´c, [arXiv:2301.05471 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[7]

D. K. Lian, W. Chen, H. X. Chen, L. Y . Dai and T. G. Steele, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, no.1, 1 (2024)

2024

Show all 41 references

[8]

Jiang, Y

C. Jiang, Y . Jin, S. Y . Li, Y . R. Liu and Z. G. Si, Symmetry15, no.3, 695 (2023)

2023
[9]

Chen and Q

R. Chen and Q. Huang, [arXiv:2208.10196 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[10]

M. Y . Duan, M. L. Du, Z. H. Guo, E. Wang and D. Y . Chen, Phys. Rev. D 108, no.7, 074006 (2023)

2023
[12]

S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi and H. Sundu, Phys. Rev. D 107, no.9, 094019 (2023)

2023
[13]

H. W. Ke, Y . F. Shi, X. H. Liu and X. Q. Li, Phys. Rev. D106, no.11, 114032 (2022)

2022
[14]

Y . H. Ge, X. H. Liu and H. W. Ke, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, no.10, 955 (2022)

2022
[15]

M. Y . Duan, E. Wang and D. Y . Chen, Eur. Phys. J. C84, no.7, 681 (2024)

2024
[16]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. D 102, 112003 (2020)

2020
[17]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 242001 (2020)

2020
[18]

Navas et al

S. Navas et al. [Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D 110, no.3, 030001 (2024)

2024
[19]

Molina, D

R. Molina, D. Nicmorus and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 78, 114018 (2008)

2008
[20]

W. H. Liang, R. Molina and E. Oset, Eur. Phys. J. A44, 479-486 (2010)

2010
[21]

J. A. Oller and U. G. Meissner, Phys. Lett. B 500, 263-272 (2001)

2001
[22]

M. Y . Duan, J. Y . Wang, G. Y . Wang, E. Wang and D. M. Li, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, no.11, 1041 (2020)

2020
[23]

W. T. Lyu, Y . H. Lyu, M. Y . Duan, G. Y . Wang, D. Y . Chen and E. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C 85 (2025) no.2, 123

2025
[24]

W. T. Lyu, Y . H. Lyu, M. Y . Duan, D. M. Li, D. Y . Chen and E. Wang, Phys. Rev. D109, no.1, 014008 (2024)

2024
[25]

L. R. Dai, R. Molina and E. Oset, Phys. Lett. B 832, 137219 (2022)

2022
[26]

L. R. Dai, R. Molina and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 105, no.9, 096022 (2022)

2022
[27]

L. S. Geng, E. Oset, L. Roca and J. A. Oller, Phys. Rev. D 75, 014017 (2007)

2007
[28]

G. Y . Wang, L. Roca and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 100, no.7, 074018 (2019)

2019
[29]

Y . Ding, X. H. Zhang, M. Y . Dai, E. Wang, D. M. Li, L. S. Geng and J. J. Xie, Phys. Rev. D 108, no.11, 114004 (2023)

2023
[30]

Y . Ding, E. Wang, D. M. Li, L. S. Geng and J. J. Xie, Phys. Rev. D 110, no.1, 014032 (2024)

2024
[31]

Weinberg, Phys

S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. 137, B672-B678 (1965)

1965
[32]

V . Baru, J. Haidenbauer, C. Hanhart, Y . Kalashnikova and A. E. Kudryavtsev, Phys. Lett. B 586, 53-61 (2004)

2004
[33]

Albaladejo and J

M. Albaladejo and J. Nieves, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, no.8, 724 (2022)

2022
[34]

Q. Wu, Y . K. Chen, G. Li, S. D. Liu and D. Y . Chen, Phys. Rev. D 107, no.5, 054044 (2023)

2023
[35]

Drutskoy et al

A. Drutskoy et al. [Belle], Phys. Lett. B 542, 171-182 (2002)

2002
[36]

T. E. Coan et al. [CLEO], Phys. Rev. D 53, 6037-6053 (1996)

1996
[37]

Adachi et al

I. Adachi et al. [Belle-II], JHEP 08, 206 (2024)

2024
[38]

G. Y . Wang, M. Y . Duan, E. Wang and D. M. Li, Phys. Rev. D 102, no.3, 036003 (2020)

2020
[39]

G. Y . Wang, N. C. Wei, H. M. Yang, E. Wang, L. S. Geng and J. J. Xie, Phys. Rev. D 106, no.5, 056001 (2022)

2022
[40]

E. Wang, H. X. Chen, L. S. Geng, D. M. Li and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 93, no.9, 094001 (2016)

2016
[41]

W. T. Lyu, S. C. Zhang, G. Y . Wang, J. J. Wu, E. Wang, L. S. Geng and J. J. Xie, Phys. Rev. D110, no.5, 054020 (2024)

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [11]

Z. L. Yue, C. J. Xiao and D. Y . Chen, Phys. Rev. D 107, no.3, 034018 (2023)

2023

[2] [1]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. Lett.131, no.4, 041902 (2023)

2023

[3] [2]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. D 108, no.1, 012017 (2023)

2023

[4] [3]

X. S. Yang, Q. Xin and Z. G. Wang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 38, no.11, 2350056 (2023)

2023

[5] [4]

F. X. Liu, R. H. Ni, X. H. Zhong and Q. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 107, no.9, 096020 (2023)

2023

[6] [5]

J. Wei, Y . H. Wang, C. S. An and C. R. Deng, Phys. Rev. D106, no.9, 096023 (2022)

2022

[7] [6]

Dmitraˇsinovi´c, [arXiv:2301.05471 [hep-ph]]

V . Dmitraˇsinovi´c, [arXiv:2301.05471 [hep-ph]]

arXiv

[8] [7]

D. K. Lian, W. Chen, H. X. Chen, L. Y . Dai and T. G. Steele, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, no.1, 1 (2024)

2024