Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Photoproduction of doubly charmed tetraquark $T_{cc}$ via photon-gluon fusion at ILC and CLIC

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper predicts that at high-energy electron-positron colliders, laser-backscattered photons make photon-gluon fusion the dominant production channel for the doubly charmed tetraquark $T_{cc}$, with yields up to about a million events…

desk verdict First resolved photon-gluon calculation for T_cc at ILC/CLIC; internally consistent and worth refereeing, but the advertised event rates rest on an underspecified resolved-photon factorization and a hadronization matrix element with a factor-38 spread. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.16721 v1 pith:XWNJEZIE submitted 2025-06-20 hep-ph

Juan-Juan Niu , Hong-Hao Ma This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords doublycharmedtetraquarkT_cc(3875)photoproductionphoton-gluonfusionresolvedphotonNRQCDILCCLIC
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

This paper predicts that the doubly charmed tetraquark $T_{cc}$ can be produced copiously at electron-positron linear colliders through the resolved photon-gluon fusion channel $\gamma + g \to \langle cc\rangle[^3S_1]_{\bar 3} + \bar c + \bar c \to T_{cc} + \bar c + \bar c$. Within nonrelativistic QCD factorization at leading order, and using laser-backscattered photon spectra, the photon-gluon channel overtakes the familiar photon-photon fusion channel as the collision energy grows, reaching 14.6 times it at $\sqrt{s}=1000$ GeV and 32.5 times it at $\sqrt{s}=1500$ GeV. At the planned luminosities, the predicted total photoproduction yields are roughly $10^5$ to $10^6$ $T_{cc}$ events per year before detection efficiency, so the paper concludes that photoproduction is a promising discovery channel. The absolute normalization is controlled by the hadronization of the $(cc)$ diquark into $T_{cc}$, which the paper estimates through three potential-model schemes whose values differ by up to a factor of about 38.

What carries the argument

The key object is the NRQCD factorization formula for $e^+e^-\to e^+e^- T_{cc}\bar c\bar c$, which convolves the photon spectrum (Weizs\"acker-Williams or laser back-scattering), the gluon-in-photon distribution, the hard scattering cross section for $\gamma+g\to\langle cc\rangle[^3S_1]_{\bar 3}+\bar c+\bar c$ at leading order in $\alpha_s^3$, and the long-distance matrix element $\langle O^{T_{cc}}_{\langle cc\rangle[n]}\rangle$ that turns the diquark into the tetraquark. The hard amplitude comes from 24 Feynman diagrams with the two charm quarks projected onto the $[^3S_1]_{\bar 3}$ state, and the hadronization factor is evaluated in three phenomenological schemes (labelled HOP, DAS, and HDAS) with values 0.089, 0.039, and 0.00234 GeV$^3$, using the smallest HDAS value for the headline cross sections.

What would settle it

Measure $T_{cc}$ production in $\gamma\gamma$ and resolved $\gamma + g$ events at an electron-positron linear collider with laser-backscattered photons at $\sqrt{s}=1$ TeV: the paper predicts the photon-gluon channel alone gives about 124 fb, 14.6 times the 8.5 fb photon-photon channel, so a measured ratio far below that, or no $T_{cc}$ signal at the predicted event rate, would falsify the claim. A lattice calculation of the long-distance matrix element that lands far from 0.00234 GeV$^3$ would also undermine the normalization.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that the resolved photon-gluon process is not a small correction but can be the leading source of $T_{cc}$ at high-energy $e^+e^-$ colliders when laser-backscattered photons are used. At $\sqrt{s}=1000$ GeV the $\gamma + g$ cross section is predicted to be 124.43 fb versus 8.52 fb for $\gamma\gamma$ fusion, and at $\sqrt{s}=1500$ GeV it reaches 151.68 fb versus 4.67 fb; with the planned luminosities this yields between $9.5\times10^4$ and $1.06\times10^6$ events per year depending on collider energy and photon spectrum. The calculation keeps only the color-antitriplet, spin-triplet $S$-wave diquark configuration $\langle cc\rangle[^3S_1]_{\bar 3}$, uses the gluon distribution inside the photon for the resolved photon, and adopts the smallest of three hadronization matrix elements as the central value, so the quoted rates are the conservative end of the paper's own menu.

Load-bearing premise

The predicted event counts all scale with the probability that a $(cc)$ diquark in the $[^3S_1]_{\bar 3}$ state turns into $T_{cc}$, which the paper estimates from potential models; if that probability is wrong, or if the neglected $[^1S_0]_6$ diquark contributes significantly, the rates could shift by more than an order of magnitude.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With laser-backscattered photons, the resolved photon-gluon channel becomes the dominant source of $T_{cc}$ at high collision energies: 14.6 times the photon-photon channel at $\sqrt{s}=1000$ GeV and 32.5 times at $\sqrt{s}=1500$ GeV.
  • The predicted yields, up to $1.06\times10^6$ events per year at ILC energies and $3.91\times10^5$ at CLIC energies before detection efficiency, make photoproduction a plausible discovery path for $T_{cc}$.
  • The photon-gluon contribution is concentrated at small transverse momentum ($p_T \lesssim 30$ GeV), so experimental acceptance at low $p_T$ is essential; applying a $p_T \ge 10$ GeV cut removes about 80% of the LBS cross section.
  • The cross section falls steeply with charm-quark mass and with renormalization scale: at $\sqrt{s}=500$ GeV the LBS total drops from 276.39 fb at $m_c=1.5$ GeV to 42.66 fb at $m_c=2.1$ GeV, and scale variation changes it by roughly 40%.
  • In the WWA photon spectrum the resolved channel stays subdominant, reaching 12.61% of the photon-photon channel at 1000 GeV, so the strong enhancement is specific to laser-backscattered photons.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the largest hadronization value (HOP, 0.089 GeV$^3$) rather than the central HDAS value sets the normalization, all quoted yields grow by a factor of 38, so the paper's central numbers are conservative within its own uncertainty band.
  • The same resolved-photon mechanism should apply to other doubly heavy tetraquarks and to baryons built on a $(QQ')$ diquark, since the high-energy enhancement comes from the gluon content of the photon rather than from anything specific to $T_{cc}$.
  • A dedicated measurement of photoproduction ratios at a future linear collider could indirectly determine the hadronization matrix element, turning the dominant uncertainty into an observable.
  • Including the spin-singlet color-sextet diquark $\langle cc\rangle[^1S_0]_6$, which the paper explicitly omits, could raise the total rate and would test whether the $[^3S_1]_{\bar 3}$ channel alone is a good approximation.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a leading-order NRQCD calculation of T_cc(3875) production in e+e- collisions through resolved photon-gluon fusion, γ+g→(cc)[3S1]_3bar+cbar+cbar→T_cc+cbar+cbar, using WWA and LBS photon spectra at ILC (250, 500, 1000 GeV) and CLIC (380, 1500, 3000 GeV). It estimates the nonperturbative hadronization matrix element with three phenomenological schemes, computes cross sections, m_c and renormalization-scale uncertainties, differential p_T, invariant-mass and angular distributions, and converts cross sections into annual event rates. It concludes that the resolved γg channel can exceed the γγ channel by up to an order of magnitude for LBS photons and that T_cc discovery via photoproduction is promising.

Significance. If the central rate estimates are robust, this is a valuable new production channel for T_cc at future e+e- colliders, with a clean environment and event rates in the 10^5-10^6 range that could complement LHC searches. The paper's strengths are its complete set of 24 LO Feynman diagrams, a transparent NRQCD factorization formula, explicit treatment of two photon spectra and three hadronization schemes, and clear uncertainty tables for m_c and μ_R. The differential distributions and p_T-cut table also provide concrete, falsifiable predictions. The main caveats are that the resolved-photon factorization scheme is under-specified and the hadronization-matrix-element uncertainty is not propagated into the headline rates; these need to be addressed before the quantitative claim can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II, Eq. (1) and Eq. (13)] The resolved-photon calculation is not fully defined because no factorization scale μ_F is introduced for the GRS photon parton distributions; Eq. (13) gives only the renormalization scale μ = sqrt(4m_c^2+p_T^2). Since Fig. 2 and Table V show that the γ+g contribution is concentrated at small transverse momentum (more than two thirds of the LBS γ+g rate at sqrt(s)=500 GeV is removed by p_T≥5 GeV), the numerical result is controlled by the collinear region where the fixed-order partonic cross section is most sensitive to the factorization prescription. Please specify μ_F and its variation, and state how the resolved contribution is separated from the direct γγ contribution. Without this, the ratios in Table I (e.g., 14.60 at sqrt(s)=1000 GeV) are not a well-defined prediction.
  2. [Sec. II.B, Table IV, event-rate paragraph] The hadronization matrix element is the dominant normalization uncertainty, but it is not propagated into the headline event rates. The three schemes give O_Tcc = 0.089, 0.039, 0.00234 GeV^3, a spread of a factor 38, and all cross sections scale linearly with O_Tcc. Tables I-III use the smallest (HDAS) value without a physical selection criterion, while Tables II-III vary only m_c and μ_R. The claimed 10^5-10^6 events per year therefore carry an unquantified factor-of-38 LDME band; whether the channel is 'promising' also depends on detection efficiency and branching fractions that are not quoted. Please propagate the full LDME spread into the rates and provide the detection-efficiency assumptions.
  3. [Sec. II.A and Sec. II.B] Only the [3S1]_3bar diquark configuration is included. The color-spin decomposition 3⊗3=6⊕3bar also admits [1S0]_6, and no argument is given that this configuration is negligible for T_cc production or that the T_cc compact state is exclusively [3S1]_3bar. Since the short-distance coefficients and hadronization LDMEs of the two configurations differ, the quoted cross sections should be labeled as the [3S1]_3bar contribution, and the [1S0]_6 contribution should be estimated or bounded before the results are presented as the photoproduction rate.
  4. [Sec. II, Eq. (1) and Table I] The relation between the direct γγ channel and the resolved γg channel is not specified. Eq. (1) is written for two resolved photons (sum over i,j), while the computed subprocess is γ+g with one direct photon; the paper does not state the scheme for avoiding double counting between direct γγ and γg with the gluon from a collinear photon splitting. Since Table I adds these channels into a 'total', an explicit factorization-scheme statement is required before the total rows can be interpreted.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. II] The expression 'γ+g→→⟨cc⟩' contains a double arrow; it should be 'γ+g→⟨cc⟩[n]+cbar+cbar'.
  2. [Eq. (6)] The flux factor contains m_e^4 even though the initial state is γ+g; for massless partons the denominator should be 4 p1·p2, so the formula should be corrected or the notation clarified.
  3. [Sec. II.B and Table IV] The abbreviations HOP, DAS, and HDAS are used without a clear mapping: Eq. (10) gives 0.089 GeV^3, Eq. (11) gives 0.00234 GeV^3, and Eq. (12) gives 0.039 GeV^3, but the text does not state which label corresponds to which equation, making Table IV difficult to read.
  4. [Table IV] The text says the HOP cross sections are '2.28 times and 36.63 times' those of DAS and HDAS, but the table gives HOP/HDAS ratios of about 38 for γ+g; the quoted ratios should be checked.
  5. [Tables I-V] The γγ rows are not derived in this paper; please state whether they were recalculated with the same parameters and cuts or taken from Ref. [45].
  6. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors, including 'corss section', 'invirant mass', 'disscusion', and inconsistent capitalization such as 'Considering the subsequent decay'; a careful proofread is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the T_cc photoproduction rates are fixed-order NRQCD predictions built from independent inputs, not from fits to T_cc data.

full rationale

The derivation chain from Eq. (1) to Tables I-V is not circular. The short-distance coefficients are computed at O(alpha_s^3) for gamma+g -> <cc>[3S1]_3bar + cbar + cbar; the photon spectra are standard external formulas; the resolved-photon parton densities are taken from the GRS distributions [57]; and the long-distance matrix element is taken from independent potential-model estimates in Sec. II.B, namely the HOP value from [46], |Psi_cc(0)|^2 = 0.039 GeV^3 from [70], and f(c -> Lambda_c^+) = 0.06 from external charm fragmentation fits [68]. None of these inputs is defined in terms of the T_cc event rates being reported. The gamma+gamma comparison channel is computed with the same inputs rather than fitted to the claimed signal. The authors' self-citations [45,47,60] supply technical identities or earlier related studies, but the central photon-gluon result does not reduce to them: no equation identifies the reported cross sections with a fitted parameter or with the long-distance matrix element by construction. The unresolved factorization-scale and potential double-counting issues raised by a skeptical reader are physics-correctness concerns about the resolved-photon treatment, not instances of self-definitional or fitted-input circularity, and they do not change this verdict.

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

The calculation rests on standard NRQCD factorization and photon-spectrum approximations, but the largest input, the long-distance matrix element, is taken from three phenomenological hadronization schemes that disagree by a factor of about 38. No new particles or forces are introduced; the T_cc and the (cc) diquark are known or formal objects. The free parameters are standard quark-mass, scale, and matrix-element inputs, with the matrix element dominating the uncertainty.

free parameters (5)
  • constituent charm quark mass m_c = 1.8 GeV (central), varied 1.5 to 2.1 GeV
    Input mass in the NRQCD short-distance coefficient; directly controls phase space and cross-section size (Table II). Chosen by hand, not fitted to T_cc data.
  • renormalization scale mu = sqrt(4 m_c^2 + p_T^2), varied by factors 0.5 and 2
    Unphysical scale choice in alpha_s evolution; changes cross sections by about 20 to 30 percent (Table III).
  • diquark wave function at origin |Psi_cc(0)|^2 = 0.039 GeV^3 (Power-law potential)
    External potential-model input used in the DAS and HDAS hadronization schemes (Sec. II B, Ref. [70]). Sets the overall normalization.
  • long-distance matrix element O_Tcc = 0.00234 GeV^3 (HDAS central); 0.039 GeV^3 (DAS); 0.089 GeV^3 (HOP)
    Hadronization probability from (cc)[3S1]_3bar to T_cc; the three schemes span a factor of about 38, producing the dominant uncertainty (Table IV).
  • charm fragmentation fraction f(c to Lambda_c^+) = 0.06
    External experimental value used in the HDAS scheme to set the hadronization probability (Sec. II B, Ref. [68]).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption NRQCD factorization applies to compact tetraquark production
    Sec. II assumes the production cross section factorizes into a perturbative short-distance coefficient for (cc)[3S1]_3bar plus a long-distance matrix element, following quarkonium NRQCD; this factorization is not established for tetraquarks.
  • domain assumption The (cc)[3S1]_3bar diquark is the only relevant intermediate configuration
    The paper explicitly sets aside the (cc)[1S0]_6 configuration from the decomposition 3 (x) 3 = 3bar (o+) 6 without quantifying its contribution (Sec. II A).
  • domain assumption Diquark-antiquark symmetry (DAS) relates T_cc hadronization to Lambda_c fragmentation
    The (cc)_3bar diquark is treated as equivalent to an anti-charm quark for the purpose of hadronizing to T_cc, and the probability is taken from f(c to Lambda_c^+) (Sec. II B, Eqs. (11)-(12)).
  • domain assumption Potential-model wave functions describe the diquark at the origin
    Values |Psi_cc(0)|^2 from the Power-law potential and the harmonic-oscillator potential are used to fix the matrix elements in Eqs. (10)-(12); these models carry their own systematic uncertainties.
  • domain assumption GRS photon parton distributions describe the gluon content of the photon
    The resolved-photon gluon flux f_g/gamma is taken from the GRS parametrization (Ref. [57]) in Eq. (1); the result depends on this external PDF set.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Photoproduction of doubly charmed tetraquark $T_{cc}$ via photon-gluon fusion at ILC and CLIC." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XWNJEZIE

@misc{pith2026250616721,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Photoproduction of doubly charmed tetraquark $T_cc$ via photon-gluon fusion at ILC and CLIC},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XWNJEZIE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.16721}
}
abstract

The photoproduction of doubly charmed tetraquark $T_{cc}$ is predicted through the resolved channel $\gamma+g\to \to \langle cc \rangle[n] + \bar{c}+\bar{c} \to T_{cc}+\bar{c}+\bar{c}$ at ILC and CLIC. At $e^{+}e^{-}$ colliders, the initial photons $\gamma$ can be produced from two primary sources, well-delineated within the $Weiz\ddot{a}cker$ Williams approximation (WWA) and the laser back-scattering (LBS). And the initial gluon can be emitted from the photon. The spin and color quantum number $[n]$ of the intermediate diquark configuration can be $\langle cc\rangle[^3S_1]_{\bar{3}}$. Then its nonperturbative hadronization to $T_{cc}$ was discussed in the phenomenological potential models. Finally, the differential distributions and theoretical uncertainty of the doubly charmed tetraquark $T_{cc}$ were analyzed. The conclusion is that it is promising to observe $T_{cc}$ via the resolved channel of photoproduction both at the ILC and CLIC, and the results have a strong dependence on the mass of constituent charm quark $m_c$ and the potential model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.16721 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Twelve typical Feynman diagrams for γ + g → ⟨cc⟩[n] + ¯c + ¯c subprocess, and another twelve can be obtained by interchanging the initial photon and gluon lines. The differential cross section dσˆ can be rewritten as dσˆ(γ + g → ⟨cc⟩[n] + ¯c + ¯c) = 1 4 p (p1 · p2) 2 − m4 e X M[n] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Differential distributions for the photoproduction of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Production of heavy tetraquarks in rare exclusive decays of the Higgs boson

    hep-ph 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Predicted branching fractions for H to fully charmed tetraquark plus photon, with the quark-gluon mechanism dominant at about 2 x 10^-9.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A Schematic Model of Baryons and Mesons,

    M. Gell-Mann, “A Schematic Model of Baryons and Mesons,” Phys. Lett.8, 214 (1964)

    work page 1964

  2. [2]

    An SU(3) model for strong interaction symmetry and its breaking, Version 1,

    G. Zweig, “An SU(3) model for strong interaction symmetry and its breaking, Version 1,” Report No. CERN-TH-401

    work page

  3. [3]

    An SU(3) model for strong interaction symmetry and its breaking, Version 2,

    G. Zweig, “An SU(3) model for strong interaction symmetry and its breaking, Version 2,” Report No. CERN-TH-412

    work page

  4. [4]

    Observation of an exotic narrow doubly charmed tetraquark,

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], “Observation of an exotic narrow doubly charmed tetraquark,” Nature Phys.18(2022), 751-754

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Study of the doubly charmed tetraquarkT + cc,

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], “Study of the doubly charmed tetraquarkT + cc,” Nature Commun.13 (2022), 3351

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Doubly Charmed Tetraquark Tcc+ from Lattice QCD near Physical Point,

    Y. Lyu, S. Aoki, T. Doi, T. Hatsuda, Y. Ikeda and J. Meng, “Doubly Charmed Tetraquark Tcc+ from Lattice QCD near Physical Point,” Phys. Rev. Lett.131(2023), 161901

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Signature of a Doubly Charm Tetraquark Pole inDD ∗ Scattering on the Lattice,

    M. Padmanath and S. Prelovsek, “Signature of a Doubly Charm Tetraquark Pole inDD ∗ Scattering on the Lattice,” Phys. Rev. Lett.129(2022), 032002

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Tcc+(3875) relevant DD∗ scattering from Nf=2 lattice QCD,

    S. Chen, C. Shi, Y. Chen, M. Gong, Z. Liu, W. Sun and R. Zhang, “Tcc+(3875) relevant DD∗ scattering from Nf=2 lattice QCD,” Phys. Lett. B833(2022), 137391

    work page 2022

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    Toward the quark mass dependence of Tcc+ from lattice QCD,

    S. Collins, A. Nefediev, M. Padmanath and S. Prelovsek, “Toward the quark mass dependence of Tcc+ from lattice QCD,” Phys. Rev. D109, 9 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    Analysis of the doubly-charmed tetraquark molecular states with the QCD sum rules,

    Q. Xin and Z. G. Wang, “Analysis of the doubly-charmed tetraquark molecular states with the QCD sum rules,” Eur. Phys. J. A58, 110 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Doubly-heavy tetraquark states and *,

    X. Chen and Y. Yang, “Doubly-heavy tetraquark states and *,” Chin. Phys. C46, 054103 11 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    Tcc+ and its partners,

    C. Deng and S. L. Zhu, “Tcc+ and its partners,” Phys. Rev. D105, 054015 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    Decoding the double heavy tetraquark stateT + cc,

    C. R. Deng and S. L. Zhu, “Decoding the double heavy tetraquark stateT + cc,” Sci. Bull.67, 1522 (2022)

    2022

  6. [14]

    Nature of the doubly-charmed tetraquark Tcc+ in a constituent quark model,

    P. G. Ortega, J. Segovia, D. R. Entem and F. Fernandez, “Nature of the doubly-charmed tetraquark Tcc+ in a constituent quark model,” Phys. Lett. B841, 137918 (2023) [erratum: Phys. Lett. B847, 138308 (2023)]

    2023

  7. [15]

    Tetraquark bound states in constituent quark models: Benchmark test calculations,

    L. Meng, Y. K. Chen, Y. Ma and S. L. Zhu, “Tetraquark bound states in constituent quark models: Benchmark test calculations,” Phys. Rev. D108, 114016 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    Doubly heavy tetraquark states in the constituent quark model using diffusion Monte Carlo method,

    Y. Ma, L. Meng, Y. K. Chen and S. L. Zhu, “Doubly heavy tetraquark states in the constituent quark model using diffusion Monte Carlo method,” Phys. Rev. D109, 074001 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    T + cc decays: Differential spectra and two-body final states,

    S. Fleming, R. Hodges and T. Mehen, “T + cc decays: Differential spectra and two-body final states,” Phys. Rev. D104, 116010 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    Probing the long-range structure of the Tcc+ with the strong and electromagnetic decays,

    L. Meng, G. J. Wang, B. Wang and S. L. Zhu, “Probing the long-range structure of the Tcc+ with the strong and electromagnetic decays,” Phys. Rev. D104, 051502 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    Systematics of the heavy flavor hadronic molecules,

    K. Chen, R. Chen, L. Meng, B. Wang and S. L. Zhu, “Systematics of the heavy flavor hadronic molecules,” Eur. Phys. J. C82, 581 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    Triangle singularity in the production of Tcc+(3875) and a soft pion,

    E. Braaten, L. P. He, K. Ingles and J. Jiang, “Triangle singularity in the production of Tcc+(3875) and a soft pion,” Phys. Rev. D106, 034033 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    Revisiting the DD* chiral interactions with the local momentum- space regularization up to the third order and the nature of Tcc+,

    B. Wang and L. Meng, “Revisiting the DD* chiral interactions with the local momentum- space regularization up to the third order and the nature of Tcc+,” Phys. Rev. D107, 094002 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    Strong decays of Tcc+ at NLO in an effective field theory,

    L. Dai, S. Fleming, R. Hodges and T. Mehen, “Strong decays of Tcc+ at NLO in an effective field theory,” Phys. Rev. D107, 076001 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    Coupled-channel approach to Tcc+ including three-body effects,

    M. L. Du, V. Baru, X. K. Dong, A. Filin, F. K. Guo, C. Hanhart, A. Nefediev, J. Nieves and Q. Wang, “Coupled-channel approach to Tcc+ including three-body effects,” Phys. Rev. D 105, 014024 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    Tcc+ coupled channel analysis and predictions,

    M. Albaladejo, “Tcc+ coupled channel analysis and predictions,” Phys. Lett. B829(2022), 137052

    2022

  17. [25]

    Properties of theT cc(3875)+ and T¯c¯c(3875)− and their heavy-quark spin partners in nuclear matter,

    V. Montesinos, M. Albaladejo, J. Nieves and L. Tolos, “Properties of theT cc(3875)+ and T¯c¯c(3875)− and their heavy-quark spin partners in nuclear matter,” Phys. Rev. C108, 035205 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    New insight into the exotic states strongly coupled with theDD −∗ from the Tcc+,

    G. J. Wang, Z. Yang, J. J. Wu, M. Oka and S. L. Zhu, “New insight into the exotic states strongly coupled with theDD −∗ from the Tcc+,” Sci. Bull.69, 3036-3041 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    Masses and magnetic moments of hadrons with one and two open heavy quarks: Heavy baryons and tetraquarks,

    W. X. Zhang, H. Xu and D. Jia, “Masses and magnetic moments of hadrons with one and two open heavy quarks: Heavy baryons and tetraquarks,” Phys. Rev. D104, 114011 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    Discovery potentials of double-charm tetraquarks,

    Q. Qin, Y. F. Shen and F. S. Yu, “Discovery potentials of double-charm tetraquarks,” Chin. Phys. C45, 103106 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    Color and baryon number fluctuation of preconfinement system in production process and Tcc structure,

    Y. Jin, S. Y. Li, Y. R. Liu, Q. Qin, Z. G. Si and F. S. Yu, “Color and baryon number fluctuation of preconfinement system in production process and Tcc structure,” Phys. Rev. D 104, 114009 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    Doubly heavy tetraquarks in an extended chromo- magnetic model *,

    X. Z. Weng, W. Z. Deng and S. L. Zhu, “Doubly heavy tetraquarks in an extended chromo- magnetic model *,” Chin. Phys. C46, 013102 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    Mass spectra of doubly heavy tetraquarks in an improved chromomagnetic interaction model,

    T. Guo, J. Li, J. Zhao and L. He, “Mass spectra of doubly heavy tetraquarks in an improved chromomagnetic interaction model,” Phys. Rev. D105, 014021 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    Newly observed exotic doubly charmed meson Tcc+,

    S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi and H. Sundu, “Newly observed exotic doubly charmed meson Tcc+,” 12 Nucl. Phys. B975, 115650 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    Improved XTZ masses and mass ratios from Laplace sum rules at NLO,

    R. Albuquerque, S. Narison and D. Rabetiarivony, “Improved XTZ masses and mass ratios from Laplace sum rules at NLO,” Nucl. Phys. A1023, 122451 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    Masses of doubly heavy tetraquarksQQ¯q¯nwithJP = 1+,

    D. Gao, D. Jia, Y. J. Sun, Z. Zhang, W. N. Liu and Q. Mei, “Masses of doubly heavy tetraquarksQQ¯q¯nwithJP = 1+,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A37, 2250223 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    Doubly heavy tetraquarks in the Born- Oppenheimer approximation,

    L. Maiani, A. Pilloni, A. D. Polosa and V. Riquer, “Doubly heavy tetraquarks in the Born- Oppenheimer approximation,” Phys. Lett. B836, 137624 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    Doubly heavy tetraquarks: Heavy quark bindings and chromomagnetically mixings,

    X. Y. Liu, W. X. Zhang and D. Jia, “Doubly heavy tetraquarks: Heavy quark bindings and chromomagnetically mixings,” Phys. Rev. D108, 054019 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    Doubly heavy tetraquarks including one-pion exchange potential,

    Q. Meng, E. Hiyama, M. Oka, A. Hosaka and C. Xu, “Doubly heavy tetraquarks including one-pion exchange potential,” Phys. Lett. B846, 138221 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    Nonrelativistic quark model analysis of Tcc,

    S. Noh and W. Park, “Nonrelativistic quark model analysis of Tcc,” Phys. Rev. D108, 014004 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    Doubly heavy tetraquark multiplets as heavy antiquark-diquark symmetry partners of heavy baryons,

    T. W. Wu and Y. L. Ma, “Doubly heavy tetraquark multiplets as heavy antiquark-diquark symmetry partners of heavy baryons,” Phys. Rev. D107, L071501 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    Masses and magnetic moments of doubly heavy tetraquarks via diffusion Monte Carlo method,

    H. Mutuk, “Masses and magnetic moments of doubly heavy tetraquarks via diffusion Monte Carlo method,” Eur. Phys. J. C84, 395 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    Spectrum of S- and P-wave cc¯q¯q ′ (¯q, ¯q′=¯u,¯d,¯s) systems in a chiral SU(3) quark model,

    D. Wang, K. R. Song, W. L. Wang and F. Huang, “Spectrum of S- and P-wave cc¯q¯q ′ (¯q, ¯q′=¯u,¯d,¯s) systems in a chiral SU(3) quark model,” Phys. Rev. D109, 074026 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    Doubly heavy tetraquark states in a mass splitting model,

    S. Y. Li, Y. R. Liu, Z. L. Man, Z. G. Si and J. Wu, “Doubly heavy tetraquark states in a mass splitting model,” Phys. Rev. D110, 094044 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    Production of four-quark states with double heavy quarks at LHC,

    Y. q. Chen and S. z. Wu, “Production of four-quark states with double heavy quarks at LHC,” Phys. Lett. B705, 93-97 (2011)

    2011

  36. [44]

    Doubly heavy hadron production in ultraperipheral collision,

    H. Yang, J. Jiang and B. Long, “Doubly heavy hadron production in ultraperipheral collision,” Phys. Rev. D109, 114034 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    Production of doubly charmed tetraquark Tcc via photon-photon fusion at electron-positron colliders,

    J. Jiang, S. Y. Li, X. Liang, Y. R. Liu, Z. G. Si and Z. J. Yang, “Production of doubly charmed tetraquark Tcc via photon-photon fusion at electron-positron colliders,” Phys. Lett. B866, 139543 (2025)

    2025

  38. [46]

    Production of doubly charmed tetraquarks with exotic color configurations in electron-positron collisions,

    T. Hyodo, Y. R. Liu, M. Oka, K. Sudoh and S. Yasui, “Production of doubly charmed tetraquarks with exotic color configurations in electron-positron collisions,” Phys. Lett. B 721, 56-60 (2013). [arXiv:1209.6207 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Indirect production of doubly charmed tetraquark Tcc at high energy colliders,

    J. J. Niu, B. B. Shi, Z. K. Tao and H. H. Ma, “Indirect production of doubly charmed tetraquark Tcc at high energy colliders,” Phys. Rev. D111, 014019 (2025)

    2025

  40. [48]

    Production of heavy quark bound states in rare exclusive decays of Higgs boson,

    F. A. Martynenko, A. P. Martynenko and A. V. Eskin, “Production of heavy quark bound states in rare exclusive decays of Higgs boson,” [arXiv:2505.04530 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  41. [49]

    ILC Reference Design Report Volume 1 - Executive Summary,

    J. Brauet al.[ILC], “ILC Reference Design Report Volume 1 - Executive Summary,” [arXiv:0712.1950 [physics.acc-ph]]

    1950 arXiv

  42. [50]

    International Linear Collider Reference Design Report Volume 2: Physics at the ILC,

    A. Djouadiet al.[ILC], “International Linear Collider Reference Design Report Volume 2: Physics at the ILC,” [arXiv:0709.1893 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  43. [51]

    Physics and Detectors at CLIC: CLIC Conceptual Design Report,

    L. Linssen, A. Miyamoto, M. Stanitzki and H. Weerts, “Physics and Detectors at CLIC: CLIC Conceptual Design Report,” [arXiv:1202.5940 [physics.ins-det]]

    arXiv

  44. [52]

    The Compact Linear Collider (CLIC) - 2018 Summary Report,

    P. N. Burrowset al.[CLICdp and CLIC], “The Compact Linear Collider (CLIC) - 2018 Summary Report,” [arXiv:1812.06018 [physics.acc-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Improving the Weizsacker-Williams approximation in electron-proton collisions,

    S. Frixione, M. L. Mangano, P. Nason and G. Ridolfi, “Improving the Weizsacker-Williams approximation in electron-proton collisions,” Phys. Lett. B319, 339 (1993)

    1993

  46. [54]

    Colliding ge and gg beams based on 13 the single-pass e±e- colliders (VLEPP type),

    I. F. Ginzburg, G. L. Kotkin, V. G. Serbo, and V. I., “Colliding ge and gg beams based on 13 the single-pass e±e- colliders (VLEPP type),” Telnov, Nucl. Instrum. Meth.205, 47 (1983)

    1983

  47. [55]

    Rigorous QCD analysis of inclusive annihilation and production of heavy quarkonium,

    G. T. Bodwin, E. Braaten and G. P. Lepage, “Rigorous QCD analysis of inclusive annihilation and production of heavy quarkonium,” Phys. Rev. D51, 1125-1171 (1995), [erratum: Phys. Rev. D55, 5853 (1997)]

    1995

  48. [56]

    NLO production and decay of quarkonium,

    A. Petrelli, M. Cacciari, M. Greco, F. Maltoni and M. L. Mangano, “NLO production and decay of quarkonium,” Nucl. Phys. B514, 245-309 (1998), [arXiv:hep-ph/9707223 [hep-ph]]

    1998 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Radiatively generated parton distributions of real and virtual photons,

    M. Gluck, E. Reya and I. Schienbein, “Radiatively generated parton distributions of real and virtual photons,” Phys. Rev. D60, 054019 (1999), [erratum: Phys. Rev. D62, 019902 (2000)]

    1999

  50. [58]

    Evidence for color octet mechanism from CERN LEP-2γγ→J/ψ+Xdata,

    M. Klasen, B. A. Kniehl, L. Mihaila and M. Steinhauser, “Evidence for color octet mechanism from CERN LEP-2γγ→J/ψ+Xdata,” Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 032001 (2002)

    2002

  51. [59]

    Problems of ObtainingγγandγϵColliding Beams at Linear Colliders,

    V. I. Telnov, “Problems of ObtainingγγandγϵColliding Beams at Linear Colliders,” Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A294, 72-92 (1990)

    1990

  52. [60]

    Further study on excited Ξ QQ′ via photoproduction at CEPC and FCC-ee,

    H. H. Ma, J. J. Niu and L. Guo, “Further study on excited Ξ QQ′ via photoproduction at CEPC and FCC-ee,” JHEP05, 197 (2025)

    2025

  53. [61]

    Symmetry and Supersymmetry in Hadrons Containing Both Heavy and Light Quarks,

    D. B. Lichtenberg, “Symmetry and Supersymmetry in Hadrons Containing Both Heavy and Light Quarks,” J. Phys. G16(1990), 1599-1606

    1990

  54. [62]

    Diquarks,

    M. Anselmino, E. Predazzi, S. Ekelin, S. Fredriksson and D. B. Lichtenberg, “Diquarks,” Rev. Mod. Phys.65(1993), 1199-1234

    1993

  55. [63]

    Stability of Dimesons,

    J. Carlson, L. Heller and J. A. Tjon, “Stability of Dimesons,” Phys. Rev. D37(1988), 744

    1988

  56. [64]

    Spectrum of baryons with two heavy quarks,

    M. J. Savage and M. B. Wise, “Spectrum of baryons with two heavy quarks,” Phys. Lett. B 248(1990), 177-180

    1990

  57. [65]

    Effective field theory Lagrangians for baryons with two and three heavy quarks,

    N. Brambilla, A. Vairo and T. Rosch, “Effective field theory Lagrangians for baryons with two and three heavy quarks,” Phys. Rev. D72(2005), 034021

    2005

  58. [66]

    Doubly heavy baryons, heavy quark-diquark symmetry and NRQCD,

    S. Fleming and T. Mehen, “Doubly heavy baryons, heavy quark-diquark symmetry and NRQCD,” Phys. Rev. D73(2006), 034502

    2006

  59. [67]

    Doubly heavy hadrons and the domain of validity of doubly heavy diquark-anti-quark symmetry,

    T. D. Cohen and P. M. Hohler, “Doubly heavy hadrons and the domain of validity of doubly heavy diquark-anti-quark symmetry,” Phys. Rev. D74(2006), 094003

    2006

  60. [68]

    Combined analysis of charm-quark fragmentation- fraction measurements,

    M. Lisovyi, A. Verbytskyi and O. Zenaiev, “Combined analysis of charm-quark fragmentation- fraction measurements,” Eur. Phys. J. C76, 397 (2016)

    2016

  61. [69]

    Hadrons with charm and beauty,

    E. Bagan, H. G. Dosch, P. Gosdzinsky, S. Narison and J. M. Richard, “Hadrons with charm and beauty,” Z. Phys. C64, 57-72 (1994)

    1994

  62. [70]

    On the production of doubly flavored baryons in p p, e p and gamma gamma collisions,

    S. P. Baranov, “On the production of doubly flavored baryons in p p, e p and gamma gamma collisions,” Phys. Rev. D54, 3228-3236 (1996)

    1996

  63. [71]

    Double-heavy tetraquark states with heavy diquark-antiquark symmetry,

    J. B. Cheng, S. Y. Li, Y. R. Liu, Z. G. Si and T. Yao, “Double-heavy tetraquark states with heavy diquark-antiquark symmetry,” Chin. Phys. C45, 043102 (2021)

    2021

  64. [72]

    Review of particle physics,

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

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.