Coupled-channel study of crypto-exotic baryons with charm

J. Hofmann; M.F.M. Lutz (GSI)

REVIEW

Coupled-channel study of crypto-exotic baryons with charm

J. Hofmann, M.F.M. Lutz (GSI)

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 6 Jul 2005 · 47 references

Pith's verdict: A solid extension of the GSI coupled-channel program with genuinely parameter-free charm -1 predictions, but the two headline zero-charm states are tuned to the bubble-chamber signals and the abstract presents them as found.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on November 11, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 4 major objections · 7 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv IDhep-ph/0507071 (version 2)

Pith IDHLR32C5I, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationJ. Hofmann, M.F.M. Lutz (GSI). "Coupled-channel study of crypto-exotic baryons with charm." arXiv:hep-ph/0507071 (2005). https://pith.science/paper/HLR32C5I

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

Bottom line: this is a careful extension of the GSI coupled-channel program into hidden-charm channels, and the qualitative claim — that light-vector exchange alone binds crypto-exotic baryons — holds up. The specific masses in the abstract are not parameter-free, and the abstract does not say so. That is the whole story in two sentences; the rest is detail on both sides of it. What is actually new: the earlier work (refs. 7, 8) scattered Goldstone bosons off open-charm baryons. This paper adds D, D_s and eta_c channels and, more usefully, decomposes the exchange kernel into SU(4) multiplets (Eqs. 23-24). That decomposition is a reusable piece of group theory — attraction in the 4, 20 and 36, repulsion in the 140 — and I would cite it. The charm -1 predictions in Table 4 (2.69 and 2.76 GeV) come out of the chiral and large-N_c couplings with no tuning at all, and the argument that the Lambda_c(2880) cannot be s-wave is a clean, falsifiable claim. Where it is soft: the two headline states. Section 4.2 says outright, 'We adjust h1-bar3-bar3 = -1.19 g and h-bar3-bar31 = h-bar31-bar3 = 0.71 g as to obtain the nucleon resonance mass and width at 3.52 GeV and 7 MeV.' The untuned SU(4) column gives 3.33 GeV with a 160 MeV width. That gap — roughly 200 MeV in mass, a factor twenty in width — is the honest systematic band, and it never appears as an uncertainty anywhere in the paper. The abstract then says the resonance is 'found' at 3.52 GeV, and the summary says the bubble-chamber masses and widths are 'recovered.' Fitting to a target and calling it recovery is the one thing here I would push back on hard. Same issue for the 3.23 GeV singlet against the 3.17 GeV signal. One correction to the reader's note: the tuned couplings are the OZI-violating light-singlet h1-bar3-bar3 and the eta-prime coupling h-bar3-bar31, not the charmed-vector couplings of Eq. 20, which the paper itself says have 'a very minor effect.' So the tuning sits in the OZI sector, arguably the least constrained part of the model. In fairness, the body is transparent about all of this; the problem is framing in the abstract and summary, plus widths quoted to three significant figures in a model whose charmed couplings are conceded to be good only to a factor of two. The closing caveat about additional terms in the kernel is the right calibration. Who should read it: anyone working on exotic baryons, and the lattice people the authors explicitly address. Worth a real referee.

Referee report

Significance

If the picture holds, this is a substantial and unusually falsifiable set of predictions: the paper gives explicit formation cross sections (Eqs. 36 and 37) for the N(3520) and the Lambda(3170), and the exclusion of the Lambda_c(2880) as an s-wave state is a concrete test against existing data. The framework is a natural and technically careful extension of vector-exchange dynamics that has been tested in the light and open-charm sectors, and the complete coupled-channel tables in Appendix A make the calculation reproducible. The observation in Section 4.2 that the crypto-exotic binding survives even with the charmed-vector exchange switched off is a genuine robustness argument for the existence claim, as distinct from the mass claim, and it is the strongest part of the paper.

Major objections (4)

[Section 4.2, abstract:s8, Section 5] The 3.52 GeV mass and 7 MeV width are not predictions of the framework as stated; they are obtained by fitting. Section 4.2 says explicitly: 'We adjust h1-bar3-bar3 = -1.19 g and h-bar3-bar31 = h-bar31-bar3 = 0.71 g as to obtain the nucleon resonance mass and width at 3.52 GeV and 7 MeV.' The abstract then reports (abstract:s8) 'A narrow nucleon resonance is found at mass 3.52 GeV', and Section 5 states 'We recover the masses and widths of a crypto-exotic nucleon and hyperon resonance suggested in high statistic bubble chamber experiments [5,6].' The untuned SU(4) column of Table 5 gives 3.33 GeV with a 156 MeV width, and that pair is the honest systematic band: roughly 200 MeV in mass and a factor of about twenty in width. The paper is to be credited for displaying both columns, but the abstract and the summary should distinguish postdiction from prediction and should quote the band rather than the tuned point. The same applies to the 3.23 GeV singlet identified with the 3.17 GeV signal of Ref. [5], where the tuned value sits 60 MeV above the empirical mass for a state whose width is quoted as 1 MeV.
[Section 2, Eq. (10), and Section 4.2] The paper argues that chiral symmetry and large-N_c counting determine the interaction that generates the spectrum, and Eq. (10) fixes h1-bar3-bar3 = -g at leading order in 1/N_c. The tuned value -1.19 g is therefore a 19% violation of a relation the paper relies on for its central claim, and h-bar3-bar31 = h-bar31-bar3 = 0.71 g is a 29% deviation from the SU(4) value g of Eq. (17). The manuscript should state plainly which couplings are determined and which are fitted, and should propagate the fit to the other octet members quoted at 3.58, 3.80 and 3.93 GeV. Those masses are given to 10 MeV in the abstract and in Tables 5-6, but they shift with the same two parameters that move the nucleon state by 200 MeV, so the quoted precision is not supported by the calculation.
[Section 4, Eqs. (29)-(31)] The headline width of about 1 MeV (abstract:s11) is extracted from a graphical speed-plot procedure that the manuscript itself describes as 'an approximate procedure, fully sufficient in view of the schematic nature of the computation.' For a state whose narrowness is the most striking claim in the paper, a pole search in the complex energy plane on the appropriate Riemann sheet would be far more convincing than reading a maximum off a logarithmic speed plot, and the values 0.57 MeV and 1.0 MeV in Tables 5-6 are quoted to two significant figures from that procedure. At minimum the authors should show the sensitivity of these widths to the subtraction scale mu of Eq. (28), which is fixed by a prescription rather than by data, and should state the numerical resolution of the method.
[Section 4.3] The claim that the Lambda_c(2880) cannot be an s-wave state rests on the model's own prediction that the 2.815 GeV state couples strongly to the eta Lambda_c channel, which would give it a width inconsistent with the observed upper limit of 8 MeV. This is a valid modus tollens only within the model, and the 65 MeV gap between the predicted 2815 MeV and the observed 2880 MeV is not discussed. The conclusion should either be softened to a model-dependent statement or supported by showing how the width of the 2.815 GeV state responds to variation of the eta Lambda_c coupling within the range the paper itself allows.

Minor objections (7)

[Section 2, Eq. (18)] The value extracted from the D+(2010) -> pi+ D0(1865) width, (h-bar3-bar39 + h-bar39-bar3)/4 = 10.4 +/- 1.4, is about 57% above the SU(4) estimate g = 6.6, yet it is described as 'a small SU(4) breaking pattern.' The wording understates the deviation, and the subsequent claim that the relations (17) and (20) are reliable 'within a factor two' should be restated as an explicit systematic uncertainty on the predicted masses.
[Section 4.1, Table 4] The (1/2,-1) mass moves from 2687 to 2780 MeV, a shift of 93 MeV, under a 19% change in a single coupling. This is the clearest single demonstration of the model's sensitivity in the paper and deserves a sentence in the text rather than appearing only as a comparison of table columns.
[Section 4.2, Tables 5-6] The (1/2,0) state at 1535 MeV appears with identical parameters in both the SU(4) and the broken columns. The text explains that heavy channels decouple from the low-energy spectrum, but the tables would be clearer if this degeneracy were stated explicitly where it occurs.
[Section 4.3] The paper cites Ref. [41], a quark-model calculation that predicts these negative-charm states to be unbound. A short discussion of that disagreement, and of what distinguishes the two treatments, would help the reader place the result.
[Figures 1-3] The logarithmic speed plots contain many overlapping curves and the resonance parameters cannot be read from them. Marking the pole positions, or adding a table keyed to the figure panels, would make the figures useful rather than illustrative.
[Section 2, Eq. (21)] The kernel is stated to be valid only under h-bar3-bar39 = h-bar39-bar3, h-bar3-bar31 = h-bar31-bar3 and h-bar3-bar30 = h-bar30-bar3. The first two conditions are respected in the numerical work, but the consequences of relaxing the third are never discussed.
[Editorial] There are typographical errors to correct: 'stats' for 'states' in Section 4.3 ('narrow Xi_c(2670) and Xi_c(2760) stats are obtained'), 'ar^ete-like' in Section 4, and 'J. Iiuzuka' in Ref. [39], which should read Iizuka.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

A single force — t-channel vector-meson exchange — is claimed to bind mesons and baryons into a whole spectrum of narrow hidden-charm baryons, including a 3.52 GeV nucleon and a 3.17 GeV hyperon only about 1 MeV wide.

The reading

The paper asks whether the same zero-range force that reproduces ordinary hadronic resonances can, once charmed mesons are added to the coupled-channel basis, bind a meson to a baryon strongly enough to make a stable molecule with hidden charm. The authors identify the t-channel exchange of the light vector mesons as that force and argue that chiral symmetry plus large-$N_c$ counting fix its strength without free parameters, leaving only the couplings of charmed vector mesons to be estimated by SU(4) symmetry. Running the resulting coupled-channel equations over every channel allowed by $u,d,s,c$ quarks, they find a dense spectrum of bound states and resonances rather than a handful. The states with a $cbar c$ pair are predicted to be narrow, because their strong decays must violate the OZI rule — the same mechanism that keeps the $J/psi$ long-lived. If the picture holds, two old bubble-chamber signals (a 3.17 GeV hyperon and a 3.52 GeV nucleon) are not anomalies but the first members of an SU(3) octet and singlet of crypto-exotic baryons, and there are roughly ten more narrow open-charm states below 3 GeV waiting to be found.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the s-wave projected coupled-channel kernel built from t-channel vector-meson exchange, $V^{(I,S,C)}(sqrt s) = sum_V C^{(I,S,C)}_V /(8 m_V^2) ,(2sqrt s - M - bar M + (bar M - M)(bar m^2 - m^2)/m_V^2)$, unitarized by the diagonal loop matrix $J$ with a subtraction scale $mu = sqrt{m_{rm th}^2 + M_{rm th}^2}$ chosen so that the lightest channel's loop vanishes at the matching point. That subtraction choice is what keeps heavy channels such as $eta_c N$ from contaminating the low-energy $pi N$ amplitude and spoiling the chiral prediction. The matrices $C^{(I,S,C)}_V$ carry all the group theory: summing over the light vector nonet reproduces the Weinberg–Tomozawa structure, and the full SU(4) decomposition $15 otimes 20 = 4 oplus 20_1 oplus 20_2 oplus 20_s oplus 36 oplus 60 oplus 140$ shows where attraction lives — strongest in the $bar 4$, repulsive in the $140$, absent in the $60$, with the exotic $36$ also attractive. Resonance positions and channel couplings are read off generalized speed plots, $mathrm{Speed}_{ab} = |d M_{ab}/d sqrt s|$, which separate a genuine pole from a threshold cusp.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that crypto-exotic baryons — baryons containing a $cbar c$ pair but no net charm — exist as hadronic molecules, bound by the t-channel exchange of light vector mesons between a pseudoscalar meson and a baryon ground state. The authors set up coupled-channel s-wave scattering over all channels required by $u,d,s,c$ quarks, with the interaction kernel taken as vector-meson exchange and the coupling constants fixed by chiral symmetry, the KSFR relation and leading-order large-$N_c$ relations; only the charmed-vector-meson vertices are left to SU(4) estimates. Solving the resulting matrix equation $M = [1 - V J]^{-1} V$ produces an SU(3) octet of hidden-charm states decaying predominantly through $eta'$ channels, with members at 3.52 GeV $(I,S)=(tfrac12,0)$, 3.58 GeV $(0,-1)$, 3.80 GeV $(tfrac12,-2)$ and 3.93 GeV $(1,-1)$, plus a more strongly bound SU(3) singlet formed from the $(bar D_s Lambda_c)$, $(bar D Xi_c)$ system near 3.17 GeV whose width comes out around 1 MeV. The same machinery reproduces the two known s-wave charmed baryons, $Lambda_c(2593)$ and $Xi_c(2790)$, and predicts about ten further narrow open-charm states below 3 GeV; the authors use this to argue that the $Lambda_c(2880)$ cannot be an s-wave state, since its observed narrow width is incompatible with the large coupling to the $eta Lambda_c$ channel that an s-wave assignment would require.

Load-bearing premise

The masses of every hidden-charm state rest on SU(4)-symmetric estimates for how charmed vector mesons couple to charmed mesons and baryons — estimates the authors themselves say are only good to a factor of two and which they then adjust by hand to place the nucleon resonance at 3.52 GeV with a 7 MeV width.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A narrow peak should appear in the $eta' N$ channel near 3.52 GeV, with a formation cross section in $pi^- p$ of roughly $600 ,mu$barn per MeV of total width, against a total cross section of about 25 mbarn.
A narrow $eta' Lambda$ or $bar D_s Lambda_c$ structure should appear near 3.17 GeV, with a $K^- p$ formation cross section of order $36 ,mu$barn per MeV of width, compatible with the old bubble-chamber limit of under 20 MeV.
The octet partners at 3.58, 3.80 and 3.93 GeV should be visible in the corresponding strangeness and isospin channels, all with widths clustered near 7 MeV and all decaying preferentially into channels containing an $eta'$.
In the open-charm sector, roughly ten additional narrow s-wave states below 3 GeV are predicted, including a $Sigma_c(2620)$ coupling to $(D N)$ and $(D_s Sigma)$, a $Lambda_c(2815)$ formed from $(eta Lambda_c)$ and $(K Xi_c)$, and narrow $Xi_c$ states near 2672 and 2793 MeV.
Lattice QCD simulations with dynamical charm quarks should either confirm or exclude bound states in these quantum-number channels, since the prediction is a statement about the spectrum itself, not about a particular decay.

Reading between the lines

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

The mechanism is generic enough that the same vector-exchange attraction should bind other heavy-meson/heavy-baryon combinations not tabulated here — for instance states built on $Omega_c$ or on the doubly charmed $Xi_{cc}$ with a $bar D_s$ — so the paper's tables are probably a subset of a larger molecular spectrum.
If the widths really are set by OZI violation through the $eta'$, then the crypto-exotic states are a direct experimental handle on the $U_A(1)$ anomaly's mixing of $eta'$ with gluonic operators, a connection the authors note but do not exploit quantitatively.
The claim that $Lambda_c(2880)$ is not s-wave is testable independently of the model: measuring its coupling to $eta Lambda_c$ relative to $pi Sigma_c$ would either show the suppression an s-wave assignment forbids or reveal the state as a higher partial wave.
Because the headline masses depend on couplings the authors tune by hand, a useful extension would be to treat those couplings as fit parameters against the two known charmed baryons and then postdict, rather than tune, the hidden-charm masses.

Original abstract

Identifying the t-channel exchange of vector mesons as the driving force for the s-wave scattering of pseudo-scalar mesons off the baryon ground states, a surprisingly rich spectrum of molecules is formed. We argue that chiral symmetry and large- N_c considerations determine that part of the interaction which generates the spectrum. All channels that are required by the existence of (u,d,s,c) quarks are considered. A bound state with exotic quantum numbers is predicted at mass 2.78 GeV. It couples strongly to the (bar D_s N),(bar D Lambda),(bar D Sigma) channels. A further charm minus-one system is predicted at mass 2.84 GeV as a result of (bar D_s Lambda), (bar D Xi) interactions. We suggest the existence of strongly bound crypto-exotic baryons, which contain a charm-anti-charm pair. Such states are narrow since they can decay only via OZI-violating processes. A narrow nucleon resonance is found at mass 3.52 GeV. It is a coupled-channel bound state of the (eta_c N), (bar D Sigma_c) system, which decays dominantly into the (eta' N) channel. Furthermore two isospin singlet hyperon states at mass 3.23 GeV and 3.58 GeV are observed as a consequence of coupled-channel interactions of the (bar D_s Lambda_c), (bar D Xi_c) and (eta_c Lambda),(bar D Xi_c') states. Most striking is the small width of about 1 MeV of the lower state. The upper state may be significantly broader due to a strong coupling to the (eta' Lambda) state. The two so far observed s-wave baryons with charm one are recovered. We argue that the Lambda_c(2880) is not a s-wave state. In addition to those states we predict the existence of about ten narrow s-wave baryon states with masses below 3 GeV.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 11,409 input tokens, $0.0005 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.04 · states limitation 0.23 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.02 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.98 · compares with prior results 0.71 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v2. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

Identifying the t-channel exchange of vector mesons as the driving force for the s-wave scattering of pseudo-scalar mesons off the baryon ground states, a surprisingly rich spectrum of molecules is formed. We argue that chiral symmetry and large- N_c considerations determine that part of the interaction which generates the spectrum. All channels that are required by the existence of (u,d,s,c) quarks are considered. A bound state with exotic quantum numbers is predicted at mass 2.78 GeV. It couples strongly to the (bar D_s N),(bar D Lambda),(bar D Sigma) channels. A further charm minus-one system is predicted at mass 2.84 GeV as a result of (bar D_s Lambda), (bar D Xi) interactions. We suggest the existence of strongly bound crypto-exotic baryons, which contain a charm-anti-charm pair. Such states are narrow since they can decay only via OZI-violating processes. A narrow nucleon resonance is found at mass 3.52 GeV. It is a coupled-channel bound state of the (eta_c N), (bar D Sigma_c) system, which decays dominantly into the (eta' N) channel. Furthermore two isospin singlet hyperon states at mass 3.23 GeV and 3.58 GeV are observed as a consequence of coupled-channel interactions of the (bar D_s Lambda_c), (bar D Xi_c) and (eta_c Lambda),(bar D Xi_c') states. Most striking is the small width of about 1 MeV of the lower state. The upper state may be significantly broader due to a strong coupling to the (eta' Lambda) state. The two so far observed s-wave baryons with charm one are recovered. We argue that the Lambda_c(2880) is not a s-wave state. In addition to those states we predict the existence of about ten narrow s-wave baryon states with masses below 3 GeV.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	Identifying the t-channel exchange of vector mesons as the driving force for the s-wave scattering of pseudo-scalar mesons off the baryon ground states, a surprisingly rich spectrum of molecules is formed.	method 0.42	0.60	0.21	asserted 1.00
s1	We argue that chiral symmetry and large- N_c considerations determine that part of the interaction which generates the spectrum.	interpretation 0.64	0.50	0.08	asserted 0.70
s2	All channels that are required by the existence of (u,d,s,c) quarks are considered.	method 0.75	0.80	0.03	asserted 0.96
s3	A bound state with exotic quantum numbers is predicted at mass 2.78 GeV.	result 1.00	0.89	0.27	asserted 0.91
s4	It couples strongly to the (bar D_s N),(bar D Lambda),(bar D Sigma) channels.	result 1.00	0.84	0.08	asserted 1.00
s5	A further charm minus-one system is predicted at mass 2.84 GeV as a result of (bar D_s Lambda), (bar D Xi) interactions.	result 1.00	0.89	0.06	asserted 0.96
s6	We suggest the existence of strongly bound crypto-exotic baryons, which contain a charm-anti-charm pair.	result 0.63	0.61	0.58	hedged possibility 0.89
s7	Such states are narrow since they can decay only via OZI-violating processes.	interpretation 0.95	0.41	0.09	asserted 0.98
s8	A narrow nucleon resonance is found at mass 3.52 GeV.	result 1.00	0.92	0.07	asserted 1.00
s9	It is a coupled-channel bound state of the (eta_c N), (bar D Sigma_c) system, which decays dominantly into the (eta' N) channel.	result 1.00	0.94	0.07	asserted 1.00
s10	Furthermore two isospin singlet hyperon states at mass 3.23 GeV and 3.58 GeV are observed as a consequence of coupled-channel interactions of the (bar D_s Lambda_c), (bar D Xi_c) and (eta_c Lambda),(bar D Xi_c') states.	result 1.00	0.86	0.09	asserted 1.00
s11	Most striking is the small width of about 1 MeV of the lower state.	result 0.99	0.88	0.06	asserted 1.00
s12	The upper state may be significantly broader due to a strong coupling to the (eta' Lambda) state.	interpretation 0.56	0.81	0.04	hedged possibility 1.00
s13	The two so far observed s-wave baryons with charm one are recovered.	result 0.72	0.55	0.07	asserted 1.00
s14	We argue that the Lambda_c(2880) is not a s-wave state.	interpretation 0.88	0.69	0.06	asserted 0.89
s15	In addition to those states we predict the existence of about ten narrow s-wave baryon states with masses below 3 GeV.	result 0.97	0.88	0.26	asserted 0.69

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.88 · evidence from simulation or computation 0.52.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v2

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 1.** It is shown the logarithm of the diagonal Speed

**Figure 2.** It is shown the logarithm of the diagonal Speed

**Figure 3.** It is shown the logarithm of the diagonal Speed

Figures reproduced from arXiv:hep-ph/0507071 by the authors.

References

Works cited (47)

[5]

T. Amirzadeh et al., Phys. Lett. B 89 (1979) 125

View on Pith 1979
[1]

S.J. Brodsky, I. Schmidt and G.F. de Teramond, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64 (1990) 1011

View on Pith 1990
[2]

A.B. Kaidalov and P.E. Volkovitsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69 (1992) 3155

View on Pith 1992
[3]

C. Gobbi, D.O. Riska and N.N. Scoccola, Phys. Lett. B 296 (1992) 166

View on Pith 1992
[4]

L.G. Landsberg, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 57 (1994) 2127

View on Pith 1994
[6]

V.M. Karnaukhov et al., Phys. Lett. B 281 (1991) 148

View on Pith 1991
[7]

M.F.M. Lutz and E.E. Kolomeitsev, Nucl. Phys. A 730 (2004) 110

View on Pith 2004
[8]

M.F.M. Lutz and E. E. Kolomeitsev, Nucl. Phys. A 755 (2005) 29c

View on Pith 2005
[10]

J. Hofmann and M.F.M. Lutz, Nucl. Phys. A 733 (2004) 142

View on Pith 2004
[11]

M.F.M. Lutz and E. E. Kolomeitsev, Nucl. Phys. A 700 (2002) 193

View on Pith 2002
[12]

M.F.M. Lutz, Gy. Wolf and B. Friman, Nucl. Phys. A 706 (2002) 431

View on Pith 2002
[13]

M.F.M. Lutz and E.E. Kolomeitsev, Nucl. Phys. A 730 (2004) 392

View on Pith 2004
[14]

C. Garc ´ ıa-Recio, M.F.M. Lutz and J. Nieves, Phys. Lett . B 582 (2004) 49

View on Pith 2004
[15]

E.E. Kolomeitsev and M.F.M. Lutz, Phys. Lett. B 585 (2004) 243

View on Pith 2004
[16]

Ch. Hong-Mo and H. H¨ ogaasen, Z. Phys. C 7 (1980) 25

View on Pith 1980
[17]

M. Rho, D.O. Riska and N.N. Scoccola, Z. Phys. A 341 (1992) 343

View on Pith 1992
[18]

D.-P. Min, Y. Oh, B.-Y. Park and M. Rho, Int. J. Mod. E 4 (1995) 47

View on Pith 1995
[19]

Y. Oh and H. Kim, Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 094022

View on Pith 2004
[20]

S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. 166 (1968) 1568

View on Pith 1968
[21]

H.W. Wyld, Phys. Rev. 155 (1967) 1649

View on Pith 1967
[22]

R.H. Dalitz, T.C. Wong and G. Rajasekaran, Phys. Rev. 153 (1967) 1617

View on Pith 1967
[23]

P.B. Siegel and W. Weise, Phys. Rev. C 38 (1988) 2221

View on Pith 1988
[24]

M. Bando et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 54 (1985) 1215

View on Pith 1985
[25]

S. Eidelman et al., Phys. Lett. B 592 (2004) 1

View on Pith 2004
[26]

M. Maston et al. (SELEX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett . 89 (2002) 112001

View on Pith 2002
[27]

J.S. Russ, AIP Conf. Proc. 717 (2004) 507. 50

View on Pith 2004
[28]

J. Engelfried, Nucl. Phys. A 752 (2005) 121c

View on Pith 2005
[29]

J.G. K¨ orner, M. Kr¨ amer and D. Pirjol, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 33 (1994) 787

View on Pith 1994
[30]

K. Kawarabayashi and M. Suzuki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 16 (1966) 255

View on Pith 1966
[31]

Riazuddin and Fayyazuddin, Phys. Rev. 147 (1966) 1071

View on Pith 1966
[32]

D. Djukanovic et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 122002

View on Pith 2004
[33]

G. H¨ ohler,πN NewsLetter 9 (1993) 1

View on Pith 1993
[34]

V.S. Mathur, S. Okubo and S. Borchardt, Phys. Rev. D 11 (1975) 2572

View on Pith 1975
[35]

R. Mizuk et al. (BELLE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 (2005) 122002

View on Pith 2005
[36]

L.A. Copley, N. Isgur and G. Karl, Phys. Rev. D 20 (1979) 768

View on Pith 1979
[37]

N. Mathur, R. Lewis and R. M. Woloshyn, Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 014502

View on Pith 2002
[38]

R. Dashen, E. Jenkins and A.V. Manohar, Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994) 4713

View on Pith 1994
[39]

S. Okubo, Phys. Lett. 5 (1963) 165; G. Zweig, CERN Reports TH-401, TH-412 (1964), unpublished; J. Iiuzuka, Prog. Theor. Part. Sci. 37 (1966) 21

View on Pith 1963
[40]

H.J. Lipkin, Phys. Lett. B 195 (1987) 484

View on Pith 1987
[41]

M. Genovese, J.-M. Richard, F.L. Stancu and S. Pepin, Ph ys. Lett. B 425 (1998) 171

View on Pith 1998
[42]

H1 Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B 588 (2004) 17

View on Pith 2004
[43]

I.W. Stewart, M.E. Wessling and M.B. Wise, Phys. Lett. B 590 (2004) 185

View on Pith 2004
[44]

H. Kim, S.H. Lee and Y. Oh, Phys. Lett. B 595 (2004) 293

View on Pith 2004
[45]

M.E. Wessling, Phys. Lett. B 603 (2004) 152

View on Pith 2004
[46]

D. Pirjol and C. Schat, Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 036004

View on Pith 2005
[47]

P. Bicudo, Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 011501 (R)

View on Pith 2005
[48]

M. Artuso et. al. (CLEO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett . 86 (2001) 4479. 51

View on Pith 2001

Forward citations

Cited by 19 Pith papers

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

Properties of the $D_{s0}^*(2317)^\pm$ in hot and dense nuclear matter
hep-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A coupled-channel molecular model predicts that in nuclear matter the D_s0*(2317)+ shifts downward and broadens with density, while temperature narrows it and broadens its antiparticle, yielding a possible structural test.
Predicted Exotic Doubly Heavy-Strange Pentaquarks
hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

Predictions of two states in u d-bar s cc, three in u d-bar s cb, and four in u d-bar s bb sectors plus virtual states, obtained via unitary coupled channels with off-diagonal binding dominance.
Comprehensive study of hidden charm pentaquarks with an improved unitarization method
hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

Introduces a hybrid loop function in Bethe-Salpeter unitarization within the local hidden gauge approach to generate hidden-charm pentaquarks, reproducing six known states and predicting new ones in the S=-1, I=1 sector.
Prediction of $QQqq\bar{s}$ molecular pentaquarks within the extended local hidden gauge approach
hep-ph 2025-08 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

A model calculation predicts fourteen double-heavy molecular pentaquark states, but their existence and binding energies depend critically on an unconstrained regularization parameter.
On the possible existence of a $S=-3, \, I=1$ pentaquark
hep-ph 2024-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A unitarized chiral calculation with next-to-leading-order terms generates a possible I=1 triply strange pentaquark near the Kbar-Xi threshold for one LEC set.

Show 14 more citing papers

First study of the two-body scattering involving charm hadrons
nucl-ex 2022-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The first femtoscopic measurement of pD- correlations finds the data compatible with Coulomb-only interaction at 1.1-1.5 sigma, with a slight preference for an attractive ND strong interaction and a 68% CL interval fo...
Combining heavy quark spin and local hidden gauge symmetries in the dynamical generation of hidden charm baryons
hep-ph 2013-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The SU(4) extrapolation of local hidden gauge dynamics automatically satisfies leading-order heavy quark spin symmetry, and with it four basic hidden-charm baryon bound states appear near 4.3 to 4.5 GeV, all in isospin 1/2.
Radiative decays of dynamically generated pentaquarks in the chiral unitary approach: the $P_c(4457)\to P_c(4312)\,\gamma$ transition
hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

The M1 radiative decay width Pc(4457)(3/2-) → Pc(4312)(1/2-)γ is computed as 6.7 keV (range 2-9 keV) via 19 triangle loops with photon coupling to molecular components.
Final state interaction in the $\Lambda_b\to D^+D^- \Lambda,~D^0D_s^- p,~D_s^+D_s^-\Lambda$ reactions
hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Threshold enhancements in the Ds-p, Ds-Lambda, and related mass distributions of Lambda_b decays are predicted from final state interactions with molecular exotic states.
A survey of heavy-antiheavy hadronic molecules
hep-ph 2021-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A symmetry-based contact-interaction survey of all charmed-anticharmed hadron pairs yields 229 candidate hadronic molecules, including a Lambda_c anti-Lambda_c bound state offered as an explanation of the flat BESIII ...
Baryon states with hidden charm in the extended local hidden gauge approach
hep-ph 2015-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A coupled-channel calculation with pion-exchange box diagrams predicts six hidden-charm baryon states, including two pairs of mixed Dbar-Sigma_c / Dbar*-Sigma_c and Dbar-Sigma*_c / Dbar*-Sigma*_c resonances.
Charmed and strange baryon resonances with heavy-quark spin symmetry
hep-ph 2012-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

An SU(8) spin-flavor coupled-channel model predicts charmed baryon resonances across one, two, and three charm sectors and tentatively assigns the Xi_c(2790) and Xi_c(2815) to a heavy-quark spin symmetry doublet.
Dynamically generated $N^{*}$ and $\Lambda^*$ resonances in the hidden charm sector around 4.3 GeV
nucl-th 2010-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Six narrow hidden-charm baryon states (N* and Lambda*) are predicted at 4.2-4.6 GeV from a coupled-channel SU(4) hidden-gauge calculation, with production cross sections estimated for PANDA.
Dynamically Generated Open and Hidden Charm Meson Systems
hep-ph 2006-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A unitarized SU(4) coupled-channel model predicts a new narrow hidden-charm scalar meson near 3.7 GeV, mostly a D Dbar quasi-bound state.
Scattering and Femtoscopic Correlation Functions of the $\Sigma_c^{++}\pi^{+}$, $\Sigma_c^{0}\pi^{-}$ and $\Sigma_b^{+}\pi^{+}$ Systems
hep-ph 2026-03 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Theoretical predictions show that femtoscopic correlation functions for neutral Σ_c^0 π^- pairs best constrain isotensor strong interactions in charm and bottom sectors, while Coulomb repulsion diminishes discriminati...
Dynamically generated $J^P=1/2^-(3/2^-)$ singly charmed and bottom heavy baryons
hep-ph 2014-09 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Fitting one subtraction constant to the Lambda_b(5912) or Lambda_c(2595), the authors predict a family of dynamically generated singly heavy baryons and their scattering lengths.
Pentaquark and Tetraquark states
hep-ph 2019-03 accept novelty 2.5 of 10

A comprehensive review of hidden-heavy-flavor tetraquark and pentaquark states, covering LHCb's confirmation of the Pc states and surveying the chromomagnetic-interaction, quark-model, meson-exchange, QCD-sum-rule, an...
Heavy Hadrons in Nuclear Matter
hep-ph 2016-06 accept novelty 2.0 of 10

The review consolidates three decades of theory on charm and bottom hadrons in nuclear matter, organized by chiral symmetry and heavy quark spin symmetry, and reports where competing models agree and where they do not.
Exotic hadrons: review and perspectives
hep-ph 2016-06 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

Richard reviews the exotic hadron landscape sector by sector and argues that double-heavy flavour configurations, not the crowded hidden-charm sector, are the most promising place to find an unambiguous multiquark state.

How the literature uses it

47 arXiv papers cite this in 121 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers citing it · 69 sentences without a confident label

Contests it 2 papers

As commented in Ref. [ref] , the subtraction scales $μ$ used in Ref. [ref] is unreasonably large to ensure that the heavy channel has a negligible effect on the low-energy scattering of the light channel.

Molecular-type $QQss\bar{s}$ pentaquarks predicted by an extended hidden gauge symmetry approach · Numerical results · contest 0.76
Subsequent works [ref] introduced some improvements, but they failed to provide a scheme fully consistent with HQSS.

Lowest-lying ${\frac{1}{2}}^-$ and ${\frac{3}{2}}^-$ $\Lambda_{Q}$ resonances: from the strange to the bottom sectors · Extended molecular schemes · contest 0.84

Builds on it 1 paper

For the pseudoscalar $P$ and vector $V^μ$ meson fields, they are easily extended from the SU(3) to the SU(5) case following the work of [ref] ,

Molecular-type $QQss\bar{s}$ pentaquarks predicted by an extended hidden gauge symmetry approach · The molecular-type double-heavy pentaquarks with three strange quarks · 0.85

Uses its method or tool 10 papers

In Ref. [ref] , the medium effect for the $D/D̅$ meson is studied within the self-consistent framework developed in Ref. [ref] , together with the SU(4) contact interaction model of Ref. [ref] .

Heavy Hadrons in Nuclear Matter · Nuclear matter · 0.87
A coupled-channel BSE, with a $SU(6)_lsf×$HQSS-extended WT meson-baryon interaction, is solved in [ref] within the on–shell approximation, and adopting a one-subtraction RS at fixed scale for all channels, as advocated in Refs. [ref] .

$\Omega_c$ excited states within a ${\rm SU(6)}_{\rm lsf}\times$HQSS model · Conclusions · 0.80
To describe the interaction we employ effective Lagrangians that describe the couplings of the vector meson to pseudoscalar mesons $(VPP)$ and baryons $(VBB)$, which are obtained using the hidden gauge formalism and assuming $SU(4)$ symmetry [ref] : [equation] [equation] where $ϕ$ and $V_μ$ represent the 16-plet pseudo-scalar field and the 16-plet vector field, respectively, and $⟨ ⟩$ denotes the $SU(4)$ trace in flavour space.

Double strangeness pentaquarks and other exotic hadrons in the $\Xi_b \to \Xi\ J/\Psi\ \phi$ decay · Meson-Baryon interaction · 0.98

Uses its data or values 3 papers

[ref] are provided directly, while for the other models [ref] they are evaluated by employing a Gaussian potential whose strength is adjusted to describe the corresponding published $I=0$ and $I=1$ scattering lengths listed in Table [ref].

First study of the two-body scattering involving charm hadrons · Results · 0.80
Regarding the coupling constants related to baryons, the following values are utilized [ref] [equation] Other coupling constants of those type can be derived from $SU(4)$ symmetry.

Strong decays of the $\Lambda_{c}(2910)$ and $\Lambda_{c}(2940)$ in the $ND^{*}$ molecular frame · Coupling constants under SU(4) symmetry · 1.00
We consider two possibles models: in the first one, which is based in the latest experimental results (Refs. [ref] ), we assume existence of only one broad $X(4140)$ resonance with a pole position of $M_R=4146.5 MeV$ and a width of $Γ=83 MeV$; while the second model assumes the existence of a narrow $X(4140)$ plus a wide $X(4160)$ resonance, based on earlier experimental results [ref] and a recent theoretical model [ref] .

Double strangeness pentaquarks and other exotic hadrons in the $\Xi_b \to \Xi\ J/\Psi\ \phi$ decay · The $J/ψ ϕ$ mass distribution · 0.90

Compares with it 9 papers

In total 200 and 221 pairs contribute to $N_same()$ in the region of $< 200$, where model calculations [ref] predict a deviation from unity.

First study of the two-body scattering involving charm hadrons · The correlation function · 0.84
In addition, there appears a subthreshold mode, located around 75 MeV below the $D_s$ mass, related to an additional $D_s N$ resonance found in [ref] and not in [ref] , in spite of the similar kernels employed, which include a null or negligible $D_sN$ interaction.

Properties of the $D_{s0}^*(2317)^\pm$ in hot and dense nuclear matter · In-medium and finite-temperature loop function · 0.96
From the analysis of the amplitude on the real axis, the quasi-bound states are found at qualitatively similar positions with Ref. [ref] , while the $I=1$ state becomes broader.

Heavy Hadrons in Nuclear Matter · Two-body interaction with nucleon · 0.97

Cites it as support 1 paper

These phenomena mentioned above give us sufficient reason to believe that there should be double-charm molecular pentaquarks [ref] , which is the starting point of the present work.

Molecular-type $QQss\bar{s}$ pentaquarks predicted by an extended hidden gauge symmetry approach · Introduction · 0.99

Cites it as background 14 papers

For $J^P=(1/2)^-$ $D̅N$ system, the $D̅N$ interaction is either insufficient to form the loosely bound state [ref] or only capable of forming very shallow bound states [ref] for $J^P=1/2^-(I=0)$ $D̅N$ system.

Finding Interaction Mechanism between Exotic Molecule and Conventional Hadron · Model for Interaction Dynamics · 0.83
The hadronic molecules have been studied by the meson-baryon coupled-channel approach [ref] and the QCD sum rules [ref] .

Hidden-charm pentaquarks as a meson-baryon molecule with coupled channels for $\bar{D}^{(\ast)}\Lambda_{\rm c}$ and $\bar{D}^{(\ast)}\Sigma^{(\ast)}_{\rm c}$ · Introduction · 0.94
Baryons with hidden charm, structured as a meson-baryon molecule, had been predicted in some earlier works [ref] , prior to their discovery, but the existence of a hidden charm pentaquark with double strangeness was not addressed until recently.

Double strangeness pentaquarks and other exotic hadrons in the $\Xi_b \to \Xi\ J/\Psi\ \phi$ decay · Introduction · 0.84

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [5]

T. Amirzadeh et al., Phys. Lett. B 89 (1979) 125

View on Pith 1979

[2] [1]

S.J. Brodsky, I. Schmidt and G.F. de Teramond, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64 (1990) 1011

View on Pith 1990

[3] [2]

A.B. Kaidalov and P.E. Volkovitsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69 (1992) 3155

View on Pith 1992

[4] [3]

C. Gobbi, D.O. Riska and N.N. Scoccola, Phys. Lett. B 296 (1992) 166

View on Pith 1992

[5] [4]

L.G. Landsberg, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 57 (1994) 2127

View on Pith 1994

[6] [6]

V.M. Karnaukhov et al., Phys. Lett. B 281 (1991) 148

View on Pith 1991

[7] [7]

M.F.M. Lutz and E.E. Kolomeitsev, Nucl. Phys. A 730 (2004) 110

View on Pith 2004

[8] [8]

M.F.M. Lutz and E. E. Kolomeitsev, Nucl. Phys. A 755 (2005) 29c

View on Pith 2005

[9] [10]

J. Hofmann and M.F.M. Lutz, Nucl. Phys. A 733 (2004) 142

View on Pith 2004

[10] [11]

M.F.M. Lutz and E. E. Kolomeitsev, Nucl. Phys. A 700 (2002) 193

View on Pith 2002

[11] [12]

M.F.M. Lutz, Gy. Wolf and B. Friman, Nucl. Phys. A 706 (2002) 431

View on Pith 2002

[12] [13]

M.F.M. Lutz and E.E. Kolomeitsev, Nucl. Phys. A 730 (2004) 392

View on Pith 2004

[13] [14]

C. Garc ´ ıa-Recio, M.F.M. Lutz and J. Nieves, Phys. Lett . B 582 (2004) 49

View on Pith 2004

[14] [15]

E.E. Kolomeitsev and M.F.M. Lutz, Phys. Lett. B 585 (2004) 243

View on Pith 2004

[15] [16]

Ch. Hong-Mo and H. H¨ ogaasen, Z. Phys. C 7 (1980) 25

View on Pith 1980

[16] [17]

M. Rho, D.O. Riska and N.N. Scoccola, Z. Phys. A 341 (1992) 343

View on Pith 1992

[17] [18]

D.-P. Min, Y. Oh, B.-Y. Park and M. Rho, Int. J. Mod. E 4 (1995) 47

View on Pith 1995

[18] [19]

Y. Oh and H. Kim, Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 094022

View on Pith 2004

[19] [20]

S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. 166 (1968) 1568

View on Pith 1968

[20] [21]

H.W. Wyld, Phys. Rev. 155 (1967) 1649

View on Pith 1967

[21] [22]

R.H. Dalitz, T.C. Wong and G. Rajasekaran, Phys. Rev. 153 (1967) 1617

View on Pith 1967

[22] [23]

P.B. Siegel and W. Weise, Phys. Rev. C 38 (1988) 2221

View on Pith 1988

[23] [24]

M. Bando et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 54 (1985) 1215

View on Pith 1985

[24] [25]

S. Eidelman et al., Phys. Lett. B 592 (2004) 1

View on Pith 2004

[25] [26]

M. Maston et al. (SELEX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett . 89 (2002) 112001

View on Pith 2002

[26] [27]

J.S. Russ, AIP Conf. Proc. 717 (2004) 507. 50

View on Pith 2004

[27] [28]

J. Engelfried, Nucl. Phys. A 752 (2005) 121c

View on Pith 2005

[28] [29]

J.G. K¨ orner, M. Kr¨ amer and D. Pirjol, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 33 (1994) 787

View on Pith 1994

[29] [30]

K. Kawarabayashi and M. Suzuki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 16 (1966) 255

View on Pith 1966

[30] [31]

Riazuddin and Fayyazuddin, Phys. Rev. 147 (1966) 1071

View on Pith 1966

[31] [32]

D. Djukanovic et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 122002

View on Pith 2004

[32] [33]

G. H¨ ohler,πN NewsLetter 9 (1993) 1

View on Pith 1993

[33] [34]

V.S. Mathur, S. Okubo and S. Borchardt, Phys. Rev. D 11 (1975) 2572

View on Pith 1975

[34] [35]

R. Mizuk et al. (BELLE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 (2005) 122002

View on Pith 2005

[35] [36]

L.A. Copley, N. Isgur and G. Karl, Phys. Rev. D 20 (1979) 768

View on Pith 1979

[36] [37]

N. Mathur, R. Lewis and R. M. Woloshyn, Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 014502

View on Pith 2002

[37] [38]

R. Dashen, E. Jenkins and A.V. Manohar, Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994) 4713

View on Pith 1994

[38] [39]

S. Okubo, Phys. Lett. 5 (1963) 165; G. Zweig, CERN Reports TH-401, TH-412 (1964), unpublished; J. Iiuzuka, Prog. Theor. Part. Sci. 37 (1966) 21

View on Pith 1963

[39] [40]

H.J. Lipkin, Phys. Lett. B 195 (1987) 484

View on Pith 1987

[40] [41]

M. Genovese, J.-M. Richard, F.L. Stancu and S. Pepin, Ph ys. Lett. B 425 (1998) 171

View on Pith 1998

[41] [42]

H1 Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B 588 (2004) 17

View on Pith 2004

[42] [43]

I.W. Stewart, M.E. Wessling and M.B. Wise, Phys. Lett. B 590 (2004) 185

View on Pith 2004

[43] [44]

H. Kim, S.H. Lee and Y. Oh, Phys. Lett. B 595 (2004) 293

View on Pith 2004

[44] [45]

M.E. Wessling, Phys. Lett. B 603 (2004) 152

View on Pith 2004

[45] [46]

D. Pirjol and C. Schat, Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 036004

View on Pith 2005

[46] [47]

P. Bicudo, Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 011501 (R)

View on Pith 2005

[47] [48]

M. Artuso et. al. (CLEO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett . 86 (2001) 4479. 51

View on Pith 2001