Exploring tetraquark candidates in a coupled-channels formalism
Abstract
This study investigates the properties of the tetraquark candidates within a coupled-channels calculation of the system, specifically focusing on the , , and sectors. The analysis includes various channels containing a , , , and meson. By searching for poles in the scattering matrix, a total of 29 states in different sectors with masses ranging from 6.1 to 7.6 GeV/c2 are identified. The study further investigates the masses, widths and branching ratios of these states, leading to the identification of two potential candidates for the experimental tetraquark, one candidate for , two for , four for , and three for tetraquarks. Additionally, the paper discusses strategies to discriminate between different candidates and explores possible detection channels for further states.
I INTRODUCTION
Understanding the spectroscopy, structure and dynamics of exotic hadrons is one of the most challenging areas of contemporary physics research. In recent years, high-energy experiments have revealed a wealth of multiquark states that defy conventional explanations based on baryon () or meson () configurations. The seminal discovery of X(3872) by the Belle group Choi et al. (2003) marked a turning point, subsequently leading to the identification of several tetraquark states, including , Ablikim et al. (2013a, b), , Ablikim et al. (2021); Aaij et al. (2021), which exhibit charmonium-like properties, , Bondar et al. (2012); Garmash et al. (2016), which resemble bottomonium states, or openly exotic states such as the Aaij et al. (2022a, b) or the , Aaij et al. (2020a) particles. The study of the properties and behaviour of these exotic hadrons promises to deepen our understanding of the fundamental interactions that govern the subatomic world, transcending the conventional quark compositions.
Recent breakthroughs have been made by the LHCb, CMS, and ATLAS Collaborations, as they have observed resonances in the di- and 111For simplicity, in this work we will denote as and as . invariant mass distributions Aaij et al. (2020b); Hayrapetyan et al. (2023); Zhang and Yi (2022); ATL (2022); Xu (2023) in proton-proton collision data at , and TeV. These resonances, with minimum quark content, such as , , and 222In this work we will follow the naming convention of Ref. Gershon (2022). has sparked renewed interest in investigating fully charmed and beauty four-quark mesons. These experimental results provide a unique opportunity to test and refine our current understanding in this field.
The existence of heavy exotic mesons composed of two or four and quarks has intrigued researchers since the early stages of multiquark hadron studies Iwasaki (1976); Chao (1981); Ader et al. (1982); Badalian et al. (1987); Lloyd and Vary (2004); Berezhnoy et al. (2012); Karliner et al. (2017) and, since the experimental observation of candidates a large number of theoretical studies have been devoted to explaining their properties, either as compact tetraquark states Park et al. (2019); Di et al. (2018); Lü et al. (2020); Karliner and Rosner (2020); Weng et al. (2021); Sonnenschein and Weissman (2021); Gordillo et al. (2020), diquark-antidiquark structures Debastiani and Navarra (2019); Chen et al. (2017); Wang et al. (2019); Bedolla et al. (2020); Giron and Lebed (2020); Jin et al. (2020); Deng et al. (2021); Faustov et al. (2021); Wang (2020); Mutuk (2021) and meson-meson molecules or coupled-channels effects Debastiani and Navarra (2019); Dong et al. (2021); Jin et al. (2020); Deng et al. (2021); Albuquerque et al. (2020); Guo and Oller (2021); Agaev et al. (2023); Niu et al. (2023).
Many of these exotic states, such as , , , and others, tend to emerge close a two-hadron threshold. It is therefore tempting to infer a molecular nature for such kind of states. Similarly, many of the recent states such as the , or the , are close to many charmonium-charmonium thresholds such as the , or the threshold, respectively. Motivated by these observations, this study investigates the properties of the candidates , , , and in a coupled-channels formalism based on a constituent quark model (CQM) Vijande et al. (2005); Segovia et al. (2013), which has been widely used in the heavy quark sector Segovia et al. (2008, 2016); Ortega et al. (2020) and extended to the study of other exotic states such as the Ortega et al. (2010, 2017, 2019, 2021, 2022), the Ortega et al. (2023a) or the and states Ortega et al. (2023b). The advantage of using an approach with a relatively long history is that all model parameters are already constrained by previous works. Consequently, from this point of view, we present a parameter-free calculation of the states, extending our recent analysis of the similar and exotic candidates Ortega et al. (2023a, b).
The organization of the manuscript is as follows: After this introduction, section II provides a brief overview of the theoretical framework. Section III primarily focuses on the analysis and discussion of our theoretical findings. Lastly, in Sec. IV, we present a summary of our work and draw conclusions based on the obtained results.
II THEORETICAL FORMALISM
In this work we will explore the tetraquark candidates as meson-meson molecules. This system has many similar features as the recently discovered tetraquark, with minimum quark content . Then, for the we will follow the same formalism as in Ref. Ortega et al. (2023a), where the was described as a molecule. For this reason, in this section we will only briefly provide the most relevant theoretical aspects for the study of the states.
The constituent quark model (CQM) employed in this work has been extensively detailed in the literature. For a full description, including expressions of all the potentials and the values of the model parameters, the reader is kindly referred to Ref. Vijande et al. (2005) and its update Ref. Segovia et al. (2008).
The main elements of our constituent quark model (CQM) encompass the constituent light quark masses and the exchanges involving Goldstone bosons, which arise as manifestations of the dynamical breaking of chiral symmetry in Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD). Additionally, the model incorporates the perturbative interaction of one-gluon exchange (OGE) and a non-perturbative confinement interaction Vijande et al. (2005); Segovia et al. (2013). However, it is worth noticing that, whereas the Goldstone boson exchanges are considered for two light quarks (), they are not allowed in the light-heavy () and heavy-heavy () configurations.333Here, we denote and . On the contrary, the most important contributions of the one-gluon exchange and confinement potentials are flavour-blind and are the only interactions relevant for this work, where all the quarks involved are beyond the chiral symmetry breaking scale.
Regarding the confinement interaction, while it has been proven that multi-gluon exchanges generate an attractive potential that rises linearly with the distance between infinitely heavy quarks Bali (2001), it is essential to consider the influence of sea quarks on the strong interaction dynamics. Sea quarks contribute to screening the rising potential at low momenta and eventually lead to the breaking of the quark-antiquark binding string Bali et al. (2005). To account for this behaviour, our CQM incorporates the following expression:
(1) |
where and are model parameters. At short distances this potential exhibits a linear behavior with an effective confinement strength, . However, it becomes constant at large distances, with a threshold defined by .
Additionally, the model incorporates QCD perturbative effects mediated by the exchange of one gluon, derived from the vertex Lagrangian
(2) |
Here, represents an effective scale-dependent strong coupling constant, given by
(3) |
where is the reduced mass of the pair and , and are parameters of the model Segovia et al. (2013).
The described CQM details the () interaction at microscopic level and allows us to build the meson spectra Segovia et al. (2013, 2008), by solving the two-body Schrödinger equation through the use of the Gaussian Expansion Method Hiyama et al. (2003). This computational approach not only simplifies the evaluation of the necessary matrix elements but also ensures a satisfactory level of accuracy.
In order to describe the interaction from the underlying dynamics we employ the Resonating Group Method Wheeler (1937). For that, we assume that the wave function of a system composed of two charmonium mesons and can be written as
(4) |
where is the wave functions of the meson, the relative orbital wave function of the pair, their spin-isospin wave function and their color wave function.
As we have two pair of identical quarks, we have to consider the full antisymmetric operator , so the wave function is completely antisymmetric. For the system, this operator can be written as , up to a normalization factor, where is the operator that exchanges quarks and the operator that exchanges charm antiquarks between mesons. Following Ref. Ortega et al. (2023a), for identical mesons, the antisymmetrizer is reduced to , whereas for non-identical mesons, the wave functions is a combination of and configurations, given by
(5) |
with .
As the charmonium states are eigenstates of the -parity operator, the parity of the pair is defined as . Hence, it is equal to for and channels (where is a pseudoscalar meson and a vector meson) and for channels.
The interaction between mesons can be split into a direct term, with no quark exchange between clusters, and an exchange kernel, which incorporates them. The direct potential can be written as
(6) |
where is the CQM potential between the quark and the quark of the mesons and , respectively.
The exchange kernel , that models the quark rearrangement between clusters, can be written as
(7) |
which is a non-local and energy-dependent kernel, separated into a potential term plus a normalization term . Here, denotes the total energy of the system and is a continuous parameter. The exchange Hamiltonian and normalization can be written as
(8a) | ||||
(8b) |
where is the Hamiltonian at quark level.
The properties of the tetraquark candidates, investigated here as meson-meson molecular systems, will be obtained as poles of the scattering matrix, given in non-relativistic kinematics as,
(9) |
where and represents the on-shell momentum and reduced mass for channel , respectively. The matrix of the coupled-channels calculation is obtained from the Lippmann-Schwinger equation
(10) |
where represents the set of quantum numbers necessary to determine a partial wave in the meson-meson channel, is the full RGM potential, sum of direct and exchange kernels, and is the energy for the momentum referred to the lower threshold.
Channel | Mass | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
- | - | - | - | ||||
- | - | ||||||
- | - | - - | |||||
- | - | - | |||||
- | - | ||||||
- | - | ||||||
- | - - | - | - - - | ||||
- | - | - | - | ||||
- | - | ||||||
- | - | - - |
The mass and the total width of resonances can be directly obtained from the complex energy of the poles, . However, some caution should be taken in order to obtain the partial widths of the resonances to a specific final meson-meson channel. For that, we will follow Refs. Ortega et al. (2013); Grassi et al. (2001). In the neighborhood of a resonance, the matrix can be approximated as
(11) |
where are the residues of the pole, which can be interpreted as the amplitude of the resonance to the final state. The partial width of the resonance to the final state can be defined as
(12) |
where the integral is over the phase space of the final state with , with the mass of the resonance. In the case of a two meson decay, can be written as
(13) |
where is the relativistic onshell momentum of the final two meson state.
It is worth noticing that Eq. (13) does not guarantee that the sum of the partial widths must be equal to the total width. In fact, it is expected that . To solve this problem we define the branching ratios as Grassi et al. (2001)
(14) |
so the physical partial widths are given, as usual, by
(15) |
with .
III RESULTS
In this section we present the results of the coupled-channels calculation of the system in . We have included the channels and partial waves shown in Table 1, which are the combination of the lowest lying -wave charmonium resonances, that’s it: , , and . We restrict ourselves to relative orbital momenta , since higher ones are expected to be negligible.
Direct interactions are only driven by gluon annihilation diagrams, which are rather small for charmonium. Confinement potential does not have direct interaction because we deal with a two-color-singlet system. Thus, the leading interaction is the exchange diagrams. This implies that their identification as pure molecules is questionable as we are not dealing with a residual direct interaction, but a short-range interaction that mixes quarks. Nevertheless, in this work we will denote the found states as molecules, in a broad sense of a resonant state of two colourless mesons, regardless of the binding mechanism.
Before presenting the results, it is worth mentioning that there is a theoretical uncertainty in the results as a consequence on the way the model parameters are adjusted to describe a certain number of hadron observables. Such fitting is done within a determinate range of agreement with the experiment, which is estimated to be around 10-20% for physical observables that help to fix the model parameters. This range of agreement will be taken as an estimate of the model uncertainty for the derived quantities and, in order to analyse its effect, we will estimate the error of the pole properties by varying the strength of the potentials by .
The results of our calculations are shown in Table 2 (masses, widths and branching ratios). We find up to 29 poles in different sectors, that’s it: in , in , in , in , in and in . Their masses range from to GeV and are quite broad. Due to Heavy Quark Spin Symmetry, the states are relatively degenerate between the and the sectors, but there are significant deviations due to the specific partial waves on each sector.
The most explored detection channels are and . In Table 2 we can identify up to states with significant branching ratios to the channel, and another states that can decay to the channel. Among them, we can identify candidates for the experimental states , , , and , which are described in more detail below.
Additionally, we have candidates that do not decay to the above channels. For example, the two and wide resonances with masses around MeV/c2 decay only to , while the two and states with masses around MeV/c2 can only decay to and , respectively. We also find a broad resonance in the sector with a mass of MeV/c2 and a width of MeV, which decays mostly to and . Recently, Belle Collaboration searched for double-charmonium states in the reaction and found no significant signal Yin et al. (2023). This is consistent with our results and points to and as more promising reactions.
III.1
The (or ) tetraquark was discovered in ATLAS ATL (2022) in the channel, but its existence was previously suggested in Ref. Dong et al. (2021) from an analysis of the near-threshold region of the invariant mass spectrum measured by LHCb Aaij et al. (2020b). Its mass and width is MeV/c2 and MeV, respectively. Its quantum numbers are not yet determined, but Ref. Dong et al. (2021) argued it as a or structure. Other theoretical studies give similar predictions. For example, Ref. Agaev et al. (2023) assign the state as a molecule using the QCD sum rule method, Ref. Wang (2022) supported its assignment as a ground state tetraquark with or , Ref. Dong and Wang (2023) identifies it as the tetraquark, same as Ref. Faustov et al. (2022) though the authors also have a near candidates. Ref. Weng et al. (2021) predicts tetraquark states close to GeV/c2 at , and , Ref. Chen et al. (2017) have close candidates in , and , Ref. Bedolla et al. (2020) in and , Ref. Jin et al. (2020) in and and Ref. Albuquerque et al. (2020) describe them as a tetraquark state.
In our coupled-channels calculation we find three possible candidates near the mass of the experimental in the , and sectors. However, in the sector the detection channel is closed and it only decays to the channel, so only the and candidates can decay to . The candidate is a molecule with a mass of MeV/c2 and a width of MeV, with primary decay channels to () and (). Finally, the candidate is a resonance that decays entirely to , with mass MeV/c2 and with MeV. It is likely that the experimental signal is a mixture of the two candidates. In order to resolve the different states, we suggest exploring the channel, which is only accessible for the state.
III.2 and
The tetraquark has been detected in the invariant mass spectrum at ATLAS ATL (2022) and CMS Hayrapetyan et al. (2023) in proton-proton collision data at TeV. Its mass and width have been measured to be MeV/c2 and MeV, respectively, at ATLAS; and MeV/c2 and MeV at CMS in a no-interference model and MeV/c2 and MeV in an interference model. The masses and widths are compatible in the interference model, but the width is significantly smaller in CMS if the no-interference model is used. In addition, there is a dip in the measured mass spectrum around GeV, which is not properly accounted for in LHCb’s Model I. To analyse it further, LHCb and CMS used LHCb’s Model II, which takes advantage of destructive interference between components and managed to improve the description of the data when a Breit-Wigner resonance around GeV was added. Although the existence of this state, called , remains to be confirmed, LHCb determined its mass and width to be MeV/c2 and MeV Aaij et al. (2020b), respectively, while CMS gave a mass of MeV/c2 and a width of MeV Hayrapetyan et al. (2023).
On the theoretical side, many studies have proposed candidates for the and tetraquarks, with different properties. For example, Refs. Wang (2022) assigned the as the first radial excitation of the or tetraquark state, Ref. Faustov et al. (2022) identified it as a or state and, similarly, other studies have candidates with , or Chen et al. (2017); Bedolla et al. (2020); Jin et al. (2020)
Our results show two candidates around GeV with masses and widths compatible with both the and and sizable branching ratios to the detection channel . For example, in we find a resonance with a mass of MeV/c2 and a width of MeV. Although its mass is slightly larger than the CMS or ATLAS values for the , its width is compatible with the CMS measurement ( MeV). Finally, in the sector we have a state with a mass of MeV/c2 and a width of MeV, which falls in the energy region of the , although it is narrower than the actual fits for this state. Of course, we need more experimental information to clarify the existence and nature of these states before drawing any conclusions. Good channels to distinguish these states are the or channels, which are only accessible for the state, and the channel, which is only allowed for the state.
III.3
The was the first candidate discovered. It is a narrow structure observed by LHCb in 2020 in the di- invariant mass spectrum Aaij et al. (2020b). Its Breit-Wigner mass and width have been determined to be MeV/c2 and MeV, respectively, in a fitting scenario without interference, and MeV/c2 and MeV, in a fitting scenario where interference is allowed. Recently, this structure has been confirmed by CMS Hayrapetyan et al. (2023) ( MeV/c2, MeV) and ATLAS ATL (2022) ( GeV/c2 and GeV) in the mass spectrum. In addition, ATLAS has detected the structure in the , with BW parameters MeV/c2 and MeV, providing an additional decay channel.
This tetraquark is undoubtedly the most studied. For example, Ref. Agaev et al. (2023) assigned it a molecular structure, Ref. Wang (2022) identified it as a second radially-excited tetraquark state, and Ref. Karliner and Rosner (2020) concluded that it is most likely a radial excitation of a diquark-antidiquark state. Other studies agree with the assignment Lü et al. (2020); Chen et al. (2017); Wang et al. (2019); Bedolla et al. (2020); Albuquerque et al. (2020), but leave the door open to other alternatives such as , , , or .
Among all of our candidates in Table 2 we can highlight the structures in , and as possible candidates for the , which are in the GeV energy region. We predict two almost degenerate resonances with , whose masses are around GeV/c2 and their widths are and MeV. These are states in a relative -wave, one of them mixed with the channel, thus they are candidates to the ATLAS sign of the states. Unlike the and candidates, one of the former resonances can also decay to the channel, so this is a good channel to evaluate its existence.
In the sector we also have a signal in the and mass spectrum, due to a virtual state below the threshold, in the second Riemann sheet. Its mass is MeV/c2 and its width MeV, although as it is a virtual state its width cannot be directly compared with the Breit-Wigner properties experimentally measured. It mainly decay to (), and also to (), which could be a good detection channel.
Finally, the candidate is a resonance with a mass of MeV/c2 and a width of MeV. It is a state which mainly decays to () and (). Its width is compatible with the experimental data from LHCb, CMS and ATLAS in di- channel, whereas its mass is slightly smaller.
III.4
In addition to the above state, the LHCb Collaboration suggested a broad structure peaking at about GeV, later named . In 2022, the CMS Hayrapetyan et al. (2023) and ATLAS ATL (2022) collaborations provided its Breit-Wigner properties, measured from the and mass spectra data, respectively. Its mass was determined to be MeV/c2 (CMS) and MeV/c2 (ATLAS), while its width was measured to be MeV (CMS) and MeV (ATLAS). From a theoretical point of view, this state was mostly identified as a structure Karliner and Rosner (2020); Wang (2022); Faustov et al. (2022); Bedolla et al. (2020); Jin et al. (2020), but other alternatives such as or were suggested Faustov et al. (2022); Wang et al. (2019); Bedolla et al. (2020); Jin et al. (2020).
For this state, we predict one near virtual candidate with quantum numbers, around GeV/c2. This state has a mass of MeV/c2 and a width of . It mainly decays to , and , with a small branching to . There are other states close in mass, such as a virtual state that has a mass of MeV/c2 and a width of MeV, but this state only decays to , and , so it cannot be the . In and there are also two slightly heavier virtual states, with masses and widths ( MeV/c2, MeV) and ( MeV/c2, MeV) respectively, which can decay to and . We cannot discard that the experimental is a mixture of the above and virtual states. We want to remark here that the position and width of the virtual poles cannot be directly compared to the Breit-Wigner parameters as measured by the LHCb, CMS and ATLAS collaborations, as the virtuals are in an unphysical sheet and we only see them as bumps above the nearest thresholds.
† | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
† | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
† | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
† | ||||||||||||
† | ||||||||||||
† | ||||||||||||
State | Coll. | Channel | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ATLAS ATL (2022) | di- | ||||||
ATLAS ATL (2022) | di- | ||||||
CMS (Model I) Hayrapetyan et al. (2023) | di- | ||||||
CMS (Model II) Hayrapetyan et al. (2023) | di- | ||||||
LHCb Aaij et al. (2020b) | di- | ||||||
CMS Hayrapetyan et al. (2023) | di- | ||||||
LHCb (Model I) Aaij et al. (2020b) | di- | † | |||||
LHCb (Model II) Aaij et al. (2020b) | di- | ||||||
CMS (Model I) Hayrapetyan et al. (2023) | di- | ||||||
CMS (Model II) Hayrapetyan et al. (2023) | di- | ||||||
ATLAS ATL (2022) | di- | ||||||
ATLAS ATL (2022) | |||||||
CMS (Model I) Hayrapetyan et al. (2023) | di- | † | |||||
CMS (Model II) Hayrapetyan et al. (2023) | di- | † | |||||
ATLAS ATL (2022) | † |
IV SUMMARY
In this study we have analysed the system in a coupled-channels calculation of the , and sectors, including the channels , , , , , , , , and (that’s it, all channels containing a , , and ), with the partial waves detailed in table 1. We have searched for poles in the scattering matrix and found states with masses between and GeV/c2 in different sectors (see Fig. 1). In particular, we find states in , in , in , in , in and in . Their masses, widths and branching ratios have been studied (see table 2), finding candidates for the experimental , , , and tetraquarks.
A summary of our tentative assignments compared to the current experimental candidates is given in Table 3. We have discussed different detection channels that could help to discriminate between different candidates, and analysed the best strategies to search for the rest of the predicted states.

Acknowledgements.
This work has been partially funded by EU Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, STRONG-2020 project, under grant agreement no. 824093 and Ministerio Español de Ciencia e Innovación, grant no. PID2019-105439GB-C22.References
- Choi et al. (2003) S. K. Choi et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 262001 (2003), arXiv:hep-ex/0309032 .
- Ablikim et al. (2013a) M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 252001 (2013a), arXiv:1303.5949 [hep-ex] .
- Ablikim et al. (2013b) M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 242001 (2013b), arXiv:1309.1896 [hep-ex] .
- Ablikim et al. (2021) M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 102001 (2021), arXiv:2011.07855 [hep-ex] .
- Aaij et al. (2021) R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 082001 (2021), arXiv:2103.01803 [hep-ex] .
- Bondar et al. (2012) A. Bondar et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 122001 (2012), arXiv:1110.2251 [hep-ex] .
- Garmash et al. (2016) A. Garmash et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 212001 (2016), arXiv:1512.07419 [hep-ex] .
- Aaij et al. (2022a) R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Nature Phys. 18, 751 (2022a), arXiv:2109.01038 [hep-ex] .
- Aaij et al. (2022b) R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Nature Commun. 13, 3351 (2022b), arXiv:2109.01056 [hep-ex] .
- Aaij et al. (2020a) R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. D 102, 112003 (2020a), arXiv:2009.00026 [hep-ex] .
- Aaij et al. (2020b) R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Sci. Bull. 65, 1983 (2020b), arXiv:2006.16957 [hep-ex] .
- Hayrapetyan et al. (2023) A. Hayrapetyan et al. (CMS), (2023), arXiv:2306.07164 [hep-ex] .
- Zhang and Yi (2022) J. Zhang and K. Yi (CMS), PoS ICHEP2022, 775 (2022), arXiv:2212.00504 [hep-ex] .
- ATL (2022) (2022).
- Xu (2023) Y. Xu (ATLAS), Acta Phys. Polon. Supp. 16, 21 (2023), arXiv:2209.12173 [hep-ex] .
- Gershon (2022) T. Gershon (LHCb), (2022), arXiv:2206.15233 [hep-ex] .
- Iwasaki (1976) Y. Iwasaki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 36, 1266 (1976).
- Chao (1981) K.-T. Chao, Z. Phys. C 7, 317 (1981).
- Ader et al. (1982) J. P. Ader, J. M. Richard, and P. Taxil, Phys. Rev. D 25, 2370 (1982).
- Badalian et al. (1987) A. M. Badalian, B. L. Ioffe, and A. V. Smilga, Nucl. Phys. B 281, 85 (1987).
- Lloyd and Vary (2004) R. J. Lloyd and J. P. Vary, Phys. Rev. D 70, 014009 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0311179 .
- Berezhnoy et al. (2012) A. V. Berezhnoy, A. V. Luchinsky, and A. A. Novoselov, Phys. Rev. D 86, 034004 (2012), arXiv:1111.1867 [hep-ph] .
- Karliner et al. (2017) M. Karliner, S. Nussinov, and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. D 95, 034011 (2017), arXiv:1611.00348 [hep-ph] .
- Park et al. (2019) W. Park, S. Noh, and S. H. Lee, Nucl. Phys. A 983, 1 (2019), arXiv:1809.05257 [nucl-th] .
- Di et al. (2018) Z.-Y. Di, Z.-G. Wang, J.-X. Zhang, and G.-L. Yu, Commun. Theor. Phys. 69, 191 (2018), arXiv:1802.05354 [hep-ph] .
- Lü et al. (2020) Q.-F. Lü, D.-Y. Chen, and Y.-B. Dong, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 871 (2020), arXiv:2006.14445 [hep-ph] .
- Karliner and Rosner (2020) M. Karliner and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. D 102, 114039 (2020), arXiv:2009.04429 [hep-ph] .
- Weng et al. (2021) X.-Z. Weng, X.-L. Chen, W.-Z. Deng, and S.-L. Zhu, “Systematics of fully heavy tetraquarks,” (2021), arXiv:2010.05163 [hep-ph] .
- Sonnenschein and Weissman (2021) J. Sonnenschein and D. Weissman, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 25 (2021), arXiv:2008.01095 [hep-ph] .
- Gordillo et al. (2020) M. C. Gordillo, F. De Soto, and J. Segovia, Phys. Rev. D 102, 114007 (2020), arXiv:2009.11889 [hep-ph] .
- Debastiani and Navarra (2019) V. R. Debastiani and F. S. Navarra, Chin. Phys. C 43, 013105 (2019), arXiv:1706.07553 [hep-ph] .
- Chen et al. (2017) W. Chen, H.-X. Chen, X. Liu, T. G. Steele, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Lett. B 773, 247 (2017), arXiv:1605.01647 [hep-ph] .
- Wang et al. (2019) G.-J. Wang, L. Meng, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 100, 096013 (2019), arXiv:1907.05177 [hep-ph] .
- Bedolla et al. (2020) M. A. Bedolla, J. Ferretti, C. D. Roberts, and E. Santopinto, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 1004 (2020), arXiv:1911.00960 [hep-ph] .
- Giron and Lebed (2020) J. F. Giron and R. F. Lebed, Phys. Rev. D 102, 074003 (2020), arXiv:2008.01631 [hep-ph] .
- Jin et al. (2020) X. Jin, Y. Xue, H. Huang, and J. Ping, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 1083 (2020), arXiv:2006.13745 [hep-ph] .
- Deng et al. (2021) C. Deng, H. Chen, and J. Ping, Phys. Rev. D 103, 014001 (2021), arXiv:2003.05154 [hep-ph] .
- Faustov et al. (2021) R. N. Faustov, V. O. Galkin, and E. M. Savchenko, Universe 7, 94 (2021), arXiv:2103.01763 [hep-ph] .
- Wang (2020) Z.-G. Wang, Chin. Phys. C 44, 113106 (2020), arXiv:2006.13028 [hep-ph] .
- Mutuk (2021) H. Mutuk, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 367 (2021), arXiv:2104.11823 [hep-ph] .
- Dong et al. (2021) X.-K. Dong, V. Baru, F.-K. Guo, C. Hanhart, and A. Nefediev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 132001(E) (2021), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 127, 119901 (2021)], arXiv:2009.07795 [hep-ph] .
- Albuquerque et al. (2020) R. M. Albuquerque, S. Narison, A. Rabemananjara, D. Rabetiarivony, and G. Randriamanatrika, Phys. Rev. D 102, 094001 (2020), arXiv:2008.01569 [hep-ph] .
- Guo and Oller (2021) Z.-H. Guo and J. A. Oller, Phys. Rev. D 103, 034024 (2021), arXiv:2011.00978 [hep-ph] .
- Agaev et al. (2023) S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi, B. Barsbay, and H. Sundu, (2023), arXiv:2305.03696 [hep-ph] .
- Niu et al. (2023) P. Niu, Z. Zhang, Q. Wang, and M.-L. Du, Sci. Bull. 68, 800 (2023), arXiv:2212.06535 [hep-ph] .
- Vijande et al. (2005) J. Vijande, F. Fernandez, and A. Valcarce, J. Phys. G 31, 481 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0411299 .
- Segovia et al. (2013) J. Segovia, D. R. Entem, F. Fernandez, and E. Hernandez, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 22, 1330026 (2013), arXiv:1309.6926 [hep-ph] .
- Segovia et al. (2008) J. Segovia, A. M. Yasser, D. R. Entem, and F. Fernandez, Phys. Rev. D 78, 114033 (2008).
- Segovia et al. (2016) J. Segovia, P. G. Ortega, D. R. Entem, and F. Fernández, Phys. Rev. D 93, 074027 (2016), arXiv:1601.05093 [hep-ph] .
- Ortega et al. (2020) P. G. Ortega, J. Segovia, D. R. Entem, and F. Fernandez, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 223 (2020), arXiv:2001.08093 [hep-ph] .
- Ortega et al. (2010) P. G. Ortega, J. Segovia, D. R. Entem, and F. Fernandez, Phys. Rev. D 81, 054023 (2010), arXiv:0907.3997 [hep-ph] .
- Ortega et al. (2017) P. G. Ortega, J. Segovia, D. R. Entem, and F. Fernández, Phys. Rev. D 95, 034010 (2017), arXiv:1612.04826 [hep-ph] .
- Ortega et al. (2019) P. G. Ortega, J. Segovia, D. R. Entem, and F. Fernández, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 78 (2019), arXiv:1808.00914 [hep-ph] .
- Ortega et al. (2021) P. G. Ortega, J. Segovia, and F. Fernandez, Phys. Rev. D 104, 094004 (2021), arXiv:2107.02544 [hep-ph] .
- Ortega et al. (2022) P. G. Ortega, J. Segovia, D. R. Entem, and F. Fernandez, Phys. Lett. B 827, 136998 (2022), arXiv:2111.00023 [hep-ph] .
- Ortega et al. (2023a) P. G. Ortega, J. Segovia, D. R. Entem, and F. Fernandez, Phys. Lett. B 841, 137918 (2023a), arXiv:2211.06118 [hep-ph] .
- Ortega et al. (2023b) P. G. Ortega, D. R. Entem, F. Fernandez, and J. Segovia, (2023b), arXiv:2305.14430 [hep-ph] .
- Bali (2001) G. S. Bali, Phys. Rept. 343, 1 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0001312 .
- Bali et al. (2005) G. S. Bali, H. Neff, T. Dussel, T. Lippert, and K. Schilling (SESAM), Phys. Rev. D 71, 114513 (2005), arXiv:hep-lat/0505012 .
- Hiyama et al. (2003) E. Hiyama, Y. Kino, and M. Kamimura, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 51, 223 (2003).
- Wheeler (1937) J. A. Wheeler, Phys. Rev. 52, 1083 (1937).
- Ortega et al. (2013) P. G. Ortega, D. R. Entem, and F. Fernandez, J. Phys. G 40, 065107 (2013), arXiv:1205.1699 [hep-ph] .
- Grassi et al. (2001) P. A. Grassi, B. A. Kniehl, and A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 389 (2001), arXiv:hep-th/0005149 .
- Yin et al. (2023) J. H. Yin et al. (Belle), (2023), arXiv:2305.17947 [hep-ex] .
- Wang (2022) Z.-G. Wang, Nucl. Phys. B 985, 115983 (2022), arXiv:2207.08059 [hep-ph] .
- Dong and Wang (2023) W.-C. Dong and Z.-G. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 107, 074010 (2023), arXiv:2211.11989 [hep-ph] .
- Faustov et al. (2022) R. N. Faustov, V. O. Galkin, and E. M. Savchenko, Symmetry 14, 2504 (2022), arXiv:2210.16015 [hep-ph] .