Triple-charm molecular states composed of and
Abstract
Inspired by the newly observed state, we systematically investigate the -wave triple-charm molecular states composed of and . We employ the one-boson-exchange model to derive the interactions between and and solve the three-body Schrödinger equations with the Gaussian expansion method. The - mixing and coupled channel effects are carefully assessed in our study. Our results show that the and systems could form bound states, which can be viewed as three-body hadronic molecules. We present not only the binding energies of the three-body bound states, but also the root-mean-square radii of - and -, which further corroborate the molecular nature of these states. These predictions could be tested in the future at LHC or HL-LHC.
I Introduction
As important members of the hadron family, exotic states have always interested both theoreticians and experimentalists. By definition, exotic states contain more complex quark and gluon contents than the conventional mesons and baryons. Given their peculiar nature, studies of exotic states have been a hot topic in hadron physics.
Among the various exotic states, hadronic molecules are quite distinct. They are loosely bound states composed of two or several conventional hadrons and provide a good laboratory to study hadron structure and nonperturbative strong interactions at hadronic level. In 2003, the Collaboration observed a charmed-strange state in the channel BaBar:2003oey . Soon after, the CLEO Collaboration not only confirmed its existence , but also found a new charmed-strange state in the mass spectrum CLEO:2003ggt . In the same year, the Belle Collaboration reported a hidden-charm state in the channel Belle:2003nnu . The , , and states have two peculiar features. The first is that their masses are about 100 MeV below the potential model predictions, which implies that it is difficult to categorize them as conventional mesons. The second is that , , and are close to and lower than the , , and thresholds, which strongly hints at their molecular nature. Although there are still many controversies, hadronic molecules are one of the most popular interpretations of these exotic hadrons Barnes:2003dj ; Xie:2010zza ; Guo:2006fu ; Faessler:2007gv ; Feng:2012zze ; Faessler:2007us ; Zhang:2006ix ; Swanson:2003tb ; Wong:2003xk ; Liu:2009qhy ; Lee:2009hy ; Altenbuchinger:2013vwa . The observations of , , and opened a new era in searches for exotic states. In the following years, a plethora of hidden-charm and states were observed in experiments (for reviews, see Refs. Chen:2016qju ; Liu:2013waa ; Yuan:2018inv ; Olsen:2017bmm ; Guo:2017jvc ; Hosaka:2016pey ; Brambilla:2019esw ).
Very recently, the LHCb Collaboration observed a state in the channel LHCb:2021vvq ; LHCb:2021auc , whose mass and width obtained from a Breit-Wigner fit are
(1) |
On the other hand, the pole position is given as LHCb:2021auc
(2) |

From the decay products of , one can infer its minimum quark component to be . Since the mass of the is very close to the threshold, it could well be interpreted as a molecular state Li:2021zbw ; Ren:2021dsi ; Chen:2021vhg ; Dai:2021vgf ; Feijoo:2021ppq ; Wu:2021kbu as predicted in many previous works Molina:2010tx ; Li:2012ss ; Liu:2019stu ; Xu:2017tsr . As early as in the 1980s, the likely existence of stable tetraquark states has attracted the interests of theorists Ader:1981db ; Ballot:1983iv ; Lipkin:1986dw ; Zouzou:1986qh ; Heller:1986bt ; Carlson:1987hh . Latter, various models with different quark-quark interactions were employed to study the mass spectrum of tetraquark states with the configuration Manohar:1992nd ; Pepin:1996id ; Vijande:2006jf ; Ebert:2007rn ; Vijande:2013qr ; Karliner:2017qjm ; Eichten:2017ffp ; Richard:2018yrm ; Park:2018wjk ; Hernandez:2019eox . It should be noted that the is the first observed double-charm exotic state. It is interesting to note that the decay width obtained from the Breit-Wigner fit and that derived from the pole position are quite different. The latter strongly supports its nature being a hadronic molecule of , as stressed, e.g., in Ref. Ling:2021bir .
The single-charm, hidden-charm, and double-charm molecular candidates have been established in experiments. In Fig. 1, we choose the , , and states as examples and present the corresponding possible substructure. However, until now, there was no signal of triple-charm molecular states. In the future, experimental searches for triple-charm molecular states will be an interesting topic in exploring exotic hadrons.
In this work, we investigate the likely existences of triple-charm molecular states composed of and . There are three reasons for studying such systems. First, we notice that single- and double-charm molecular candidates in Fig. 1 contain one and two charmed mesons, respectively. Thus it is natural to ask whether there exist hadronic molecular states composed of three charmed mesons. Second, the observation of the state provides a way to fix the interaction between two charmed mesons. In Ref. Wu:2021kbu , we successfully reproduced the binding energy of the state, with the interaction provided by the one-boson-exchange (OBE) model. This makes the numerical results more reliable when dealing with systems containing more charmed mesons in the following study. Third, in Ref. Wu:2021kbu , we have studied the system and found that it has a bound state solution. Compared with the system, the and systems can have more spin configurations. Therefore, it is likely that there exist more hadronic molecular states in the and systems.
In the past several years, the LHCb Collaboration has achieved great success in discovering exotic states, including several states LHCb:2015yax ; LHCb:2019kea , LHCb:2020jpq , LHCb:2020bls ; LHCb:2020pxc , and LHCb:2020bwg . These observations demonstrated the capacity of the LHCb detector in searching for exotic states. With the upgrade of the LHCb detector LHCb:2018roe , one can expect that more exotic states will be observed in the future. The predictions of molecular states with the configurations of and may inspire more experimental works along this line.
This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we introduce the interactions between and and present the details of the Gussian expansion method. Next in Sec. III, we present the binding energies and root-mean-square radii of the and systems. Finally, this paper ends with a short summary in Sec. IV.
II formalism

In order to study the and systems, we should first derive the effective potentials of the - and - pairs. For this purpose, we adopt the OBE model of Ref. Liu:2019stu . In the OBE model, the - interactions occur by the scattering process as shown in Fig. 2, where we should consider the exchanges of , , , and mesons. Then, in the momentum space, the effective potential related to the scatting amplitude can be written as
(3) |
where is the scattering amplitude. The and are masses of the initial and final states. To take into the finite size of the exchanged mesons, a monopole form factor is introduced
(4) |
where and are the mass and momentum of the exchanged meson, respectively. The effective potentials in the coordinate space can be obtained by the following Fourier transformation
(5) |
In the following, we present the effective potentials of the - interactions explicitly, i.e.,
(6) |
In Eq. (6), the ’s are spin-dependent operators, which are defined as
(7) |
where
(8) |
is the tensor operator. Here, () and () are initial and final polarization vectors of the mesons, respectively, and and are flavor-dependent factors given by
(9) |
The function in Eq. (6) is written as111 In momentum space, the effective potentials share a common part, i.e., (10) where the is energy component of the exchange momentum, whose explicit expression could be found in Ref. Li:2012ss . Without a form factor, the Fourier transformation of Eq. (10) is (11) After introducing the form factor, the Fourier transformation is (12) After performing the integration, one could obtain the function given in Eq. (13).
(13) |
with and . The is the energy component of the exchanged momentum. We employ and for the and processes, respectively. The operators and only act on and the expressions are
(14) |
To evaluate the above potentials, we also need the values of the coupling constants and the masses of the mesons, which are collected in Table 1.
Coupling Constants | Values | Mesons | Mass (GeV) |
0.6 | 0.140 | ||
0.132 GeV | 0.600 | ||
3.4 | 0.770 | ||
5.2 | 0.780 | ||
3.133 GeV-1 | 1.867 | ||
2.009 |

To solve the three-body Schrödinger equation, we employ the Gaussian expansion method Hiyama:2003cu ; Hiyama:2012sma , which was widely used in studies of baryon systems Yoshida:2015tia ; Yang:2019lsg ; Yang:2017qan , multiquark states Yang:2021izl ; Yang:2020fou ; Wang:2019rdo ; Lu:2021kut ; Lu:2020cns , and multibody hadronic molecular states Wu:2019vsy ; Wu:2020rdg ; Wu:2020job ; Wu:2021kbu ; Wu:2021gyn (for reviews on this latter topic, see, e.g., Refs. Wu:2021ljz ; Wu:2021dwy ). The three-body Schrödinger equation reads
(15) |
where is the kinetic energy operator, and , , and are pairwise potentials. is the total wave function, which can be written as
(16) |
where
(17) |
is the basis, and is the coefficient of the corresponding basis, which can be obtained by the Rayleigh-Ritz variational method. The () represents the three channels in Fig. 3 and is the quantum number of the basis. is the flavor wave function, where is isospin in the degree of freedom and is the total isospin. is the spin wave function, where the , are spin in the degree of freedom and total spin, respectively. and are spatial wave functions, which read
(18) |
where and are normalization constants. In Eq. (18), The and are Jacobi coordinates, and and are Gaussian ranges. After the above preparations, we can calculate the kinetic, potential, and normalization matrix elements (see Refs. Hiyama:2003cu ; Brink:1998as for more details), i.e.,
(19) |
Then, Eq. (15) could be further expressed as the following general eigenvalue equation:
(20) |
III numerical results
5 | ||||
, , , , , |
, , , , , |
, , , , , |
||
5 | ||||
, , , , , |
, , , , , |
, , , , , |
||
5 | ||||
, , , , , |
, , , , , |
, , , , , |
||
5 | ||||
, , , , , |
||||
, , , |
, , , , , |
, , , , |
||
5 | ||||
, , , , |
, , , , , |
, , , , , |
||
5 | ||||
, , , , |
, , , , , |
, , , , , |
||
5 | ||||
, , , , |
With the effective potentials of Eq. (6), we could solve the three-body Schrödinger equation with the Gaussian expansion method. We not only calculate the binding energies, but also obtain the root-mean-square radii of - and -. In general, orbitally excited hadronic molecular states are more difficult to be formed because of the repulsive centrifugal potential of the discussed systems. It is more likely to find bound state solutions from the -wave () configurations in most situations. In the first step, we only consider the -wave contributions. Then the - mixing effect is included in the realistic calculation. When the - mixing effect is introduced, the tensor terms from the , , and contribute to the potential matrix elements. In the nuclear system, the tensor terms play an important role in the nucleon-nucleon interactions Brown:1975di ; Green:1974kh ; Haapakoski:1974dr ; Green:1975zm . Similar results could be found in the charmed baryon-charmed baryon system Meguro:2011nr , where the tensor force from the - mixing is necessary for obtaining the bound state solutions. Thus, in this work, we also consider the tensor terms. Besides the - mixing and tensor terms, the coupled channel effect cannot be ignored when calculating the binding energy of a bound state Li:2012ss ; Tornqvist:1991ks . Since both the and systems can have the quantum numbers and , we should consider the - coupled channel effect, which plays a role in the or the process.
In our approach, the cutoff is a crucial parameter when searching for the bound state solutions of these discussed systems. With the measured binding energy of the state, we obtained , , and GeV in Ref. Wu:2021kbu , which are close to the suggested values in previous works Li:2012ss ; Chen:2015loa ; Chen:2019asm ; Chen:2018pzd ; Chen:2017jjn ; Yasui:2009bz . The and systems can be related to the system via heavy quark spin symmetry. As a result, in this work we will take the same strategy as that of Ref. Wu:2021kbu , i.e., we scan the range of from to GeV to search for bound states of and . If a system has a bound state solution with GeV, we view this state as a good molecular candidate.
In the study of hadronic molecular candidates composed of two charmed mesons Li:2012ss , it was found that systems with lower isospins are more likely to bind. In this work, we find that this is also true for systems composed of three charmed mesons.
III.1 system
-wave | - mixing | coupled channels | |||||||||||
14 | |||||||||||||
(GeV) | (MeV) | (fm) | (fm) | (GeV) | (MeV) | (fm) | (fm) | (GeV) | (MeV) | (%) | (%) | ||
0.98 | 0.45 | 7.73 | 6.11 | 0.95 | 0.44 | 7.64 | 6.08 | 0.92 | 0.84 | 99.34 | 0.66 | ||
1.03 | 3.60 | 3.91 | 3.03 | 1.00 | 3.38 | 3.81 | 2.98 | 0.97 | 5.44 | 97.95 | 2.05 | ||
1.08 | 9.65 | 2.55 | 1.99 | 1.05 | 9.10 | 2.51 | 1.97 | 1.02 | 14.79 | 95.86 | 4.14 | ||
14 | |||||||||||||
0.98 | 0.86 | 3.52 | 3.88 | 0.95 | 0.44 | 5.11 | 5.25 | 0.93 | 0.81 | 99.29 | 0.71 | ||
1.03 | 6.84 | 1.55 | 1.82 | 1.00 | 5.16 | 1.81 | 2.11 | 0.98 | 6.22 | 97.95 | 2.05 | ||
1.08 | 17.43 | 1.10 | 1.31 | 1.05 | 14.21 | 1.23 | 1.46 | 1.03 | 18.03 | 95.50 | 4.50 | ||
14 | |||||||||||||
0.97 | 0.82 | 4.36 | 3.67 | 0.94 | 0.57 | 5.34 | 4.45 | 0.90 | 0.48 | 99.26 | 0.74 | ||
1.02 | 6.30 | 2.00 | 1.71 | 0.99 | 5.04 | 2.28 | 1.94 | 0.95 | 7.05 | 96.32 | 3.68 | ||
1.07 | 16.19 | 1.41 | 1.22 | 1.04 | 13.54 | 1.56 | 1.35 | 1.00 | 22.16 | 91.42 | 8.58 | ||
1.76 | 0.41 | 5.26 | 4.44 | 1.75 | 0.37 | 5.33 | 4.52 | 1.76 | 0.63 | 99.99 | 0.01 | ||
1.81 | 1.94 | 3.27 | 2.70 | 1.80 | 1.81 | 3.31 | 2.74 | 1.81 | 2.28 | 99.98 | 0.02 | ||
1.86 | 4.48 | 2.50 | 2.03 | 1.85 | 4.21 | 2.52 | 2.06 | 1.86 | 4.91 | 99.98 | 0.02 | ||
14 | |||||||||||||
1.85 | 0.46 | 11.75 | 8.68 | 1.85 | 0.54 | 11.98 | 8.80 | 1.85 | 0.57 | 100 | 0 | ||
1.90 | 2.20 | 11.23 | 8.09 | 1.90 | 2.41 | 1.88 | 14.38 | 1.90 | 2.41 | 100 | 0 | ||
1.95 | 4.97 | 10.93 | 7.81 | 1.95 | 5.61 | 1.35 | 14.26 | 1.95 | 5.61 | 100 | 0 | ||
14 | |||||||||||||
1.49 | 0.86 | 2.26 | 2.29 | 1.48 | 0.66 | 2.48 | 2.51 | 1.47 | 0.31 | 99.97 | 0.03 | ||
1.54 | 5.16 | 1.32 | 1.34 | 1.53 | 4.48 | 1.39 | 1.42 | 1.52 | 3.68 | 99.96 | 0.04 | ||
1.59 | 12.46 | 0.98 | 1.00 | 1.58 | 11.10 | 1.03 | 1.04 | 1.57 | 9.70 | 99.96 | 0.04 |
For the -wave only system, allowed spin parities are , , and with and . In the - mixing scheme, we require to restrict the maximum orbital angular momentum. It should be noted that for the - pair, the sum of should be odd. In Table 2, we present the configurations of the - system. For the -wave only and the - mixing schemes of the system, we calculate the binding energies and root-mean-square radii for and . In the coupled-channel case of -, we present the binding energies and probabilities of the and . The numerical results are shown in Table 3.
For the -wave only system with , we can obtain bound state solutions when the cutoff reaches about 0.98 GeV. The binding energy is on the order of MeV and the root-mean-square radii are several fm. If we increase the cutoff , the binding energy increases while the root-mean-square radii decrease. We note that the consideration of - mixing and the coupled-channel () effect increases the binding energy, which is reflected by the fact that a slightly smaller cutoff is needed to obtain a binding energy similar to the case for which only the -wave interaction is taken into account. For the cutoff range studied, the probability of the configuration is small and at the order of a few percent. Since the binding energy and root-mean-square radii are reasonable from the perspective of hadronic molecules, this state could be viewed as a good hadronic molecular candidate.
For the -wave only system with , we can also obtain bound state solutions with the cutoff , , and GeV. Further consideration of the - mixing and coupled-channel effect does not change the overall picture. According to the calculated binding energy and root-mean-square radii, this state could also be treated as an ideal hadronic molecular candidate.
For the -wave only system with , one can also find weakly bound states for the same cutoff as that of . Similar to the case of and , for the same cutoff, the states have different binding energies at the order of several hundred keV. With increased experimental precision, it is likely that these states can be distinguished from each other in future experiments. The contribution of the - mixing and coupled-channel effect is also similar to the case of .
We also study the system for . There are no bound state solutions for a cutoff below 1.013 GeV. In order to obtain bound state solutions for the -wave only systems with , we increase the cutoff to GeV, GeV, and GeV, respectively. Here, we increase the cutoff in steps of GeV when scanning the cutoff . Similar results are also obtained when the - mixing and coupled channel effect are taken into account. Considering that the needed cutoff is out of the range of GeV (the range determined in Ref. Wu:2021kbu ), we are a bit reluctant to view the bound states as good hadronic molecular candidates.
We note an interesting scenario in the - mixing scheme for the case. When the cutoff changes from 1.85 GeV to 1.90 GeV, decreases from 11.98 fm to 1.88 fm, while increases from 8.80 fm to 14.38 fm. For the - mixing state, there are more than one bound states. For convenience, we use to denote the bound state solution with fm and fm, and to label the bound state solution with fm and fm. The dependence of the two solutions and on the cutoff is found to be different. However, in Table 3, we only show the bound state solutions with the largest binding energy. With GeV, we found that ; thus, we show the bound state solution . While for and GeV, we present the bound state solution since .
If only the -wave interaction had been considered for the state, only the bound state solution would have been obtained. Thus, the - mixing effect plays a significant role for this state. Further studies of the - mixing effect shows that the bound state solution is highly correlated to the configuration (see Table 2). This could be diagnosed in the following steps:
-
1.
In the - mixing scheme without the configuration, the bound state solution exists but not the solution.
-
2.
In the -wave only combing with the configuration, both solutions and exist.
-
3.
If only the configuration is considered, only the solution exists.
From the above analysis, we conclude that the configuration affects the results and contributes dominantly to the bound state solution .
How to search for molecular candidates is also an interesting question. One possible decay mode is that the triple-charm molecules decay into a double-charm molecular state and a charmed meson. The other possible mode is that they directly decay into multibody final states bypassing intermediate states. Here, we summarize these channels as follows.
-
•
If the binding energies are extremely small, they could first decay into , and then can decay into , and could be seen in the and channels. In this case, the molecular candidates may be observed in the and final states.
-
•
If the masses of the molecular candidates are below the threshold, the kinematically allowed channel is . The molecular candidates could be studied in the channel.
-
•
If the hadronic molecular state exists, the molecular candidates may decay into a molecular state and . The molecular state could be observed in the , , and final states.
-
•
In the above three scenarios, the molecular candidates ultimately decay into three charmed mesons together with and . We should also emphasize that these final states can originate not only from the intermediate double-charm molecular states with , but also from nonresonant processes.
-
•
In addition, the molecular candidates can also decay into three charmed mesons via fall apart or quark rearrangement mechanisms. The typical channels are and .
According to the discussions above, the molecular candidates could be studied with the three-, four-, and five-body final states in future experiments.
III.2 system
-wave | - mixing | ||||||
8 | |||||||
(GeV) | (MeV) | (fm) | (GeV) | (MeV) | (fm) | ||
1.02 | 0.67 | 9.75 | 1.00 | 0.84 | 9.92 | ||
1.07 | 4.48 | 9.06 | 1.05 | 4.57 | 9.17 | ||
1.12 | 10.72 | 8.81 | 1.10 | 10.63 | 8.88 | ||
8 | |||||||
1.00 | 0.67 | 5.52 | 0.97 | 0.44 | 6.02 | ||
1.05 | 5.02 | 2.51 | 1.02 | 4.30 | 2.61 | ||
1.10 | 12.83 | 1.73 | 1.07 | 11.52 | 1.78 | ||
8 | |||||||
0.98 | 0.37 | 4.71 | 0.96 | 0.51 | 4.53 | ||
1.03 | 5.94 | 1.79 | 1.01 | 5.80 | 1.87 | ||
1.08 | 16.33 | 1.25 | 1.06 | 15.55 | 1.31 | ||
8 | |||||||
1.84 | 0.51 | 9.74 | 1.02 | 0.35 | 12.19 | ||
1.89 | 2.39 | 9.18 | 1.07 | 4.03 | 11.72 | ||
1.94 | 5.38 | 8.90 | 1.12 | 10.23 | 11.63 | ||
1.80 | 0.20 | 7.82 | 1.81 | 0.46 | 7.21 | ||
1.85 | 1.40 | 6.11 | 1.86 | 1.89 | 5.59 | ||
1.90 | 3.59 | 4.92 | 1.91 | 4.37 | 4.45 | ||
8 | |||||||
1.85 | 0.81 | 9.60 | 1.84 | 0.61 | 9.89 | ||
1.90 | 2.89 | 9.13 | 1.89 | 2.51 | 9.29 | ||
1.95 | 6.13 | 8.88 | 1.94 | 5.53 | 8.98 | ||
8 | |||||||
1.48 | 0.23 | 2.95 | 1.48 | 0.78 | 2.31 | ||
1.53 | 4.21 | 1.38 | 1.53 | 4.90 | 1.34 | ||
1.58 | 11.28 | 1.00 | 1.58 | 11.93 | 1.00 |
Since the system contains three identical mesons, the channels share the same configurations. In addition, for all the channels, , which restricts allowed combinations of , , and . For the -wave only system with , the allowed spin parities are , , , and . For in -wave, the allowed spin parities are , , and . For all the states, we also consider the - mixing effect. As shown in Table 3, the coupled-channel effects between - are small and thus could be neglected. We notice that the threshold of is about 140 MeV higher than that of , and therefore the component is difficult to be bounded in the -predominate states. In general, the coupled-channel effects of - mainly affect the decay behaviors of the states. Since we focus primarily on the existences of the bound states of , the coupled-channel effects of - are not considered here. The binding energies and root-mean-square radii are presented in Table 4.
For the -wave only system with , we find a bound state solution for a cutoff larger than 1.02 GeV. The root-mean-square radii decrease slowly with the increase of the cutoff . The radius is estimated to be about 9 fm with GeV, which is a bit larger than that of but similar to those of the states. Judging from the binding energy and root-mean-square radii, this state could be viewed as a good hadronic molecular candidate.
For the -wave only system with , we obtain a binding energy in the range of MeV for a cutoff between 1.00 and 1.10 GeV. While the root-mean-square radii decrease from 5.52 to 1.73 fm with the increase of the cutoff .
For the -wave only system with , the system becomes bound when the cutoff reaches about 0.98 GeV. Since the obtained binding energy is on the order of MeV and the root-mean-square radii are several fm, this state is also an ideal hadronic molecular candidate.
For the three configurations studied, turning on the - mixing only has a small effect but, in general, slightly increases the binding energy of the system of interest (for the same cutoff).
For the -wave only system with , there are no bound state solution with a GeV. But if the - mixing is taken into account, we can obtain loosely bound state solutions for a cutoff GeV. By carefully studying the configurations in the - mixing scheme for the case of , we find that the configurations of and () play a key role in forming bound states. Similar to the analysis performed in studying the state, the above conclusion is obtained in the following way
-
1.
In the - mixing scheme without and (), there is no bound state solutions with GeV.
-
2.
In the -wave only combing with and (), it is easy to find bound state solutions with GeV and the binding energies are approximate to those in the - mixing scheme given in Table 4.
-
3.
If the or () configuration is considered, nearly the same binding energy is obtained as that of the - mixing scheme in Table 4 when GeV.
Because of the complexity of the three-body problem, it is difficult to present a precise interpretation for this phenomenon, but some qualitative analyses are helpful to understand the numerical results. For the configurations and (), the isospin and spin in the degree of freedom are and , respectively, and the flavor and spin factors of the exchange are and Liu:2019stu , respectively. In this spin-isospin configuration, the - force from the exchange is attractive and about 3 times of that in the -wave only scheme with and . We notice that in the system, and and () in the system are -mode excited configurations, i.e., , (, for the -mode -wave excited configuration.) Since the reduced mass of the degree of freedom is larger than that of the degree of freedom, if we take the same Gaussian variational parameters as inputs, the -mode excited configuration has a smaller kinetic matrix element than that of the -mode excited configuration, which is beneficial to form a -mode excited state. This might be the reason why some -mode excited configurations in the and systems play a significant role in the - mixing scheme.
The three-body system contains two spatial degree of freedoms. If we introduce - mixing, a large number of configurations are included in the calculation. For some specific spin-isospin configurations, the exchange force is attractive. If such spin-flavor configurations emerge in the - mixing scheme but not in the -wave only scenario, we should carefully investigate the - mixing effect.
According to the above analysis, it is possible to find -wave bound state solutions. But in the present work, we mainly focus on molecular states in the -wave only or - mixing scenarios.
For the -wave only systems, a larger cutoff is needed for them to bind. More specifically, we only find bound state solutions when the cutoff reaches around 1.8 GeV for . We also obtain shallow bound states in the -wave only system if the cutoff is close to 1.5 GeV. Since the needed cutoff is much larger than our expectation, we prefer not to view these states as good hadronic molecular candidates. For all the configurations, the - mixing effect is relatively small and plays a minor role.
Since the molecular candidates have larger masses than that of the system, much more complex decay modes can be anticipated. Here, the decay channels are summarized as the following:
-
•
In principle, all the decay modes of the molecular candidates are also kinematically allowed for the system.
-
•
There are also some modes specific for the system. For example, the channel of a molecular candidate with a meson is only kinematically allowed for the system.
However, although there are more decay channels for the system, the decay patterns are similar for the Wu:2021kbu , , and molecular states. In the future, these states could be searched for by measuring three charmed mesons together with pions and photons in the final states.
exchanged mesons | coupling constant | reference value | -wave | - mixing | Coupled channel | ||||||||||||||
20 | |||||||||||||||||||
reference range | reference range | reference range | |||||||||||||||||
0.6 | 1.03 | 3.60 | -16.81 | 0.540.66 | 1.087.92 | 1.00 | 3.38 | -19.16 | 0.540.66 | 0.688.51 | 0.97 | 5.44 | -32.83 | 0.540.66 | 0.9914.58 | ||||
3.4 | -15.96 | 3.063.74 | 1.277.87 | -13.73 | 3.063.74 | 1.346.99 | -14.95 | 3.063.74 | 3.029.10 | ||||||||||
5.2 | -3.98 | 4.685.72 | 2.874.47 | -2.93 | 4.685.72 | 2.844.02 | -3.15 | 4.685.72 | 4.866.12 | ||||||||||
(GeV-1) | 3.133 | -1.63 | 2.823.45 | 3.303.95 | -0.84 | 2.823.45 | 3.223.56 | -2.00 | 2.823.45 | 5.085.88 | |||||||||
kinetic energy (MeV) | 34.78 | 33.28 | 47.48 | ||||||||||||||||
20 | |||||||||||||||||||
0.6 | 1.03 | 6.84 | -30.71 | 0.540.66 | 2.1714.68 | 1.00 | 5.16 | -28.87 | 0.540.66 | 1.0112.76 | 0.98 | 6.22 | -38.64 | 0.540.66 | 1.0717.08 | ||||
3.4 | -32.49 | 3.063.74 | 1.9314.95 | -24.40 | 3.063.74 | 1.5211.34 | -22.92 | 3.063.74 | 3.1712.16 | ||||||||||
5.2 | -3.83 | 4.685.72 | 6.147.68 | -2.82 | 4.685.72 | 4.645.77 | -3.08 | 4.685.72 | 5.666.89 | ||||||||||
(GeV-1) | 3.133 | -3.83 | 2.823.45 | 6.147.68 | -1.98 | 2.823.45 | 4.795.59 | -2.77 | 2.823.45 | 5.726.83 | |||||||||
kinetic energy (MeV) | 64.02 | 52.91 | 61.19 | ||||||||||||||||
20 | |||||||||||||||||||
0.6 | 1.02 | 6.30 | -29.65 | 0.540.66 | 1.8413.91 | 0.99 | 5.04 | -28.61 | 0.540.66 | 0.9512.58 | 0.95 | 7.05 | -50.13 | 0.540.66 | 0.7021.63 | ||||
3.4 | -29.67 | 3.063.74 | 1.8413.76 | -22.48 | 3.063.74 | 1.6610.74 | -25.05 | 3.063.74 | 3.0513.14 | ||||||||||
5.2 | -3.34 | 4.685.72 | 5.697.03 | -2.43 | 4.685.72 | 4.595.56 | -2.28 | 4.685.72 | 6.637.54 | ||||||||||
(GeV-1) | 3.133 | -3.30 | 2.823.45 | 5.707.03 | -1.67 | 2.823.45 | 4.735.40 | -3.10 | 2.823.45 | 6.497.73 | |||||||||
kinetic energy (MeV) | 59.65 | 50.15 | 73.51 | ||||||||||||||||
0.6 | 1.90 | 7.31 | -32.13 | 0.540.66 | 2.3115.32 | 1.89 | 6.91 | -31.98 | 0.540.66 | 2.0915.20 | 1.89 | 7.01 | -32.18 | 0.540.66 | 2.2115.49 | ||||
3.4 | -92.22 | 3.203.74 | 0.1535.37 | -88.94 | 3.203.74 | 0.0734.14 | -89.34 | 3.203.74 | 0.1034.31 | ||||||||||
5.2 | 69.22 | 4.685.51 | 24.840.96 | 66.51 | 4.685.51 | 23.820.84 | 66.81 | 4.685.51 | 23.970.89 | ||||||||||
(GeV-1) | 3.133 | -54.62 | 2.823.45 | 0.5123.34 | -51.05 | 2.823.45 | 0.5822.25 | -51.41 | 2.823.45 | 0.6722.65 | |||||||||
kinetic energy (MeV) | 102.43 | 98.56 | 99.12 | ||||||||||||||||
20 | |||||||||||||||||||
0.6 | 1.98 | 7.23 | -34.29 | 0.540.66 | 2.0516.04 | 1.98 | 8.19 | -37.21 | 0.540.66 | 2.4917.62 | 1.98 | 8.19 | -37.21 | 0.540.66 | 2.4917.62 | ||||
3.4 | -73.64 | 3.203.74 | 0.6627.31 | -81.33 | 3.203.74 | 0.7929.84 | -81.33 | 3.203.74 | 0.8029.84 | ||||||||||
5.2 | 58.45 | 4.685.62 | 21.030.20 | 64.81 | 4.685.62 | 23.200.29 | 64.81 | 4.685.62 | 23.200.33 | ||||||||||
(GeV-1) | 3.133 | -60.69 | 2.823.45 | 0.0926.15 | -68.38 | 2.823.45 | 0.2029.03 | -68.38 | 2.823.45 | 0.2529.03 | |||||||||
kinetic energy (MeV) | 102.95 | 113.92 | 113.92 | ||||||||||||||||
20 | |||||||||||||||||||
0.6 | 1.62 | 18.54 | -82.25 | 0.540.66 | 5.6738.92 | 1.63 | 21.18 | -89.63 | 0.540.66 | 7.1443.46 | 1.62 | 19.01 | -85.33 | 0.540.66 | 5.8640.52 | ||||
3.4 | -201.84 | 3.203.74 | 0.1970.36 | -212.12 | 3.203.74 | 1.3274.98 | -201.46 | 3.203.74 | 0.5770.73 | ||||||||||
5.2 | 143.99 | 4.685.62 | 50.620.23 | 152.23 | 4.685.62 | 54.791.27 | 143.70 | 4.685.62 | 51.030.61 | ||||||||||
(GeV-1) | 3.133 | -108.11 | 2.823.45 | 3.6248.58 | -115.54 | 2.823.45 | 5.2053.45 | -105.39 | 2.823.45 | 4.6148.87 | |||||||||
kinetic energy (MeV) | 229.67 | 243.87 | 229.47 |
exchanged mesons | coupling constant | reference value | -wave | - mixing | ||||||||||
15 | ||||||||||||||
reference range | reference range | |||||||||||||
0.6 | 1.07 | 4.48 | -17.57 | 0.540.66 | 1.708.87 | 1.05 | 4.57 | -20.01 | 0.540.66 | 1.479.64 | ||||
3.4 | -15.00 | 3.063.74 | 1.947.97 | -13.55 | 3.063.74 | 2.257.70 | ||||||||
5.2 | -6.49 | 4.685.72 | 3.305.91 | -5.56 | 4.685.72 | 3.565.79 | ||||||||
(GeV-1) | 3.133 | -2.40 | 2.823.45 | 4.035.00 | -1.60 | 2.823.45 | 4.274.92 | |||||||
kinetic energy (MeV) | 36.99 | 36.16 | ||||||||||||
15 | ||||||||||||||
0.6 | 1.05 | 5.02 | -20.15 | 0.540.66 | 1.8810.07 | 1.02 | 4.30 | -22.03 | 0.540.66 | 1.0810.05 | ||||
3.4 | -23.45 | 3.063.74 | 1.6111.18 | -19.51 | 3.063.74 | 1.449.40 | ||||||||
5.2 | -5.05 | 4.685.72 | 4.096.12 | -3.73 | 4.685.72 | 3.625.12 | ||||||||
(GeV-1) | 3.133 | -2.54 | 2.823.45 | 4.555.57 | -1.35 | 2.823.45 | 4.054.59 | |||||||
kinetic energy (MeV) | 46.17 | 42.31 | ||||||||||||
15 | ||||||||||||||
0.6 | 1.03 | 5.94 | -27.90 | 0.540.66 | 1.7413.11 | 1.01 | 5.80 | -30.15 | 0.540.66 | 1.3613.62 | ||||
3.4 | -31.72 | 3.063.74 | 1.2913.98 | -27.52 | 3.063.74 | 1.6612.73 | ||||||||
5.2 | -3.71 | 4.685.72 | 5.276.76 | -3.10 | 4.685.72 | 5.236.47 | ||||||||
(GeV-1) | 3.133 | -3.66 | 2.823.45 | 5.286.75 | -2.33 | 2.823.45 | 5.376.30 | |||||||
kinetic energy (MeV) | 61.04 | 57.30 | ||||||||||||
15 | ||||||||||||||
0.6 | 1.96 | 6.95 | -32.88 | 0.540.66 | 1.9815.40 | 1.07 | 4.03 | -17.33 | 0.540.66 | 1.328.39 | ||||
3.4 | -73.68 | 3.203.74 | 0.4427.08 | -14.81 | 3.063.74 | 1.557.49 | ||||||||
5.2 | 58.27 | 4.685.62 | 20.730.02 | -6.40 | 4.685.72 | 2.885.45 | ||||||||
(GeV-1) | 3.133 | -59.30 | 2.883.45 | 0.7125.39 | -2.37 | 2.823.45 | 3.604.55 | |||||||
kinetic energy (MeV) | 100.65 | 36.88 | ||||||||||||
0.6 | 1.93 | 5.48 | -27.36 | 0.540.66 | 1.4612.64 | 1.94 | 6.45 | -29.86 | 0.540.66 | 2.0714.40 | ||||
3.4 | -67.77 | 3.203.74 | 0.1626.14 | -73.22 | 3.203.74 | 0.4628.15 | ||||||||
5.2 | 52.33 | 4.685.51 | 18.730.72 | 56.68 | 4.685.62 | 20.490.19 | ||||||||
(GeV-1) | 3.133 | -48.96 | 2.823.45 | 0.0921.14 | -54.19 | 2.823.45 | 0.3523.87 | |||||||
kinetic energy (MeV) | 86.28 | 94.14 | ||||||||||||
15 | ||||||||||||||
0.6 | 1.97 | 7.81 | -35.10 | 0.540.66 | 2.4516.75 | 1.96 | 7.11 | -32.58 | 0.540.66 | 2.2515.67 | ||||
3.4 | -77.67 | 3.203.74 | 0.8028.71 | -73.88 | 3.203.74 | 0.5527.26 | ||||||||
5.2 | 61.67 | 4.685.62 | 22.210.30 | 58.44 | 4.685.62 | 20.910.13 | ||||||||
(GeV-1) | 3.133 | -63.91 | 2.823.45 | 0.1927.45 | -60.23 | 2.823.45 | 0.1426.29 | |||||||
kinetic energy (MeV) | 107.21 | 101.14 | ||||||||||||
15 | ||||||||||||||
0.6 | 1.62 | 19.55 | -83.42 | 0.540.66 | 6.4040.13 | 1.62 | 20.12 | -87.08 | 0.540.66 | 6.6241.99 | ||||
3.4 | -209.91 | 3.203.74 | 0.2472.97 | -209.40 | 3.203.74 | 0.7173.41 | ||||||||
5.2 | 150.08 | 4.685.62 | 52.770.26 | 149.69 | 4.685.62 | 53.250.72 | ||||||||
(GeV-1) | 3.133 | -113.27 | 2.823.45 | 3.8250.82 | -109.99 | 2.823.45 | 4.9851.12 | |||||||
kinetic energy (MeV) | 236.98 | 236.67 |
III.3 Sensitivity of binding energies to the coupling constants
In addition to the cutoff , the coupling constants which determine the strength of the potentials are also important to determine whether the three mesons can form bound states. In Eq. (6), there are five coupling constants, i.e., , , , , and . Among them, only the coupling constant is determined by the experimental partial decay width . All the others are taken from models. For example, is estimated by the quark model Riska:2000gd , and is obtained from the vector meson dominance mechanism Isola:2003fh . Since there exist uncertainties for the involved coupling constants, it is relevant to study the sensitivity of our results to the adopted values of the coupling constants. We notice that the and exchange potentials share a common coupling constant . In order to study the sensitivity of the bound state solutions to the coupling constants, we introduce an about 10% uncertainty to them, which is somehow arbitrary but nevertheless reasonable.
The numerical results for the and systems are presented in Tables 5 and 6, respectively. We note that the binding energies are highly dependent on the square of the coupling constants, which is easy to understand since all the potentials in Eq. (6) are proportional to the square of the coupling constants. Meanwhile, since the changes of the coupling constants could be viewed as perturbations to the potentials, we estimate the binding energies in perturbation theory. Here, we employ the -wave only system with as an example to illustrate this point. As shown in Table 5, we obtain a binding energy MeV with a cutoff GeV. The expectation value of the potential from the exchange is MeV. If we allow to vary by 10% (0.91.1), the square of the ratio is in the range 0.811.21. Then the expectation value of the exchange potential is estimated to be in the range of MeV. The resulting binding energy is then 0.417.13 MeV, which is consistent with the exact result 1.087.92 MeV. Following the same approach, when , , and are varied by 10%, the estimated binding energies in leading order perturbation theory are in the ranges of 0.576.95 MeV, 2.844.44 MeV, 3.293.94 MeV, respectively, which are all consistent with the exact values 1.277.87 MeV, 2.874.47 MeV, 3.303.95 MeV, respectively.
The message from the above sensitivity study is that although the exact binding energies are sensitive to the values of the coupling constants, the overall picture remains unchanged, i.e., whether there exist some good three-body hadronic molecules.
IV Summary
In recent years, the LHCb Collaboration achieved remarkable success in discovering new hadronic states, including many of exotic ones, which cannot fit into the conventional quark model. These observations enriched the members of the exotic hadronic family and improved our understandings of nonperturbative strong interactions. Very recently, the LHCb Collaboration observed a new state in the channel LHCb:2021auc . The state could well be interpreted as a molecular state and it is the first double-charm exotic state ever observed.
The observation of the state enabled us to derive the interaction between two charmed mesons. In Ref. Wu:2021kbu , by reproducing the binding energy of , we determined the cutoff in the OBE model. This allows us to study hadronic molecular states composed of several charmed mesons. In this work, we studied the existence of triple-charm molecular states composed of and . Using the cutoff obtained by the binding energy of the , we find that the and systems have loosely bound state solutions, which could be viewed as good hadronic molecular candidates. We suggest to search for the and molecular states in the following decay modes:
-
a.
a double-charm molecular state and a charmed meson,
-
b.
three charmed mesons,
-
c.
three charmed mesons together with a number of pions and photons.
On the other hand, we find that the and systems are more difficult to form bound states.
The present framework can be extended to study the - and systems. The former has been studied in Ref. Garcilazo:2018rwu and a bound state with and a binding energy of 90 MeV below the lowest strong decay threshold was found. The latter has been studied in Ref. Ma:2018vhp , where loosely bound states were found for both and . The three-body systems studied in Ref. Garcilazo:2018rwu are similar to those of this work, but the number of bound state solutions is far fewer than that obtained in this work. It should be noted that in the present work, we deduced the meson-meson potentials in the one-boson-exchange model, while in Ref. Garcilazo:2018rwu , the two-body interactions are deduced from the matrices of Refs. Vijande:2009kj ; Vijande:2009zs ; Carames:2012th ; Garcilazo:2017ifi . The different meson-meson potentials are responsible for the different three-body results. In future experiments, searching for hadronic molecular candidates could help distinguish the different meson-meson interactions.
It is no doubt that the LHCb Collaboration has played an important role in searches for exotic states. The observation of the state once again shows the capability of the LHCb detector in this area. With anticipated data accumulation LHCb:2018roe , more exotic states can be expected in the future.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work is partly supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grants No.11735003, No.11975041, No.12147152, No.11961141004, and the fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities. Ming-Zhu Liu acknowledges support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No.1210050997. XL is supported by the China National Funds for Distinguished Young Scientists under Grant No. 11825503, National Key Research and Development Program of China under Contract No. 2020YFA0406400, the 111 Project under Grant No. B20063, the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 12047501, and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities.
References
- (1) B. Aubert et al. [BaBar], Observation of a narrow meson decaying to at a mass of 2.32 GeV/, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 242001 (2003).
- (2) D. Besson et al. [CLEO], Observation of a narrow resonance of mass 2.46 GeV/ decaying to and confirmation of the state, Phys. Rev. D 68, 032002 (2003), [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 75, 119908 (2007)].
- (3) S. K. Choi et al. [Belle], Observation of a narrow charmonium-like state in exclusive decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 262001 (2003).
- (4) T. Barnes, F. E. Close and H. J. Lipkin, Implications of a molecule at 2.32 GeV, Phys. Rev. D 68, 054006 (2003).
- (5) Z. X. Xie, G. Q. Feng and X. H. Guo, Analyzing in the molecule picture in the Beth-Salpeter approach, Phys. Rev. D 81, 036014 (2010).
- (6) F. K. Guo, P. N. Shen, H. C. Chiang, R. G. Ping and B. S. Zou, Dynamically generated heavy mesons in a heavy chiral unitary approach, Phys. Lett. B 641, 278-285 (2006).
- (7) A. Faessler, T. Gutsche, V. E. Lyubovitskij and Y. L. Ma, Strong and radiative decays of the meson in the -molecule picture, Phys. Rev. D 76, 014005 (2007).
- (8) G. Q. Feng, X. H. Guo and Z. H. Zhang, Studying the molecular structure of in the Bethe-Salpeter approach, Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 2033 (2012).
- (9) A. Faessler, T. Gutsche, V. E. Lyubovitskij and Y. L. Ma, molecular structure of the meson, Phys. Rev. D 76, 114008 (2007).
- (10) Y. J. Zhang, H. C. Chiang, P. N. Shen and B. S. Zou, Possible -wave bound-states of two pseudoscalar mesons, Phys. Rev. D 74, 014013 (2006).
- (11) E. S. Swanson, Short range structure in the , Phys. Lett. B 588, 189-195 (2004).
- (12) C. Y. Wong, Molecular states of heavy quark mesons, Phys. Rev. C 69, 055202 (2004).
- (13) X. Liu, Z. G. Luo, Y. R. Liu and S. L. Zhu, and Other Possible Heavy Molecular States, Eur. Phys. J. C 61, 411-428 (2009).
- (14) I. W. Lee, A. Faessler, T. Gutsche and V. E. Lyubovitskij, as a molecular state in a potential model, Phys. Rev. D 80, 094005 (2009).
- (15) M. Altenbuchinger, L. S. Geng and W. Weise, Scattering lengths of Nambu-Goldstone bosons off mesons and dynamically generated heavy-light mesons, Phys. Rev. D 89, no.1, 014026 (2014).
- (16) H. X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, The hidden-charm pentaquark and tetraquark states, Phys. Rept. 639, 1-121 (2016).
- (17) X. Liu, An overview of new particles, Chin. Sci. Bull. 59, 3815-3830 (2014).
- (18) C. Z. Yuan, The states revisited, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 33, no.21, 1830018 (2018).
- (19) S. L. Olsen, T. Skwarnicki and D. Zieminska, Nonstandard heavy mesons and baryons: Experimental evidence, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, no.1, 015003 (2018).
- (20) F. K. Guo, C. Hanhart, U. G. Meißner, Q. Wang, Q. Zhao and B. S. Zou, Hadronic molecules,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, no.1, 015004 (2018).
- (21) A. Hosaka, T. Iijima, K. Miyabayashi, Y. Sakai and S. Yasui, Exotic hadrons with heavy flavors: , , , and related states, PTEP 2016, no.6, 062C01 (2016).
- (22) N. Brambilla, S. Eidelman, C. Hanhart, A. Nefediev, C. P. Shen, C. E. Thomas, A. Vairo and C. Z. Yuan, The states: experimental and theoretical status and perspectives, Phys. Rept. 873, 1-154 (2020).
- (23) R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Observation of an exotic narrow doubly charmed tetraquark, [arXiv:2109.01038 [hep-ex]].
- (24) R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Study of the doubly charmed tetraquark , [arXiv:2109.01056 [hep-ex]].
- (25) N. Li, Z. F. Sun, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, Perfect molecular prediction matching the observation at LHCb, Chin. Phys. Lett. 38, 092001 (2021).
- (26) H. Ren, F. Wu and R. Zhu, Hadronic Molecule Interpretation of and Its Beauty Partners, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2022, 9103031 (2022).
- (27) R. Chen, Q. Huang, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, Predicting another doubly charmed molecular resonance , Phys. Rev. D 104, no.11, 114042 (2021).
- (28) L. R. Dai, R. Molina and E. Oset, Prediction of new states of and molecular nature, Phys. Rev. D 105, no.1, 016029 (2022).
- (29) A. Feijoo, W. H. Liang and E. Oset, mass distribution in the production of the exotic state, Phys. Rev. D 104, no.11, 114015 (2021).
- (30) T. W. Wu, Y. W. Pan, M. Z. Liu, S. Q. Luo, L. S. Geng and X. Liu, Discovery of the doubly charmed state implies a triply charmed Hccc hexaquark state, Phys. Rev. D 105, no.3, L031505 (2022).
- (31) R. Molina, T. Branz and E. Oset, A new interpretation for the and the prediction of novel exotic charmed mesons, Phys. Rev. D 82, 014010 (2010).
- (32) N. Li, Z. F. Sun, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, Coupled-channel analysis of the possible and molecular states, Phys. Rev. D 88, no.11, 114008 (2013).
- (33) M. Z. Liu, T. W. Wu, M. Pavon Valderrama, J. J. Xie and L. S. Geng, Heavy-quark spin and flavor symmetry partners of the revisited: What can we learn from the one boson exchange model? Phys. Rev. D 99, no.9, 094018 (2019).
- (34) H. Xu, B. Wang, Z. W. Liu and X. Liu, potentials in chiral perturbation theory and possible molecular states, Phys. Rev. D 99, no.1, 014027 (2019).
- (35) J. P. Ader, J. M. Richard and P. Taxil, Do narrow heavy multiquark states exist? Phys. Rev. D 25, 2370 (1982).
- (36) J. l. Ballot and J. M. Richard, Four quark states in additive potentials, Phys. Lett. B 123, 449-451 (1983).
- (37) H. J. Lipkin, A model independent approach to multi - quark bound states, Phys. Lett. B 172, 242-247 (1986).
- (38) S. Zouzou, B. Silvestre-Brac, C. Gignoux and J. M. Richard, Four quark bound states, Z. Phys. C 30, 457 (1986).
- (39) L. Heller and J. A. Tjon, On the Existence of Stable Dimesons, Phys. Rev. D 35, 969 (1987).
- (40) J. Carlson, L. Heller and J. A. Tjon, Stability of Dimesons, Phys. Rev. D 37, 744 (1988).
- (41) A. V. Manohar and M. B. Wise, Exotic states in QCD, Nucl. Phys. B 399, 17-33 (1993).
- (42) S. Pepin, F. Stancu, M. Genovese and J. M. Richard, Tetraquarks with color blind forces in chiral quark models, Phys. Lett. B 393, 119-123 (1997).
- (43) J. Vijande, A. Valcarce and K. Tsushima, Dynamical study of bf mesons, Phys. Rev. D 74, 054018 (2006).
- (44) D. Ebert, R. N. Faustov, V. O. Galkin and W. Lucha, Masses of tetraquarks with two heavy quarks in the relativistic quark model, Phys. Rev. D 76, 114015 (2007).
- (45) J. Vijande, A. Valcarce and J. M. Richard, Adiabaticity and color mixing in tetraquark spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. D 87, no.3, 034040 (2013).
- (46) M. Karliner and J. L. Rosner, Discovery of doubly-charmed baryon implies a stable () tetraquark, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, no.20, 202001 (2017).
- (47) E. J. Eichten and C. Quigg, Heavy-quark symmetry implies stable heavy tetraquark mesons , Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, no.20, 202002 (2017).
- (48) J. M. Richard, A. Valcarce and J. Vijande, Few-body quark dynamics for doubly heavy baryons and tetraquarks, Phys. Rev. C 97, no.3, 035211 (2018).
- (49) W. Park, S. Noh and S. H. Lee, Masses of the doubly heavy tetraquarks in a constituent quark model, Nucl. Phys. A 983, 1-19 (2019).
- (50) E. Hernández, J. Vijande, A. Valcarce and J. M. Richard, Spectroscopy, lifetime and decay modes of the tetraquark, Phys. Lett. B 800, 135073 (2020).
- (51) X. Z. Ling, M. Z. Liu, L. S. Geng, E. Wang and J. J. Xie, Can we understand the decay width of the state? Phys. Lett. B 826, 136897 (2022).
- (52) R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Observation of Resonances Consistent with Pentaquark States in Decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 072001 (2015).
- (53) R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Observation of a narrow pentaquark state, , and of two-peak structure of the , Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, no.22, 222001 (2019).
- (54) R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Evidence of a structure and observation of excited states in the decay, Sci. Bull. 66, 1278-1287 (2021).
- (55) R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], A model-independent study of resonant structure in decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 242001 (2020).
- (56) R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Amplitude analysis of the decay, Phys. Rev. D 102, 112003 (2020).
- (57) R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Observation of structure in the -pair mass spectrum, Sci. Bull. 65, no.23, 1983-1993 (2020).
- (58) R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Physics case for an LHCb Upgrade II - Opportunities in flavour physics, and beyond, in the HL-LHC era, [arXiv:1808.08865 [hep-ex]].
- (59) D. O. Riska and G. E. Brown, Nucleon resonance transition couplings to vector mesons, Nucl. Phys. A 679, 577-596 (2001).
- (60) M. Gell-Mann and M. Levy, The axial vector current in beta decay, Nuovo Cim. 16, 705 (1960).
- (61) C. Isola, M. Ladisa, G. Nardulli and P. Santorelli, Charming penguins in decays, Phys. Rev. D 68, 114001 (2003).
- (62) P. A. Zyla et al. [Particle Data Group], Review of Particle Physics, PTEP 2020, no.8, 083C01 (2020).
- (63) E. Hiyama, Y. Kino and M. Kamimura, Gaussian expansion method for few-body systems, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 51, 223-307 (2003).
- (64) E. Hiyama, Gaussian expansion method for few-body systems and its applications to atomic and nuclear physics, PTEP 2012, 01A204 (2012).
- (65) T. Yoshida, E. Hiyama, A. Hosaka, M. Oka and K. Sadato, Spectrum of heavy baryons in the quark model, Phys. Rev. D 92, no.11, 114029 (2015).
- (66) G. Yang, J. Ping, P. G. Ortega and J. Segovia, Triply heavy baryons in the constituent quark model, Chin. Phys. C 44, no.2, 023102 (2020).
- (67) G. Yang, J. Ping and J. Segovia, The - and -Wave Low-Lying Baryons in the Chiral Quark Model, Few Body Syst. 59, no.6, 113 (2018).
- (68) G. Yang, J. Ping and J. Segovia, tetraquarks in the chiral quark model, Phys. Rev. D 103, no.7, 074011 (2021).
- (69) G. Yang, J. Ping and J. Segovia, tetraquarks in the chiral quark model, Phys. Rev. D 102, no.5, 054023 (2020).
- (70) G. J. Wang, L. Meng and S. L. Zhu, Spectrum of the fully-heavy tetraquark state , Phys. Rev. D 100, no.9, 096013 (2019).
- (71) Q. F. Lü, D. Y. Chen, Y. B. Dong and E. Santopinto, Triply-heavy tetraquarks in an extended relativized quark model, Phys. Rev. D 104, no.5, 054026 (2021).
- (72) Q. F. Lü, D. Y. Chen and Y. B. Dong, Masses of fully heavy tetraquarks in an extended relativized quark model, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, no.9, 871 (2020).
- (73) T. W. Wu, M. Z. Liu, L. S. Geng, E. Hiyama and M. P. Valderrama, , , and molecules–understanding the nature of the , Phys. Rev. D 100, no.3, 034029 (2019).
- (74) T. W. Wu, M. Z. Liu, L. S. Geng, E. Hiyama, M. P. Valderrama and W. L. Wang, Quadruply charmed dibaryons as heavy quark symmetry partners of the bound state, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, no.9, 901 (2020).
- (75) T. W. Wu, M. Z. Liu and L. S. Geng, Excited meson, , with hidden charm as a bound state, Phys. Rev. D 103, no.3, L031501 (2021).
- (76) T. W. Wu, Y. W. Pan, M. Z. Liu, J. X. Lu, L. S. Geng and X. H. Liu, Hidden charm hadronic molecule with strangeness as a bound state, Phys. Rev. D 104, no.9, 094032 (2021).
- (77) T. W. Wu and L. S. Geng, Study on Triple-Hadron Bound States with Gaussian Expansion Method, Few Body Syst. 62, no.4, 89 (2021).
- (78) T. W. Wu, M. Z. Liu and L. S. Geng, One Way to Verify the Molecular Picture of Exotic Hadrons: From from to , Few Body Syst. 62, no.3, 38 (2021).
- (79) D. M. Brink and F. Stancu, Tetraquarks with heavy flavors, Phys. Rev. D 57, 6778-6787 (1998).
- (80) G. E. Brown and W. Weise, Pion Scattering and Isobars in Nuclei, Phys. Rept. 22, 279-337 (1975).
- (81) A. M. Green and P. Haapakoski, The effect of the in the two-nucleon problem and in neutron matter, Nucl. Phys. A 221, 429-449 (1974).
- (82) P. Haapakoski, A nucleon-nucleon potential that includes the effect of the , Phys. Lett. B 48, 307-310 (1974).
- (83) A. M. Green and J. A. Niskanen, The Saturating Effect of the in Nuclear Matter, Nucl. Phys. A 249, 493-509 (1975).
- (84) W. Meguro, Y. R. Liu and M. Oka, Possible molecular bound state, Phys. Lett. B 704, 547-550 (2011).
- (85) N. A. Tornqvist, Possible large deuteronlike meson-meson states bound by pions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 556-559 (1991).
- (86) R. Chen, X. Liu, X. Q. Li and S. L. Zhu, Identifying exotic hidden-charm pentaquarks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, no.13, 132002 (2015).
- (87) R. Chen, Z. F. Sun, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, Strong LHCb evidence supporting the existence of the hidden-charm molecular pentaquarks, Phys. Rev. D 100, no.1, 011502 (2019).
- (88) R. Chen, F. L. Wang, A. Hosaka and X. Liu, Exotic triple-charm deuteronlike hexaquarks, Phys. Rev. D 97, no.11, 114011 (2018).
- (89) R. Chen, A. Hosaka and X. Liu, Prediction of triple-charm molecular pentaquarks, Phys. Rev. D 96, no.11, 114030 (2017).
- (90) S. Yasui and K. Sudoh, Exotic nuclei with open heavy flavor mesons, Phys. Rev. D 80, 034008 (2009).
- (91) H. Garcilazo and A. Valcarce, : a three meson bound state, Phys. Lett. B 784, 169-172 (2018).
- (92) L. Ma, Q. Wang and U. G. Meißner, Trimeson bound state via a delocalized bond, Phys. Rev. D 100, no.1, 014028 (2019).
- (93) J. Vijande, A. Valcarce and N. Barnea, Exotic meson-meson molecules and compact four-quark states, Phys. Rev. D 79, 074010 (2009).
- (94) J. Vijande and A. Valcarce, Probabilities in nonorthogonal basis: Four-quark systems, Phys. Rev. C 80, 035204 (2009).
- (95) T. F. Carames, A. Valcarce and J. Vijande, Too many , and ?, Phys. Lett. B 709, 358-361 (2012).
- (96) H. Garcilazo, A. Valcarce and T. F. Caramés, Three-body systems with open flavor heavy mesons, Phys. Rev. D 96, no.7, 074009 (2017).