Spectrum of the fully-heavy tetraquark state QQQ′Q′

Guang-Juan Wang,1, 2, ∗ Lu Meng,2, † and Shi-Lin Zhu2, 3, ‡

1Center of High Energy Physics, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China2School of Physics and State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Technology, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China

3Collaborative Innovation Center of Quantum Matter, Beijing 100871, China

In this work, we systematically calculate the mass spectra of the S-wave fully heavy tetraquarkstates bbbb, cccc, and bbcc in two nonrelativistic quark models. A tetraquark state may be anadmixture of a 6c− 6c state and a 3c−3c one, where 6c− 6c(3c−3c) denotes the color configurationwith a 6c (3c) diquark and a 6c (3c) antidiquark. For the tetraquark states bbbb and cccc withJPC = 0++, the 6c − 6c state is lower than the 3c − 3c one in both the two quark models, while theorder of the bbcc states depend on models. The 6c − 6c and 3c − 3c mixing effects are induced bythe hyperfine interactions between the diquark and antidiquark, while the contributions from theone-gluon-exchange (OGE) Coulomb or the linear confinement potentials vanish for the QQQ′Q′

system. With the couple-channel effects, we obtain the similar mass spectra. The numerical resultsshow that the ground QQQ′Q′ (Q = b, c and Q′ = b, c) tetraquark states are located above thecorresponding scattering states, which indicates that there may not exist a bound state in thescheme of the two quark models.

PACS numbers: 12.40.Yx, 14.40.Pq, 12.39.x

I. INTRODUCTION

Since 2003, numerous exotic structures have been ob-served in experiments [1–11], amongst which many statescannot be accommodated into the traditional quarkmodel. In the literature, there are many possible ex-planations. The most prominent ones are the molecules(loosely bound states of two hadrons), the tetraquarks(compact bound states), and the hybrids (composedof gluons and quarks), etc. For a recent review, seeRefs. [12–16].

A fully heavy tetraquark state is a topic of great in-terest. The interactions between the heavy quarks maybe dominated by the short-range one-gluon-exchange(OGE) potential rather than the long-range poten-tials. Thus, they are good candidates of the compacttetraquark states. Unlike a meson or a baryon where thecolor configuration of the quarks is unique, i.e. qiqjδijor εijkqiqjqk, the color structure for the tetraquark ismuch richer. For the tetraquark states, the four quarkscan neutralize the color in two ways, 6c ⊗ 6c = 1c and3c ⊗ 3c = 1c. In this work, we label the two color con-figurations |(QQ)6c

QQ6c〉 and |(QQ)3c

QQ3c〉 as 6c − 6c

and 3c − 3c, respectively. In Refs. [17–19], the authorsinvestigate the tetraquark states in the 3c − 3c configu-ration. In Refs. [20, 21], the authors pointed out thatthe 6c − 6c configuration is also very important to formthe tetraquark states. The fully heavy tetraquark stateis a golden system to investigate the inner color config-uration of the multiquark states. For the above reasons,the fully heavy tetraquark states have inspired both theexperimental and theoretical attention.

∗ wgj@pku.edu.cn† lmeng@pku.edu.cn‡ zhusl@pku.edu.cn

Recently, the CMS collaboration observed the Υ(1S)pair production and indicated a bbbb signal around 18.4GeV with a global significance of 3.6σ [22, 23]. Later,the LHCb searched the invariant mass distribution ofΥ(1s)µ+µ− and did not observe the tetraquark stateXbbbb [24]. The tension between CMS and LHCb datarequires more experimental and theoretical studies of thefully-beauty tetraquarks.

The mass spectroscopy has been a major platform toprobe the dynamics of the tetraquarks. Since 1975, therehave been many theoretical works about the mass spec-troscopy of the fully heavy quark states [25–31]. Theexistence of the fully heavy quark states is still con-troversial. Recent interests have followed the experi-mental developments in the past several years. Themass spectra have been calculated in different schemes,for instance, a diffusion Monte Carlo method [32], thenon-relativistic effective field theory (NREFT) [33], theQCD sum rules [34–36], covariant Bethe-Salpeter equa-tions [37], various quark models [38–40], and other phe-nomenological models [41–45]. The lowest bbbb and ccccstates are estimated to be in the mass range 18−20 GeVand 5 − 7 GeV, respectively. In contrast, the authorsof Ref. [46] investigated the mass spectra of the QQQQstates in the Chromomagnetic interaction (CMI) modeland concluded that no stable QQQQ states exist. Later,several other approaches, such as the nonrelativistic chi-ral quark model [47, 48], the lattice QCD [49] and othermodels [50, 51] also do not support the existence of thebound QQQQ states.

To investigate the existence of the full heavytetraquark states, we systematically calculate the massspectra of the bbbb, cccc and bbcc (ccbb) in two non-relativistic quark models. In general, a tetraquark stateshould be an admixture of the two color configurations,6c− 6c and 3c−3c. In this work, with the couple-channeleffects, we perform the dynamical calculation of the mass

arX

iv:1

907.

0517

7v1

[he

p-ph

] 1

1 Ju

l 201

9

2

spectra of the tetraquark states and investigate the innerstructures of the ground states.

We organize the paper as follows. In Sec. II, we intro-duce the formalism to calculate their mass spectra, in-cluding two non-relativistic quark models, the construc-tion of the wave functions, and the analytical expres-sions of the Hamiltonian matrix elements. In Sec. III,we present the numerical results and discuss the couple-channel effects between the 3c − 3c and 6c − 6c configu-rations. In Sec. IV, we compare our results with thosein other models and give a brief summary.

II. FORMALISM

A. Hamiltonian

The nonrelativistic Hamiltonian of a Q1Q2Q3Q4

tetraquark state reads

H =4∑i=1

p2j

2mj+∑i<j

Vij +∑i

mi

=p2

2u+ VI + h12 + h34 (1)

with

VI = V13 + V14 + V23 + V24, (2)

hij =p2ij

2uij+ Vij +mi +mj , (3)

pij =mipj −mjpimi +mj

, uij =mimj

mi +mj, (4)

mij = mi +mj , u =m12m34

m12 +m34, (5)

Pij = pi + pj , p =m12P34 −m13P24

m12 +m34. (6)

where pi and mi are the momentum and mass of theith quark. The kinematic energy of the center-of-masssystem has been excluded by the constraint

∑4i=1 pi = 0.

Vij is the potential between the ith and jth quarks. Theuij , mij , pij , and Pij are the reduced mass, total mass,relative momentum, and total momentum of the (ij) pairof quarks, respectively. The u and p are the reduced massand relative momentum between the (12) and (34) quarkpairs. h12, h34 and VI represent the (12) quark pair innerinteraction, (34) quark pair interaction and interactionbetween the two pairs.

Since the heavy quark mass is large, the relativistic ef-fect is less important. We use a nonrelativistic quarkmodel to describe the interaction between two heavyquarks. The quark model proposed in Ref. [52] containsone gluon exchange (OGE) plus a phenomenological lin-ear confinement interaction and the Vij reads

Vij(rij) =λi2

λj2

(Vcoul + Vconf + Vhyp + Vcons)

=λi2

λj2

Åαsrij− 3b

4rij −

8παs3mimj

si · sje−τ2r2 τ3

π3/2+ Vcons

ã,

(7)

where λ is the color matrix (replaced by −λ∗ for an anti-quark). si is the spin operator of the ith quark. rij is therelative position of the ith and jth quarks. Vcoul, Vconf,and Vhyp represent the OGE color Coulomb, the linearconfinement, and the hyperfine interactions, respectively.The OGE interaction leads to a contact hyperfine effectand an infinite hyperfine splitting. In Eq. (7), the smear-ing effect has been considered in Vhyp.

The αs is the running coupling constant in the pertur-bative QCD,

αs(Q2) =

12π

(33− 2Nf ) ln(A+Q2/B2). (8)

In this work, we take the square of the invariant mass ofthe interacting quarks as the scale Q2. The values of theparameters are listed in Table I. They are determinedby fitting the mass spectra of the mesons as listed inTable II.

To investigate the model dependence of the mass spec-trum, we also consider another nonrelativistic quarkmodel proposed in Ref. [53]. The potential reads

Vij(rij) = − 3

16

∑i<j

λiλj

(− κ(1− exp(−rij/rc))

rij+ λrpij

−Λ +8π

3mimjκ′(1− exp(−rij/rc))

exp(−r2ij/r

20)

π3/2r30

si · sj),

(9)

where r0 = A(2mimj

mi+mj)−B is related to the reduced mass

of the two quarks (ij). In this model, all the mass in-formation is included in the hyperfine potential, whichis expected to play a more important role than that inModel I. The parameters of the potentials are listed inTable I. With these parameters, we calculate the massspectra of the mesons and list them in Table II.

In this work, we concentrate on the S-wave tetraquarkstates and do not include the tensor and spin-orbital in-teractions in the two quark models. In Table II, we noticethat both models are able to reproduce the mass spec-tra of the heavy quarkonia. In the following, we willextend the two quark models to study the fully heavytetraquarks.

B. Wave function

In a Q1Q2Q3Q4 tetraquark state, there are three setsof Jacobi coordinates as illustrated in Fig. 1. Each ofthem contains three independent Jacobi coordinates, andthey can be transformed into others as follows,

rjk = rj − rk = r + cajkr12 + cbjkr34,

r =m1r1 +m2r2

m1 +m2− m3r3 +m4r4

m3 +m4,

3

TABLE I. The values of parameters in quark model I [52] and model II [53].

Model Imc[GeV] mb[GeV] b[GeV2] τ [GeV] Vcons[GeV] A B[GeV]

1.776 5.102 0.18 0.897 0.62 10 0.31

Model IIp rc mc[GeV] mb[GeV] κ κ′ λ[GeV2] Λ[GeV] A[GeVB−1] B

1 0 1.836 5.227 0.5069 1.8609 0.1653 0.8321 1.6553 0.2204

TABLE II. The mass spectra of the heavy quarkonia in units of MeV. The Mex, MIth, and MII

th refer to the mass spectra ofmesons from experiments [54], in model I [52], and in model II [53], respectively.

Mex MIth MII

th Mex MIth MII

th

Bc 6274.9 6319.4 6293.5

ηc 2983.9 3056.5 3006.6 ηb 9399.0 9497.8 9427.9

ηc(2S) 3637.6 3637.6 3621.2 Υ(1S) 9460.30 9503.6 9470.4

J/ψ 3096.9 3085.1 3102.1 Υ(2S) 10023.26 9949.7 10017.8

ψ(2S) 3686.1 3652.4 3657.8 Υ(3S) 10355.2 10389.8 10440.6

r′ =m1r1 +m3r3

m1 +m3− m2r2 +m4r4

m2 +m4

=(m1m3 −m2m4)r +MTu12r12 −MTu34r34

(m1 +m4)(m2 +m3),

r′′ =m1r1 +m4r4

m1 +m4− m2r2 +m3r3

m2 +m3

=(m1m4 −m2m3)r +MTu12r12 −MTu34r34

(m1 +m3)(m2 +m4), (10)

where MT =∑4i=1mi is the total mass of the four

quarks. The transformation coefficients ca(b)jk are listed in

Table III. The superscripts a and b represent the quarkcluster and antiquark cluster, respectively.

To simplify the calculation, we use the first coordinateconfiguration to construct the wave function consideringthe symmetry of the inner quarks. The wave function ofa tetraquark state is

ψJJz =∑[ϕnaJa(r12, βa)⊗ ϕnbJb(r34, βb)⊗ φNLab

(r, β)]JJz ,

ϕnaJaMa= [φnala(r12, βa)χsa ]

JaMa

χfχca , (11)

where the ψ is the total wave function of the tetraquarkstate, and ϕ denotes that of the cluster (a) or (b). J(Jz) is the total angular momentum (the third directioncomponent) of a tetraquark state. The

∑is the sum

over all the possible wave functions which may couple tothe definite angular momentum J . na(b) and N specifythe radial dependence. The sa(b), la(b) and Ja(b) are thespin, orbital and total angular momentum of the clustera (b). Lab is the orbital angular momentum between thetwo clusters. The χs, χf , χc are the wave functions inthe spin, the isospin, and the color space, respectively.φ is the spatial wave function and is expressed by the

Gaussian basis [55],

φnalama(r12, βa) = ilarla12

4π

(2la + 1)!!(naβ

2a

π)3/4

× (2naβ2a)la/2e−r

2β2ana/2Ylama(Ω12).

with βa being the oscillating parameter.In this work, we concentrate on the S-wave tetraquark

states. Their wave functions are expanded by the basiswhich satisfies the relation la + lb + Lab = 0. The stateswith higher orbital excitations contribute to the groundstate through the tensor or the spin-orbital potentials.These contributions are higher order effects and neglectedin this work. Thus, for the lowest S-wave tetraquarkstates, we only consider the wave functions with la =lb = Lab = 0. The wave function of the tetraquark statein Eq. (11) is simplified as

ψSSz =∑

α,nA,nb,nab

χαφna(r12, βa)φnb(r34, βb)φnab

(r, β),

χα = [χsa ⊗ χsb ]S

[χfa ⊗ χfb ] [χca ⊗ χcb ]1, (12)

where S is the total spin of the tetraquark state and 1represents the color-singlet representation. For the spa-tial wave functions, we have omitted the orbital angularmomentum in the Gaussian wave function φ.

The wave functions are constrained by the Pauli prin-ciple. The S-wave diquark (antidiquark) with two iden-tical quarks (antiquarks) has two possible configurationsas listed in Table IV. Then, for the cccc, bbbb, and bbcctetraquark states, the possible color-flavor-spin functionsread

• JPC = 0++

χ1 =î[QQ]13c

[QQ]13c

ó01c

, χ2 =î[QQ]06c

[QQ]06c

ó01c

.(13)

4

r12r34

r

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

r′

r24

r13Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

r14r23

r′′

FIG. 1. The Jacobi coordinates in the tetraquark state.

TABLE III. The coefficient cij in Eq. (10).

ca14 ca13 ca23 ca24 cb14 cb13 cb23 cb24

m2m1+m2

m2m1+m2

− m1m1+m2

− m1m1+m2

m3m3+m4

− m4m3+m4

− m4m3+m4

m3m3+m4

TABLE IV. The configurations of the diquark (antiquark)constrained by Pauli principle. “S” and “A” represent sym-metry and antisymmetry.

JP = 1+ QQ JP = 0+ QQ

S-wave(L=0) S S-wave(L=0) S

Flavor S Flavor S

Spin(S=1) S Spin(S=0) A

Color(3c) A Color(6c) S

• JPC = 1+−

χ1 =[[QQ]13c

[QQ]13c

]11c. (14)

• JPC = 2++

χ1 =[[QQ]13c

[QQ]13c

]21c. (15)

where the superscript and subscript denote the spin andcolor representations.

C. Hamiltonian matrix elements

With the wave function constructed in section II B,we calculate the Hamiltonian matrix elements. For thequark model I, the matrix element of 〈h12〉 reads,

〈χαiφn(r12)φλ(r34)φk(r)|h12|χαj

φm(r12)φν(r34)φk′(r)〉= δαiαjNλ,νNk,k′〈φn(r12, βa)|h12|φm(r12, βa)〉= δαiαjNλ,νNk,k′ (〈T12 +m1 +m2〉+ 〈V12〉) , (16)

with

Nk,k′ =

Ç2√kk′

k + k′

å3/2

,

〈T12 +m1 +m2〉 = Nm,n

Å3mnβ2

a

2u12(m+ n)+m1 +m2

ã,

〈V12(r12)〉 = 〈Vcoul〉+ 〈Vconf〉+ 〈Vhyp〉+ 〈Vcons〉,

〈Vcoul〉 = IC4παsβa(2π)3/2

√m+ nNm,n,

〈Vconf〉 = −3

4IC

8πb

(2π)3/2βa√m+ n

Nm,n,

〈Vhyp〉 = −ICM8παs

3mimj

σ3

π3/2

Å2√mn

m+ n+ 2σ2/β2a

ã 32

,

〈Vcons〉 = ICVconsNm,n, (17)

where n, λ, k,m, ν, k′ specify the radial dependence. TheIC and ICM are the color factor and the color electromag-netic factor in Table V and Table VI, respectively. χαi,αj

denote the color-flavor-spin configurations as illustratedin Eq. (12). Since the potential h12 is diagonal in thecolor-flavor-spin space, it does not induce the coupling ofdifferent χαi,αj

channels and the 〈h12〉 is proportional toδαiαj

. The derivation of 〈h34〉 is similar to that of 〈h12〉.Unlike the h12 and h34, the VI(rij) with i = 1, 2 and

j = 3, 4, which is the interaction between the diquark andantidiquark, may lead to the mixing between differentcolor-spin-flavor configurations, i.e. χαi

and χαj. The

〈VI(rij)〉 reads

〈χαiφn(r12, βa)φλ(r34, βb)φk(r, β)|VI(rij)

|χαjφm(r12, γa)φν(r34, γb)φk′(r, γ)〉

= 〈Vcoul(rij)〉αiαj + 〈Vconf(rij)〉αiαj + 〈Vhyp(rij)〉αiαj ,

where β(a,b) and γ(a,b) are the oscillating parameters. Theimplicit forms of the notations are

〈Vcoul(rij)〉 = ICNm,nNλ,νNk,k′2αs√

π»

2kβ2+k′γ2 + 4a2

ij

,

〈Vconf(rij)〉 = ICNm,nNλ,νNk,k′(−3bzij√π

),

5

TABLE V. The color matrix element IC = 〈λi2

λj

2〉 for the (ij)

pair of quarks. The subscripts denote the color representationof the cluster.

〈(Q1Q2)3(Q3Q4)3|λi2

λj

2|(Q1Q2)3(Q3Q4)3〉

Q1Q3 Q2Q4 Q1Q4 Q2Q3 Q1Q2 Q3Q4

− 13

− 13

− 13

− 13

− 23

− 23

〈(Q1Q2)6(Q3Q4)6|λi2

λj

2|(Q1Q2)6(Q3Q4)6〉

Q1Q3 Q2Q4 Q1Q4 Q2Q3 Q1Q2 Q3Q4

− 56

− 56

− 56

− 56

13

13

〈(Q1Q2)3(Q3Q4)3|λi2

λj

2|(Q1Q2)6(Q3Q4)6〉

Q1Q3 Q2Q4 Q1Q4 Q2Q3 Q1Q2 Q3Q4

− 1√2

− 1√2

1√2

1√2

0 0

TABLE VI. The color magnetic factor 〈ICM〉αiαj =

〈χαi |λi2

λj

2si · sj |χαj 〉 for the (ij) quark pairs. The χαi,j de-

notes the color-flavor-spin wave functions in Eqs. (13)-(15).

IijCM = 〈λi2

λj

2si · sj〉

0++

〈IQQCM 〉11 〈IQQCM 〉11 〈IQQCM 〉11

16

− 16

− 16

〈IQQCM 〉22 〈IQQCM 〉22 〈IQQCM 〉22

0 − 14

− 14

〈IQQCM 〉12 〈IQQCM 〉11 〈IQQCM 〉11√

3

4√

20 0

1+− 〈IQQCM 〉11 〈IQQCM 〉11 〈IQQCM 〉11

112

− 16

− 16

2++〈IQQCM 〉11 〈HQQ

CM 〉11 〈HQQCM 〉11

− 112

− 16

− 16

〈Vhyp(rij)〉 = ICM Nm,nNλ,νNk,k′

×Ç− 8αs

3mimj(4τ2ij + 2

kβ2+k′γ2 )3/2√π

å, (18)

where

Nm,n =

Å2√mnβaγa

mγ2a + nβ2

a

ã3/2

, (19)

aij =(caij)

2

2(mβ2a + nγa2)

+(cbij)

2

2(λβ2b + νγ2

b ), (20)

τ2ij = a2

ij +1

4σ2, z2

ij = a2ij +

1

2(kβ2 + k′γ2). (21)

With the above analytical expressions, we calculate themass spectrum of the fully heavy tetraquark statesQQQ′Q′. The numerical results are given in the nextsection.

III. NUMERICAL RESULTS

The wave function of a tetraquark state is composedof all wave functions which subject to the conditions dis-cussed in section II B. The number of the basis N3 in-creases from the minimum required to a large limit. Wetake the cccc tetraquark state with JPC = 1+− as an ex-ample to investigate the dependence of the results on thenumber of the basis. Its wave function is expanded withN3 = 13, 23, 33, 43 and 53 basis, respectively. The cor-responding eigenvalues obtained through the variationalmethod are displayed in Fig. 2. The mass spectrum tendsto be stable when N3 is larger than 23. Therefore, weexpand the wave functions of the tetraquark states with23 Gaussian basis in the following calculation.

1+-cccc

M-I 1S

M-I 2S

M-I 3S

M-II 1S

M-II 2S

M-II 3S

1 2 3 4 56

65

66

6

6

6

7

N3

[G

]

FIG. 2. The dependence of the mass spectrum on the numberof Gaussian basis N3. The line and dashed line represent thenumerical results in model I and model II, respectively.

A. A tetraquark state QQQ′Q′ with JPC = 0++

A tetraquark state QQQ′Q′ with JPC = 0++ containstwo color-flavor-spin configurations χ1 and χ2 as listedin Eq. (13). Its wave function reads

ψIIzJJz=∑α1

Aα1φα1

χ1 +∑α2

Bα2φα2

χ2

=∑α1

Aα1φα1

(βa, βb, β)|(QQ)3c(QQ)3c

〉

+∑α2

Bα2φα2

(γa, γb, γ)|(QQ)6c(QQ)6c

〉, (22)

where α1,2 = na, la, nb, lb, N, L, β(a,b) and γ(a,b) arethe oscillating parameters for the 3c − 3c and 6c − 6ctetraquark states. Aα1

and Bα2are the expanding coef-

ficients.At first, we do not consider the mixture between the

3c − 3c and 6c − 6c tetraquark states and solve theSchodinger equation with the variational method. We

6

obtain their mass spectra and display them in the leftpanel of Fig. 3.

For the cccc and bbbb systems, the 6c − 6c states arelocated lower than the 3c−3c ones as illustrated in Fig. 3.In the OGE model, the interactions between the twoquarks within a color-sextet diquark are repulsive dueto the color factor in Table V, while those in the 3cone is attractive. However, the interactions between the6c diquark and 6c antidiquark are attractive and muchstronger than that between the 3c diquark and 3c an-tidiquark. There exists a 6c − 6c tetraquark state, if theattraction between diquark and antidiquark wins againstthe repulsion within the diquak (antidiquark). If the at-tractive potentials are strong enough, the 6c − 6c statestays even lower than the 3c− 3c one. That is what hap-pens to the cccc, bbbb tetraquark states with JPC = 0++

in the two quark models. For the bbcc (ccbb) state, the6c − 6c state is lower in model I, while the 3c − 3c stateis lower in model II.

In general, a tetraquark state is a mixture of the 3c−3cand 6c − 6c states as illustrated in Eq. (22). With thecouple-channel effects of the 3c − 3c and 6c − 6c colorconfigurations, we obtain the mass spectrum of the 0++

states and list them in Table VII. The spectra obtainedwith 3c − 3c and 6c − 6c mixing are given in Fig. 3. Themixing effect will pull down the lower state and raisethe higher state. The two quark models lead to similarmass spectra for the cccc, bbbb, and bbcc (ccbb) tetraquarkstates with the differences up to tens of MeV. However,the proportions of the components in the two quark mod-els are quite different. The mixing between the 3c − 3cand 6c − 6c states are more stronger in model II. Thereasons are explained as follows.

In model I and model II, we find that only the hyper-fine interactions contribute to the couple-channel effectsof the 3c−3c configuration and the 6c− 6c one, while thecontributions from the confinement and Coulomb poten-tials vanish. We illustrate the underlying dynamics asfollows. The matrices of h12 and h34 are diagonal dueto the orthogonality of the wave functions of differentconfigurations. However, the Vcoul + Vlinear + Vhyp in VI ,which describes the interactions between the diquark andantidiquark, may result in the couple-channel effects ofdifferent configurations. For an S-wave tetraquark statewith two identical quarks (antiquarks), such as QQQ1Q2

(Q1Q2QQ), the spin wave functions of different possi-ble configurations are orthogonal, which is constrainedby the Fermi statistic. Since the OGE Coulomb and lin-ear confinement potentials do not contain spin operators,they do not contribute to the couple-channel effects dueto the orthogonality of the spin wave functions. Andonly the hyperfine potential contributes. That is whathappens to the QQQ′Q′ state in this work.

For a tetraquark state without identical quarks andantiquarks, i.e., Q1Q2Q3Q4 (Q1 6= Q2 and Q3 6= Q4),the spin wave functions of different configurations maybe the same. The four quarks form a color singlet state

and the color matrix element is

(4∑n

λn)2|χi,j〉 = 0. (23)

where χi and χj represent two different color configura-tions and they are the eigenvectors of λ1+λ2 and λ3+λ4.Considering their orthogonality, one obtains

〈χi|(λ1 + λ2)2|χj〉 = 0,

〈χi|(λ3 + λ4)2|χj〉 = 0. (24)

Then the color factors of the (13), (14), (23), and (24)pairs of quarks cancel out,

〈χi|(λ1 + λ2)(λ3 + λ4)|χj〉 = 0. (25)

Moreover, if the coupling constants are the same forthe four quark pairs, the contributions from the OGECoulomb and the linear confinement potentials will can-cel out completely. In model I, the contributions from thecolor interactions do not cancel out exactly due to differ-ent αs. However, partial cancellations are still expected.In model II, the OGE Coulomb and linear confinementpotentials do not depend on the mass of the interactingquarks. Thus, the couple-channel effects arising from theOGE Coulomb and linear confinement potentials can-cel out. The mixing between different color-flavor-spinconfigurations only comes from the hyperfine potential,which is inversely proportional to the interacting quarkmass. Thus, the mixing in the cccc state is generallylarger than that in the bbbb state.

In model II, all the flavor dependence is packaged intothe hyperfine interaction, which is different from modelI. The hyperfine interaction in model II should play amore important role than that in model I. Therefore, thecouple-channel effect in model II is stronger as illustratedin Fig. 3.

In model II, since the r0 in the hyperfine interaction isthe function of the reduced mass between the two quarks,its value for bc is in proximity to that of cc. Then, themixing in cccc and bbcc are similar as illustrated in Ta-ble VII. One may wonder the additional dependence ofthe mixing on the number of the expanding basis. For in-stance, when we use 2×33 bases to expand the wave func-tion of the cccc state in model I, we find there are 11.4%3c − 3c and 88.6% 6c − 6c components in the tetraquarkstate. The percents change slightly with the number ofthe basis.

In Ref. [48], the authors pointed out that the state|(QQ)3c

(QQ)3c〉 (Q = c, b) is located lower than the

|(QQ)6c(QQ)6c

〉 state, which contradicts with our re-sults. The inconsistency was due to their use of par-ticular wave functions. The authors used the same os-cillating parameters for the 3c − 3c and 6c − 6c states.Moreover, the oscillating parameters are proportional tothe reduced masses of the interacting quarks. With theirwave function, we reproduced their results. However, ifwe remove the two constrains on the wave functions, we

7

-

-

-

-

++

()

(a) cccc

-

-

-

-

++

(

)

(b) bbbb

-

-

-

-

++

(

)

(c) bbcc (ccbb)

FIG. 3. The mass spectrum of the 0++ tetraquark states QQQ′Q′ without and with the coupling between the 3c − 3c and6c − 6c configurations. The blue lines and red dotted dashed lines represent the results in model I and II, respectively. Inevery diagrams, the left half and the right half are the mass spectrum without and with mixing between 3c − 3c and 6c − 6cconfigurations, respectively. The corresponding states are connected by the black dashed lines.

TABLE VII. The mass spectra of cccc, bbbb, and bbcc (bbcc) tetraquark states with JPC = 0++. β(a,b) and γ(a,b) represent theoscillating parameters of the 3c − 3c and 6c − 6c tetraquark states, respectively.

JPC = 0++ Model I M [GeV] 3c ⊗ 3c 6c ⊗ 6c Model II M [GeV] 3c ⊗ 3c 6c ⊗ 6c

ccccβa = βb = 0.4, β = 0.6 6.377 11% 89% βa = βb = 0.5, β = 0.7 6.371 43% 57%

γa = γb = 0.4, γ = 0.7 6.425 89% 11% γa = γb = 0.5, γ = 0.8 6.483 57% 43%

bbbbβa = βb = 0.7, β = 0.9 19.215 1% 99% βa = βb = 0.9, β = 1.1 19.243 17% 83%

γa = γb = 0.7, γ = 0.9 19.247 99% 1% γa = γb = 0.8, γ = 1.2 19.305 83% 17%

bbccβa = 0.6, βb = 0.5, β = 0.7 12.847 14% 86% βa = 0.7, βb = 0.5, β = 0.8 12.886 53% 47%

γa = 0.6, γb = 0.4, γ = 0.9 12.866 86% 14% γa = 0.7, γb = 0.5, γ = 0.9 12.946 47% 53%

find the lowest state with a dominant 6c − 6c compo-nent as listed in Table VIII, which is lower than that inRef. [48].

B. The tetraquark states with JP = 1+− and 2++

Constrained by the Fermi statistics, the tetraquarkstates QQQ′Q′ (Q and Q′ may be the same flavors) withJP = 1+− and 2++ only contain one color component,i.e. 3c − 3c. We list the mass spectra of the S-wavestates and their radial excitations in Table IX. The massspectra in the two models are quite similar to each other.The results from Model II are slightly higher than thosein Model I.

The tetraquark states with JP = 1+− and 2++ havethe same configurations except the total spin. Therefore,the mass difference arises from the hyperfine potential,which is quite small compared with the OGE Coulomband linear confinement potentials. Thus, the mass spec-tra of these two kinds of states are almost the same.

C. Disscussion

A tetraquark state can be expressed in another set ofcolor representations as follows,

|(Q1Q2)3c(Q3Q4)3c

〉

=

…1

3|(Q1Q3)1c

(Q2Q4)1c〉 −…

2

3|(Q1Q3)8c

(Q2Q4)8c〉

= −…

1

3|(Q1Q4)1c

(Q2Q3)1c〉+

…2

3|(Q1Q4)8c

(Q2Q3)8c〉,

|(Q1Q2)6c(Q3Q4)6c

〉

=

…2

3|(Q1Q3)1c

(Q2Q4)1c〉+

…1

3|(Q1Q3)8c

(Q2Q4)8c〉

=

…2

3|(Q1Q4)1c

(Q2Q3)1c〉+

…1

3|(Q1Q4)8c

(Q2Q3)8c〉.(26)

To investigate the inner structure of the tetraquark, wecalculate its proportions in the new set and the root meansquare radii of the state, which are listed in Table X. Theground states contain the 8c⊗8c configuration. In modelI, the proportion of the 8c⊗ 8c configuration is consider-able, which supports that the solution is a confined staterather than a scattering state of two mesons. In model

8

TABLE VIII. The comparison of the mass spectra of 0++ cccc and bbbb from Ref. [48] and our results using the same quarkmodel. In the right table, we remove the constrains on the wave functions used in Ref. [48].

Ref. [48] without constrains

JPC = 0++ w = 0.325 M [GeV] 3c ⊗ 3c 6c ⊗ 6c M [GeV] 3c ⊗ 3c 6c ⊗ 6c

ccccβa = βb = 0.49, β = 0.69 6470 66% 34% βa = βb = 0.4, β = 0.6 6417 33% 67%

γa = γb = 0.49, γ = 0.69 6559 34% 66% γa = γb = 0.4, γ = 0.7 6509 67% 33%

bbbbβa = βb = 0.88, β = 1.24 19268 66% 34% βa = βb = 0.7, β = 0.9 19226 18% 82%

γa = γb = 0.88, γ = 1.24 19306 34% 66% γa = γb = 0.7, γ = 0.9 19268 82% 18%

TABLE IX. The mass spectra of the cccc, bbbb and bbcc states with JPC = 1+− and 2++ in units of GeV.

Model I nS JPC = 1+− JPC = 2++ Model II nS JPC = 1+− JPC = 2++

cccc βa = 0.4 1S 6.425 6.432 βa = 0.5 1S 6.450 6.479

βb = 0.4 2S 6.856 6.864 βb = 0.5 2S 6.894 6.919

β = 0.6 3S 6.915 6.919 β = 0.6 3S 7.036 7.058

bbbb βa = 0.7 1S 19.247 19.249 βa = 1.0 1S 19.311 19.325

βb = 0.7 2S 19.594 19.596 βb = 1.0 2S 19.813 19.823

β = 0.9 3S 19.681 19.682 β = 1.1 3S 20.065 20.077

bbcc βa = 0.7 1S 12.864 12.868 βa = 0.7 1S 12.924 12.940

βb = 0.5 2S 13.259 13.262 βb = 0.5 2S 13.321 13.334

β = 0.7 3S 13.297 13.299 β = 0.7 3S 13.364 13.375

II, though the 1c⊗1c configuration is dominant, the rootmean square radii are of the size of nucleons. Thus, theyare also unlikely to be scattering states.

We also take the cccc as an example to study thedensity distributions of r2ρ(r), r2ρ(r′), r2

12ρ(r12) andr213ρ(r13). The ρ(r) and ρ(r12) are defined as follows,

ρ(r) =

∫|ψ(r12, r34, r)|2d~r12d~r34d~r,

ρ(r12) =

∫|ψ(r12, r34, r)|2d~rd~r34d~r12. (27)

The definitions of the ρ(r13) and ρ(r′) are similar. Thedependence of the density distributions on the extensionof the basis function is displayed in Fig. 4. We find thatthe distributions are confined in the spatial space andtend to be stable with different number of the expandingbasis, which indicates the state may be a confined stateinstead of a scattering state.

We present the mass spectra of the tetraquark statesand the mass thresholds of possible scattering states inFig. 5. As illustrated in this figure, the bbbb, cccc, andbbcc states with JPC = 0++ are the lowest states. Butthey are still located above the corresponding meson-meson mass thresholds, which indicates that there maynot exist bound states in the two quark models.

We also investigate the constituent quark mass depen-dence of the tetraquark spectra. We vary the quark mass

and display the results in Fig. 6. The figure shows thatboth the tetraquark mass and the ηQηQ threshold in-crease with the quark mass. The QQQQ is always lo-cated above the mass thresholds of the ηQηQ and nobound tetraquark states exist.

IV. SUMMARY

In this work, we have systematically calculated themass spectra of the tetraquark states cccc, bbbb, and bbccin two nonrelativistic quark models, which contain theOGE Coulomb, linear confinement and hyperfine poten-tials.

For a QQQ′Q′ (Q and Q′ may be the same flavors)state with JPC = 0++, it can be formed by a 6c diquarkand a 6c antidiquark, or a 3c diquark and a 3c antidi-quark. For the tetraquark states cccc and bbbb, the 6c−6cstates are located lower than the 3c − 3c ones due to thestrong attractions between the diquark and the antidi-quark. For the bbcc (ccbb), the mass of the 6c − 6c stateis lower than that of the 3c−3c one in the model I, whilethe 3c − 3c one is lower in the model II. Our calculationshows that the 6c − 6c color configuration is importantand sometimes even dominant in the formation of fullyheavy tetraquark states. One should be cautious aboutneglecting the 6c − 6c color configurations in calculating

9

0++ cccc Model I

r12/r34 N3=13

r12/r34 N3=23

r12/r34 N3=33

r12/r34 N3=43

r N3=13

r N3=23

r N3=33

r N3=43

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.00.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

r [fm]

r2ρ(r)[GeV

]

0++ cccc Model II

r12/r34 N3=13

r12/r34 N3=23

r12/r34 N3=33

r12/r34 N3=43

r N3=13

r N3=23

r N3=33

r N3=43

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.00.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

r [fm]

r2ρ(r)[GeV

]

(a) Density distributions in the first Jacobi coordinate.

0++ cccc Model I

r13/r24 N3=13

r13/r24 N3=23

r13/r24 N3=33

r13/r24 N3=43

r' N3=13

r' N3=23

r' N3=33

r' N3=43

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.00.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

r [fm]

r2ρ(r)[GeV

]

0++ cccc Model II

r13/r24 N3=13

r13/r24 N3=23

r13/r24 N3=33

r13/r24 N3=43

r' N3=13

r' N3=23

r' N3=33

r' N3=43

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.00.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

r [fm]

r2ρ(r)[GeV

]

(b) Density distributions in the second Jacobi coordinate.

FIG. 4. The dependence of density distributions on the number of the basis functions.

TABLE X. The proportion of the color configurations and the root mean square radii of the cccc, bbbb, and bbcc (bbcc) tetraquark

states with JPC = 0++.√〈r2ij〉 and

√〈r(′)2〉 are the root mean square radii corresponding to the second Jacobi coordinate in

Fig. 1.

JPC = 0++ Model I

N3 = 23 After mixing 3c ⊗ 3c 6c ⊗ 6c 1c ⊗ 1c 8c ⊗ 8c√〈r2

12〉 fm√〈r2

34〉 fm√〈r2〉 fm

√〈r2

13〉 fm√〈r2

24〉 fm√〈r′2〉 fm

cccc 6.377 11% 89% 90% 10% 0.54 0.30 0.49 0.38

bbbb 19.215 1% 99% 75% 25% 0.35 0.19 0.31 0.25

bbcc 12.847 14% 86% 92% 8% 0.39 0.50 0.26 0.41 0.32

Model II

N3 = 23 After mixing 3c ⊗ 3c 6c ⊗ 6c 1c ⊗ 1c 8c ⊗ 8c√〈r2

12〉 fm√〈r2

34〉 fm√〈r2〉 fm

√〈r2

13〉 fm√〈r2

24〉 fm√〈r′2〉 fm

cccc 6.371 43% 57% 97% 3% 0.47 0.30 0.45 0.33

bbbb 19.243 17% 83% 94% 6% 0.28 0.17 0.26 0.20

bbcc 12.886 53% 47% 93% 7% 0.32 0.44 0.26 0.37 0.26

10

++ +- ++

ηη

/ψ/ψ

η/ψ

(

)

(a) cccc

++ +- ++

ηη

Υ()Υ()ηΥ()

(

)

(b) bbbb

++ +- ++

()

(c) bbcc(ccbb).

FIG. 5. The mass spectra of the cccc, bbbb, and bbcc(ccbb) tetraquark states. The blue line and red dotted dashed line representthe results in model I and II, respectively.

0++ QQQQ

ηQηQ QQQQ

2 3 4 5 65

10

15

20

mQ [GeV]

Energy[GeV

]

(a)The mass spectra of the tetraquark states QQQQ withJPC = 0++.

0++ QQQQ

MQQQ_Q_ -MηQ ηQ

2 3 4 5 6

0.32

0.36

0.4

0.44

mQ [GeV]

MQQQ_Q_-M

ηQηQ[GeV

]

(b)The mass difference between the tetraquark states andthe mass threshold of ηQηQ.

FIG. 6. The quark mass dependence of the 0++ tetraquark states QQQQ in model II. In this figure, we use the ηQ to denotethe meson state QQ with JPC = 0−+.

11

the tetraquark states.The 6c − 6c configuration couples with the 3c − 3c one

through the interactions between the diquark and an-tidiquark. For a QQQ′Q′ state, we prove that only thehyperfine potential contributes to the mixing betweenthe two configurations, while the contributions from theOGE Coulomb and the linear confinement potentials can-cel out exactly.

In Table XI, we summarize our numerical results andthose from the CMI model [42, 43, 46], a nonrelativis-tic effective field theory (NREFT) and a relativized di-quark and antidiquark model [33], a diffusion Monte-Carlo method [32], a constituent quark model with thehyperspherical formalism [40], the nonrelativistic poten-tial model [48], and the QCD sum rule [36, 56]. In thistable, we notice that the numerical results in the twononrelativistic quark models are similar to each other.The results show that the lowest states are the ones withJPC = 0++. These ground states are located about300 ∼ 450 MeV above the lowest scattering states, whichindicates that there may not exist bound tetraquarkstates cccc, bbbb, and bbcc (ccbb) in the scheme of thetwo nonrelativistic quark models.

The parameters of the two quark models are deter-mined by the meson spectrum. The potentials in a four-body system may be slightly different from those whichare widely used in the conventional meson and baryonsystems. The different confinement mechanism may leadto different spectra. For example, the three-body forcearising from the triple-gluon vertex may be non-negligiblefor the multi-quark systems. In contrast, this force van-ishes for the traditional qq meson and qqq baryons. Thefully heavy tetraquark states can be searched for at CMS,LHCb, and BelleII. More experimental data may providea deeper understanding of the interactions in the multi-quark system.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

G.J. Wang is very grateful to X. Z. Weng, X. L. Chenand W. Z. Deng for very helpful discussions. We alsothank Prof. Makoto Oka and Prof. Emiko Hiyama forhelpful suggestions. This project is supported by the Na-tional Natural Science Foundation of China under Grants11575008, 11621131001 and 973 program.

[1] S. K. Choi et al. [Belle Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 142001 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.142001[arXiv:0708.1790 [hep-ex]].

[2] R. Aaij et al. [LHCb Collaboration], Phys.Rev. Lett. 112, no. 22, 222002 (2014)doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.222002 [arXiv:1404.1903[hep-ex]].

[3] K. Chilikin et al. [Belle Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 88,no. 7, 074026 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.074026[arXiv:1306.4894 [hep-ex]].

[4] K. Chilikin et al. [Belle Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 90,no. 11, 112009 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.112009[arXiv:1408.6457 [hep-ex]].

[5] M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII Collaboration],Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, no. 2, 022001 (2014)doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.022001 [arXiv:1310.1163[hep-ex]].

[6] M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII Collaboration],Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, no. 24, 242001 (2013)doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.242001 [arXiv:1309.1896[hep-ex]].

[7] M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII Collabora-tion], Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 252001 (2013)doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.252001 [arXiv:1303.5949[hep-ex]].

[8] A. Bondar et al. [Belle Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 122001 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.122001[arXiv:1110.2251 [hep-ex]].

[9] I. Adachi et al. [Belle Collaboration], arXiv:1209.6450[hep-ex].

[10] R. Aaij et al. [LHCb Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 072001 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.072001[arXiv:1507.03414 [hep-ex]].

[11] R. Aaij et al. [LHCb Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C 78,no. 12, 1019 (2018) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6447-z[arXiv:1809.07416 [hep-ex]].

[12] H. X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, Phys.Rept. 639, 1 (2016) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2016.05.004[arXiv:1601.02092 [hep-ph]].

[13] F. K. Guo, C. Hanhart, U. G. Meiner, Q. Wang,Q. Zhao and B. S. Zou, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, no.1, 015004 (2018) doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.90.015004[arXiv:1705.00141 [hep-ph]].

[14] A. Esposito, A. Pilloni and A. D. Polosa, Phys.Rept. 668, 1 (2017) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2016.11.002[arXiv:1611.07920 [hep-ph]].

[15] A. Ali, J. S. Lange and S. Stone, Prog. Part. Nucl.Phys. 97, 123 (2017) doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2017.08.003[arXiv:1706.00610 [hep-ph]].

[16] Y. R. Liu, H. X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu,doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2019.04.003 arXiv:1903.11976 [hep-ph].

[17] L. Maiani, F. Piccinini, A. D. Polosa andV. Riquer, Phys. Rev. D 71, 014028 (2005)doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.014028 [hep-ph/0412098].

[18] A. Ali, C. Hambrock and W. Wang, Phys. Rev.D 85, 054011 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.054011[arXiv:1110.1333 [hep-ph]].

[19] E. J. Eichten and C. Quigg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, no.20, 202002 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.202002[arXiv:1707.09575 [hep-ph]].

[20] H. X. Chen, E. L. Cui, W. Chen, X. Liu andS. L. Zhu, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, no. 3, 160 (2017)doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-4737-5 [arXiv:1606.03179[hep-ph]].

[21] L. Maiani, A. D. Polosa and V. Riquer, arXiv:1903.10253[hep-ph].

12

TABLE XI. The mass spectra (in units of GeV) of the tetraquark states cccc, bbbb, and bbcc in different frameworks. The M1th

and M2th are the numerical results from the quark model I and II in this work, respectively.

JPC M1th M2

th [42] [43] [46] [33] [32] [40] [48] [36, 56]

0++6.377 6.371

5.966 6.192± 0.025 6.001 ... ... 6.0386.470

6.44± 0.15

cccc

6.425 6.483 6.558

1+− 6.425 6.450 6.051 ... 6.109 ... ... 6.101 6.512 6.37± 0.18

2++ 6.432 6.479 6.223 ... 6.166 ... ... 6.172 6.534 6.37± 0.19

bbbb

0++19.215 19.243

18.754 18.826± 0.025 18.815 18.72± 0.02 18.69± 0.03 ...19.268

18.45± 0.1519.247 19.305 19.305

1+− 19.247 19.311 18.808 ... 18.874 ... ... ... 19.285 18.32± 0.17

2++ 19.249 19.325 18.916 ... 18.905 ... ... ... 19.295 18.32± 0.17

bbcc(ccbb)

0++12.847 12.886

... ... 12.571 ... ... ...12.935

...12.866 12.946 13.023

1+− 12.864 12.924 ... ... 12.638 ... ... ... 12.945 ...

2++ 12.868 12.940 ... ... 12.673 ... ... ... 12.956 ...

[22] V. Khachatryan et al. [CMS Collaboration], JHEP1705, 013 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2017)013[arXiv:1610.07095 [hep-ex]].

[23] S. Durgut (CMS), Search for Ex-otic Mesons at CMS (2018),https://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/APR18/Session/U09.6.

[24] R. Aaij et al. [LHCb Collaboration], JHEP 1810, 086(2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2018)086 [arXiv:1806.09707[hep-ex]].

[25] Y. Iwasaki, Prog. Theor. Phys. 54, 492 (1975).doi:10.1143/PTP.54.492

[26] K. T. Chao, Z. Phys. C 7, 317 (1981).doi:10.1007/BF01431564

[27] J. P. Ader, J. M. Richard and P. Taxil, Phys. Rev. D 25,2370 (1982). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.25.2370

[28] S. Zouzou, B. Silvestre-Brac, C. Gignoux andJ. M. Richard, Z. Phys. C 30, 457 (1986).doi:10.1007/BF01557611

[29] L. Heller and J. A. Tjon, Phys. Rev. D 35, 969 (1987).doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.35.969

[30] B. Silvestre-Brac, Phys. Rev. D 46, 2179 (1992).doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.46.2179

[31] B. Silvestre-Brac and C. Semay, Z. Phys. C 59, 457(1993). doi:10.1007/BF01498626

[32] Y. Bai, S. Lu and J. Osborne, arXiv:1612.00012 [hep-ph].[33] M. N. Anwar, J. Ferretti, F. K. Guo, E. San-

topinto and B. S. Zou, Eur. Phys. J. C 78,no. 8, 647 (2018) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6073-9[arXiv:1710.02540 [hep-ph]].

[34] Z. G. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, no. 7, 432 (2017)doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-4997-0 [arXiv:1701.04285[hep-ph]].

[35] Z. G. Wang and Z. Y. Di, arXiv:1807.08520 [hep-ph].

[36] W. Chen, H. X. Chen, X. Liu, T. G. Steele andS. L. Zhu, EPJ Web Conf. 182, 02028 (2018)doi:10.1051/epjconf/201818202028 [arXiv:1803.02522[hep-ph]].

[37] W. Heupel, G. Eichmann and C. S. Fischer, Phys. Lett.B 718, 545 (2012) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.11.009[arXiv:1206.5129 [hep-ph]].

[38] R. J. Lloyd and J. P. Vary, Phys. Rev. D 70,014009 (2004) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.70.014009 [hep-ph/0311179].

[39] V. R. Debastiani and F. S. Navarra, Chin. Phys. C 43,no. 1, 013105 (2019) doi:10.1088/1674-1137/43/1/013105[arXiv:1706.07553 [hep-ph]].

[40] N. Barnea, J. Vijande and A. Valcarce, Phys. Rev.D 73, 054004 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.054004[hep-ph/0604010].

[41] A. V. Berezhnoy, A. K. Likhoded, A. V. Luchinskyand A. A. Novoselov, Phys. Rev. D 84, 094023 (2011)doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.84.094023 [arXiv:1101.5881 [hep-ph]].

[42] A. V. Berezhnoy, A. V. Luchinsky andA. A. Novoselov, Phys. Rev. D 86, 034004 (2012)doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.034004 [arXiv:1111.1867[hep-ph]].

[43] M. Karliner, S. Nussinov and J. L. Ros-ner, Phys. Rev. D 95, no. 3, 034011 (2017)doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.034011 [arXiv:1611.00348[hep-ph]].

[44] A. Esposito and A. D. Polosa, Eur. Phys. J. C 78,no. 9, 782 (2018) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6269-z[arXiv:1807.06040 [hep-ph]].

[45] M. Karliner, J. L. Rosner and T. Skwarnicki, Ann. Rev.Nucl. Part. Sci. 68, 17 (2018) doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-101917-020902 [arXiv:1711.10626 [hep-ph]].

13

[46] J. Wu, Y. R. Liu, K. Chen, X. Liu andS. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 97, no. 9, 094015 (2018)doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.094015 [arXiv:1605.01134[hep-ph]].

[47] X. Chen, arXiv:1902.00008 [hep-ph].[48] M. S. Liu, Q. F. L, X. H. Zhong and Q. Zhao,

arXiv:1901.02564 [hep-ph].[49] C. Hughes, E. Eichten and C. T. H. Davies,

Phys. Rev. D 97, no. 5, 054505 (2018)doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.054505 [arXiv:1710.03236[hep-lat]].

[50] J. M. Richard, A. Valcarce and J. Vijande,Phys. Rev. D 95, no. 5, 054019 (2017)doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.054019 [arXiv:1703.00783[hep-ph]].

[51] A. Czarnecki, B. Leng and M. B. Voloshin, Phys. Lett.B 778, 233 (2018) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.01.034

[arXiv:1708.04594 [hep-ph]].[52] C. Y. Wong, E. S. Swanson and T. Barnes, Phys. Rev.

C 65, 014903 (2002) Erratum: [Phys. Rev. C 66, 029901(2002)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.66.029901, 10.1103/Phys-RevC.65.014903 [nucl-th/0106067].

[53] B. Silvestre-Brac, Few Body Syst. 20, 1 (1996).doi:10.1007/s006010050028

[54] M. Tanabashi et al. [Particle Data Group],Phys. Rev. D 98, no. 3, 030001 (2018).doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.030001

[55] E. Hiyama, Y. Kino and M. Kamimura, Prog. Part. Nucl.Phys. 51, 223 (2003). doi:10.1016/S0146-6410(03)90015-9

[56] W. Chen, H. X. Chen, X. Liu, T. G. Steeleand S. L. Zhu, Phys. Lett. B 773, 247 (2017)doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.08.034 [arXiv:1605.01647[hep-ph]].