Paper detail

Subleading contributions to the decay width of the $T_{cc}^+$ tetraquark

Recently the LHCb collaboration has announced the discovery of the $T_{cc}^+$ tetraquark. Being merely a few hundred ${\rm keV}$ below the $D^{*+} D^0$ threshold, the $T_{cc}^+$ is expected to have a molecular component, for which there is a good separation of scales that can be exploited to make reasonably accurate theoretical predictions about this tetraquark. Independently of its nature, the most important decay channels will be $D^+ D^0 π^0$, $D^0 D^0 π^+$ and $D^+ D^0 γ$. Its closeness to threshold suggests that the mass and particularly the width of the $T_{cc}^+$ tetraquark depend on the resonance profile. While the standard Breit-Wigner parametrization generates a $T_{cc}^+$ that is too broad for current theoretical calculations to reproduce, a three-body unitarized Breit-Wigner shape reveals instead a decay width ($Γ_{\rm pole} = 48\pm 2\,{}^{+0}_{-12}\,{\rm keV}$) consistent with theoretical expectations. Here we consider subleading order contributions to the decay amplitude, which though having at most a moderate impact in the width still indicate potentially significant differences with the experimental width that can be exploited to disentangle the nature of the $T_{cc}^+$. Concrete calculations yield $Γ^{\rm LO} = 49 \pm 16\,{\rm keV}$ and $Γ^{\rm NLO} = 58^{+7}_{-6}\,{\rm keV}$, though we expect further corrections to the ${\rm NLO}$ decay widths from asymptotic normalization effects. We find that a detailed comparison of the ${\rm NLO}$ total and partial decay widths with experiment suggests the existence of a small (but distinguishable from zero) non-molecular component of the $T_{cc}^+$.

preprint2022arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors3 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.