Possible $\Sigma_c^* \bar{\Sigma}$ molecular states

We investigate the possibility of deuteron-like $\Sigma_c^*\bar{\Sigma}$ bound states within the one-boson-exchange model and systematically analyze the effects of the contact-range $\delta^{3}(\vec{r}\,)$ potential, the tensor term from the vector-meson exchange, and nonlocal potentials due to the dependence on the sum of the initial and final state center-of-mass momenta. We find that the pion-exchange potential including the $\delta^{3}(\vec{r}\,)$ term and the tensor term of the $\rho$-exchange potential exhibit comparable magnitudes but opposite signs for any $S$-wave baryon-antibaryon systems. For the $\Sigma_c^*\bar{\Sigma}$ system, it is most likely to form bound states with mass around 3.7 GeV in the $I(J^P)=0(2^-)$ and $1(2^-)$ channels.

The hadronic molecule picture has undergone a process of ongoing refinement and evolution.The first proposal of a hadronic molecule composed of a pair of charmed and anticharmed mesons was advanced in 1976 [37].Merely a year later, the ψ(4040) peak observed in e + e − annihilation, which was ultimately interpreted as a charmonium state, was speculated to be a result of the production of a D * D * molecule based on preliminary analysis [38].Given the notable success of the one-pion-exchange (OPE) potential model in describing the deuteron and nucleonnucleon scattering, it was widely conceived that the pions play a significant role in the formation of hadronic molecules.In 1980s, an accurate description of the nuclear force was achieved with the one-boson-exchange (OBE) model [39][40][41][42].In 1991 and 1994, Törnqvist carried out a comprehensive analysis of the potential existence of deuteron-like meson-meson bound states using the OPE, employing both qualitative and quantitative methods [43,44].
The theoretical analyses mentioned thus far can be considered as preliminary attempts to model two-body hadronic molecular states, in the absence of definitive experimental results apart from the deuteron.Nevertheless, with the discovery of the X(3872) by Belle Collaboration, which lies beyond the conventional charmonium spectrum [45,46], these initial attempts have been extended to study possible hadronic molecules in various hadron systems.Numerous studies suggest that the X(3872) may be a D D * molecule [47][48][49][50][51][52], based on its distinct characteristics near the D D * threshold, and the observed ratio of its isospin breaking decays Γ(X → J/ψπ + π − ) and Γ(X → J/ψπ + π − π 0 ), which can be easily explained within the molecular picture [53,54].In 2008, Thomas and Close undertook a comprehensive analysis, examining and verifying the calculations of the molecular state model in the literature thus far.They scrutinized several pivotal aspects, including different conventions for charge conjugation eigenstates, the δ 3 (⃗ r ) term and the tensor force [55].Their research suggested that the X(3872) could potentially be a bound state within the OPE model.However, these results demonstrated a significant sensitivity to the cutoff in the form factor.For an in-depth discussion on the form factor and renormalization related to the short-distance interactions, we refer to Refs.[56,57].Furthermore, in Ref. [58], the authors elaborated on the OPE model in a constituent quark model by integrating additional contributions from mid-and short-range interactions.These interactions were linked to exchanges of the η, σ, ρ and ω mesons.
In this study, we will investigate the potential existence of Σ * c Σ hadronic molecules with quark components csqq q q.If such states exist, they would significantly enrich the excited D s state spectrum in a higher energy region beyond the scope of conventional cs mesons and their mixture of csq q configurations [59].We will explore various issues associated with the OBE model, including the effects of δ 3 (⃗ r ) which has been repeatedly discussed, the contribution of the tensor term in the vector-meson exchange, and the impact of nonlocal terms due to the dependence on the sum of the initial and final state centerof-mass (c.m.) momenta (denoted as ⃗ k), which has not been thoroughly investigated in the hadronic molecular context.It is important to clarify that this work is not aiming at precisely predicting the masses of possible Σ * c Σ bound states, but rather at exploring the potential existence of such hadronic molecules and attempting to formalize the calculation process of the OBE model after considering various factors.
This paper is organized as follows.After the Introduction, we begin by presenting the effective potential of Σ * c Σ in Sec.II.We then proceed to discuss various factors, including the effects of momentum ⃗ k, the δ In this section, we perform calculations to determine the OBE potential between Σ * c Σ, as depicted in Fig. 1.
The Lagrangians for the couplings of Σ with the exchanged mesons (σ, π, η, ρ and ω) are adopted from Ref. [60], where the isospin multiplets are defined as the tensor operator in spinor space is ) the traceless isospin-1 matrices, and m π , m η , M Σ represent the respective masses of the corresponding particles. 1In the heavy quark limit, Σ * c belongs to the light flavor SU(3) sextet [62], and the related couplings satisfying heavy quark spin symmetry read [63], 2 1 Since we are not interested in isospin symmetry breaking effects, the isospin averaged masses are used for all particles within the same isospin multiplet.Regarding the σ, we select the mass value to be used in the OBE model, m ≃ 519 MeV, given in Ref. [61] that corresponds to the coupling constant g ΣΣσ listed in Table I. 2 Indeed, Eqs. (10)(11)(12) can be reformulated in a manner similar to Eqs. (1)(2)(3)(4)(5).Specifically, Eq. ( 10) is of the form as Eq.(1); Eq. ( 11) aligns with Eqs.(2,3) in terms of axial vector coupling at the tree level [64]; Eq. ( 12) can be restructured into the form as Eqs.(4,5) using the Gordon identity, that is, the terms 6ν are equivalent at the tree level.[60,61,66].gΣΣσ is obtained by matching the amplitude of ππ-exchange with that of the σ-exchange for the t-channel process of Σ Σ → ΣΣ [61].For the vectormeson coupling constants, we use gΣΣρ = gΣΣω = gΣΣv and kΣΣρ = kΣΣω = kΣΣv.

Couplings
The pertinent coupling constants are listed in Table I.
Utilizing the aforementioned Lagrangians, we can derive the Σ * c Σ scattering amplitude, and the details can be found in Appendix B. The Σ * c Σ potential in the momentum space is linked to the scattering amplitude through with ⃗ p and ⃗ p ′ the relative momenta of the incoming and outgoing particles; see Appendix C for additional details.As usually done in the OBE model, we introduce a monopole form factor with a cutoff parameter Λ at each vertex, which equals unity when the exchanged particle is on shell.Then one gets the effective potential in momentum space, which can be subsequently converted to the coordinate space potential utilizing the Fourier transformation; see Appendix A for details.Consequently, we obtain the S-wave Σ * c Σ effective potential from exchanging the scalar meson (σ), pseudoscalar mesons (p = π, η) and vector mesons (v = ρ, ω) as and For the S-wave Σ * c Σ systems, the spin factor ∆ S A S B outlined in Appendix B is defined as with S the total spin.The pertinent isospin factors are listed in Table II.

III. OBE MODEL A. Effects of ⃗ k on the effective potential
The relation between the scattering amplitude and the effective potential in coordinate space, as demonstrated in Eq. (A17), clearly indicates the necessity to perform the Fourier transformations of both ⃗ q ≡ ⃗ p ′ − ⃗ p and ⃗ k ≡ ⃗ p ′ + ⃗ p, followed by integration with respect to ⃗ x ′ that is defined in Eq. (A12).However, altough this mathematical operation can be found in certain old references, e.g., [39,[67][68][69], currently the majority of OBE models used for calculating the effective potential for hadronic molecules do not take into account the ⃗ k-dependent terms from the spinors of the initial and final states [66,[70][71][72][73][74].In the subsequent analysis, we specifically examine the influence of ⃗ k on the final results, particularly on the binding energy of a specified bound state.From Eqs. (A43-A47), one finds that ⃗ k in the amplitude introduces the derivatives of the radial wavefunction and is thus a nonlocal contribution.Furthermore, considering Eq. (A19), for the S-wave, we need to solve the Schrödinger equation represented as where V M(⃗ p,⃗ p ′ ) | 2S+1 S J ;I⟩ (r) is the potential operator in the coordinate space, defined in Eq. (A22).We can then proceed with the following substitution, where the additional subscripts 0, 1 and 2 of V M(⃗ p,⃗ p ′ ) (r) defined here represent the number of the derivatives of ψ(r), specifically ψ(r), ψ ′ (r) and ψ ′′ (r), respectively.The momentum ⃗ k, from the spinor wavefunction of a spin-1/2 particle as given in Eq. (B2), consistently appears as ⃗ k/(2M ) with M the baryon mass, which would be small if the composite state was loosely bound.Via numerical calculations we find that the effects of ψ ′ (r) and ψ ′′ (r) on the final binding energy are indeed negligible.However, the ⃗ k-dependent contribution in V M(⃗ p,⃗ p ′ ) 0 (r) could be sizable (see Appendix D).In the following, we will keep the ⃗ k-dependent terms in our calculations, i.e., we will compute the effective potential in the form of Eq. (B2), rather than neglecting the ⃗ σ • ⃗ k/(2M ) term, as was often done in literature.

B. The δ 3 (⃗ r ) potential
As per Eq.(A25), a Fourier transformation of the amplitude, denoted as F −1 ⃗ q→⃗ r [M(⃗ q )], is required to derive the effective potential in the coordinate space.We now consider two distinct forms of amplitudes: and the Fourier transformation yields respectively.The zero-range δ3 (⃗ r ) potential in Eq. ( 32) leads to a strong repulsion or attraction at ⃗ r = 0 depending on the sign of the prefactor which has been neglected in the above.Being of short-distance in nature, the δ 3 (⃗ r) potential requires a regularization.Considering the form factor in Eq. ( 16), the potentials become where is the smeared form of δ 3 (⃗ r) in Eq. (32).Not only does ⃗ q 2 /(⃗ q 2 + m 2 ) contribute to the δ 3 (⃗ r) potential for Swave interactions, but also does [70,75].This observation aligns with Eq. (A42), where for S-wave, we have In an effective field theory (EFT), one can introduce counterterms to absorb the cutoff dependence. 3However, due to the lack of data for most hadron-hadron scatterings, such counterterms can hardly be fixed.Thus, in the phenomenological OBE models, one normally does not bother introducing counterterms but rather plays with the δ 3 (⃗ r) term.The δ 3 (⃗ r) term is retained in its entirety in Refs.[64,66,73,[76][77][78][79][80], while it is discarded in Ref. [75] and the authors simply make the following substitution4 Moreover, in Ref. [44], the δ 3 (⃗ r ) term in the central potential is omitted.In Ref. [70], the authors dismiss the δ 3 (⃗ r ) term, arguing that in a loosely bound state, the zero-range components are not anticipated to be important.Furthermore, in Ref. [55], the authors explore the impacts of including or excluding the δ 3 (⃗ r ) term in the OPE potential when solving the Schrödinger equation for the deuteron, and they find that the cutoff parameters need to be varied significantly to achieve the same binding energy.In Ref. [74], the authors claim that the removal of the short-range δ 3 (⃗ r ) contributions to the OBE potential is a necessary step for describing the pentaquark states consistently, and they argue that the behavior of the OBE potential at a distance shorter than the size of hadrons is not physical, so they remove these short-range δ-potential contributions completely.However, for a hadronic molecule close to threshold, its extended nature does not imply that the short-range potential is insignificant.In contrast, it indicates that the binding of molecular state can not probe details of the short-range binding force, which is distinct from being negligible.In line with the EFT treatment, in Ref. [81] an additional parameter is introduced to adjust the strength of the δ 3 (⃗ r) term to reproduce the experimental masses of the P c states [33].We can see from the above that the δ 3 (⃗ r ) term is a contentious aspect within the OBE model for describing hadronic molecular states.It is an intrinsic defect of the OBE model and can be rectified as in EFT by introducing counterterms, which can be fixed only when sufficient data are available.Note that the coupling constants that will be used are taken from Refs.[60,66], which fits to experimental data keeping full contributions from the δ 3 (⃗ r) potential.Hence, we will fully retain the δ 3 (⃗ r) term in the subsequent calculations to maintain self-consistency.

C. The tensor potential
In this subsection, we concentrate on the contribution of the tensor term in the Lagrangian, i.e., the second term on the right-hand side of Eqs.(4,5,12), to the effective potential.This term is to be distinguished from the vector term, which is the corresponding first term on the right-hand side of the same equations.Many papers have argued that the contribution of the tensor term to the effective potential is negligible [18,82,83], or it is ignored to simplify the calculation [84][85][86].In general, the significance of the tensor term is case dependent and cutoff dependent.As an illustration, here we consider the Σ * c Σ * c dibaryon systems composed of spin-3/2 singly charmed baryons that have been studied in Ref. [66].
The Lagrangian utilized in Ref. [66] for the vector meson exchange is given in Eq. ( 12), with the associated coupling constants listed in Table I. 5 The S-wave effec- 5 In Ref. [66], the following relations are used: tive potentials for vector meson exchanges read where the subscripts C and SS denote the central and spin-spin potentials, respectively, g and f are the coupling constants of the vector and tensor coupling terms, respectively, M A and M B are the baryon masses, C v is the isospin factor, m v (v = ρ, ω, ϕ) is the mass of the exchanged meson, and Taking the ρ-exchange potential as an example, we assess the contribution of the tensor term by comparing the following specific effective potentials: where V vector (r) only contains the contribution of the vector coupling term in the Lagrangian, V tensor (r) only contains the contribution of the tensor term, and V tot (r) is the total effective potential.Note that V tot (r) ̸ = V vector (r) + V tensor (r) due to interference.
The results for the isoscalar J P = 0 − , 2 − and 3 − Σ * c Σ * c systems, using the chosen cutoffs as presented in Ref. [66], are depicted in Fig. 2. It is observed that the tensor term, V tensor (r), plays a predominant role in the J P = 0 − and 3 − cases.In particular, for the I(J P ) = 0(3 − ) system, the total effective potential between the two particles becomes repulsive at short distances when the tensor term is included, despite the attractive nature of V vector (r).Note that the vector coupling does not lead to a δ 3 (⃗ r) term while the tensor coupling does.Thus, the relative importance of the tensor coupling contribution crucially depends on the form factor and cutoff.

A. Results of the general OBE
The quantum numbers I(J P ) of the S-wave Σ * c Σ systems encompass 0(1 − ), 1(1 − ), 2(1 − ), 0(2 − ), 1(2 − ) and 2(2 − ). Figure 3 showcases the effective potentials that include both the δ 3 (⃗ r) term and the vector-meson tensor coupling term.The total effective potential in our calculation comprises the exchanges of σ, π, η, ρ and ω, i.e., This effective potential is used to solve the Schrödinger equation (A19) to search for bound state solutions for the specific quantum numbers.The results obtained by varying Λ from 0.8 GeV to 1.1 GeV are depicted in Fig. 4. It is evident that the employed potential supports Σ * c Σ bound state solutions when the cutoff is larger than certain values in the chosen range, except for the case of 2(2 − ).

B. General relation between π-and ρ-exchange potentials in S-wave B B′ systems
If we use the same form factor with the same cutoff for all the potentials of different mesons, as commonly done in literature, a distinct characteristic can be observed from Fig. 3: for the S-wave Σ * c Σ systems, the pion-exchange potential (including the δ 3 (⃗ r )) and the ρ-exchange potential (including the tensor-term contribution) always have opposite signs, suggesting a mutual cancellation.A similar phenomenon is also noticeable [66,87].In the following, we will use the quark model to demonstrate that this pattern holds for any S-wave baryon-antibaryon (B B′ ) system: the total pion-exchange potential is comparable in magnitude to the tensor-term contribution in the ρ-exchange potential, but with opposite signs.This observation provides a theoretical substantiation for the model considering only the vector term for the vectormeson exchange potential [18,19].
As per Refs.[64,88], at the quark level, the Lagrangian for the coupling of pseudoscalar (P), vector (V) and σ mesons and quarks reads L q = g pqq qiγ 5 Pq + g vqq qγ µ V µ q + g σqq qσq, (38) where q = (u, d, s) T represents the light quark flavor triplet, and g pqq , g vqq , g σqq are the couplings of the light quark to the light mesons.The Lagrangian in Eq. ( 38), assuming interaction vertices calculated at the quark and hadron levels to be identical, is frequently utilized to estimate certain coupling constants [64,73,88].For instance, the relation between g πBB and g πqq , the former of which represents the coupling constant between a baryon B and pion in L πBB , can be derived from where ⃗ s represents the spin of B. The calculation of the right-hand side of the above equation necessitates specific quark-model wavefunctions for the initial and final states.Following Ref. [64], we deduce where g πN N , g ρN N and g σN N can be obtained by fitting to experimental data and m q ≈ M N /3 ≈ 313 MeV [88] is the constituent quark mass.Utilizing g 2 πN N /4π = 13.6,g 2 ρN N /4π = 0.84 [40,89], and g σN N = 8.7 [61], we obtain g pqq ≈ 3.7, g vqq ≈ 4.6 and g σqq ≈ 2.9.
In order to evaluate the contributions of the pionexchange and the ρ-exchange in a generic B B′ system, we will examine the amplitudes of the two processes depicted in Fig. 5(a) and (b).At the hadronic level, we have where Q denotes the four-momentum of the exchanged particle.Concurrently, with Eq. ( 39), the above equation can be expressed at the quark level as Utilizing Eq. ( 38), we obtain6 Similarly, we derive the amplitude of the ρ exchange as where the second term on the right-hand side corresponds to the contribution of the tensor term at the hadronic level.
) and Eq.(A42), for the S-wave B B′ system we get, and their relative strength reads As illustrated in Fig. 6(a), the ratio lies between approximately −0.1 and −2.0 as | ⃗ Q| varies from 0 to 1 GeV, indicating a certain degree of cancellation.To more accurately depict this mutual cancellation effect, we convert Eqs.(47,48) into the coordinate space using Eq.(A41).Consequently, the ratio of the contribution from the tensor term in the ρ-exchange potential to the pion-exchange potential in the S-wave B B′ system reads At r = 0 fm, Λ ρ = Λ π = 1 GeV, we have in line with Fig. 3. Varying the cutoff for the pion exchange to a smaller value, a larger cancellation may be achieved, as depicted in Fig. 6(b).
The same analysis can be applied to other pseudoscalar mesons and vector mesons, provided they share the same flavor structure.For instance, in the case of the S-wave B B′ system where the light quark component includes only u, d, ū and d, we can conduct a similar analysis for η, ω and σ.The results are shown in Figs.7 and 8.It is observed that the contribution of the tensor term in the ω-exchange potential is opposite in sign to that of the ηexchange potential.Moreover, the former is significantly stronger than the latter, which further elucidates why the contribution of the η is nearly negligible in the general OBE model.Concurrently, the vector coupling term in the ω-exchange potential at short distances is comparable in magnitude to that of the σ-exchange potential and shares the same sign.
In conclusion, we find that it is a plausible approximation to consider the contribution of the tensor term in the ρ-exchange potential and the pion-exchange potential as mutually cancelling, i.e., V π + V tensor ρ ≈ 0, in the OBE model for any S-wave B B′ systems.In addition, if the light quark component comprises only u, d, ū and d, then the η-exchange potential becomes entirely negligible in comparison to the ω-exchange potential.Given the spinisospin independence of the σ meson, which effectively leads to a single background term, this observation elucidates the rationality of the OBE model being dominated by the exchange of vector mesons.

C. Results after considering
From the above discussion, one may use the following approximation for the effective potential, (53) shown in Fig. 9. Results for the binding energies of the S-wave Σ * c Σ system with this potential are depicted in Fig. 10.The difference between the corresponding curves in Fig. 4 and Fig. 10 is an indication of the unavoidable model dependence of the OBE model.Nevertheless, a Σ * c Σ bound state solution exists for 0(2 − ) and 1(2 − ) for both potentials with the cutoff in the range between 0.9 to 1.1 GeV.

V. SUMMARY
In this work, we take the calculation of the Σ * c Σ bound states as an example and systematically clarify the complex issues encountered in the OBE model, including the effects of the sum of initial and final state momenta ⃗ k, the δ 3 (⃗ r ) potential, and the contribution of the tensor term in the vector-meson exchange.The momentum ⃗ k in the amplitude, which originates solely from the spinors and introduces derivatives of the radial wavefunction, is suppressed as O( ⃗ k 2 /M 2 ) in the potential and thus negligible when the particle mass is significantly heavier than the binding momentum of the bound state.For the Σ * c Σ systems, we retain the ⃗ k dependence as the Σ is a light baryon.
We find using quark model relations that for any Swave baryon-antibaryon system the pion-exchange potential with the δ 3 (⃗ r ) term and the tensor coupling contribution to the ρ-exchange potential have similar magnitudes but with different signs, indicating a tendency for mutual cancellation.
Despite the model dependence of the results, we find that I(J P ) = 0(2 − ) and 1(2 − ) each emerge as the most probable quantum numbers to have a Σ * c Σ bound state, with mass around 3.  Multiplying r ⟨r|⟨ 2S+1 L J , J z |⟨I I 3 | from the left to the above equation, we have Taking into account the complete bases and Ĥ = ⃗ p 2 2µ + V , where C SSz S1S1z;S2S2z is the Clebsch-Gordan (CG) coefficient for the SU(2) group, and µ is the reduced mass of the two-body system, Eq. (A4) can be rewritten as We will solve Eq. (A7) for the radial wavefunction f (r), subject to the boundary conditions in Eq. (A8), to find bound states.Furthermore, for simplicity, we define Using the relation between the amplitude in Quantum Field Theory (QFT) and the potential in momentum space in QM, Eq. (C16), the Schrödinger equation becomes Considering ⟨⃗ r |⃗ p ⟩ = (2π) −3/2 e i⃗ p•⃗ r , the variable transformations and the Fourier transformation the integrals of Eq. (A11) in momentum space can be recast as where the −1/8 arises from the variable transformation.Furthermore, we introduce a new function ψ(r) = rf (r) to simplify the calculation further.Finally, the Schrödinger equation can be rewritten in the following form where The superscript M(⃗ p, ⃗ p ′ ) denotes the amplitude corresponding to the effective potential, while the subscript | 2S+1 L J , J z ; I, I 3 ⟩ represents the state labeled by the corresponding quantum numbers of the two-body system.The quantum numbers of J z and I 3 are generally omitted since they do not affect final results.Similarly, the boundary conditions in Eq. (A8) can be rewritten as For S-wave (L=0), the aforementioned formulas can be simplified as where By further simplifying with the redefined amplitude Eq. (A20) can be streamlined to V M(⃗ p,⃗ p ′ ) | 2S+1 S J ;I⟩ (r)f (r) = − dxδ(r − x) It is worth noting that, in most papers concerning the OBE model, the amplitude generally does not include terms depending on the sum of the initial and final state c.m. momenta ⃗ k, i.e., setting ⃗ k = ⃗ p + ⃗ p ′ = 0.As a result, only the momentum ⃗ q of the exchanged meson from the propagator remains in the amplitude of Eq. (A17).For this specific case, according to Eq. (A17) can be further simplified to Clearly, the impact of an effective potential operator on the radial wavefunction, i.e., V M(⃗ q ) | 2S+1 L J ;I⟩ (r)f (r), can be simply regarded as an effective potential function Hence, in the subsequent discussion of the amplitude, which only contains the momenta ⃗ q, we may get rid of the hat on V to imply that its effect is equivalent to a function in Schrödinger equation.
In particular, with the redefined amplitude in Eq. (A21), the corresponding case for S-wave is V M(⃗ q ) | 2S+1 S J ;I⟩ (r)f (r) = − 1 4π dΩF −1 ⃗ q→⃗ r M | 2S+1 S J ;I⟩ (⃗ q ) f (r).(A26) In other words, when the amplitude contains only momentum ⃗ q, computing the S-wave effective potential boils down to taking the average of the redefined amplitude across the full solid angle space after applying a Fourier transformation, subject to a minus sign determined by the established convention within the relation between amplitude and potential.
We introduce an monopole form factor at each vertex, where Λ represents the cutoff parameter and m ex denotes the mass of the exchanged meson.Since we are interested in near-threshold bound state, we disregard the term of O( 1 M 2 ).Actually, we only need to calculate the following cases of M in Eq. (A17), 3 (⃗ r ) term and the tensor potential in the OBE model in Sec.III.Subsequently, we present the numerical outcomes of the OBE model in Sec.IV A. In Sec.IV B, we show that cancellations generally exists between the pion and ρ-mesonexchange potentials, as derived from the quark model.Possible Σ * c Σ bound states are discussed in Sec.IV C. Finally, we present a summary in Sec.V. Technical and pedagogical details are relegated to Appendices A, B, C and D.
being the mass of the baryon in the initial (final) state.Using g ρN N = 3.25 and f ρN N = 19.82,they obtained g vB * 6 B * 6 = 9.19 and f vB * 6 B * 6 = 95.80 as listed in Table I.The large value of f vB * 6 B * 6 is attributed to the large mass of the charmed baryon.

FIG. 2 .
FIG. 2. Contributions of the vector and tensor coupling terms, Vvector and Vtensor, respectively, in comparison to the total ρ-exchange potential for the Σ * c Σ * c systems with total spin J = 0 (top row), J = 2 (middle row), and J = 3 (bottom row).Because of the δ potential in the tensor term, the relative importance is sensitive the cutoff.Here the Λ values are those taken in Ref. [66].

FIG. 6 .FIG. 7 .
FIG. 6.(a) Ratio of the tensor-term contribution in the ρ-exchange amplitude to the pion-exchange amplitude in the S-wave B B′ → B B′ process, and (b) ratio of the tensor-term contribution in the ρ-exchange potential to the pion-exchange potential at r = 0 fm with Λρ = 1 GeV in the S-wave B B′ system.

7
GeV.They may be looked for in the final states of Ds Σ * c Σ, Ds Σ * c Λ, Ds Λ c Σ( * ) , Ds Λ c Λ, Ds D * s π, Ds D * s η, Ds D s ρ, Ds D s ω, Ds D * K, etc. from the e + e − annihilation process at Belle-II or experiments at other electron-positron colliders with higher luminosity in the future.

FIG. 8 .
FIG. 8. (a) Ratio of the vector-term contribution in ω-exchange amplitude to the total σ-exchange amplitude in the S-wave B B′ → B B′ process, and (b) ratio of vector-term contribution in ω-exchange potential to total σ-exchange potential at r = 0 fm and Λω = 1 GeV in the S-wave B B′ system.