CMS logoCMS event Hgg
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN

CMS-BPH-24-002 ; CERN-EP-2025-118
Determination of the spin and parity of all-charm tetraquarks
Submitted to Nature
Abstract: The traditional quark model accounts for the existence of baryons, such as protons and neutrons, which consist of three quarks, as well as mesons, composed of a quark-antiquark pair. Only recently has substantial evidence started to accumulate for exotic states composed of four or five quarks and antiquarks. The exact nature of their internal structure remains uncertain. This paper reports the first measurement of quantum numbers of the recently discovered family of three all-charm tetraquarks, using data collected by the CMS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider from 2016 to 2018. The angular analysis techniques developed for the discovery and characterization of the Higgs boson have been applied to the new exotic states. The quantum numbers for parity $ P $ and charge conjugation $ C $ symmetries are found to be $+$1. The spin $ J $ of these exotic states is consistent with 2$ \hbar $, while 0$ \hbar $ and 1$ \hbar $ are excluded at 95% and 99% confidence level, respectively. The $ J^{PC}=$ 2$^{++} $ assignment implies particular configurations of constituent spins and orbital angular momenta, which constrain the possible internal structure of these tetraquarks.
Figures & Tables Summary References CMS Publications
Figures

png pdf
Figure 1:
Candidates for all-charm tetraquarks. The $ \mathrm{J}/\psi\mathrm{J}/\psi\to\mu^{+}\mu^{-}\mu^{+}\mu^{-} $ invariant mass $ m_{4\mu} $ spectrum shows the three exotic states, $ \mathrm{X}(6600) $, $ \mathrm{X}(6900) $, and $ \mathrm{X}(7100) $. Parameterizations of these states are displayed both individually and as a combined signal that includes quantum-mechanical interference (denoted by ``Signal"). The full model [37] incorporates both signal and background components, with the background originating from di-$ \mathrm{J}/\psi $ production, including contributions from nonresonant production and an enhancement near the kinematic threshold of 6.2 GeV.

png pdf
Figure 2:
Internal structure models for the particle $ \mathrm{X} $.} The particle $ \mathrm{X} $, composed of $ {\mathrm{c}}{\mathrm{c}}{\overline{\mathrm{c}}}{\overline{\mathrm{c}}} $, is shown at rest. Two models of the internal structure of $ \mathrm{X} $ are presented: a tightly-bound tetraquark (upper) and a loosely-bound molecule of two mesons (lower). The colours assigned to individual quarks or quark pairs denote possible colour charge assignments in strong interactions, where attractive forces are mediated by gluon exchange (shown as wavy lines) and meson exchange (shown as solid arrows). The $ \mathrm{X} $ decays into two $ \mathrm{J}/\psi $ mesons with spin projections $ \lambda_i $ along their respective directions; each meson then decays into a $ \mu^{+}\mu^{-} $ pair. The polar and azimuthal angles $ \mathbf{\Omega}_{i}=(\theta_{i}, \Phi_{i}) $ describe the direction of the $ \mu^{-} $ relative to the $ z_i $ axis, which is defined to point opposite to the $ \mathrm{X} $ direction in the centre-of-mass frame of the corresponding $ \mathrm{J}/\psi $ meson, for $ i = $ 1 and 2.

png pdf
Figure 3:
Analysis of angular distributions. Left: Distributions of $ \mathcal{D}_{2_m^{+}0^{-}} $ for the $ 0^{-} $, 2 $ _m^{-} $, and 2 $ _m^{+} $ models in the range 6.2 $ < m_{4\mu} < $ 8.0 GeV. Distributions for signal only (dashed) and for signal plus background (solid and dash-dot-dotted) models are compared to the experimental data points with error bars, with uncertainty bands representing post-fit model uncertainties, which are partially correlated with the data. The $ 0^{-} $ and 2 $ _m^{-} $ distributions are identical. Right: Distributions of the test statistic $ q=-2{\ln(\mathcal{L}_{ 0 ^{-}}/\mathcal{L}_{2^{+} _m})}$ for the $2 _m^{+} $ (blue/right) and $ 0^{-} $ (orange/left) models, with the arrow indicating the observed value $ q_\text{obs} $.

png pdf
Figure 3-a:
Analysis of angular distributions. Left: Distributions of $ \mathcal{D}_{2_m^{+}0^{-}} $ for the $ 0^{-} $, 2 $ _m^{-} $, and 2 $ _m^{+} $ models in the range 6.2 $ < m_{4\mu} < $ 8.0 GeV. Distributions for signal only (dashed) and for signal plus background (solid and dash-dot-dotted) models are compared to the experimental data points with error bars, with uncertainty bands representing post-fit model uncertainties, which are partially correlated with the data. The $ 0^{-} $ and 2 $ _m^{-} $ distributions are identical. Right: Distributions of the test statistic $ q=-2{\ln(\mathcal{L}_{ 0 ^{-}}/\mathcal{L}_{2^{+} _m})}$ for the $2 _m^{+} $ (blue/right) and $ 0^{-} $ (orange/left) models, with the arrow indicating the observed value $ q_\text{obs} $.

png pdf
Figure 3-b:
Analysis of angular distributions. Left: Distributions of $ \mathcal{D}_{2_m^{+}0^{-}} $ for the $ 0^{-} $, 2 $ _m^{-} $, and 2 $ _m^{+} $ models in the range 6.2 $ < m_{4\mu} < $ 8.0 GeV. Distributions for signal only (dashed) and for signal plus background (solid and dash-dot-dotted) models are compared to the experimental data points with error bars, with uncertainty bands representing post-fit model uncertainties, which are partially correlated with the data. The $ 0^{-} $ and 2 $ _m^{-} $ distributions are identical. Right: Distributions of the test statistic $ q=-2{\ln(\mathcal{L}_{ 0 ^{-}}/\mathcal{L}_{2^{+} _m})}$ for the $2 _m^{+} $ (blue/right) and $ 0^{-} $ (orange/left) models, with the arrow indicating the observed value $ q_\text{obs} $.

png pdf
Figure 4:
Summary of statistical tests. Distributions of the test statistic $ q $ for various $ J_i^{P} $ hypotheses tested against the 2 $ _m^{+} $ model. The observed $ q_\text{obs} $ values are indicated by the black dots. The expected median and the 68.3%, 95.4%, and 99.7% confidence level regions for the 2 $ _m^{+} $ model (blue/left) and for each of the alternative $ J_i^{P} $ hypotheses (orange/right) are shown. The first entry corresponding to $ 0^- $ reflects the information shown in Fig. 3 (right). For $ 0^+ $ and $ 2^- $ models, eleven points correspond to varying fractions in the mixture of the two tensor structures of interaction.

png pdf
Figure 5:
Angular observables. The production and decay of a resonance $ \mathrm{X} $ in proton collisions $ \mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}\to \mathrm{X} \to \psi_1\psi_2 \to 4\mu $ define the angular observables in the centre-of-mass frames of the corresponding particles [41,42], where the $ \psi_1 $ and $ \psi_2 $ refer to the $ \mathrm{J}/\psi $ mesons. The $ z $ axis approximates the proton beam line, while the $ z' $ axis corresponds to the direction of the four-muon system.

png pdf
Figure 6:
Angular distributions. Distribution of the decay angles: $ \Phi $ (upper row), $ \cos\theta_1, \cos\theta_2 $ (second row), production angles defined with respect to axis $ z $: $ \Phi_1, \cos\theta^* $ (third row), and defined with respect to axis $ z' $: $ \Phi_1', \cos\theta^{\prime *} $ (lower row) in the range 6.2 $ < m_{4\mu} < $ 8.0 GeV presented together with the five signal models. Several $ J^P_i $ models are presented, with the background subtracted from the data based on the expected distributions. The $ 0^{-} $ and 2 $ _m^{-} $ distributions are identical, as are those of $ 1^{-} $ and 2 $ _h^{-} $.

png pdf
Figure 6-a:
Angular distributions. Distribution of the decay angles: $ \Phi $ (upper row), $ \cos\theta_1, \cos\theta_2 $ (second row), production angles defined with respect to axis $ z $: $ \Phi_1, \cos\theta^* $ (third row), and defined with respect to axis $ z' $: $ \Phi_1', \cos\theta^{\prime *} $ (lower row) in the range 6.2 $ < m_{4\mu} < $ 8.0 GeV presented together with the five signal models. Several $ J^P_i $ models are presented, with the background subtracted from the data based on the expected distributions. The $ 0^{-} $ and 2 $ _m^{-} $ distributions are identical, as are those of $ 1^{-} $ and 2 $ _h^{-} $.

png pdf
Figure 6-b:
Angular distributions. Distribution of the decay angles: $ \Phi $ (upper row), $ \cos\theta_1, \cos\theta_2 $ (second row), production angles defined with respect to axis $ z $: $ \Phi_1, \cos\theta^* $ (third row), and defined with respect to axis $ z' $: $ \Phi_1', \cos\theta^{\prime *} $ (lower row) in the range 6.2 $ < m_{4\mu} < $ 8.0 GeV presented together with the five signal models. Several $ J^P_i $ models are presented, with the background subtracted from the data based on the expected distributions. The $ 0^{-} $ and 2 $ _m^{-} $ distributions are identical, as are those of $ 1^{-} $ and 2 $ _h^{-} $.

png pdf
Figure 6-c:
Angular distributions. Distribution of the decay angles: $ \Phi $ (upper row), $ \cos\theta_1, \cos\theta_2 $ (second row), production angles defined with respect to axis $ z $: $ \Phi_1, \cos\theta^* $ (third row), and defined with respect to axis $ z' $: $ \Phi_1', \cos\theta^{\prime *} $ (lower row) in the range 6.2 $ < m_{4\mu} < $ 8.0 GeV presented together with the five signal models. Several $ J^P_i $ models are presented, with the background subtracted from the data based on the expected distributions. The $ 0^{-} $ and 2 $ _m^{-} $ distributions are identical, as are those of $ 1^{-} $ and 2 $ _h^{-} $.

png pdf
Figure 6-d:
Angular distributions. Distribution of the decay angles: $ \Phi $ (upper row), $ \cos\theta_1, \cos\theta_2 $ (second row), production angles defined with respect to axis $ z $: $ \Phi_1, \cos\theta^* $ (third row), and defined with respect to axis $ z' $: $ \Phi_1', \cos\theta^{\prime *} $ (lower row) in the range 6.2 $ < m_{4\mu} < $ 8.0 GeV presented together with the five signal models. Several $ J^P_i $ models are presented, with the background subtracted from the data based on the expected distributions. The $ 0^{-} $ and 2 $ _m^{-} $ distributions are identical, as are those of $ 1^{-} $ and 2 $ _h^{-} $.

png pdf
Figure 6-e:
Angular distributions. Distribution of the decay angles: $ \Phi $ (upper row), $ \cos\theta_1, \cos\theta_2 $ (second row), production angles defined with respect to axis $ z $: $ \Phi_1, \cos\theta^* $ (third row), and defined with respect to axis $ z' $: $ \Phi_1', \cos\theta^{\prime *} $ (lower row) in the range 6.2 $ < m_{4\mu} < $ 8.0 GeV presented together with the five signal models. Several $ J^P_i $ models are presented, with the background subtracted from the data based on the expected distributions. The $ 0^{-} $ and 2 $ _m^{-} $ distributions are identical, as are those of $ 1^{-} $ and 2 $ _h^{-} $.

png pdf
Figure 6-f:
Angular distributions. Distribution of the decay angles: $ \Phi $ (upper row), $ \cos\theta_1, \cos\theta_2 $ (second row), production angles defined with respect to axis $ z $: $ \Phi_1, \cos\theta^* $ (third row), and defined with respect to axis $ z' $: $ \Phi_1', \cos\theta^{\prime *} $ (lower row) in the range 6.2 $ < m_{4\mu} < $ 8.0 GeV presented together with the five signal models. Several $ J^P_i $ models are presented, with the background subtracted from the data based on the expected distributions. The $ 0^{-} $ and 2 $ _m^{-} $ distributions are identical, as are those of $ 1^{-} $ and 2 $ _h^{-} $.

png pdf
Figure 6-g:
Angular distributions. Distribution of the decay angles: $ \Phi $ (upper row), $ \cos\theta_1, \cos\theta_2 $ (second row), production angles defined with respect to axis $ z $: $ \Phi_1, \cos\theta^* $ (third row), and defined with respect to axis $ z' $: $ \Phi_1', \cos\theta^{\prime *} $ (lower row) in the range 6.2 $ < m_{4\mu} < $ 8.0 GeV presented together with the five signal models. Several $ J^P_i $ models are presented, with the background subtracted from the data based on the expected distributions. The $ 0^{-} $ and 2 $ _m^{-} $ distributions are identical, as are those of $ 1^{-} $ and 2 $ _h^{-} $.

png pdf
Figure 7:
Optimal observables. Distributions of $ \mathcal{D}_{ij} $ optimal for separating the 2 $ _{m}^+ $ model against the 0 $ _{m}^+ $ (upper left), 0 $ _{h}^+ $ (upper right), $ 1^- $ (lower left), and $ 1^+ $ (lower right) models in the range 6.2 $ < m_{4\mu} < $ 8.0 GeV. Distributions for signal only (dashed) and for signal plus background (solid and dash-dot-dotted) models are compared to the experimental data points with error bars, with uncertainty bands representing post-fit model uncertainties, which are partially correlated with the data. The $ 1^{-} $ and 2 $ _h^{-} $ distributions are identical. The lower panels display the ratios of the data and of the model predictions to the mean expectations from the 2 $ _{m}^+ $ model.

png pdf
Figure 7-a:
Optimal observables. Distributions of $ \mathcal{D}_{ij} $ optimal for separating the 2 $ _{m}^+ $ model against the 0 $ _{m}^+ $ (upper left), 0 $ _{h}^+ $ (upper right), $ 1^- $ (lower left), and $ 1^+ $ (lower right) models in the range 6.2 $ < m_{4\mu} < $ 8.0 GeV. Distributions for signal only (dashed) and for signal plus background (solid and dash-dot-dotted) models are compared to the experimental data points with error bars, with uncertainty bands representing post-fit model uncertainties, which are partially correlated with the data. The $ 1^{-} $ and 2 $ _h^{-} $ distributions are identical. The lower panels display the ratios of the data and of the model predictions to the mean expectations from the 2 $ _{m}^+ $ model.

png pdf
Figure 7-b:
Optimal observables. Distributions of $ \mathcal{D}_{ij} $ optimal for separating the 2 $ _{m}^+ $ model against the 0 $ _{m}^+ $ (upper left), 0 $ _{h}^+ $ (upper right), $ 1^- $ (lower left), and $ 1^+ $ (lower right) models in the range 6.2 $ < m_{4\mu} < $ 8.0 GeV. Distributions for signal only (dashed) and for signal plus background (solid and dash-dot-dotted) models are compared to the experimental data points with error bars, with uncertainty bands representing post-fit model uncertainties, which are partially correlated with the data. The $ 1^{-} $ and 2 $ _h^{-} $ distributions are identical. The lower panels display the ratios of the data and of the model predictions to the mean expectations from the 2 $ _{m}^+ $ model.

png pdf
Figure 7-c:
Optimal observables. Distributions of $ \mathcal{D}_{ij} $ optimal for separating the 2 $ _{m}^+ $ model against the 0 $ _{m}^+ $ (upper left), 0 $ _{h}^+ $ (upper right), $ 1^- $ (lower left), and $ 1^+ $ (lower right) models in the range 6.2 $ < m_{4\mu} < $ 8.0 GeV. Distributions for signal only (dashed) and for signal plus background (solid and dash-dot-dotted) models are compared to the experimental data points with error bars, with uncertainty bands representing post-fit model uncertainties, which are partially correlated with the data. The $ 1^{-} $ and 2 $ _h^{-} $ distributions are identical. The lower panels display the ratios of the data and of the model predictions to the mean expectations from the 2 $ _{m}^+ $ model.

png pdf
Figure 7-d:
Optimal observables. Distributions of $ \mathcal{D}_{ij} $ optimal for separating the 2 $ _{m}^+ $ model against the 0 $ _{m}^+ $ (upper left), 0 $ _{h}^+ $ (upper right), $ 1^- $ (lower left), and $ 1^+ $ (lower right) models in the range 6.2 $ < m_{4\mu} < $ 8.0 GeV. Distributions for signal only (dashed) and for signal plus background (solid and dash-dot-dotted) models are compared to the experimental data points with error bars, with uncertainty bands representing post-fit model uncertainties, which are partially correlated with the data. The $ 1^{-} $ and 2 $ _h^{-} $ distributions are identical. The lower panels display the ratios of the data and of the model predictions to the mean expectations from the 2 $ _{m}^+ $ model.
Tables

png pdf
Table 1:
Quantum numbers. The possible assignments of quantum numbers $ J^{PC} $, the models considered, and the contributing amplitudes in the decay $ \mathrm{X}\to \mathrm{J}/\psi\mathrm{J}/\psi $ are presented.

png pdf
Table 2:
Summary of statistical tests. The $ p $-value and the associated $ Z $-score are shown for alternative models $ J_i^{P} $, tested against the 2 $ _m^{+} $ model. A higher Z-score implies that the model is less compatible with observation.

png pdf
Table 3:
Results from hypothesis test for pairs of spin-parity models. This is an extended version of Table 2. The expected $ p $-value is presented based on the assumption of the scenario of 2 $ _m^+ $. Results with $ Z > $ 5 have been derived through Gaussian extrapolation.
Summary
The study of tetraquark states has attracted considerable interest due to its potential to provide insight into the structure of the hadronic matter that makes up the world around us [10,11,12,13,14,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34]. In this paper, we have presented the first measurement of the quantum numbers for a recently discovered family of three all-charm tetraquarks, based on data collected by the CMS experiment at the LHC. Our results, summarized in Table 2, favour a $ J^{PC}=$ 2$^{++} $ assignment. For a system of two constituents, as represented by either model in Fig. 2, an orbital angular momentum of $ L = $ 1 is excluded by the requirement $ P = + $1, while higher orbital excitations with $ L \geq $ 2 are energetically disfavoured. This makes the $ S $-wave ($ L = $ 0) configuration the most likely. In a molecular scenario, the quark-antiquark pairs are not required to be spin-1 mesons, making a $ J = $ 2 configuration less likely. This picture agreed with existing data for all other well-established tetraquark candidates with measured spin, such as the $ \mathrm{X}(3872) $ and $ \mathrm{Z}_{\mathrm{c}}(3900)^{+} $, all of which have $ J < $ 2 [7]. In contrast, a tightly-bound $ \mathrm{c}\mathrm{c}\overline{\mathrm{c}}\overline{\mathrm{c}} $ tetraquark with a diquark-antidiquark structure requires both diquarks to be in spin-1 states, which naturally favours a $ J = $ 2 configuration, as also emphasized in Refs. [23,33]. This spin-1 requirement, however, does not apply to tetraquark candidates with mixed-flavour quark content, a consideration relevant to all previously observed candidates, which contained both heavy and light quarks [7]. This advancement in understanding exotic hadrons was enabled by the study of all-heavy tetraquarks and it brings us closer to uncovering their true nature beyond the traditional quark model. Although our findings do not definitively distinguish between tightly-bound tetraquark and meson-meson molecular models, they provide constraints on the possible internal structures and favour the tightly-bound scenario.
References
1 M. Gell-Mann A schematic model of baryons and mesons PL 8 (1964) 214
2 G. Zweig An SU(3) model for strong interaction symmetry and its breaking. Version 2 CERN 2 (1964) 2
3 E598 Collaboration Experimental observation of a heavy particle $ J $ PRL 33 (1974) 1404
4 SLAC-SP-017 Collaboration Discovery of a narrow resonance in $ \mathrm{e}^+ \mathrm{e}^- $ annihilation PRL 33 (1974) 1406
5 L. G. Landsberg The search for exotic hadrons Phys. Usp. 42 (1999) 871
6 Belle Collaboration Observation of a narrow charmoniumlike state in exclusive $ {\mathrm{B}^{\pm}} \to \mathrm{K^{\pm}} \pi^{+} \pi^{-} \mathrm{J}/\psi $ decays PRL 91 (2003) 262001 hep-ex/0309032
7 Particle Data Group Review of particle physics PRD 110 (2024) 030001
8 BESIII Collaboration Observation of a charged charmoniumlike structure in $ \mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^- \to \pi^{+}\pi^{-} \mathrm{J}/\psi $ at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 4.26 GeV PRL 110 (2013) 252001 1303.5949
9 Belle Collaboration Study of $ \mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^- \to \pi^{+} \pi^{-} \mathrm{J}/\psi $ and observation of a charged charmoniumlike state at Belle [Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 () 01], 2013
PRL 110 (2013) 252002
1304.0121
10 A. V. Berezhnoy, A. V. Luchinsky, and A. A. Novoselov Heavy tetraquarks production at the LHC PRD 86 (2012) 034004 1111.1867
11 J. Wu et al. Heavy-flavored tetraquark states with the $ QQ\bar{Q}\bar{Q} $ configuration PRD 97 (2018) 094015 1605.01134
12 M. Karliner, S. Nussinov, and J. L. Rosner $ QQ\bar{Q}\bar{Q} $ states: Masses, production, and decays PRD 95 (2017) 034011 1611.00348
13 J.-M. Richard, A. Valcarce, and J. Vijande String dynamics and metastability of all-heavy tetraquarks PRD 95 (2017) 054019 1703.00783
14 M. N. Anwar et al. Spectroscopy and decays of the fully-heavy tetraquarks EPJC 78 (2018) 647 1710.02540
15 M. Nielsen and S. J. Brodsky Hadronic superpartners from a superconformal and supersymmetric algebra PRD 97 (2018) 114001 1802.09652
16 A. Ali, L. Maiani, and A. D. Polosa Multiquark hadrons Cambridge University Press, . , ISBN~978-1-316-76146-5, 2019
link
17 M.-S. Liu, Q.-F. L \"u , X.-H. Zhong, and Q. Zhao All-heavy tetraquarks PRD 100 (2019) 016006 1901.02564
18 G.-J. Wang, L. Meng, and S.-L. Zhu Spectrum of the fully-heavy tetraquark state $ QQ\bar Q' \bar Q' $ PRD 100 (2019) 096013 1907.05177
19 N. Brambilla et al. The $ XYZ $ states: experimental and theoretical status and perspectives Phys. Rept. 873 (2020) 1 1907.07583
20 M. A. Bedolla, J. Ferretti, C. D. Roberts, and E. Santopinto Spectrum of fully-heavy tetraquarks from a diquark+antidiquark perspective EPJC 80 (2020) 1004 1911.00960
21 M.-S. Liu, F.-X. Liu, X.-H. Zhong, and Q. Zhao Fully heavy tetraquark states and their evidences in LHC observations PRD 109 (2024) 076017 2006.11952
22 X. Jin, Y. Xue, H. Huang, and J. Ping Full-heavy tetraquarks in constituent quark models EPJC 80 (2020) 1083 2006.13745
23 C. Becchi et al. A study of $ c c\bar{c}\bar{c} $ tetraquark decays in 4 muons and in $ D^{(*)} \bar{D}^{(*)} $ at LHC PLB 811 (2020) 135952 2006.14388
24 H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, and S.-L. Zhu Strong decays of fully-charm tetraquarks into di-charmonia Sci. Bull. 65 (2020) 1994 2006.16027
25 J.-Z. Wang, D.-Y. Chen, X. Liu, and T. Matsuki Producing fully charm structures in the $ \mathrm{J}/\psi $-pair invariant mass spectrum PRD 103 (2021) 071503 2008.07430
26 X.-K. Dong et al. Coupled-channel interpretation of the LHCb double-$ J/\psi $ spectrum and hints of a new state near the $ J/\psi J/\psi $ threshold [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 127, 11 ()], 2021
PRL 126 (2021) 132001
2009.07795
27 H.-F. Zhang, Y.-Q. Ma, and W.-L. Sang Perturbative QCD evidence for spin-2 particles in the di-$ \mathrm{J}/\psi $ resonances Sci. Bull, 2025
link
2009.08376
28 R. Zhu Fully-heavy tetraquark spectra and production at hadron colliders NPB 966 (2021) 115393 2010.09082
29 F.-X. Liu, M.-S. Liu, X.-H. Zhong, and Q. Zhao Higher mass spectra of the fully-charmed and fully-bottom tetraquarks PRD 104 (2021) 116029 2110.09052
30 R. N. Faustov, V. O. Galkin, and E. M. Savchenko Fully heavy tetraquark spectroscopy in the relativistic quark model Symmetry 14 (2022) 2504 2210.16015
31 F. Feng et al. Inclusive production of fully charmed tetraquarks at the LHC PRD 108 (2023) L051501 2304.11142
32 F. G. Celiberto, G. Gatto, and A. Papa Fully charmed tetraquarks from LHC to FCC: natural stability from fragmentation EPJC 84 (2024) 1071 2405.14773
33 I. Belov, A. Giachino, and E. Santopinto Fully charmed tetraquark production at the LHC experiments JHEP 01 (2025) 093 2409.12070
34 F. Zhu, G. Bauer, and K. Yi Experimental road to a charming family of tetraquarks \textellipsis and beyond Chin. Phys. Lett. 41 (2024) 111201 2410.11210
35 LHCb Collaboration Observation of structure in the $ \mathrm{J}/\psi $-pair mass spectrum Sci. Bull. 65 (2020) 1983 2006.16957
36 ATLAS Collaboration Observation of an excess of dicharmonium events in the four-muon final state with the ATLAS detector PRL 131 (2023) 151902 2304.08962
37 CMS Collaboration New structures in the $ \mathrm{J}/\psi\mathrm{J}/\psi $ mass spectrum in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV PRL 132 (2024) 111901 CMS-BPH-21-003
2306.07164
38 CMS Collaboration HEPData record for this analysis link
39 H. Yukawa On the interaction of elementary particles. I. Proc. Phys. Math. Soc. Jap. 17 (1935) 48
40 M. Nielsen et al. Supersymmetry in the double-heavy hadronic spectrum PRD 98 (2018) 034002 1805.11567
41 Y. Gao et al. Spin determination of single-produced resonances at hadron colliders PRD 81 (2010) 075022 1001.3396
42 S. Bolognesi et al. On the spin and parity of a single-produced resonance at the LHC PRD 86 (2012) 095031 1208.4018
43 L. Evans and P. Bryant (eds) LHC machine JINST 3 (2008) S08001
44 CMS Collaboration The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC JINST 3 (2008) S08004
45 CMS Collaboration Development of the CMS detector for the CERN LHC Run 3 JINST 19 (2024) P05064 CMS-PRF-21-001
2309.05466
46 CMS Collaboration The CMS trigger system JINST 12 (2017) P01020 CMS-TRG-12-001
1609.02366
47 T. Sjöstrand et al. An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2 Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159 1410.3012
48 GEANT4 Collaboration GEANT 4---a simulation toolkit NIM A 506 (2003) 250
49 CMS Collaboration Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC PLB 716 (2012) 30 CMS-HIG-12-028
1207.7235
50 CMS Collaboration Study of the mass and spin-parity of the Higgs boson candidate via its decays to Z boson pairs PRL 110 (2013) 081803 CMS-HIG-12-041
1212.6639
51 A. V. Gritsan et al. New features in the JHU generator framework: constraining Higgs boson properties from on-shell and off-shell production PRD 102 (2020) 056022 2002.09888
52 CMS Collaboration The CMS statistical analysis and combination tool: Combine Comput. Softw. Big Sci. 8 (2024) 19 CMS-CAT-23-001
2404.06614
53 CMS Collaboration Constraints on the spin-parity and anomalous HVV couplings of the Higgs boson in proton collisions at 7 and 8 TeV PRD 92 (2015) 012004 CMS-HIG-14-018
1411.3441
54 T. Junk Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics NIM A 434 (1999) 435 hep-ex/9902006
55 A. L. Read Presentation of search results: the $ \text{CL}_\text{s} $ technique JPG 28 (2002) 2693
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN