Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Strong decays of newly observed charm-strange meson states based on a relativistic model

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper assigns spin-parity quantum numbers to five newly observed charm-strange resonances by matching masses from a relativistic Dirac model with heavy-quark effective theory decay widths.

desk verdict A worthwhile but overclaimed model paper: assignments mostly déjà vu, search predictions useful, but the Ds0(2590) identification and the framework's ratio failure on DsJ(2860) need fixing before I'd trust the partner widths. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.11022 v1 pith:NSYFFB7N submitted 2025-07-15 hep-ph

Bhoomika Pandya , Manan N Shah , P C Vinodkumar This is my paper
classification hep-ph PACS 13.25.Ft14.40.Lb12.39.Hg
keywords charm-strangemesonsDsJspectroscopyspin-parityassignmentheavyquarkeffectivetheoryrelativisticDiracmodelstrongdecaywidthsD-waveexcitedmesonspectrum
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The recently observed charm-strange mesons $D_{sJ}(2700)$, $D_{s0}(2590)$, $D_{sJ}(2860)$, $D_{s1}(2860)$, and $D_{sJ}(3040)$ have masses and widths that no single scheme has convincingly explained. This paper argues that all five are ordinary quark-antiquark states with specific spin-parity quantum numbers: the first two are the radially excited $2^3S_1$ and $2^1S_0$ states, the two 2860 structures are the D-wave $1^3D_3$ and $1^3D_1$ states, and the 3040 resonance is the $2^1P_1$ state. The argument combines a relativistic Dirac model that reproduces the known $1S$ and $1P$ masses with leading-order heavy-quark effective theory, which turns each decay width into a single unknown coupling times a predicted phase-space factor. If the assignments hold, the same framework says where the still-missing partner states will be found: the two D-wave $J=2$ states decay mainly to $D^*K$, and the $2^3P_0$ state decays mainly to $DK$.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the heavy-quark-effective-theory doublet classification of heavy-light mesons, built on the decoupling of the heavy quark spin. Each meson is labeled by the total angular momentum $s_l^P$ of the light degrees of freedom; states with $J = s_l \pm 1/2$ form a doublet described by a single field ($H_a$, $S_a$, $T_a$, $X_a$, $Y_a$, and so on), and leading-order chiral Lagrangians give the two-body strong decay widths to ground-state $D^{(*)}$ mesons plus a pseudoscalar ($K$ or $\eta$) in terms of phase space times one coupling constant per doublet ($g_H$, $g_S$, $g_T$, $g_X$, $g_Y$, $g_Z$, $g_R$, with tildes for radial excitations). The paper feeds these formulas with masses computed from the Dirac equation in a scalar-plus-vector linear potential, replacing experimental masses with model predictions in the phase-space factors. Because the coupling multiplies all partial widths in a doublet, branching ratios such as $D^*K/DK$ are coupling-independent predictions, which is how the paper discriminates among candidate assignments.

What would settle it

A high-statistics Dalitz analysis that isolates the spin-3 component near 2.86 GeV and measures its $D^*K/DK$ branching ratio can settle the $D_{sJ}(2860)$ assignment: the paper predicts 0.37 for the $1^3D_3$ state, independent of coupling constants, so a value close to the 1.10 measured for the unresolved combined signal would rule that assignment out.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central result is a coherent set of spin-parity assignments for the newly observed charm-strange states. Using its predicted masses ($2^3S_1$ at 2731.51 MeV, $2^1S_0$ at 2609.73 MeV, $1^3D_3$ at 2853.88 MeV, $1^3D_1$ at 2819.57 MeV, and $2^1P_1$ at 3027.09 MeV) together with leading-order heavy-quark effective theory decay widths, the paper identifies $D_{sJ}(2700)$ as $2^3S_1$, $D_{s0}(2590)$ as $2^1S_0$, $D_{sJ}(2860)$ as $1^3D_3$, $D_{s1}(2860)$ as $1^3D_1$, and $D_{sJ}(3040)$ as $2^1P_1$. The $2^3S_1$ assignment for $D_{sJ}(2700)$ matches the measured $D^*K/DK$ ratio at 0.96 against 0.91, and the two nearby 2860 structures are explained as a narrow $1^3D_3$ state and a broad $1^3D_1$ state. The paper extracts the couplings $g_T = 0.52 \pm 0.082$, $g_X = 0.26 \pm 0.018$, $g_Y = 0.50 \pm 0.015$, $\tilde{g}_S = 0.10 \pm 0.010$, and $\tilde{g}_H = 0.32 \pm 0.010$, and it flags one open problem: the predicted $2^1S_0$ width for $D_{s0}(2590)$ is only about 20 MeV, well below the measured 89 MeV, so that identification is left less certain.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the leading-order heavy-quark-symmetry Lagrangian, with one coupling per doublet, dominates the strong decays, so the neglected $1/m_Q$ corrections, omitted final states, and the admitted $2^3P_1$–$2^1P_1$ mixing for $D_{sJ}(3040)$ would all have to be small for these assignments to hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If $D_{sJ}(2700)$ is the $2^3S_1$ state, its observed near-equal branching to $DK$ and $D^*K$ is a direct consequence: the calculation gives a $D^*K/DK$ ratio of 0.96, matching the measured $0.91 \pm 0.13 \pm 0.12$.
  • If $D_{sJ}(2860)$ and $D_{s1}(2860)$ are the $1^3D_3$ and $1^3D_1$ states, the large gap in their observed widths is expected, since the computed widths scale as $189.72 g_Y^2$ and $2328.55 g_X^2$ MeV respectively.
  • The unobserved D-wave spin partners $1^3D_2$ (about 2831 MeV) and $1^1D_2$ (about 2849 MeV) should be sought in the $D^*K$ channel, with predicted total widths near 16 MeV and 81 MeV.
  • The unobserved $2^3P_0$ state (about 3017 MeV) should be sought in $DK$, which carries about 87% of its predicted width.
  • The $D_{s0}(2590)$ identification as $2^1S_0$ is the least settled: the predicted width of about 20 MeV falls well below the measured $89 \pm 16 \pm 12$ MeV, so the paper leaves its assignment uncertain.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural extension the paper leaves implicit: because the couplings are taken as universal across heavy-light meson sectors, the extracted $g_X$, $g_Y$, $\tilde{g}_S$, and $\tilde{g}_H$ can be applied to excited $B_s$ mesons to predict partner widths and search channels there.
  • A test the paper's framework suggests: the paper's $D^*K/DK$ ratio for the $1^3D_3$ assignment is 0.37, independent of coupling constants, while the earlier combined measurement it cites is 1.10; a future Dalitz fit that isolates the spin-3 component could cleanly confirm or disfavor the assignment.
  • Since the paper concedes that $2^3P_1$–$2^1P_1$ mixing cannot be neglected for $D_{sJ}(3040)$, a two-state mixing analysis with a mixing angle near the commonly quoted 35 degrees is the direct next step and could either rescue or modify the $2^1P_1$ identification.
  • The $D_{s0}(2590)$ width gap is a clue that either $1/m_Q$ corrections or final states involving excited P-wave charmed mesons matter at that mass; adding those channels would test whether the pure $2^1S_0$ assignment survives.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript computes charm-strange meson masses in a relativistic Dirac model with a linear scalar-plus-vector confining potential, then uses leading-order heavy quark effective theory (HQET) with chiral Lagrangians to compute OZI-allowed two-body strong decay widths. Comparing masses, partial widths, and coupling-independent branching ratios with data from BaBar, Belle, and LHCb, the authors propose spin-parity assignments: DsJ(2700)=2^3S1, Ds0(2590)=2^1S0, DsJ(2860)=1^3D3, Ds1(2860)=1^3D1, and DsJ(3040)=2^1P1, and they extract effective couplings gT, gX, gY, g~S, and g~H. They also predict dominant decay modes for the unobserved partners 1^3D2, 1^1D2, and 2^3P0.

Significance. If the assignments hold, the paper would provide a coherent quark-model and HQET picture of excited Ds states, with useful coupling-independent branching-ratio predictions and concrete search modes for missing states. The strength of the paper lies in its tabulated partial widths expressed in units of the couplings, which make many ratios independent of the unknown coupling constants, and in its use of independent PDG masses and measured branching ratios as benchmarks. However, the paper's own numbers undercut several central claims: the Ds0(2590) width is predicted to be about a factor of 4.5 below the measured width and the text itself says the identification remains uncertain; the DsJ(2860) D*K/DK ratio is off by about 3 standard deviations; and the DsJ(3040) assignment neglects the mixing that the text says cannot be neglected. The proposed assignments are therefore plausible but not established, and the manuscript would require substantial revision to align its claims with its results.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. IV.3] The abstract and the summary identify Ds0(2590) as the 2^1S0 state, yet Sec. IV.3 reports a predicted total width of 19.90 MeV (from 194.39 g~H^2 with g~H = 0.32) and states that this is 'considerably lower' than the measured width 89 ± 16 ± 12 MeV and that 'a conclusive identification ... remains uncertain.' A width discrepancy of this size is not a minor caveat: it is the main decay test for the assignment, and the predicted mass (2629.11 MeV) is also about 38 MeV above the measured mass (2591 ± 6 ± 7 MeV). The abstract overstates the result; the assignment should be presented as tentative at best, or the calculation needs to include the missing mechanisms before the identification can be claimed.
  2. [Sec. IV.1, Eq. (64), Table VII] Table VII gives D*K/DK = 44.77/118.03 = 0.38 for the assigned 1^3D3 state DsJ(2860), whereas the BABAR measurement quoted in Eq. (64) is 1.10 ± 0.15 ± 0.19, a discrepancy of about 3 standard deviations (a factor of 2.9). The text acknowledges the disagreement and speculates that a nearby 2^- state could modify the measured ratio, but that state is not included in the analysis. Because the same leading-order HQET machinery is used to discriminate 2^3S1 from 1^3D1 for DsJ(2700) through precisely this type of D*K/DK ratio, the unexplained failure on the adjacent DsJ(2860) state undercuts the reliability of the ratio-based discrimination that is the strongest quantitative support for the DsJ(2700) assignment. The framework cannot be treated as reliable for one ratio and as requiring a new state for the other without a quantitative demonstration.
  3. [Sec. IV.2] The text concedes that 'the admixture of 2^3P1 and 2^1P1 states ... cannot be neglected for the state DsJ(3040)' and then explicitly omits mixing because the coupling constants for the pure n^3P1 and n^1P1 configurations 'differ substantially.' Since the physical 1+ states are expected to be mixtures, the computed pure-configuration widths in Table IX do not describe the actual state. The preference for 2^1P1 over 2^3P1 for DsJ(3040) therefore rests on an assumption the paper itself identifies as unjustified. This is load-bearing for the assignment; the paper should either include the mixing or refrain from claiming the identification.
  4. [Table IV] The abstract's claim of 'excellent agreement' for the first orbital excited 1P states is contradicted by Table IV for the 1P1/2 doublet: the predicted 1^3P0 mass is 2454.67 MeV versus the observed 2317.8 MeV (a 137 MeV discrepancy), and the predicted 1^1P1 mass is 2538.62 MeV versus 2459.5 MeV (a 79 MeV discrepancy). The paper notes that the observed mass gap between the 1P3/2 and 1P1/2 multiplets cannot be explained by spin-dependent interactions alone, but it still uses this mass model to select among close-lying excited-state assignments. Unless this systematic offset is quantified and propagated, the mass-based arguments for Ds0(2590) and DsJ(3040) carry an unquantified error comparable to the mass gaps being used.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The sentence 'The effective coupling constants gT, gX, gY, g~S and g~H extracted from present analysis' is missing a verb; it should read 'are extracted from the present analysis.'
  2. [Table VII caption] The caption says 'last raw' where it should say 'last row', and the heading '1^3D3(5/2 3^-)' contains the duplicated word 'in in g_Y^2 MeV'.
  3. [Sec. IV.2] The name 'Pierror and Eitchen' should be 'Di Pierro and Eichten', matching Ref. [52].
  4. [Sec. I] The text refers to the 'KEBK' accelerator; this should be 'KEK'.
  5. [Secs. IV.1 and IV.2] The extraction of gY, gX, g~S, and g~H is performed by equating the computed total width to the measured width of the very state being assigned; the text should state explicitly that the total widths of the assigned states are therefore not independent predictions and that the independent content resides in the mass comparisons and coupling-independent ratios.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: assignments are tested against external masses, LHCb spin-parity data, and coupling-independent branching ratios; extracted couplings are used for genuinely new partner predictions, not repackaged fits.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not closed. The potential parameters in Table II are fixed using the known 1S ground states, and the 2S, 1D, 2P, and 2D masses in Tables III–V are outputs compared with independent PDG, BABAR, Belle, and LHCb data. The DsJ(2700) assignment as 2^3S1 is selected using the coupling-independent D*K/DK ratio (0.96 vs the measured 0.91±0.13±0.12, Eq. 65 and Table VI), not by fitting its total width. Couplings g_Y, g_X, g~H, and g~S are explicitly extracted afterward by equating computed total widths to measured widths (e.g., Sec. IV.1: 'identifying DsJ(2860) as the 1^3D3 state and comparing the computed width 189.72 g_Y^2 with the experimentally measured width of 48±3 MeV, we extract the coupling constant gY = 0.50±0.015'), and the same couplings are then used to predict unobserved partner states (1^3D2, 1^1D2, 2^3P0). This is fit-then-predict, not prediction-by-construction. The DsJ(3040) assignment uses g~S = 0.11 from the authors' earlier work [28], but this is an externally based charm-sector input and is supplemented by the independent Di Pierro–Eichten chiral quark model prediction of ~256 MeV for the 2^1P1 width, so the self-citation is not the sole load-bearing premise. The manuscript honestly flags genuine limitations: it concedes the 2^3P1/2^1P1 admixture 'cannot be neglected' for DsJ(3040) yet omits mixing; it reports a predicted Ds0(2590) width of 19.90 MeV versus the measured 89±16±12 MeV; and it reports a predicted D*K/DK = 0.38 for DsJ(2860) versus the measured 1.10±0.15±0.19. These are external-benchmark failures or model-robustness caveats, not circular reductions in which an input is returned as an output. No equation-level self-definition, fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or forced self-citation chain was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central spectroscopy rests on a state-dependent confinement potential and several borrowed or fitted COGEP constants; the decay predictions rest on leading-order HQET universality and on coupling constants extracted from the very states being assigned. The paper postulates no new particles or interactions.

free parameters (7)
  • charm quark mass mc = 1.27 GeV
    PDG input used in the Dirac potential model; varying it by 1.5% changes 1S masses by about 1%, so it acts as a fitted input.
  • strange quark mass ms = 0.093 GeV
    Unusually low for a quark model and not independently constrained in the paper; it strongly affects the Ds spectrum.
  • confinement strength coefficient lambda0 = 0.0405 GeV^2
    Used as lambda0(2n+l+1)^0.5, making the confining potential state-dependent; the coefficient is fitted to known ground states.
  • potential depth V0 = -0.0001 GeV
    Fitted to reproduce ground-state masses; numerically marginal.
  • jj coupling sigma = 0.159 GeV^3
    COGEP spin-spin coupling strength fitted to hyperfine splittings in the spectrum.
  • confined gluon propagator constants alpha1, alpha2, c0, gamma, c1 = 1.035, 0.3977 GeV, 0.3418 GeV, 0.8639, 0.4123 GeV
    Taken from prior studies [28,30,39]; they set the spin-orbit and tensor interactions used in the mass formula.
  • strong couplings gT, gX, gY, g~H, g~S = gT=0.52, gX=0.26, gY=0.50, g~H=0.32, g~S=0.10 with reported errors
    Extracted by equating predicted total widths to measured widths of the assigned states; they then control all partner-state width predictions.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Dirac equation with a scalar-plus-vector linear potential gives reliable single-particle confinement energies for all radial and orbital excitations.
    Sec. II.A; no proof that the state-dependent lambda preserves a common Hamiltonian.
  • domain assumption Masses are obtained by adding perturbative spin-spin, spin-orbit and tensor COGEP matrix elements to the confinement energy.
    Eq. (18) and Sec. II.B; assumes these corrections are small and additive.
  • domain assumption Heavy quark limit and chiral symmetry justify the leading-order HQET Lagrangians with one coupling per doublet and allow neglecting 1/mQ corrections.
    Sec. III; the paper itself notes subleading corrections may not fully cancel in ratios of decay widths.
  • domain assumption Coupling constants are universal across heavy-light sectors, so g~S extracted from charm mesons applies to charm-strange DsJ(3040).
    Sec. IV.2; relies on spin-flavor symmetry extrapolation.
  • ad hoc to paper Mixing between the 2^3P1 and 2^1P1 states is negligible for DsJ(3040), despite the text admitting the admixture cannot be neglected.
    Sec. IV.2; the stated reason is that the pure-state coupling constants differ substantially, so mixing is not included.
  • domain assumption Only OZI-allowed two-body decays to ground-state D/D* plus pi/K/eta are considered; channels to 1P excited final states are omitted to avoid new couplings.
    Sec. III and Sec. IV.3; the paper explicitly excludes P-wave final states.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Strong decays of newly observed charm-strange meson states based on a relativistic model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NSYFFB7N

@misc{pith2026250711022,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Strong decays of newly observed charm-strange meson states based on a relativistic model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NSYFFB7N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.11022}
}
abstract

The mass spectra of charm-strange mesons including ground, radial and orbital excitations have been calculated within a relativistic Dirac framework. The predicted masses of the ground state $1S$ and the first orbital excited state $1P$ exhibits excellent agreement with values reported by the PDG. Utilizing these mass predictions and an effective Lagrangian approach based on heavy quark and chiral symmetries, we have computed the OZI allowed two body strong decay widths of higher excited state candidates of charm-strange sector. The resulting partial widths and branching ratios enable the assignment of spin-parity quantum numbers to several newly observed charm-strange states. In particular, we identify $D_{sJ}(2700)$ as the $2^3S_1$, $D_{s0}(2590)$ as the $2^1S_0$, $D_{sJ}(2860)$ as the $1^3D_3$, $D_{s1}(2860)$ as the $1^3D_1$, and $D_{sJ}(3040)$ as the $2^1P_1$ states. The effective coupling constants $g_T$, $g_X$, $g_Y$, $\tilde{g}_S$ and $\tilde{g}_H$ extracted from present analysis. Furthermore, the $D^*K$ decay channel emerges as the most promising mode for the experimental search of the missing $1^3D_2$ and $1^1D_2$ states, while the $2^3P_0$ state is more likely to be observed through the $DK$ channel.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Strong decays and effective spin-symmetry-breaking corrections in excited charm-strange mesons

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

    Calibrates effective spin-symmetry-breaking parameters from D_s2*(2573) data and applies them to constrain mixing in D_s1 states while exploring radial mixing scenarios that increase predicted widths for D_s0(2590) bu...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    For higher orbital excited states, l = 2 ( D-wave states) therefor sp l = 3 2 − and sp l = 5 2 −

    and ( P1, P∗ 2 ) with spin-parity given as J P = (0 +, 1+) and J P = (1 +, 2+) respectively. For higher orbital excited states, l = 2 ( D-wave states) therefor sp l = 3 2 − and sp l = 5 2 − . Here, one doublet is expressed as ( P ∗ 1 , P2) where J P = (1 −, 2−) and another as ( P ′ 2, P∗ 3 ) with J P = (2 −, 3−). Similarly, for l = 3 ( F -wave states) one...

    work page

  2. [2]

    The D-wave states are represented by the fields Xa and Ya, 9 corresponding to the ( P ∗ 1 , P2) and (P ′ 2, P∗ 3 ) doublets, respectively

    doublet and Ta for the ( P1, P∗ 2 ) doublet. The D-wave states are represented by the fields Xa and Ya, 9 corresponding to the ( P ∗ 1 , P2) and (P ′ 2, P∗ 3 ) doublets, respectively. Similarly, the F -wave meson doublets (P ∗ 2 , P3) and (P ′ 3, P∗ 4 ) are described by the fields Za and Ra. Here, the subscript a = u, d, sdenotes the light flavor index. a...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Decaying S wave meson: (0 −, 1−) 1 2 → (0−, 1−) 1 2 + p Γ 1− → 0− = Cp g2 H Mf p3 p 6πf 2πMi (43) Γ 0− → 1− = Cp g2 H Mf p3 p 2πf 2πMi (44) Γ 1− → 1− = Cp g2 H Mf p3 p 3πf 2πMi (45)

    work page

  4. [4]

    Decaying P wave meson: (0 +, 1+) 1 2 → (0−, 1−) 1 2 + p Γ 0+ → 0− = Cp 4g2 SMf 2πf 2πMi pp M 2 p + p2 p (46) Γ 1+ → 1− = Cp 4g2 SMf 2πf 2πMi pp M 2 p + p2 p (47)

    work page

  5. [5]

    Decaying P wave meson: (1 +, 2+) 3 2 → (0−, 1−) 1 2 + p Γ 2+ → 0− = Cp 4g2 T Mf p5 p 15πf 2πΛ2Mi (48) Γ 1+ → 1− = Cp 2g2 T Mf p5 p 3πf 2πΛ2Mi (49) Γ 2+ → 1− = Cp 2g2 T Mf p5 p 5πf 2πΛ2Mi (50)

    work page

  6. [6]

    Decaying D wave meson: (1 −, 2−) 3 2 → (0−, 1−) 1 2 + p Γ 1− → 0− = Cp 4g2 X Mf 9πf 2πΛ2Mi p3 p M 2 p + p2 p (51) Γ 1− → 1− = Cp 2g2 X Mf 9πf 2πΛ2Mi p3 p M 2 p + p2 p (52) Γ 2− → 1− = Cp 2g2 X Mf 3πf 2πΛ2Mi p3 p M 2 p + p2 p (53)

    work page

  7. [7]

    Decaying D wave meson: (2 −, 3−) 5 2 → (0−, 1−) 1 2 + p Γ 2− → 1− = Cp 4g2 Y Mf 15πf 2πΛ4Mi |pp|7 (54) Γ 3− → 0− = Cp 4g2 Y Mf 35πf 2πΛ4Mi |pp|7 (55) Γ 3− → 1− = Cp 16g2 Y Mf 105πf 2πΛ4Mi |pp|7 (56) 11

    work page

  8. [8]

    Decaying F wave meson: (2 +, 3+) 5 2 → (0−, 1−) 1 2 + p Γ 2+ → 0− = Cp 4g2 Z Mf 25πf 2πΛ4Mi p5 p M 2 p + p2 p (57) Γ 2+ → 1− = Cp 8g2 Z Mf 75πf 2πΛ4Mi p5 p M 2 p + p2 p (58) Γ 3+ → 1− = Cp 4g2 Z Mf 15πf 2πΛ4Mi p5 p M 2 p + p2 p (59)

    work page

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    The strong coupling constants and their notations depend on the radial quantum numbers involved in the transition

    Decaying F wave meson: (3 +, 4+) 7 2 → (0−, 1−) 1 2 + p Γ 4+ → 0− = Cp 16g2 RMf p9 p 35πf 2πΛ6Mi (60) Γ 3+ → 1− = Cp 36g2 RMf p9 p 35πf 2πΛ6Mi (61) Γ 4+ → 1− = Cp 4g2 RMf p9 p 7πf 2πΛ6Mi (62) The coefficient Cp appearing in the decay width expressions takes different values de...

    2010

  2. [10]

    DSJ (2860)+ In 2006, the BABAR collaboration observed a new state around the mass region of 2860 MeV, designated as DSJ (2860)+, in the inclusive DK channel [1]. Based on their spin analysis and the absence of decay to final states such as D∗K or D∗ s η, the BABAR collaboratio...

    2006

  3. [11]

    This indicates that the state possesses an unnatural parity allowing for possible quantum number assignments such as J P = 0 −, 1+, 2−,

    DsJ (3040) The first evidence for the DsJ (3040) state was reported by the BABAR collaboration through its observation in the D∗K decay channel angular analysis [3]. This indicates that the state possesses an unnatural parity allowing for possible quantum number assignments su...

  4. [12]

    This state was then independently confirmed by Belle collaboration in the Dalitz plot of B+ → ¯D0D0K + process with J P = 1− [2]

    DsJ (2700) The DsJ (2700) resonance was first observed by the BABAR collaboration in D0K + and D+K 0 s invariant mass distribution with mass and width reported as 2688 ± 4 ± 3 MeV and 112 ± 7 ± 36 MeV, respectively [1]. This state was then independently confirmed by Belle coll...

  5. [13]

    The extracted value of the coupling constant ˜gH as 0.32 ± 0.010 is in excellent agreement with 0 .31 ± 0.017 from our previous study [28] and 0 .28 ± 0.010 reported in Ref. [46]. However, it is worth noting that these values are almost double the value of 0 .14 ± 0.030 obtain...

  6. [14]

    Observation of a New Ds Meson Decaying to DK at a Mass of 2.86 GeV /c2

    Bernard Aubert et al. Observation of a New Ds Meson Decaying to DK at a Mass of 2.86 GeV /c2. Phys. Rev. Lett., 97:222001, 2006

    2006

  7. [15]

    Brodzicka et al

    J. Brodzicka et al. Observation of a new DsJ meson in B+ → ¯D0D0K + decays. Phys. Rev. Lett., 100:092001, 2008

    2008

  8. [16]

    Study of DsJ decays to D∗K in inclusive e+e− interactions

    Bernard Aubert et al. Study of DsJ decays to D∗K in inclusive e+e− interactions. Phys. Rev. D, 80:092003, 2009

    2009

  9. [17]

    Study of DsJ decays to D+K 0 S and D0K + final states in pp collisions

    R Aaij et al. Study of DsJ decays to D+K 0 S and D0K + final states in pp collisions. J. High Energy Phys., 10:151, 2012

    2012

  10. [18]

    Observation of overlapping spin-1 and spin-3 ¯D0K − resonances at mass 2 .86 GeV/c2

    Roel Aaij et al. Observation of overlapping spin-1 and spin-3 ¯D0K − resonances at mass 2 .86 GeV/c2. Phys. Rev. Lett., 113:162001, 2014

    2014

  11. [19]

    Observation of a New Excited D+ s Meson in B0 → D−D+K +π− Decays

    Roel Aaij et al. Observation of a New Excited D+ s Meson in B0 → D−D+K +π− Decays. Phys. Rev. Lett., 126(12):122002, 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    Coupled channel effects for the charmed-strange mesons.Phys

    Wei Hao, Yu Lu, and Bing-Song Zou. Coupled channel effects for the charmed-strange mesons.Phys. Rev. D, 106(7):074014, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Interpretation of DsJ (2632)+, Ds1(2700)±, D∗ sJ (2860)+ and DsJ (3040)+

    Bing Chen, Deng-Xia Wang, and Ailin Zhang. Interpretation of DsJ (2632)+, Ds1(2700)±, D∗ sJ (2860)+ and DsJ (3040)+. Phys. Rev. D, 80:071502, 2009

    2009

  14. [22]

    Newly observed DsJ (3040) and the radial excitations of P wave charmed-strange mesons

    Zhi-Feng Sun and Xiang Liu. Newly observed DsJ (3040) and the radial excitations of P wave charmed-strange mesons. Phys. Rev. D, 80:074037, 2009

    2009

  15. [23]

    Ebert, R

    D. Ebert, R. N. Faustov, and V. O. Galkin. Heavy-light meson spectroscopy and Regge trajectories in the relativistic quark model. Eur. Phys. J. C, 66:197, 2010

    2010

  16. [24]

    Segovia, D

    J. Segovia, D. R. Entem, and F. Fern´ andez. Scaling of the 3P0 Strength in Heavy Meson Strong Decays. Phys. Lett. B, 715:322–327, 2012

    2012

  17. [25]

    Segovia, D

    J. Segovia, D. R. Entem, F. Fernandez, and E. Hernandez. Constituent quark model description of charmonium phe- nomenology. Int. J. Mod. Phys. E, 22:1330026, 2013

    2013

  18. [26]

    Open charm meson spectroscopy: Where to place the latest piece of the puzzle

    Pietro Colangelo and Fulvia De Fazio. Open charm meson spectroscopy: Where to place the latest piece of the puzzle. Phys. Rev. D, 81:094001, 2010

    2010

  19. [27]

    Meissner

    Feng-Kun Guo and Ulf-G. Meissner. More kaonic bound states and a comprehensive interpretation of the DsJ states. Phys. Rev. D, 84:014013, 2011

    2011

  20. [28]

    Mass spectra and decay properties of Ds Meson in a relativistic Dirac formalism

    Manan Shah, Bhavin Patel, and P C Vinodkumar. Mass spectra and decay properties of Ds Meson in a relativistic Dirac formalism. Phys. Rev. D, 90(1):014009, 2014

    2014

  21. [29]

    J. W. Alcock, M. J. Burfitt, and W. N. Cottingham. A String Breaking Model of Heavy Meson Decays. Z. Phys. C, 25:161, 1984

    1984

  22. [30]

    Kumano and V

    S. Kumano and V. R. Pandharipande. Decay of Mesons in Flux Tube Quark Model. Phys. Rev. D, 38:146–151, 1988

    1988

  23. [31]

    Implication of BaBar’s new data on the Ds1(2710) and DsJ (2860)

    De-Min Li and Bing Ma. Implication of BaBar’s new data on the Ds1(2710) and DsJ (2860). Phys. Rev. D, 81:014021, 2010

    2010

  24. [32]

    Bs1(5830) and B∗ s2(5840)

    Zhi-Gang Luo, Xiao-Lin Chen, and Xiang Liu. Bs1(5830) and B∗ s2(5840). Phys. Rev. D, 79:074020, 2009

    2009

  25. [33]

    Dynamical mixing between 2 3S1 and 1 3D1 charmed mesons

    Hao Yu, Ze Zhao, and Ailin Zhang. Dynamical mixing between 2 3S1 and 1 3D1 charmed mesons. Phys. Rev. D, 102(5):054013, 2020

    2020

  26. [34]

    Ds0(2590) as a dominant c¯s state with a small D∗K component

    Jia-Ming Xie, Ming-Zhu Liu, and Li-Sheng Geng. Ds0(2590) as a dominant c¯s state with a small D∗K component. Phys. Rev. D, 104(9):094051, 2021

    2021

  27. [35]

    Canonical interpretation of the Ds0(2590)+ resonance

    Zhuo Gao, Guan-Ying Wang, Qi-Fang L¨ u, Jingya Zhu, and Gao-Feng Zhao. Canonical interpretation of the Ds0(2590)+ resonance. Phys. Rev. D, 105(7):074037, 2022

    2022

  28. [36]

    Assignment of charmed-strange Ds0(2590)+ and DsJ (3040)+

    Zi-Han Jiang and Ailin Zhang. Assignment of charmed-strange Ds0(2590)+ and DsJ (3040)+. Nucl. Phys. A, 1048:122893, 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    Blundell, Stephen Godfrey, and Brian Phelps

    Harry G. Blundell, Stephen Godfrey, and Brian Phelps. Properties of the strange axial mesons in the relativized quark model. Phys. Rev. D, 53:3712–3722, 1996

    1996

  30. [38]

    Blundell and Stephen Godfrey

    Harry G. Blundell and Stephen Godfrey. The Xi(2220) revisited: Strong decays of the 1 3F2 and 1 3F4 ¯ss mesons. Phys. Rev. D, 53:3700–3711, 1996

    1996

  31. [39]

    Systematic analysis of the DJ (2580), D∗ J (2650), DJ (2740), D∗ J (2760), DJ (3000) and D∗ J (3000) in D meson family

    Guo-Liang Yu, Zhi-Gang Wang, and Zhen-Yu Li. Systematic analysis of the DJ (2580), D∗ J (2650), DJ (2740), D∗ J (2760), DJ (3000) and D∗ J (3000) in D meson family. Chin. Phys. C, 39(6):063101, 2015

    2015

  32. [40]

    Barik, B

    N. Barik, B. K. Dash, and M. Das. Static prperties of the nucleon octet in a relativistic potential model with center of mass correction. Phys. Rev. D, 31:1652–1656, 1985

    1985

  33. [41]

    Bhoomika Pandya, Manan Shah, and P. C. Vinodkumar. Mass spectroscopy and strong decays of excited open charm DJ mesons using relativistic Dirac formalism. Eur. Phys. J. C, 81(10):935, 2021

    2021

  34. [42]

    Manan Shah, Bhavin Patel, and P. C. Vinodkumar. Spectroscopy and flavor changing decays of B , Bs mesons in a Dirac formalism. Phys. Rev. D, 93(9):094028, 2016

    2016

  35. [43]

    Tanvi Bhavsar, Manan Shah, and P. C. Vinodkumar. Status of quarkonia-like negative and positive parity states in a relativistic confinement scheme. Eur. Phys. J. C, 78(3):227, 2018. 18

    2018

  36. [44]

    P. A. Zyla et al. Review of Particle Physics. PTEP, 2020(8):083C01, 2020

    2020

  37. [45]

    Relativistic Quantum Mechanics

    Walter Greiner. Relativistic Quantum Mechanics. Wave Equations. Springer, Berlin, 1997

    1997

  38. [46]

    Barik and M

    N. Barik and M. Das. Octet Baryons in Independent Quark Model Approach Based on Dirac Equation With Power Law Potential. Phys. Lett. B, 120:403–408, 1983

    1983

  39. [47]

    S. N. Jena. Mass spectra of light and heavy mesons in the Dirac equations with power law potential. Pramana, 21:247, 1983

    1983

  40. [48]

    S. N. Jena and T. Tripati. Dirac mass spectra of Q¯q like mesons in a power law potential. Phys. Lett. B, 122:181–184, 1983

    1983

  41. [49]

    P. C. Vinodkumar, K. B. Vijayakumar, and S. B. Khadkikar. Effect of the confined gluons in quark quark interaction. Pramana, 39:47, 1992

    1992

  42. [50]

    S. B. Khadkikar and K. B. Vijayakumar. N N scattering with exchange of confined gluons. Phys. Lett. B, 254:320–324,

  43. [51]

    Entem, and Francisco Fernandez

    Jorge Segovia, David R. Entem, and Francisco Fernandez. Charmed-strange Meson Spectrum: Old and New Problems. Phys. Rev. D, 91(9):094020, 2015

    2015

  44. [52]

    F. E. Close. An Introduction to Quarks and Partons. 1979

    1979

  45. [53]

    LightD wave meson spectrum in a relativistic harmonic model with instanton induced interaction

    Antony Prakash Monteiro and Kanti Basavarajappa Vijaya Kumar. LightD wave meson spectrum in a relativistic harmonic model with instanton induced interaction. 2:1292, 2010

    2010

  46. [54]

    Colangelo, F

    P. Colangelo, F. De Fazio, and S. Nicotri. DsJ (2860) resonance and the sP l = 5 2 − c¯s(c¯ q) doublet.Phys. Lett. B, 642:48–52, 2006

    2006

  47. [55]

    Falk and Michael E

    Adam F. Falk and Michael E. Luke. Strong decays of excited heavy mesons in chiral perturbation theory. Phys. Lett. B, 292:119, 1992

    1992

  48. [56]

    Colangelo, F

    P. Colangelo, F. De Fazio, F. Giannuzzi, and S. Nicotri. New meson spectroscopy with open charm and beauty. Phys. Rev. D, 86:054024, 2012

    2012

  49. [57]

    Colangelo, F

    P. Colangelo, F. De Fazio, G. Nardulli, N. Di Bartolomeo, and Raoul Gatto. Strong coupling of excited heavy mesons. Phys. Rev. D, 52:6422, 1995

    1995

  50. [58]

    Insight into D/B → πℓνℓ decay using the pole models

    Damir Becirevic, Alain Le Yaouanc, Arantza Oyanguren, Patrick Roudeau, and Francesco Sanfilippo. Insight into D/B → πℓνℓ decay using the pole models. 7 2014

    2014

  51. [59]

    Strong decays of the bottom mesons B1(5721), B2(5747), Bs1(5830), Bs2(5840) and B(5970)

    Zhi-Gang Wang. Strong decays of the bottom mesons B1(5721), B2(5747), Bs1(5830), Bs2(5840) and B(5970). Eur. Phys. J. Plus, 129:186, 2014

    2014

  52. [60]

    Analysis of strong decays of the charmed mesons DJ (2580), D∗ J (2650), DJ (2740), D∗ J (2760), DJ (3000), D∗ J (3000)

    Zhi-Gang Wang. Analysis of strong decays of the charmed mesons DJ (2580), D∗ J (2650), DJ (2740), D∗ J (2760), DJ (3000), D∗ J (3000). Phys. Rev. D, 88(11):114003, 2013

    2013

  53. [61]

    D∗ s3(2860) and D∗ s1(2860) as the 1D c¯s states

    Zhi-Gang Wang. D∗ s3(2860) and D∗ s1(2860) as the 1D c¯s states. Eur. Phys. J. C, 75(1):25, 2015

    2015

  54. [62]

    Higher radial and orbital excitations in the charmed meson family

    Qin-Tao Song, Dian-Yong Chen, Xiang Liu, and Takayuki Matsuki. Higher radial and orbital excitations in the charmed meson family. Phys. Rev. D, 92(7):074011, 2015

    2015

  55. [63]

    Stephen Godfrey and Ian T. Jardine. Nature of the D∗ s1(2710) and D∗ sJ (2860) mesons. Phys. Rev. D, 89(7):074023, 2014

    2014

  56. [64]

    The D∗ sJ (2860) Mesons as Excited D-wave c¯s States

    Stephen Godfrey and Kenneth Moats. The D∗ sJ (2860) Mesons as Excited D-wave c¯s States. Phys. Rev. D, 90(11):117501, 2014

    2014

  57. [66]

    Excited Heavy-Light Systems and Hadronic Transitions

    Massimo Di Pierro and Estia Eichten. Excited Heavy-Light Systems and Hadronic Transitions. Phys. Rev. D, 64:114004, 2001

    2001

  58. [67]

    Strong decays of higher excited heavy-light mesons in a chiral quark model

    Li-Ye Xiao and Xian-Hui Zhong. Strong decays of higher excited heavy-light mesons in a chiral quark model. Phys. Rev. D, 90(7):074029, 2014

    2014

  59. [68]

    Campanella, P

    S. Campanella, P. Colangelo, and F. De Fazio. Excited heavy meson decays to light vector mesons: implications for spectroscopy. Phys. Rev. D, 98(11):114028, 2018

    2018

  60. [69]

    Strong decays of newly observed D(sJ) states in a constituent quark model with effective Lagrangians

    Xian-Hui Zhong and Qiang Zhao. Strong decays of newly observed D(sJ) states in a constituent quark model with effective Lagrangians. Phys. Rev. D, 81:014031, 2010

    2010

  61. [70]

    F. E. Close, C. E. Thomas, Olga Lakhina, and Eric S. Swanson. Canonical interpretation of the DsJ (2860) and DsJ (2690). Phys. Lett. B, 647:159–163, 2007

    2007

  62. [71]

    Is Ds(2700) a charmed tetraquark state? Chin

    Zhi-Gang Wang. Is Ds(2700) a charmed tetraquark state? Chin. Phys. C, 32:797, 2008

    2008

  63. [72]

    P. C. Vinodkumar, Ajay Kumar Rai, Bhavin Patel, and Jignesh Pandya. Open flavour Charmed Mesons. Frascati Phys. Ser., 46:929–936, 2007

    2007

  64. [73]

    Mass spectra and strong decays of charmed and charmed-strange mesons

    Ru-Hui Ni, Qi Li, and Xian-Hui Zhong. Mass spectra and strong decays of charmed and charmed-strange mesons. Phys. Rev. D, 105(5):056006, 2022

    2022

  65. [1991]

    [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 262, 497 (1991)]

    1991

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.