Abstract
A near-threshold enhancement in the \(D^{+}_{s}D^{-}_{s}\) system, dubbed as X(3960), is observed by the LHCb collaboration recently. A combined analysis on \(\chi _{c0}(3930)~(\rightarrow D^+ D^-)\), \(X(3960)~(\rightarrow D^{+}_{s}D^{-}_{s})\), and \(X(3915)~(\rightarrow J/\psi \omega )\) is performed using both a K-matrix approach of \(D_{(s)}\bar{D}_{(s)}\) four-point contact interactions and a model of Flatté-like parameterizations. The use of the pole counting rule and spectral density function sum rule indicate, under current statistics, that this \(D^{+}_{s}D^{-}_{s}\) near-threshold state has probably the mixed nature of a \(c\bar{c}\) confining state and \(D^{+}_{s}D^{-}_{s}\) continuum.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Most recently, the LHCb experiment [1, 2] announced a new hadron, X(3960), observed in the \(B^+ \rightarrow D^{+}_{s}D^{-}_{s}K^+\) process, where the properties of this state are measured to be
If taking the X(3960) state and the \(\chi _{c0}(3930)\) in the \(D^+D^-\) mass distribution [3] as the same particle, the partial-width ratio [2] is calculated to be
which probably implies the exotic nature of this hadron, since it is harder to excite an \(s\bar{s}\) pair than \(u\bar{u}\) or \(d\bar{d}\) pairs from the vacuum if this state is a pure charmonium [2]. Several recent theoretical models [4,5,6,7,8] believe that the X(3960) state is a molecular \(D^{+}_{s}D^{-}_{s}\) structure, while others take it as a scalar \([cs][\bar{c}\bar{s}]\) tetraquark [9,10,11].
Besides the X(3960) and \(\chi _{c0}(3930)\) states, the X(3915) found in the \(J/\psi \omega \) mass spectrum [12] is also near the \(D^{+}_{s}D^{-}_{s}\) threshold. As the three states have compatible masses and widths, as well as the preferred \(J^{PC}=0^{++}\) assignment [12], we assume that they are the same hadron, noted X, in this work. A combined analysis on the nature for this X state is performed using both a model of \(D\bar{D}\) and \(D_s^+D_s^-\) four-point contact interactions and an energy-dependent Flatté-like parameterization. The pole counting rule (PCR) [13], which has been generally applied to the studies of “XYZ” physics in Refs. [14,15,16,17,18,19], and spectral density function sum rule (SDFSR) [18,19,20,21,22,23] (only available for a Flatté(-like) model) are employed to distinguish whether this X state is more inclined to be confining state bound by color force, or composite hadronic molecule loosely bound by deuteron-like meson-exchange force.
In this paper, Sect. 2 presents a couple-channel K-matrix approach without the explicitly-introduced X stateFootnote 1 to model the \(D_{(s)}\bar{D}_{(s)}\) rescattering, Sect. 3 exploits a parameterization with explicitly-introduced X state, using an energy-dependent Flatté-like formula, to describe the couplings of \(X\rightarrow D^+D^-, D^{+}_{s}D^{-}_{s}\), and \(J/\psi \omega \), and a brief summary and discussion are carried out in the last section.
2 K-matrix approach
For a comprehensive study of this X state’s nature, four decays, i.e. \(B^+\rightarrow D^+D^-K^+\), \(B^{+}\rightarrow D^{+}_{s}D^{-}_{s}K^{+}\), \(B^+\rightarrow J/\psi \omega K^+\), and \(\gamma ^*\gamma ^*\rightarrow J/\psi \omega \), are utilized in this article. In this section, a couple-channel K-matrix approach with the implicitly-introduced X state is employed to get the unitarized amplitudes. Then, poles of unitarized amplitudes will be searched for in the complex s planes, and PCR [13] is implemented to investigate the nature of this X structure near the \(D^{+}_{s}D^{-}_{s}\) threshold.
2.1 Amplitudes of \(D_{(s)}\bar{D}_{(s)}\) rescattering effect
The effective Lagrangians for the above four channels under S-wave couplings can be constructed as follows:
where \(D=(D^0,D^+)^T\), \(\bar{D}=(\bar{D}^0,D^-)\), g with subscripts stand for coupling constants, and the subscripts 1, 2 and 3 refer to the \(D\bar{D}\), \(D_s^+D_s^-\) and \(J/\psi \omega \) channels, respectively. For example, \(g_{B1}\) means the coupling constant of \(B^+ \rightarrow D \bar{D} K^+\) four-point vertex.
In this work, \(D\bar{D}\) will be written in isospin eigenstate, i.e. \(|D\bar{D}\rangle ^{I=0}=\frac{-1}{\sqrt{2}}(|D^0 \bar{D}^0\rangle +|D^+ D^-\rangle )\) and \(|D\bar{D}\rangle ^{I=1}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|D^0 \bar{D}^0\rangle -|D^+ D^-\rangle ).\)Footnote 2 Two channels, \(D\bar{D}\) and \(D_s^{+}D_s^{-}\), are considered to construct the K-matrix. From the Lagrangians in Eq. (1), the K-matrix can be written as
in which \({\textbf{K}}_{11}\) stands for the process \(D\bar{D}\rightarrow D\bar{D}\), and \({\textbf{K}}_{12}\) for \(D\bar{D}\rightarrow D_s^{+}D_s^{-}\), etc. The unitarized amplitudes can be obtained by
where \({\textbf{G}}\) is the diagonal matrix of two-point loop integrals of these two channels, i.e. \({\textbf{G}}={\textrm{diag}}[B_0(m_{D},m_{\bar{D}}), B_0(m_{D_s^+},m_{D_s^-})]\). The definition of two-point loop integral is,
where a \(\overline{MS}\) renormalization is understood to be taken, \(\alpha (p^2)\equiv \sqrt{\frac{p^2-(m_1+m_2)^2}{p^2-(m_1-m_2)^2}}\), \(\mu \) is renormalization scale set to be 1 GeV, \(a(\mu )=-R+1\) is the subtraction constant as a parameter which is 8.05 with large uncertainties obtained by the fit.Footnote 3
Since X(3960) has isospin \(I=0\), only the iso-singlet states, \(|D\bar{D}\rangle ^{I=0}\) and \(|D_s^+ D_s^-\rangle \), are included in the unitarized amplitudes \({\textbf{T}}\). But the experimental results have been reported only in the \(D^+D^-\) final states to date, so the approximations
are used. With the help of \({\textbf{T}}\), the amplitude of \(B^+\rightarrow D^+ D^- K^+\) can be written as
which satisfies the constraint on final-state interactions [26].Footnote 4
Other amplitudes of \(B^+\rightarrow D_s^+D_s^-K^+,~ B^+\rightarrow J/\psi \omega K^+,~\gamma ^*\gamma ^*\rightarrow J/\psi \omega \), in which the interactions of intermediate \(D\bar{D}\) and \(D_s^+D_s^-\) states are included, can be expressed as
Note that in Eqs. (8) and (9), the final processes \(D_{(s)}\bar{D}_{(s)}\rightarrow J/\psi \omega \) are included by multiplying corresponding tree-level diagrams, as it is suppressed by the Okubo–Zweig–Iizuka (OZI) rule.
2.2 Numerical results and pole analysis
In the previous subsection, the amplitude involving this X state in each decay is obtained. Now a simultaneous analysis for the aforementioned four processes is performed to fit the experimental data [1,2,3, 28, 29]. The background (BKG) shapes are parameterized to be similar as those in the experiments. For the \(D^{+}D^{-}\) chain, the incoherent background contains two charmonia, \(\psi (3770)\) and \(\chi _{c2}(3930)\), modelled by Breit–Wigner functions, and the mass reflection of the \(X_1(2900)\) resonance described by a 1st-order polynomial times a Gaussian \({\mathcal {G}}(\mu ,\sigma )\) where the parameters are extracted by fitting to the \(X_1(2900)\) component in the LHCb data [3]; and the three-body phase space of \(B^{+}\rightarrow D^{+}D^{-}K^+\) is applied to describe other potential coherent backgrounds with unconsidered intermediate states. For the \(D^{+}_{s}D^{-}_{s}\) mode, the backgrounds below 4.25 GeV in the invariant \(D^{+}_{s}D^{-}_{s}\) mass are the \(X_0(4140)\) state and the non-resonant three-body phase space of \(B^{+}\rightarrow D^{+}_{s}D^{-}_{s}K^+\), which are coherent with the X state on grounds of the LHCb analysis [2]. For the two \(J/\psi \omega \) decays, only incoherent backgrounds are taken into account, which is in agreement with the experiments [28, 29].
Finally, the number of events for each decay can be expressed by [30]
Fit distributions with the K-matrix approach for \(B^+ \rightarrow D^{+}D^{-}K^{+}\) (top left), \(B^+ \rightarrow D_s^+ D_s^-K^{+}\) (top right), \(B^+ \rightarrow J/\psi \omega K^{+}\) (bottom left), and \(\gamma ^*\gamma ^* \rightarrow J/\psi \omega \) (bottom right). Here, the data are from Refs. [1,2,3, 28, 29], and the vertical dashed lines are located at the \(D_s^+ D_s^-\) threshold
where \({\mathcal {R}}_{D^{+}D^{-}}=0.0173\) GeV, \({\mathcal {R}}_{D_s^+D_s^-}=0.02\) GeV, and \({\mathcal {R}}_{J/\psi \omega }=0.01\) GeV, are intervals of invariant mass spectra in the experimental data; \({\mathcal {N}}_{X\rightarrow D^{+}D^{-}}\), \({\mathcal {N}}_{X\rightarrow D_s^+D_s^-}\), and \({\mathcal {N}}_{X\rightarrow J/\psi \omega }\), are the numbers of the expected X signal events in the \(B^{+}\rightarrow D^{+}D^{-}K^{+}\), \(D^{+}_{s}D^{-}_{s}K^{+}\), and \(J/\psi \omega K^{+}\) decays, respectively, with \({\mathcal {N}}_{X\rightarrow D^{+}D^{-}}=46.6\) and \({\mathcal {N}}_{X\rightarrow D_s^+D_s^-}=91.4\) obtained by experiments [2, 3], while \({\mathcal {N}}_{X\rightarrow J/\psi \omega }\) is an unknown parameter to be fitted; the decay branching fractions \({\mathcal {B}}(B^+ \rightarrow XK^+){\mathcal {B}}(X\rightarrow D^+D^-)=8.1\times 10^{-6}\) [31], \({\mathcal {B}}(B^+\rightarrow XK^+){\mathcal {B}}(X\rightarrow D_s^+D_s^-)={\mathcal {B}}(B^+ \rightarrow XK^+){\mathcal {B}}(X\rightarrow D^+D^-)\frac{\Gamma (X\rightarrow D_s^+D_s^-)}{\Gamma (X\rightarrow D^+D^-)}=\frac{8.1 \times 10^{-6}}{0.29}\), and \({\mathcal {B}}(B^+\rightarrow X K^+){\mathcal {B}}(X \rightarrow J/\psi \omega )=3.0 \times 10^{-5}\) [28]; \(\Gamma _B=4.018\times 10^{-10}\) MeV, is the width of the \(B^{+}\) meson in accordance with the relationship \(\Gamma _B={\hbar }/{\tau _B}\); \(n_4\) is a constant to be fitted in the \(\gamma ^*\gamma ^*\rightarrow J/\psi \omega \) coupling, which absorbs the number of the expected X events and corresponding branching fractions; \(\rho \) is the phase space factor defined as
m (\(\Gamma \)) denotes the mean mass (width) of a particle [31]; a (with subscripts) are free parameters.
The fit projections are shown in Fig. 1, where the fit goodness is gained to be \(\chi ^2/d.o.f.=56.22/50=1.12\). Arrayed by signs of phase space factors, a set of Riemann sheets is defined as Table 1. The pole positions in complex s planes are searched for, and also summarized in Table 1 and sketched in Fig. 2. Only one pole, located on sheet II, is found near the \(D^{+}_{s}D^{-}_{s}\) threshold. According to PCR [13], this manifests that the X structure has molecular \(D^{+}_{s}D^{-}_{s}\) nature. More exactly, the dynamically molecular picture without the explicit X state is able to describe the current experimental data.
3 Flatté-like parameterization
Flatté(-like) formula [32] is a general model with an explicitly-introduced hadron used to parameterize a resonant structure near a hadron-hadron threshold in particle physics, especially in experimental data analyses. In this subsection, an energy-dependent Flatté-like parameterization for this X state coupling to \(D^{+}D^{-}\), \(D^{+}_{s}D^{-}_{s}\), and \(J/\psi \omega \) are used to fit the experimental data and seek pole positions in the complex s planes. PCR [13] and SDFSR [21, 22] are carried out to distinguish whether this X state is a confining state or a molecular \(D^{+}_{s}D^{-}_{s}\) hadron.
Fit distributions with Flatté-like parameterizations for \(B^+ \rightarrow D^{+}D^{-}K^{+}\) (top left), \(B^+ \rightarrow D_s^+ D_s^-K^{+}\) (top right), \(B^+ \rightarrow J/\psi \omega K^{+}\) (bottom left), and \(\gamma ^*\gamma ^* \rightarrow J/\psi \omega \) (bottom right). Here, data are from Refs. [1,2,3, 28, 29], and the vertical dashed lines are located at the \(D_s^+ D_s^-\) threshold
3.1 Parameterization models
The effective Lagrangians of X coupling to the three channels are given by
Then, the corresponding squared amplitudes read
where g and \(g'\) stand for coupling constants of \(B^+ \rightarrow X K ^+\) and \(\gamma ^* \gamma ^* \rightarrow X\), respectively, \(\sum _{pol}\) denotes summation of polarization, and
3.2 Numerical results and pole analysis
A simultaneous fit to the experimental data [1,2,3, 28, 29] is imposed for the mentioned-above decays in this subsection. The background shapes are parameterized similarly as the K-matrix approach. Then each distribution of the number of events can be expressed as
where
As shown in Fig. 3, the fit gives \(\chi ^2/d.o.f.=52.42/55=0.95\), which is slightly better than the previous K-matrix approach. According to signs of phase space factors, eight Riemann sheets can be generated for the three coupled channels, among which only three sheets have the largest impact on observables [12], as listed in Table 2 and sketched in Fig. 4. The pole positions in complex s planes are searched for and also summarized in Table 2. According to PCR [13], the phenomenon that two poles are found near the \(D^{+}_{s}D^{-}_{s}\) threshold indicates that the X structure gets inclined to attribute with a confining state. Thus, it can be seen that both the implicit and explicit X interpretations can meet the experimental data well, but the latter is a little better.
To further gain an insight on the nature of this near-threshold state, SDFSR is carried out, which is utilized in an S-wave Flatté-like parameterization. From Refs. [19,20,21,22,23], a renormalization constant \({\mathcal {Z}}\) can be calculated by integrating a spectrum density function with respect to energy, which refers to probability of finding a confining particle in the continuous spectrum: the greater the tendency of \({\mathcal {Z}}\) to 1, the more the resonant structure is likely to be a confining state; conversely, the closer the value of \({\mathcal {Z}}\) is to 0, the more the hadron tends to be a hadronic molecule. The fit gives \({\mathcal {Z}}=0.458\) when the integral interval belongs to \([E_f-\Gamma _X, E_f+\Gamma _X]\); \({\mathcal {Z}}=0.670\) when \([E_f-2\Gamma _X, E_f+2\Gamma _X]\), where \(E_f\) is energy difference between \(M_X\) and the \(D^{+}_{s}D^{-}_{s}\) threshold (\(m_{th}\)), i.e. \(E_f=m_X-m_{th}\). The result that the \({\mathcal {Z}}\) value is slightly less than 0.5 in \([E_f-\Gamma _X, E_f+\Gamma _X]\) but mildly greater than 0.5 in \([E_f-2\Gamma _X, E_f+2\Gamma _X]\), implies that this X state may neither be a pure confining state nor a pure molecule. Together with the previous pole analyses, this X resonant structure is more probably a mixture of a confining state and a \(D^{+}_{s}D^{-}_{s}\) hadronic molecule.
4 Summary and discussion
Based on the assumption that \(\chi _{c0}(3930)~(\rightarrow D^+ D^-)\), \(X(3960)~(\rightarrow D^{+}_{s}D^{-}_{s})\), and \(X(3915)~(\rightarrow J/\psi \omega )\) are the same hadron, a combined analysis is performed using both the K-matrix approach of \(D_{(s)}\bar{D}_{(s)}\) four-point contact interactions and the model of energy-dependent Flatté-like parameterizations. It is found that both the implicit and explicit X interpretations can meet the experimental data well. The use of PCR and SDFSR demonstrate that this X hadron is not like a pure \(D^{+}_{s}D^{-}_{s}\) molecule, but might be the mixed nature of a \(c\bar{c}\) confining state and \(D^{+}_{s}D^{-}_{s}\) continuum. One possible scenario is that the X hadron has a \(c\bar{c}\) core strongly renormalized by the \(D^{+}_{s}D^{-}_{s}\) coupling, like the \(\chi _{c1}(3872)\) as a \(c\bar{c}\) resonance with a contribution of the \(D^* \bar{D}\) couple-channel effect [14, 33].
To further analyze the nature of this X state, a number of theoretical predictions for the \(^3P\) charmonia are summarized in Table 3. If this X hadron is indeed a charmonium, it is most likely to be the \(\chi _{c0}(2P)\) candidate, which is favored by the relativistic Godfrey–Isgur model (GIM) [34], the couple-channel potential model (CPM) [35], and Literature [39]. However, it is not in agreement with the other theoretical expectations, whose masses are predicted in the range of 3842–3868 MeV [34, 36,37,38]. Another phenomenon is that two candidates can be treated as the \(\chi _{c0}(2P)\) charmonium: \(\chi _{c0}(3860)\) [40] discovered in the \(D\bar{D}\) decays via \(e^+e^-\rightarrow J/\psi D \bar{D}\) and the X state discussed in this work. Yet Ref. [41] argued that the \(\chi _{c0}(3860)\) peak is due to a bound state around 3695 MeV. It needs to be confirmed in the forthcoming experimental measurements. Whatever, more accurate studies based on potential models, as well as other methods, are needed to shed light on the nature of the X state. For example, Ref. [42] estimated the branching fraction of \(B^+ \rightarrow X(3960) K^+\) to be \((2.9-13.3)\times 10^{-4}\) if assuming X(3960) as a \(D^{+}_{s}D^{-}_{s}\) bound state, which can be helpful in the future experiments to test if the X(3960) hadron is a bound state.
Due to limited data statistics, however, we cannot draw a solid conclusion in this work. More experimental data are expected to further clarify the nature of \(\chi _{c0}(3930)\)/ X(3960)/X(3915), for instance, the \(\gamma \gamma \rightarrow D_{(s)}\bar{D}_{(s)}\) reactions, the \(e^+e^-\rightarrow \psi D_{(s)}\bar{D}_{(s)}\) productions, the amplitude analysis for the \(X(3915)\rightarrow J/\psi \omega \) chain, and the ratio of \(\Gamma (X\rightarrow D_{(s)}\bar{D}_{(s)})/\Gamma (X\rightarrow J/\psi \omega )\). Without doubt, other decay modes are also valuable to elucidate the nature of the \(D^{+}_{s}D^{-}_{s}\) near-threshold structure, such as \(X\rightarrow \eta ^{(\prime )}\eta _c, \pi \pi \chi _{c0,2}, \gamma J/\psi , \gamma \psi (3686), \gamma \psi (3770), \gamma D^{(*)} \bar{D}, \gamma D^{+}_{s}D^{-}_{s}\), etc.
Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that the \(0^{++}\) assignment for the \(X(3915)(\rightarrow J/\psi \omega )\) state is not completely determined by experiments. Several works take the \(X(3915)(\rightarrow J/\psi \omega )\) as the \(2^{++}\) charmonium \(\chi _{c2}(3930)\) [5, 43], but the \(\chi _{c0}(3930)~(\rightarrow D^+ D^-)\) and \(X(3960)~(\rightarrow D^{+}_{s}D^{-}_{s})\) are the same \(0^{++}\) molecular hadron [5, 44, 45]. In view of this assumption, fits without the \(J/\psi \omega \) channel are also tested, where the numerical results are summarized in Table 4. These pole positions are roughly consistent with the nominal results though the elementariness of \(\chi _{c0}(3930)/X(3960)\) is less favored here. In addition, Refs. [5, 11] regards the X(3960) as a different state from \(\chi _{c0}(3930)~(\rightarrow D^+ D^-)/X(3915)(\rightarrow J/\psi \omega )\), so that fits without the \(D^{+}_{s}D^{-}_{s}\) decay are used to check. As listed in Table 5, the numerical values are compatible with the nominal ones, which shed light on the mixed nature of \(X(3915)/\chi _{c0}(3930)\). That is, it does not shake the conclusion of this article in case that the three decays are not from the same hadron.
Data Availability
This manuscript has no associated data or the data will not be deposited. [Authors’ comment: The data used in this article are from the published experimental data.]
Notes
Explicit X state means that a field of X is introduced in the Lagrangians.
Note that the isospin state of \(|D^+\rangle \) is \(-|I,I_3\rangle =-|\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\rangle \), \(|D^-\rangle =|\frac{1}{2},\frac{-1}{2}\rangle \), \(|D^0\rangle =|\frac{1}{2},\frac{-1}{2}\rangle \), and \(|\bar{D}^0\rangle =|\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\rangle \), where these conventions can guarantee G and C parities are conserved [24].
In Ref. [25], \(a(\mu )\) is taken to be \(\simeq 2\). There is no physics here, however. If we take \(a(\mu )=2\), the fit gives \(\chi ^2/d.o.f.=56.29/51=1.10\), with the pole position almost unchanged, i.e. \(\sqrt{s}=(3.9192 - 0.0130 i)~\text {GeV}\).
Our parameterization is actually equivalent to another widely used form, e.g., in Ref. [27], up to a mild background contribution.
References
R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), First observation of the \(B^+ \rightarrow D^+_s D^+_s K^+\) decay. Phys. Rev. D (2022). arXiv:2211.05034 [hep-ex]
R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Observation of a resonant structure near the \(D^{+}_{s} D^{-}_{s}\) threshold. Phys. Rev. Lett. (2022). arXiv:2210.15153 [hep-ex]
R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Amplitude analysis of the \(B^+ \rightarrow D^+ D^- K^+\) decay. Phys. Rev. D 102, 112003 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.112003. arXiv:2009.00026 [hep-ex]
M. Bayar, A. Feijoo, E. Oset, X(3960) seen in Ds+Ds\(-\) as the X(3930) state seen in D+D\(-\). Phys. Rev. D 107, 034007 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.107.034007. arXiv:2207.08490 [hep-ph]
T. Ji, X.-K. Dong, M. Albaladejo, M.-L. Du, F.-K. Guo, J. Nieves, B.-S. Zou, Understanding the \(0^{++}\) and \(2^{++}\) charmonium(-like) states near 3.9 GeV. (2022). arXiv:2212.00631 [hep-ph]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scib.2023.02.034
Q. Xin, Z.-G. Wang, X.-S. Yang, Analysis of the \(X(3960)\) and related tetraquark molecular states via the QCD sum rules (2022). arXiv:2207.09910 [hep-ph]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43673-022-00070-3
R. Chen, Q. Huang, Charmoniumlike resonant explanation on the newly observed \(X(3960)\) (2022). arXiv:2209.05180 [hep-ph]
H. Mutuk, Molecular interpretation of X(3960) as \(D_s^+ D_s^-\) state. Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 1142 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-11120-3. arXiv:2211.14836 [hep-ph]
S.S. Agaev, K. Azizi, H. Sundu, Resonance \(X(3960)\) as a hidden charm-strange scalar tetraquark (2022). arXiv:2211.14129 [hep-ph]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.107.054017
T. Guo, J. Li, J. Zhao, L. He, Investigation of the tetraquark states \(Qq\bar{Q} \bar{q}\) in the improved chromomagnetic interaction model (2022). arXiv:2211.10834 [hep-ph]
A.M. Badalian, Y.A. Simonov, The scalar exotic resonances X(3915), X(3960), X(4140) (2023). arXiv:2301.13597 [hep-ph]
R.L. Workman et al. (Particle Data Group), Review of particle physics. Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2022, 083C01 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1093/ptep/ptac097
D. Morgan, Pole counting and resonance classification. Nucl. Phys. A 543, 632 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(92)90550-4
O. Zhang, C. Meng, H.Q. Zheng, Ambiversion of X(3872). Phys. Lett. B 680, 453 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2009.09.033. arXiv:0901.1553 [hep-ph]
L.Y. Dai, M. Shi, G.-Y. Tang, H.Q. Zheng, Nature of X(4260). Phys. Rev. D 92, 014020 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.014020. arXiv:1206.6911 [hep-ph]
Q.-F. Cao, H.-R. Qi, Y.-F. Wang, H.-Q. Zheng, Discussions on the line-shape of the \(X\)(4660) resonance. Phys. Rev. D 100, 054040 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.054040. arXiv:1906.00356 [hep-ph]
H. Chen, H.-R. Qi, H.-Q. Zheng, \(X_1(2900)\) as a \(\bar{D}_1 K\) molecule. Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 812 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09603-w. arXiv:2108.02387 [hep-ph]
Q.-R. Gong, Z.-H. Guo, C. Meng, G.-Y. Tang, Y.-F. Wang, H.-Q. Zheng, \(Z_c(3900)\) as a \(D\bar{D}^*\) molecule from the pole counting rule. Phys. Rev. D 94, 114019 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.94.114019. arXiv:1604.08836 [hep-ph]
Q.-F. Cao, H. Chen, H.-R. Qi, H.-Q. Zheng, Some remarks on \(X(6900)\). Chin. Phys. C 45, 103102 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-1137/ac0ee5. arXiv:2011.04347 [hep-ph]
V. Baru, J. Haidenbauer, C. Hanhart, Y. Kalashnikova, A.E. Kudryavtsev, Evidence that the a(0)(980) and f(0)(980) are not elementary particles. Phys. Lett. B 586, 53 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2004.01.088. arXiv:hep-ph/0308129
S. Weinberg, Elementary particle theory of composite particles. Phys. Rev. 130, 776 (1963). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.130.776
S. Weinberg, Evidence that the deuteron is not an elementary particle. Phys. Rev. 137, B672 (1965). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.137.B672
Y.S. Kalashnikova, A.V. Nefediev, Nature of X(3872) from data. Phys. Rev. D 80, 074004 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.80.074004. arXiv:0907.4901 [hep-ph]
M.L. Du, Topics in chiral perturbation theory for charmed mesons. Ph.D. thesis, Bonn U. (2017)
J.A. Oller, U.G. Meissner, Chiral dynamics in the presence of bound states: kaon nucleon interactions revisited. Phys. Lett. B 500, 263 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(01)00078-8. arXiv:hep-ph/0011146
K.L. Au, D. Morgan, M.R. Pennington, Meson dynamics beyond the quark model: a study of final state interactions. Phys. Rev. D 35, 1633 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.35.1633
X. Zhu, H.-N. Wang, D.-M. Li, E. Wang, L.-S. Geng, J.-J. Xie, Role of scalar mesons a0(980) and a0(1710) in the \(D_s^+\rightarrow \pi ^0 K^+ K_S^0\) decay. Phys. Rev. D 107, 034001 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.107.034001. arXiv:2210.12992 [hep-ph]
P. del Amo Sanchez et al. (BaBar), Evidence for the decay \(X(3872) \rightarrow \omega \). Phys. Rev. D 82, 011101 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.82.011101. arXiv:1005.5190 [hep-ex]
J.P. Lees et al. (BaBar), Study of \(X(3915) \rightarrow J/\psi \omega \) in two-photon collisions. Phys. Rev. D 86, 072002 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.86.072002. arXiv:1207.2651 [hep-ex]
C. Hanhart, Y.S. Kalashnikova, A.E. Kudryavtsev, A.V. Nefediev, Reconciling the X(3872) with the near-threshold enhancement in the D0 anti-D*0 final state. Phys. Rev. D 76, 034007 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.76.034007. arXiv:0704.0605 [hep-ph]
P. Zyla et al. (Particle Data Group), Review of particle physics. PTEP 2020, 083C01 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1093/ptep/ptaa104
S.M. Flatté, Coupled-channel analysis of the \(\pi \eta \) and \(K\bar{K}\) systems near \(K\bar{K}\) threshold. Phys. Lett. B 63, 224 (1976). https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(76)90654-7
C. Meng, J.J. Sanz-Cillero, M. Shi, D.-L. Yao, H.-Q. Zheng, Refined analysis on the X(3872) resonance. Phys. Rev. D 92, 034020 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.034020. arXiv:1411.3106 [hep-ph]
T. Barnes, S. Godfrey, E. Swanson, Higher charmonia. Phys. Rev. D 72, 054026 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.72.054026. arXiv:hep-ph/0505002
B.-Q. Li, C. Meng, K.-T. Chao, Coupled-channel and screening effects in charmonium spectrum. Phys. Rev. D 80, 014012 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.80.014012. arXiv:0904.4068 [hep-ph]
S.F. Radford, W.W. Repko, Potential model calculations and predictions for heavy quarkonium. Phys. Rev. D 75, 074031 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.75.074031. arXiv:hep-ph/0701117
B.-Q. Li, K.-T. Chao, Higher charmonia and X, Y, Z states with screened potential. Phys. Rev. D 79, 094004 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.79.094004. arXiv:0903.5506 [hep-ph]
H. Wang, Y. Yang, J. Ping, Strong decays of \(\chi _{cJ}(2P)\) and \(\chi _{cJ}(3P)\). Eur. Phys. J. A 50, 76 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2014-14076-y
D. Guo, J.-Z. Wang, D.-Y. Chen, X. Liu, Connection between near the \(D_s^+D_s^-\) threshold enhancement in \(B^+ \rightarrow D_s^+D_s^-K^+\) and conventional charmonium \(\chi _{c0}(2P)\). Phys. Rev. D 106, 094037 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.106.094037. arXiv:2210.16720 [hep-ph]
K. Chilikin et al. (Belle), Observation of an alternative \(\chi _{c0}(2P)\) candidate in \(e^+ e^- \rightarrow J/\psi D \bar{D}\). Phys. Rev. D 95, 112003 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.95.112003. arXiv:1704.01872 [hep-ex]
O. Deineka, I. Danilkin, M. Vanderhaeghen, Dispersive analysis of the \(\gamma \gamma \rightarrow D\bar{D}\) data and the confirmation of the \(D\bar{D}\) bound state. Phys. Lett. B 827, 136982 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2022.136982. arXiv:2111.15033 [hep-ph]
J.-M. Xie, M.-Z. Liu, L.-S. Geng, Production rates of \(D_{s}^{+}D_{s}^{-}\) and \(D\bar{D}\) molecules in \(B\) decays (2022). arXiv:2207.12178 [hep-ph]
Z.-Y. Zhou, Z. Xiao, H.-Q. Zhou, Could the \(X(3915)\) and the \(X(3930)\) be the same tensor state? Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 022001 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.022001. arXiv:1501.00879 [hep-ph]
T. Ji, X.-K. Dong, M. Albaladejo, M.-L. Du, F.-K. Guo, J. Nieves, Establishing the heavy quark spin and light flavor molecular multiplets of the X(3872), Zc(3900), and X(3960). Phys. Rev. D 106, 094002 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.106.094002. arXiv:2207.08563 [hep-ph]
Q.-F. Cao, H.-R. Qi, G.-Y. Tang, Y.-F. Xue, H.-Q. Zheng, On leptonic width of \(X(4260)\). Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 83 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08813-y. arXiv:2002.05641 [hep-ph]
Acknowledgements
This work is supported in part by National Nature Science Foundations of China under Contract Number 11975028, 10925522 and 11875071.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix A: Relevant fitted parameters
Appendix A: Relevant fitted parameters
The parameters associated with pole positions are summarized in Tables 6 and 7.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Funded by SCOAP3. SCOAP3 supports the goals of the International Year of Basic Sciences for Sustainable Development.
About this article
Cite this article
Chen, Y., Chen, H., Meng, C. et al. On the nature of X(3960). Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 381 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11527-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11527-6