## D s ∗ 1 (2860) and D s ∗ 3 (2860) : Candidates for 1 D charmed-strange mesons

Qin-Tao Song 1 2 6 , , , Dian-Yong Chen 1 2 , ∗ † , Xiang Liu 2 3 , ‡ § , and Takayuki Matsuki 4 5 , ¶

1 Nuclear Theory Group, Institute of Modern Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou 730000, China 2 Research Center for Hadron and CSR Physics, Lanzhou University &amp; Institute of Modern Physics of CAS, Lanzhou 730000, China 3 School of Physical Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China 4 Tokyo Kasei University, 1-18-1 Kaga, Itabashi, Tokyo 173-8602, Japan 5 Theoretical Research Division, Nishina Center, RIKEN, Saitama 351-0198, Japan 6

University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China

Newly observed two charmed-strange resonances, Ds ∗ 1 (2860) and Ds ∗ 3 (2860), are investigated by calculating their Okubo-Zweig-Iizuka allowed strong decays, which shows that they are suitable candidates for the 1 3 D 1 and 1 3 D 3 states in the charmed-strange meson family. Our study also predicts other main decay modes of Ds ∗ 1 (2860) and Ds ∗ 3 (2860), which can be accessible at the future experiment. In addition, the decay behaviors of the spin partners of Ds ∗ 1 (2860) and Ds ∗ 3 (2860), i.e., 1 D (2 -) and 1 D ′ (2 -), are predicted in this work, which are still missing at present. Experimental search for the missing 1 D (2 -) and 1 D ′ (2 -) charmed-strange mesons is an intriguing and challenging task for further experiment.

PACS numbers: 14.40.Lb, 12.38.Lg, 13.25.Ft

## I. INTRODUCTION

Very recently the LHCb Collaboration has released a new observation of an excess around 2.86 GeV in the ¯ 0 D K -invariant mass spectrum of Bs 0 → ¯ 0 D K -π + , which can be an admixture of spin-1 and spin-3 resonances corresponding to D s ∗ 1 (2860) and D s ∗ 3 (2860) [1, 2], respectively. As indicated by LHCb [1, 2], it is the first time to identify a spin-3 resonance. In addition, D s ∗ 2 (2573) also appears in the the ¯ 0 D K -invariant mass spectrum.

Before this observation, a charmed-strange state DsJ (2860) was reported by BaBar in the DK channel [3], where the mass and width are m = 2856 6 . ± 1 5 . ± 5 0 MeV and . Γ = 47 ± 7 ± 10 MeV [3], respectively, which was later confirmed by BaBar in the D K ∗ channel [4]. The DsJ (2860) has stimulated extensive discussions on its underlying structure. In Ref. [5], DsJ (2860) is suggested as a 1 3 D 3 cs ¯meson. This explanation was also supported by study of the e ff ective Lagrangian approach [6, 7], the Regge phenomenology [8], constituent quark model [9] and mass loaded flux tube model [10]. The ratio Γ ( DsJ (2860) → D K ∗ ) / Γ ( DsJ (2860) → DK ) was calculated as 0.36 [11] by the e ff ective Lagrangian method. However, the calculation by the QPC model shows that such a ratio is about 0.8 [12], which is close to the experimental value 1 10 . ± 0 15 . ± 0 19 [4]. . Thus, J P = 3 -assignment to DsJ (2860) is a possible explanation. In addition, DsJ (2860) as a mixture of charmed-strange states was given in Refs. [9, 12, 13]. DsJ (2860) could be a partner of Ds 1 (2710), where both DsJ (2860) and Ds 1 (2710) are a mixture of 2 3 S 1 and 1 3 D 1 cs ¯ states. By introducing such a mixing mechanism, the obtained ratio of D K DK ∗ / for DsJ (2860) and

∗ Corresponding author

† Electronic address: chendy@impcas.ac.cn

‡ Corresponding author

§ Electronic address: xiangliu@lzu.edu.cn

¶ Electronic address: matsuki@tokyo-kasei.ac.jp

Ds 1 (2710) [12] is consistent with the experimental data [4]. Reference [14] indicates that there exist two overlapping resonances (radially excited J P = 0 + and J P = 2 + cs ¯states) at 2.86 GeV. Besides the above explanations under the conventional charmed-strange meson framework, DsJ (2860) was explained as a multiquark exotic state [15]. DsJ (2860) as a J P = 0 + charmed-strange meson was suggested in Ref. [5]. However, this scalar charmed-strange meson cannot decay into D K ∗ [5], which contradicts the BaBar's observation of DsJ (2860) in its D K ∗ decay channel [3]. After the observation of DsJ (2860), DsJ (3040) was reported by BaBar in the D K ∗ channel [4], which can be explained as the first radial excitation of Ds 1 (2460) with J P = 1 + [16]. In addition, the decay behaviors of other missing 2 P charmed-strange mesons in experiment were given in Ref. [16].

Briefly reviewing the research status of DsJ (2860), we notice that more theoretical and experimental e ff orts are still necessary to clarify the properties of DsJ (2860). It is obvious that the recent precise measurement of LHCb [1, 2] provides us a good chance to identify higher radial excitations in the charmed-strange meson family.

The resonance parameters of the newly observed D s ∗ 1 (2860) and D s ∗ 3 (2860) by LHCb include [1, 2]:

$$m _ { D _ { s 1 } ^ { * } ( 2 8 6 0 ) } \ & = \ 2 8 5 9 \pm 1 2 \pm 6 \pm 2 3 \ \text{MeV}, \quad \quad ( 1 ) \\ \Gamma _ { \dots \ \dots \ \dots } \ & = \ 1 \leq 0 \, \pm \, \mathfrak { Z } \, \pm \, \mathfrak { Z } \, \pm \, \mathfrak { M } \omega \, \mathfrak { V } \quad \quad \quad \, \mathfrak { V } \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \ \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \cdots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \ dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \cdots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \, \quad \ \dots \,.$$

$$m _ { D _ { 3 } ^ { * } ( 2 8 6 0 ) } \ & = \ 2 8 6 0. 5 \pm 2. 6 \pm 2. 5 \pm 6. 0 \text{ MeV}, \quad ( 3 ) \\ \Gamma _ { \dots \dots \dots } \ & = \ \mathfrak { S } \, \pm 7 \, + \, \Lambda \, + \, \epsilon \, \text{ M} \, \partial \mathcal { V } \quad \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \$$

$$\Gamma _ { D _ { s 1 } ^ { * } ( 2 8 6 0 ) } \ & = \ 1 5 9 \pm 2 3 \pm 2 7 \pm 7 2 \ \text{MeV}, \quad \ \ ( 2 ) \\ \quad \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \$$

$$\Gamma _ { D _ { s 3 } ^ { * } ( 2 8 6 0 ) } \ = \ 5 3 \pm 7 \pm 4 \pm 6 \text{ MeV},$$

where the errors are due to statistical one, experimentally systematic e ff ects and model variations [1, 2], respectively.

At present, there are good candidates for the 1 S and 1 P states in the charmed-strange meson family (see Particle Data Group for more details [17]). Thus, two newly observed D s ∗ 1 (2860) and D s ∗ 3 (2860) can be categorized into the 1 D charmed-strange states when considering their spin quantum numbers and masses. Before observation of these two resonances, there were several theoretical predictions [18-21] of the mass spectrum of the 1 D charmed-strange meson fam-

ily, which are collected in Table I. Comparing the experimental data of D s ∗ 1 (2860) and D s ∗ 3 (2860) with the theoretical results, we notice that the masses of D s ∗ 1 (2860) and D s ∗ 3 (2860) are comparable with the corresponding theoretical predictions, which further supports that it is reasonable to assign D s ∗ 1 (2860) and D s ∗ 3 (2860) as the 1 D states of the charmedstrange meson family

TABLE I: Theoretical predictions for charmed-strange meson spectrum and comparison with the experimental data.

| J P ( 2 s + 1 L J )   | Expt. [17]   |   GI [18] | MMS [19]   |   PE [20] |   EFG [21] |
|-----------------------|--------------|-----------|------------|-----------|------------|
| 0 - ( 1 S 0 )         | 1968         |      1979 | 1967       |      1965 |       1969 |
| 1 - ( 3 S 1 )         | 2112         |      2129 | 2110       |      2113 |       2111 |
| 0 + ( 3 P 0 )         | 2318         |      2484 | 2325       |      2487 |       2509 |
| 1 + (' 1 P 1 ')       | 2460         |      2459 | 2467       |      2535 |       2536 |
| 1 + (' 3 P 1 ')       | 2536         |      2556 | 2525       |      2605 |       2574 |
| 2 + ( 3 P 2 )         | 2573 [1, 2]  |      2592 | 2568       |      2581 |       2571 |
| 1 - ( 3 D 1 )         | 2859 [1, 2]  |      2899 | 2817       |      2913 |       2913 |
| 2 - (' 1 D 2 ')       | -            |      2900 | -          |      2900 |       2931 |
| 2 - (' 3 D 2 ')       | -            |      2926 | 2856       |      2953 |       2961 |
| 3 - ( 3 D 3 )         | 2860 [1, 2]  |      2917 | -          |      2925 |       2871 |

Although both the mass spectrum analysis and the measurement of the spin quantum number support D s ∗ 1 (2860) and D s ∗ 3 (2860) as the 1 D states, we still need to carry out a further test of this assignment through study of their decay behaviors. This study can provide more detailed information on the partial decay widths, which is valuable for future experimental investigation of D s ∗ 1 (2860) and D s ∗ 3 (2860). In addition, there exist four 1 D states in the charmed-strange meson family. At present, the spin partners of D s ∗ 1 (2860) and D s ∗ 3 (2860) are still missing in experiment. Thus, we will also predict the properties of two missing 1 D states in this work.

This paper is organized as follows. In Section II, after some introduction we illustrate the study of decay behaviors of Ds 1 (2860) and Ds 3 (2860). In Sec. III, the paper ends with the discussion and conclusions.

## II. DECAY BEHAVIOR OF Ds 1 (2860) AND Ds 3 (2860)

Among all properties of these 1 D states, their two-body Okubo-Zweig-Iizuka (OZI)-allowed strong decays are the most important and typical properties. Hence, in the following we mainly focus on the study of their OZI-allowed strong decays. For the 1 D states studied in this work, their allowed decay channels are listed in Table II. Among four 1 D states in the charmed-strange meson family, there are two J P = 2 -states, which is a mixture of 1 1 D 2 and 1 3 D 2 states, i.e.,

$$\left ( \begin{array} { c } 1 D ( 2 ^ { - } ) \\ 1 ^ { D ^ { \prime } } ( 2 ^ { - } ) \end{array} \right ) = \left ( \begin{array} { c c } \cos \theta _ { 1 D } & \sin \theta _ { 1 D } \\ - \sin \theta _ { 1 D } & \cos \theta _ { 1 D } \end{array} \right ) \left ( \begin{array} { c } 1 ^ { 3 } D _ { 2 } \\ 1 ^ { 1 } D _ { 2 } \end{array} \right ), \quad ( 5 )$$

where θ 1 D is a mixing angle. In the heavy quark limit, a general mixing angle between 3 LL and 1 LL is θ L = arctan( √ L / ( L + 1)), which indicates θ 1 D = 39 ◦ [22].

TABLEII: The two-body OZI-allowed decay modes of 1 D charmedstrange mesons. Here, we use symbols, ◦ and -, to mark the OZIallowed and -forbidden decay modes, respectively. Ds ∗ 1 (2860) and Ds ∗ 3 (2860) are 1 3 D 1 and 1 3 D 3 states, respectively.

| Channels         | D ∗ s 1 (2860)   | 1 D (2 - ) 1 D ′ (2 -   | D ∗ s 3 (2860) )   |
|------------------|------------------|-------------------------|--------------------|
| DK               | ◦                | -                       | ◦                  |
| D ∗ K            | ◦                | ◦                       | ◦                  |
| D s η            | ◦                | -                       | ◦                  |
| D ∗ s η          | ◦                | ◦                       | ◦                  |
| DK ∗             | ◦                | ◦                       | ◦                  |
| D ∗ 0 (2400) K   | -                | ◦                       | -                  |
| D ∗ s 0 (2317) η | -                | ◦                       | -                  |

In the following, we apply the quark pair creation (QPC) model [23-29] to describe the OZI allowed two-body strong decays shown in Table II, where the QPC model was extensively adopted to study the strong decay of hadrons [5, 16, 3039]. In the QPC model, the quark-antiquark pair is created in QCDvacuumwith vacuumquantumnumber J PC = 0 ++ . For a decay process, i.e., an initial observed meson A decaying into two observed mesons B and C , the process can be expressed as

$$\langle B C | T | A \rangle = \delta ^ { 3 } ( \$$

where P B ( P C ) is the three-momentum of the final meson B C ( ) in the rest frame of A . MJi ( i = A B C , , ) denotes the orbital magnetic momentum. Additionally, M MJ A MJ B MJ C is the helicity amplitude. The transition operator T in Eq. (6) is written as [23-29]

$$T \ = \ - 3 \gamma \sum _ { m } \langle 1 m ; 1$$

which is introduced in a phenomenological way to reflect the property of quark-antiquark (denoted by indices 3 and 4) created from vacuum. Y lm ( p ) = | p | Ylm ( p ) is the solid harmonic. χ φ , , and ω are the general description of the spin, flavor, and color wave functions, respectively.

By the Jacob-Wick formula [40], the decay amplitude reads as

$$\begin{array} {$$

Finally, the general decay width is

$$\Gamma \ = \ \pi ^ { 2 } \frac { | \mathbf P _ {$$

where mA is the mass of the initial state A . In the following, the helicity amplitudes M MJ A MJ B MJ C of the OZI-allowed strong decay channels in Table II are calculated, which is the main task of the whole calculation. Here, we adopt the simple harmonic oscillator (SHO) wave function Ψ n ,/lscript m ( k ), where the value of a parameter R appearing in the SHO wave function can be obtained such that it reproduces the realistic root mean square (rms) radius, which can be calculated by the relativistic quark model [42] with a Coulomb plus linear confining potential as well as a hyperfine interaction term. In Table III, we list the R values adopted in our calculation. The strength of qq ¯is taken as γ = 6 3 [16] while the strength of . ss ¯satisfies γ s = γ/ √ 3. We need to specify our γ value adopted in the present work which is √ 96 π times larger than that adopted by other groups [41, 42], where the γ value as an overall factor can be obtained by fitting the experimental data (see Ref. [43] for more details of how to get the γ value). In addition, the constituent quark masses for charm, up down, and strange / quarks are 1.60 GeV, 0.33 GeV, and 0.55 GeV, respectively [42].

TABLE III: The R values (in units of GeV -1 ) [42] and masses (in units of MeV) [17] of the mesons involved in present calculation.

| States   |    R |   mass | States   |    R |   mass | States       |    R |   mass |
|----------|------|--------|----------|------|--------|--------------|------|--------|
| D        | 2.33 |   1867 | D ∗      | 2.7  |   2008 | D 0 (2400)   | 3.13 |   2318 |
| D s      | 1.92 |   1968 | D ∗ s    | 2.22 |   2112 | D s 0 (2317) | 2.7  |   2318 |
| K        | 2.17 |    494 | K ∗      | 3.13 |    896 | η            | 2.12 |    548 |

With the above preparation, we obtain the total and partial decay widths of D s ∗ 1 (2860), D s ∗ 3 (2860) and their spin partners, and comparison with the experimental data [1, 2]. As shown in Table III, the R value of the P -wave charmed-strange meson is about 2.70 GeV -1 . For the D -wave state, the R value is estimated to be around 3.00 GeV -1 [42]. In present calculation, we vary the R value for the D -wave charmed-strange meson from 2.4 to 3.6 GeV -1 . In Fig. 1, we present the R dependence of the total and partial decay widths of Ds 1 (2860) and Ds 3 (2860).

## A. Ds 1 (2860)

The total width of Ds 1 (2860) as the 1 3 D 1 state is given in Fig. 1, where the total width is obtained as 128 ∼ 177 MeV corresponding to the selected R range, which is consistent with the experimental width of Ds 1 (2860) ( Γ = 159 ± 23 ± 27 ± 72 MeV [1, 2]). The information of the partial decay widths depicted in Fig. 1 also shows that DK is the dominant decay mode of the 1 3 D 1 charm strange meson, which explains why Ds 1 (2860) was experimentally observed in its DK decay channel [1, 2]). In addition, our study also indicates that the D K ∗ and DK ∗ channels are also important for the 1 3 D 1 state, which have partial widths 35 ∼ 44 MeV and 24 ∼ 40 MeV, respectively. The Ds η and Ds ∗ η channels have partial decay widths with several MeV, which is far smaller than the partial decay widths of the DK D K , ∗ and DK ∗ channels. This phenomena can be understood since the decays of the 1 3 D 1 state into Ds η and Ds ∗ η have the smaller phase space.

The above results show that Ds 1 (2860) can be a good candidate for the 1 3 D 1 charmed-strange meson.

Besides providing the partial decay widths, we also predict several typical ratios, i.e.,

$$\frac { \Gamma ( D _ { s 1 } ( 2 8 6 0 ) \to D$$

$$\stackrel { \theta \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot } { \frac { \theta \cdot \cdot \cdot } { \Gamma ( D _ { s 1 } ( 2 8 6 0 ) \to D _ { s } \eta ) } } & \ = \ 0. 1 0 \sim 0. 1 4, \quad \ ( 1 2 ) \\ \cdot \cdot \quad \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot$$

$$\frac { \nu \nu _ { s 1 } \nu _ { \infty } \nu _ { \infty } \nu _ { \infty } } { \Gamma ( D _ { s 1 } ( 2 8 6 0 ) \to D K ^ { * } ) } \ = \ 0. 2 5 \sim 0. 8 5, \quad \ ( 1 1 ) \\ \Gamma ( D _ { s 1 } ( 2 8 6 0 ) \to D _ { s } \eta ) \quad \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \$$

which can be further tested in the coming experimental measurements.

The Belle Collaboration once reported Ds 1 (2710) in the DK invariant mass spectrum, which has mass 2708 ± 9 + 11 -10 MeV and width 108 ± 23 + 36 -31 MeV [44]. The analysis of angular distribution indicates that Ds 1 (2710) has the spin-parity J P = 1 -[44]. Later, the BaBar Collaboration confirmed Ds 1 (2710) in a new D K ∗ channel [4], where the ratio Γ ( D K ∗ ) / Γ ( DK ) = 0 91 . ± 0 13 . ± 0 12 for . Ds 1 (2710).

In Refs. [5, 11], the assignment of Ds 1 (2710) to the 1 3 D 1 charmed-strange meson was proposed. However, the obtained Γ ( D K ∗ ) / Γ ( DK ) = 0 043 [11] is . deviated far from the experimental data, which does not support the 1 3 D 1 charmedstrange assignment to Ds 1 (2710). Especially, the present study of newly observed Ds 1 (2860) shows that Ds 1 (2860) is a good candidate of the 1 3 D 1 charmed-strange meson.

If Ds 1 (2710) is not a 1 3 D 1 charmed-strange meson, we need to find the place in the charmed-strange meson family. In Ref. [5], the authors once indicated that Ds 1 (2710) as the 2 3 S 1 charmed-strange meson is not completely excluded . By 1 the e ff ective Lagrangian approach [11] and under the assignment of Ds 1 (2710) to the 2 3 S 1 charmed-strange meson, the Γ ( Ds 1 (2710) → D K ∗ ) / Γ ( Ds 1 (2710) → DK ) = 0 91 was ob-. tained, which is close to the experimental value [44]. We also notice the recent work of DsJ (2860) [45], where they also proposed that Ds 1 (2710) is the 2 3 S 1 cs ¯meson.

Besides the above exploration in the framework of a conventional charmed-strange meson, the exotic state explanation to Ds 1 (2710) was given in Ref. [15].

In the following, we include the mixing between 2 3 S 1 and 1 3 D 1 states to further discuss the mixing angle dependence of the decay behavior of Ds 1 (2860). Here, Ds 1 (2 S ) and Ds 1 (2860) are the mixtures of 2 3 S 1 and 1 3 D 1 states, which

1 We need to explain the reason why the 2 3 S 1 charmed-strange meson is not completely excluded in Ref. [5]. In Ref. [5], the total decay width of Ds 1(2710) as the 2 3 S 1 charmed-strange meson was calculated, which is 32 MeV. This value is obtained with the typical R = 3 2 GeV . -1 value. As shown in Fig. 4 (d) in [5], the total decay width is strongly dependent on the R value due to node e ff ects. If taking other typical R values which are not far away from 3 2 GeV . -1 , the total decay width can reach up to the lower limit of the experimental width of Ds 1(2710).

/s32

/s32

/s32

FIG. 1: (Color online). The total and partial decay widths of 1 3 D 1 (left panel) and 1 3 D 3 (right panel) charmed-strange mesons dependent on the R value. Here, the dashed lines with the yellow bands are the experimental widths of Ds ∗ 1 (2860) and Ds ∗ 3 (2860) from LHCb [1, 2].

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0471v4-figure-bd10b6bc-4850-48b8-a9a2-4306db2e4a9c.jpg)

FIG. 2: (Color online). The total and partial decay widths (in units of MeV) of Ds 1 (2860) dependent on the R value. The solid, dashed and dotted curves correspond to the typical 2 S -1 D mixing angles θ = 0 , ◦ θ = 15 ◦ and θ = 30 , respectively. ◦ The band in the left-top panel is the total decay width with errors, which was reported by the LHCb Collaboration [1, 2].

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0471v4-figure-3fffe3bf-6c8b-453f-a6e9-65be5bbdca2e.jpg)

satisfy the relation below

$$\begin{pmatrix} | D _ { s 1 } ( 2 S ) \rangle \\ | D _ { s 1 } ( 2 8 6 0 ) \rangle \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \cos \theta & \sin \theta \\ - \sin \theta & \cos \theta \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} | 2 ^ { 3 } S _ { 1 } \rangle \\ | 1 ^ { 3 } D _ { 1 } \rangle \end{pmatrix}. \quad ( 1 3 ) \quad \text{with} \\ \text{The } 2 S - 1 D \, \text{mixing angle should be small due to the relative} \quad \text{while} \\ \text{even} \end{pmatrix}$$

The 2 S -1 D mixing angle should be small due to the relative large mass gap between 2 S and 1 D state, where we take some typical values θ = 0 , ◦ θ = 15 , and ◦ θ = 30 ◦ to present our results. θ = 0 ◦ denotes that there is no 2 S -1 D mixing. In Fig. 2, we present the total and partial decay widths, which depend on the R value, where we show the results with three di ff erent typical θ values. In the left-top panel of Fig. 2, we list the total decay width of Ds 1 (2860) and the comparison with the experimental data. When taking 2 4 GeV . -1 &lt; R &lt; 3 6 GeV . -1 , the calculated total decay width varies from 130 MeV to 235 MeV, which indicates the theoretically estimated total decay width of Ds 1 (2860) can overlap with the experimental measurement. In addition, we also notice that the partial decay widths for the Ds η and Ds ∗ η channels are less than 10 MeV, while for the DK , D K ∗ and DK ∗ decay modes, the corresponding partial decay widths vary from several 20 MeV to more than one hundred MeV, which strongly depend on the value of a mixing angle.

In Ref. [12], the authors adopted a di ff erent convention for the 2 S -1 D mixing, where their 2 S -1 D mixing angle has a sign opposite to our scenario. Taking the same R value and mixing angle for Ds 1 (2860), we obtain the partial decay widths of DK and D K ∗ are less than 10 MeV, while the calculated partial

decay width of DK ∗ is more than 20 MeV, which is consistent with the results in Ref. [12].

## B. Ds 3 (2860)

The two-body OZI-allowed decay behavior of Ds 3 (2860) as the 1 3 D 3 charmed-strange meson is presented in the right panel of Fig. 1, where the obtained total width can reach up to 42 ∼ 60 MeV, which overlaps with the LHCb's data (53 ± 7 ± 4 ± 6 MeV [1, 2]). This fact further reflects that Ds 3 (2860) is suitable for the 1 3 D 3 charmed-strange meson. Similar to Ds 1 (2860), the DK channel is also the dominant decay mode of Ds 3 (2860), where the partial decay width of Ds 3 (2860) → DK is 25 ∼ 30 MeV in the selected R value range. Additionally, we also calculate the partial decay width of Ds 3 (2860) → D K ∗ and Ds 3 (2860) → DK ∗ , which are 14 ∼ 24 MeV and 0 9 . ∼ 2 5 MeV, respectively. . The partial decay widths for Ds η and Ds ∗ η channel are of order of 0.1 MeV. The corresponding typical ratios for Ds 3 (2860) are

$$\frac { \Gamma ( D _ { s 3 } ( 2 8 6 0 ) \to D ^ { * } K ) } { \Gamma ( D _ { s 3 } ( 2 8 6 0 ) \to D K ) } \ = \ 0. 5 5 \sim 0. 8 0, \quad \ \ ( 1 4 ) \quad \ 8 7 ) \% \\ \Gamma ( D _ { s 3 } ( 2 8 6 0 ) \to D K ^ { * } ) \quad \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \$$

$$\stackrel { \theta \, \stackrel { s, \, \cdots, } { \Gamma ( D _ { s 3 } ( 2 8 6 0 ) \to D _ { s } \eta ) } } { \frac { \Gamma ( D _ { s 1 } ( 2 8 6 0 ) \to D K ) } { \Gamma ( D _ { s 1 } ( 2 8 6 0 ) \to D K ) } } \ = \ 0. 0 1 8 \sim 0. 0 2 0, \quad ( 1 6 ) \, \stackrel { \theta \, \stackrel { s, \, \cdots, } { \mathbb { W } } } { \cdots } \\ \cdots \ \, \cdots \ \, \cdots \ \, \cdots \ \,.$$

$$\frac { \Lambda \Lambda _ { s 3 } \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambd } } { \Gamma ( D _ { s 3 } ( 2 8 6 0 ) \to D K ) } \ = \ 0. 0 3 \sim 0. 0 9, \quad \ ( 1 5 ) \quad \ \text{deca} \\ \Gamma ( D _ { s 3 } ( 2 8 6 0 ) \to D _ { s } \eta ) \quad \ \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambma \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lamb Da \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambla \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \LambDA \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lamba \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \LambDa \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lamb D \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lambda \Lamb d \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb  \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \ Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb\Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \L_{ \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \Lamb \end{array}$$

which can be tested in future experiment.

In Ref. [5], the ratio Γ ( D K ∗ ) / Γ ( DK ) = 13 22 / = 0 59 . was given for DsJ (2860) observed by Belle as the 1 3 D 3 state, where the QPC model was also adopted and this ratio is obtained by taking a typical value R = 2 94 GeV . -1 . In the present work, we consider the range R = 2 4 . ∼ 3 6 GeV . -1 to present the D K DK ∗ / ratio for Ds 3 (2860). If comparing the ratio given in Eq. (14) with the corresponding one obtained in Ref. [5], we notice that their value Γ ( D K ∗ ) / Γ ( DK ) = 0 59 . [5] just falls into our obtained range Γ ( D K ∗ ) / Γ ( DK ) = 0 55 . ∼ 0 80. .

In addition, we need to make a comment on the experimental ratio Γ ( D K ∗ ) / Γ ( DK ) = 1 10 . ± 0 15 . ± 0 19 for . DsJ (2860), which was extracted by the BaBar Collaboration [3]. Since LHCb indicated that there exist two resonances Ds 1 (2860) and Ds 3 (2860) in the DK invariant mass spectrum [1, 2], the experimental ratio Γ ( D K ∗ ) / Γ ( DK ) for DsJ (2860) must be changed, which means that we cannot simply apply the old Γ ( D K ∗ ) / Γ ( DK ) data in Ref. [3] to draw a conclusion on the structure of DsJ (2860). We expect further experimental measurements of this ratio, which will be helpful to reveal the properties of the observed DsJ (2860) states.

$$C. \ 1 D ( 2 ^ { - } ) \text{ and } 1 D ^ { \prime } ( 2 ^ { - } )$$

In the following, we discuss the decay behaviors of two missing 1 D states in the present experiment, which is crucial to the experimental search for the 1 D (2 -) and 1 D ′ (2 -) states.

We first fix the mixing angle θ 1 D = 39 ◦ obtained in the heavy quark limit, and discuss the R value dependence of the total and partial decay widths of the two missing 2 -states in experiment, which are presented in Fig. 3. Since these two 1 D states have not yet been seen in experiment, we take the mass range 2850 ∼ 2950 MeV, which covers the theoretically predicted masses of the 1 D (2 -) and 1 D ′ (2 -) states from different groups listed in Table I, to discuss the decay behaviors of the 1 D (2 -) and 1 D ′ (2 -) states.

Additionally, as shown in Fig. 3, the 1 D (2 -) state can dominantly decay into D K ∗ , where B (1 D (2 -) → D K ∗ ) = (77 ∼ 87)%, and DK ∗ and Ds ∗ η are its main decay modes. Comparing D K ∗ , DK ∗ and Ds ∗ η with each other, Ds ∗ η is the weakest decay channel. Hence, we suggest experimental search for the 1 D (2 -) state firstly via the D K ∗ channel.

The total and partial decay width of 1 D (2 -) are present in the upper panel of Fig. 3. Here, two typical mass of 1 D (2 -) state, 2850 MeV and 2950 MeV, are considered, which are corresponding to the solid and dashed curved in Fig. 3. The estimated total decay width varies from 90 MeV to 190 MeV, which is due to the uncertainty of the predicted mass of the 1 D (2 -) state and the R value dependence as mentioned above. If the mass of the 1 D (2 -) state can be constrained by future experiment, the uncertainty of the total width for the 1 D (2 -) state can be further reduced. In any case, our study indicates that the 1 D (2 -) state has a broad width.

We also obtain two typical ratios, i.e.,

$$\frac { \Gamma ( 1 D ( 2 ^ { - } ) \to D K ^ { * } ) } { \Gamma ( 1 D ( 2 ^ { - } ) \to D ^ { * } K ) } & = 0. 1 1 \sim 0. 3 6 \quad \quad ( 1 7 ) \\ \Gamma ( 1 D ( 2 ^ { - } ) \to D _ { k } ^ { * } \eta ) \quad \dots \quad \dots \quad \dots \quad \dots$$

$$\stackrel { \bullet \, \mathcal { W } _ { \bullet } \, \mathcal { W } _ { \bullet } \, \mathcal { W } _ { \bullet } } { \frac { \Gamma ( 1 D ( 2 ^ { - } ) \to D _ { s } ^ { * } \eta ) } { \Gamma ( 1 D ( 2 ^ { - } ) \to D ^ { * } K ) } } = 0. 1 1 \sim 0. 1 8, \quad \ \ ( 1 8 ) \\ \text{s.m.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.t.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s. s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.n.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.ns.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.r.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.g.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.c.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.S.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.l.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.h.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.a.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.x.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.ss.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.is.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.i.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.e.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.d.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.
s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s$$

which can be accessible in experiment.

As for the 1 D ′ (2 -) state, the total and partial decay width are present in the lower panel of Fig. 3. we predict its total decay width ((80 ∼ 240) MeV), which shows that the 1 D ′ (2 -) state is also a broad resonance, where DK ∗ is its dominant decay mode with a branching ratio B (1 D ′ (2 -) → DK ∗ ) = (0 64 . ∼ 0 73)%. . Its main decay mode includes D K ∗ , while 1 D ′ → Ds ∗ η and 1 D ′ → D 0 (2400) K have small partial decay widths. Besides the above information, two typical ratios are listed as below

$$\frac { \Gamma ( 1 D ^ { \prime } ( 2 ^ { - } ) \to D ^ { * } K ) } { \Gamma ( 1 D ^ { \prime } ( 2 ^ { - } ) \to D K ^ { * } ) } & = 0. 3 6 \sim 0. 5 3, \quad \quad ( 1 9 ) \\ \Gamma ( 1 D ^ { \prime } ( 2 ^ { - } ) \to D ^ { * } \eta ) \quad \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \$$

$$\stackrel { \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \colon \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bulLET \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bul. \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullets \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bulle \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bul. \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bul! \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bulclon \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \boldlet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bold. \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bold. \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \boldt \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bult \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \boldclon \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \,\bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \,\bul. \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \,\bulle \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \,\bul. \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \bullet \, \$$

It should be noticed that the threshold of D s ∗ 0 (2317) η is 2865 MeV and two 1 D charmed-strange mesons with J P = 2 -decaying into D s ∗ 0 (2317) η occur via D -wave. Thus, 1 D (2 -) / 1 D ′ (2 -) → D s ∗ 0 (2317) η is suppressed, which is supported by our calculation since the corresponding partial decay widths are of the order of a few keV for 1 D (2 -) → D s ∗ 0 η and of the order of 0.1 keV for 1 D ′ (2 -) → D s ∗ 0 η .

In Table IV, we fix the R value of 1 D (2 -) and 1 D ′ (2 -) to be 2.85 GeV -1 [42] and further discuss the total and partial decay widths dependent on the mixing angle θ 1 D , where three typical

FIG. 3: (Color online). The total and partial decay widths of 1 D (2 -) (upper row) and 1 D ′ (2 -) (lower row) charmed-strange mesons dependent on the R values. Here, a mixing angle of 39 ◦ is chosen. The solid and dashed curves correspond to two predicted masses of 2 -states, 2850 MeV and 2950 MeV, respectively.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0471v4-figure-319f8135-bf89-4888-a954-5172a57ac863.jpg)

TABLE IV: The total and partial decay widths of two 2 -states (in units of MeV) dependent on the mixing angle θ 1 D (The typical values are θ 1 D = 20 ◦ , 30 ◦ and 50 ). Here, the ◦ R value of 1 D (2 -) and 1 D ′ (2 -) is fixed as R = 2 85 GeV . -1 [42].

|                | M = 2850 MeV   | M = 2850 MeV   | M = 2850 MeV   | M = 2850 MeV   | M = 2850 MeV   | M = 2850 MeV   | M = 2950 MeV   | M = 2950 MeV   | M = 2950 MeV   | M = 2950 MeV   | M = 2950 MeV   | M = 2950 MeV   |
|----------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|
|                | θ 1 D = 20 ◦   | θ 1 D = 20 ◦   | θ 1 D = 30 ◦   | θ 1 D = 30 ◦   | θ 1 D = 50 ◦   | θ 1 D = 50 ◦   | θ 1 D = 20 ◦   | θ 1 D = 20 ◦   | θ 1 D = 30 ◦   | θ 1 D = 30 ◦   | θ 1 D = 50 ◦   | θ 1 D = 50 ◦   |
| Channels       | 1 D (2 - )     | 1 D ′ (2 - )   | 1 D (2 - )     | 1 D ′ (2 - )   | 1 D (2 - )     | 1 D ′ (2 - )   | 1 D (2 - )     | 1 D ′ (2 - )   | 1 D (2 - )     | 1 D ′ (2 - )   | 1 D (2 - )     | 1 D ′ (2 - )   |
| D ∗ K          | 126.93         | 44.60          | 135.61         | 35.90          | 134.62         | 36.84          | 110.42         | 77.82          | 113.85         | 74.39          | 113.46         | 74.76          |
| DK ∗           | 26.06          | 70.04          | 13.54          | 82.59          | 1.99           | 94.18          | 56.19          | 118.06         | 38.58          | 135.69         | 22.34          | 152.00         |
| D ∗ s η        | 13.93          | 2.08           | 15.17          | 0.83           | 15.03          | 0.97           | 20.23          | 4.21           | 21.91          | 2.54           | 21.72          | 2.72           |
| D ∗ 0 (2400) K | 0.012          | 0.011          | 0.008          | 0.015          | 0.002          | 0.022          | 0.50           | 0.08           | 0.42           | 0.16           | 0.22           | 0.36           |
| Total          | 166.93         | 116.73         | 164.33         | 119.34         | 151.64         | 132.01         | 187.34         | 200.17         | 174.76         | 212.78         | 157.74         | 229.84         |

values θ 1 D = 20 , ◦ θ 1 D = 30 ◦ and θ 1 D = 50 ◦ are adopted. For 1 D (2 -) state, its total decay width varies from 152 MeV to 187 MeV, which indicates that the total decay width is weakly dependent on the mixing angle θ 1 D . Moreover, 1 D (2 -) state dominantly decays into D K ∗ , whose width varies from 110 MeV to 134 MeV caused by the uncertainty of the mass of 1 D (2 -) state and the di ff erent mixing angle θ 1 D . In addition, the ratio of 1 D (2 -) → Ds ∗ η and 1 D (2 -) → D K ∗ is estimated to be 0 11 . ∼ 0 19, which is consistent with that shown in Eq. . (18). However, the predicted partial decay width of 1 D (2 -) → DK ∗ is strongly dependent on the mixing angle, which varies from 2 MeV to 56 MeV.

## III. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The total decay width of 1 D ′ (2 -) varies from 117 MeV to 230 MeV depending on di ff erent predicted masses and mixing angles. Its dominant decay modes are D K ∗ and DK ∗ and the ratios of 1 D ′ (2 -) → D K ∗ and 1 D ′ (2 -) → DK ∗ are predicted to be 0 39 . ∼ 0 66. The partial decay widths of 1 . D ′ (2 -) → Ds ∗ η and 1 D ′ (2 -) → D 0 (2400) K are relatively small and are given by several MeV and less than 0.5 MeV, respectively.

With the observation of two charmed-strange resonances Ds 1 (2860) and Ds 3 (2860), which was recently announced by the LHCb Collaboration [1, 2], the observed charmed-strange states become more and more abundant. In this work, we have carried out a study of the observed Ds 1 (2860) and Ds 3 (2860), which indicates that Ds 1 (2860) and Ds 3 (2860) can be well categorized as 1 3 D 1 and 1 3 D 3 states in the charmed-strange meson family since the experimental widths of Ds 1 (2860) and Ds 3 (2860) can be reproduced by the corresponding calculated total widths of the 1 3 D 1 and 1 3 D 3 states. In addition, the result of their partial decay widths shows that the DK decay mode is dominant both for 1 3 D 1 and 1 3 D 3 states, which naturally explains why Ds 1 (2860) and Ds 3 (2860) were first observed in the DK channel. If Ds 1 (2860) and Ds 3 (2860) are the 1 3 D 1 and 1 3 D 3 states, respectively, our study also indicates that the D K ∗ and DK ∗ channels are the main decay mode of Ds 1 (2860) and Ds 3 (2860), respectively. Thus, we suggest for future exper-

iment to search for Ds 1 (2860) and Ds 3 (2860) in these main decay channels, which can not only test our prediction presented in this work but also provide more information of the properties of Ds 1 (2860) and Ds 3 (2860).

As the spin partners of Ds 1 (2860) and Ds 3 (2860), two 1 D charmed-strange mesons with J P = 2 -are still missing in experiment. Thus, in this work we also predict the decay behaviors of these two missing 1 D charmed-strange mesons. Our calculation by the QPC model shows that both 1 D (2 -) and 1 D ′ (2 -) states have very broad widths. For the 1 D (2 -) and 1 D ′ (2 -) states, their dominant decay mode is D K ∗ and DK ∗ , respectively. In addition, DK ∗ and D K ∗ are also the important decay modes of the 1 D (2 -) and 1 D ′ (2 -) states, respectively. This investigation provides valuable information when further experimentally exploring these two missing 1 D charmed-strange mesons.

In summary, the observed Ds 1 (2860) and Ds 3 (2860) provide us a good opportunity to establish higher states in the charmed-strange meson family. The following experimental and theoretical e ff orts are still necessary to reveal the underlying properties of Ds 1 (2860) and Ds 3 (2860). Furthermore, it is a challenging research topic for future experiment to hunt the two predicted missing 1 D charmed-strange mesons with J P = 2 . -

Before closing this section, we would like to discuss the threshold e ff ect or coupled-channel e ff ect, which was proposed to solve the puzzling lower mass and narrow widths for Ds 0 (2317) [46] and Ds 1 (2460) [47], and to understand the properties of X (3872). We notice that there exist several typical D K DK ∗ , ∗ , and D K ∗ ∗ thresholds, which are ∼ 2580 MeV, ∼ 2762 MeV, and ∼ 2902 MeV, respectively. Here, the observed Ds 1 (2860) and Ds 3 (2860) are near the D K ∗ ∗ threshold while Ds 1 (2715) is close to the DK ∗ threshold. This fact also shows that the threshold e ff ect or coupled-channel e ff ect is important to these observed charmed-strange states. For example, in Ref. [48], the authors studied the D K ∗ ∗ threshold e ff ect on D s ∗ 2 (2573). Thus, further theoretical study of Ds 1 (2860) and Ds 3 (2860) by considering the threshold e ff ect or coupledchannel e ff ect is an interesting research topic.

In addition, the results presented in this work are calculated by using the SHO wave functions with a rms radius obtained within a relativistic quark model [18], which can provide a quantitative estimate of the decay behavior of hadrons. However, the line shape of the SHO wave function is slightly different from the one obtained by the relativistic quark model. For example, the nodes may appear at di ff erent places for these two cases. Thus, adopting a numerical wave function from a relativistic quark model [18] may further improve the whole results, where we can compare the results obtained by using the SHO wave function and the numerical wave function, which is an interesting research topic 2 .

2 We would like to thank the anonymous referee for his her valuable sugges-/ tion.

## Acknowledgments

This project is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grants No. 11222547, No. 11375240, No. 11175073, and No. 11035006, the Ministry of Education of China (SRFDP under Grant No. 2012021111000), and the Fok Ying Tung Education Foundation (No. 131006).

- [1] R. Aaij et al. [ LHCb Collaboration], arXiv:1407.7574 [hepex].
- [2] R. Aaij et al. [ LHCb Collaboration], arXiv:1407.7712 [hepex].
- [3] B. Aubert et al. [BaBar Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 , 222001 (2006) [hep-ex 0607082]. /
- [4] B. Aubert et al. [BaBar Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 80 , 092003 (2009) [arXiv:0908.0806 [hep-ex]].
- [5] B. Zhang, X. Liu, W. -Z. Deng and S. -L. Zhu, Eur. Phys. J. C 50 , 617 (2007) [hep-ph 0609013]. /
- [6] P. Colangelo, F. De Fazio and S. Nicotri, Phys. Lett. B 642 , 48 (2006) [hep-ph 0607245]. /
- [7] P. Colangelo, F. De Fazio, F. Giannuzzi and S. Nicotri, Phys. Rev. D 86 , 054024 (2012) [arXiv:1207.6940 [hep-ph]].
- [8] D. -M. Li, B. Ma and Y. -H. Liu, Eur. Phys. J. C 51 , 359 (2007) [hep-ph 0703278 [HEP-PH]]. /
- [9] X. -H. Zhong and Q. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 81 , 014031 (2010) [arXiv:0911.1856 [hep-ph]].
- [10] B. Chen, D. -X. Wang and A. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 80 , 071502 (2009) [arXiv:0908.3261 [hep-ph]].
- [11] P. Colangelo, F. De Fazio, S. Nicotri and M. Rizzi, Phys. Rev. D 77 , 014012 (2008) [arXiv:0710.3068 [hep-ph]].
- [12] D. -M. Li and B. Ma, Phys. Rev. D 81 , 014021 (2010) [arXiv:0911.2906 [hep-ph]].
- [13] X. -h. Zhong and Q. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 78 , 014029 (2008) [arXiv:0803.2102 [hep-ph]].
- [14] E. van Beveren and G. Rupp, Phys. Rev. D 81 , 118101 (2010) [arXiv:0908.1142 [hep-ph]].
- [15] J. Vijande, A. Valcarce and F. Fernandez, Phys. Rev. D 79 , 037501 (2009) [arXiv:0810.4988 [hep-ph]].
- [16] Z. -F. Sun and X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 80 , 074037 (2009) [arXiv:0909.1658 [hep-ph]].
- [17] J. Beringer et al. [Particle Data Group Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 86 , 010001 (2012).
- [18] S. Godfrey and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. D 32 , 189 (1985).
- [19] T. Matsuki, T. Morii and K. Sudoh, Prog. Theor. Phys. 117 , 1077 (2007) [hep-ph 0605019]. /
- [20] M. Di Pierro and E. Eichten, Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 114004 [hep-ph 0104208]. /
- [21] D. Ebert, R. N. Faustov and V. O. Galkin, Eur. Phys. J. C 66 (2010) 197 [arXiv:0910.5612 [hep-ph]].
- [22] T. Matsuki, T. Morii and K. Seo, Prog. Theor. Phys. 124 (2010) 285 [arXiv:1001.4248 [hep-ph]].
- [23] L. Micu, Nucl. Phys. B 10 , 521 (1969).
- [24] A. Le Yaouanc, L. Oliver, O. Pene and J. C. Raynal, Phys. Rev. D 8 , 2223 (1973); Phys. Rev. D 9 , 1415 (1974); Phys. Rev. D 11 , 1272 (1975); Phys. Lett. B 72 , 57 (1977); Phys. Lett. B 71 ,

397 (1977).

- [25] A. Le Yaouanc, L. Oliver, O. Pene and J. C. Raynal, NEW YORK, USA: GORDON AND BREACH (1988) 311p
- [26] E. van Beveren, C. Dullemond and G. Rupp, Phys. Rev. D 21 , 772 (1980) [Erratum-ibid. D 22 , 787 (1980)].
- [27] E. van Beveren, G. Rupp, T. A. Rijken and C. Dullemond, Phys. Rev. D 27 , 1527 (1983).
- [28] R. Bonnaz, B. Silvestre-Brac and C. Gignoux, Eur. Phys. J. A 13 , 363 (2002) [hep-ph 0101112]. /
- [29] W. Roberts, B. Silvestre-Brac, Few Body Syst. 11 , 171 (1992).
- [30] X. Liu, Z. -G. Luo and Z. -F. Sun, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 , 122001 (2010) [arXiv:0911.3694 [hep-ph]].
- [31] Z. -F. Sun, J. -S. Yu, X. Liu and T. Matsuki, Phys. Rev. D 82 , 111501 (2010) [arXiv:1008.3120 [hep-ph]].
- [32] J. -S. Yu, Z. -F. Sun, X. Liu and Q. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 83 , 114007 (2011) [arXiv:1104.3064 [hep-ph]].
- [33] X. Wang, Z. -F. Sun, D. -Y. Chen, X. Liu and T. Matsuki, Phys. Rev. D 85 , 074024 (2012) [arXiv:1202.4139 [hep-ph]].
- [34] Z. -C. Ye, X. Wang, X. Liu and Q. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 86 , 054025 (2012) [arXiv:1206.0097 [hep-ph]].
- [35] L. -P. He, X. Wang and X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 88 , 034008 (2013) [arXiv:1306.5562 [hep-ph]].
- [36] Y. Sun, X. Liu and T. Matsuki, Phys. Rev. D 88 , no. 9, 094020 (2013) [arXiv:1309.2203 [hep-ph]].
- [37] Y. Sun, Q. -T. Song, D. -Y. Chen, X. Liu and S. -L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 89 , 054026 (2014) [arXiv:1401.1595 [hep-ph]].
- [38] C. -Q. Pang, L. -P. He, X. Liu and T. Matsuki, Phys. Rev. D 90 , 014001 (2014) [arXiv:1405.3189 [hep-ph]].
- [39] L. -P. He, D. -Y . Chen, X. Liu and T. Matsuki, arXiv:1405.3831 [hep-ph].
- [40] M. Jacob and G. C. Wick, Annals Phys. 7 , 404 (1959) [Annals Phys. 281 , 774 (2000)].
- [41] S. Godfrey and R. Kokoski, Phys. Rev. D 43 , 1679 (1991).
- [42] F. E. Close and E. S. Swanson, Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 094004 [hep-ph 0505206]. /
- [43] H. G. Blundell, hep-ph 9608473. /
- [44] J. Brodzicka et al. [Belle Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 , 092001 (2008) [arXiv:0707.3491 [hep-ex]].
- [45] S. Godfrey and K. Moats, arXiv:1409.0874 [hep-ph].
- [46] E. van Beveren and G. Rupp, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 , 012003 (2003) [hep-ph 0305035]. /
- [47] E. van Beveren and G. Rupp, Eur. Phys. J. C 32 , 493 (2004) [hep-ph 0306051]. /
- [48] R. Molina, T. Branz and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. D 82 , 014010 (2010) [arXiv:1005.0335 [hep-ph]].
Qin-Tao Song Dian-Yong Chen Xiang Liu Takayuki Matsuki
$D_{s1}^*(2860)$ and $D_{s3}^*(2860)$: Candidates for $1D$ charmed-strange mesons
Newly observed two charmed-strange resonances, $D_{s1}^*(2860)$ and
$D_{s3}^*(2860)$, are investigated by calculating their Okubo-Zweig-Iizuka
allowed strong decays, which shows that they are suitable candidates for the
$1^3D_1$ and $1^3D_3$ states in the charmed-strange meson family. Our study
also predicts other main decay modes of $D_{s1}^*(2860)$ and $D_{s3}^*(2860)$,
which can be accessible at the future experiment. In addition, the decay
behaviors of the spin partners of $D_{s1}^*(2860)$ and $D_{s3}^*(2860)$, i.e.,
$1D(2^-)$ and $1D^\prime(2^-)$, are predicted in this work, which are still
missing at present. Experimental search for the missing $1D(2^-)$ and
$1D^\prime(2^-)$ charmed-strange mesons is an intriguing and challenging task
for further experiment.