Research Article  Open Access
and : Which Can Be Assigned as a Hybrid State?
Abstract
The mass spectrum and strong decays of the and are analyzed. Our results indicate that and are the two different resonances. The narrower seems likely a good hybrid candidate. We support the as the quarkonium. We suggest to search the isospin partner of in the channels of and in the future. The latter channel is very important for testing the hybrid scenario.
1. Introduction
An isoscalar resonant structure of was observed by the BESIII Collaboration with a statistical significance of 7.2 in the processes recently [1]. Its mass and width were given as Here the first errors are statistical and the second ones are systematic. The product branching fraction of was also presented [1]. But the quantum numbers of are still unknown, then the partial wave analysis is required in future.
The mass of is consistent with the , but the width is much narrower than the . In the tables of the Particle Data Group (PDG) [2], the available mass and width of are
The has been observed in reactions [3, 4], annihilation [5–8], and radiative decays [9]. It should be stressed that radiative decay channels (Figure 1(a)) and annihilation processes are the ideal glueball hunting grounds. But the glueball production is suppressed in reaction. By contrast, the hadronic decay are considered “hybrid rich” (Figure 1(b)).
(a)
(b)
Furthermore, the branching ratio reported by the WA102 Collaboration indicates that the decay channel of is tiny for [7]. This has been confirmed by an extensive reanalysis of the Crystal Barrel data [10]. Differently, the analysis of BESIII Collaboration indicates that the primarily decays via the channel [1]. Then the present measurements of the decay widths, productions, and decay properties suggest that and are two different isoscalar mesons.
If the production process is mainly hadronic, the quantum numbers of should be , , or . One notices that the predicted masses for the light , and hybrids overlap 1.8 GeV in the Bag model [11, 12], the flux tube model [13, 14], and the constituent gluon model [15]. In addition, the decay width of isoscalar hybrid is expected to be narrow [16]. Therefore, becomes a possible hybrid candidate.
In addition, the predicted masses of and glueball are much higher than 1.8 GeV by lattice gauge theory [17–19]. Therefore, is not likely to be a glueball state. Moreover, the molecule and fourquark states are not expected in this region [16]. Then the unclear structure looks more like a good hybrid candidate. But the actual situation is much complicated because the nature of is still ambiguous.(i)Since no lines of evidence have been found in the decay mode of , the disfavors the quarkonium assignment. The mass of seems much smaller for the () state in the GodfreyIsgur (GI) quark model [20]. Therefore the has been assigned as the hybrid state [10, 21–23]. (ii)However, Li and Wang pointed out that the mass, production, total decay width, and decay pattern of the do not appear to contradict with the picture of it as being the conventional state [24].
Therefore, systematical study of the mass spectrum and strong decay properties is urgently required for and . Some valuable suggestions for the experiments in future are also needed.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, the masses of and will be explored in the GI relativized quark model and the Regge trajectories (RTs) framework. In Section 3, the decay processes that an isoscalar meson decays into light scalar (below 1 GeV) and pseudoscalar mesons will be discussed. The twobody strong decays of and will be calculated within the model and the fluxtube model. Finally, our discussions and conclusions will be presented in Section 4.
2. Mass Spectrum
In the GodfreyIsgur relativized potential model [20], the Hamiltonian consists of a central potential and the kinetic term in a “relativized” form
The funnelshaped potentials which include a color coulomb term at short distances and a linear scalar confining term at large distances are usually incorporated as the zerothorder potential. The typical funnelshaped potential was proposed by the Cornell group (Cornell potential) with the form [29]
The strong coupling constant , the string tension , and the constant are the model parameters which can be fixed by the wellestablished experimental states. The remaining spindependent terms for mass shifts are usually treated as the leadingorder perturbations which include the spinspin contact hyperfine interaction, spinorbit and tensor interactions, and a longerranged inverted spinorbit term. They arise from one gluon exchange (OGE) forces and the assumed Lorentz scalar confinement. The expressions for these terms may be found in [20].
It should be pointed out that the nonperturbative contribution may dominate for the hyperfine splitting of light mesons, which is not like the heavy quarkonium [30]. For example, the hyperfine shift of the meson with respect to the center gravity of the mesons is much small: MeV [31]. However, for the light isovector mesons , , , and , the hyperfine shift is MeV. Here the masses of , , , and are taken from PDG [2]. For the complexities of nonperturbative interactions, we are not going to calculate the hyperfine splitting.
Now, the spinaveraged mass, , of multiplet can be obtained by solving the spinless Salpeter equation:
Here we employ a variational approach described in [32] to solve (5). This variational approach has been applied well in solving the Salpeter equation for [33], and [34] mass spectrum.
In the calculations, the basic simple harmonic oscillator (SHO) functions are taken as the trial wave functions. It is given by in the position space. Here the SHO function scale is the variational parameter.
By the Fourier transform, the SHO radial wave function in the momentum is
The wave functions of and meet the normalization conditions:
In the variational approach, the corresponding are given by minimizing the expectation value of where
When all the parameters of the potential model are known, the values of the harmonic oscillator parameter can be fixed directly. With the values of , all the spinaveraged masses will be obtained easily. obtained in this way trend to be better for the higherexcited states [35].
It is unreasonable to treat the spinspin contact hyperfine interaction as a perturbation for the ground states, because the mass splitting between pseudoscalar mesons and vector mesons are much large. Then we consider the contributions of for the mesons. The following Gaussiansmeared contact hyperfine interaction [36] is taken for convenience:
In this work, we choose the model parameters as follows: GeV, GeV, , GeV^{2}, GeV, and GeV. We take the smaller value of here rather than the value in [20]. The smaller was obtained by the relation between the slope of the Regge trajectory for the Salpeter equation and the slope in the string picture [30]. The Gaussian smearing parameter seems a little smaller than that in [20]. However, the is usually fitted by the hyperfine splitting of lowexcited states in the works of literature with a certain arbitrariness.
The values of and for the states , , , , , , , , , , , , and are listed in Table 1. The experimental masses for the relative mesons are taken from PDG [2].

Obviously, the spinaveraged masses of the , , and , and mesons are consistent with the experimental data. Indeed, the predicted masses of higher excited states here are also reasonable, for example, and are very possible the wave isovector and isoscalar mesons with the masses of MeV and MeV, respectively [2]. The predicted spinaveraged mass of is not incompatible with experiments. Our results are also overall in good agreement with the expectations from [37]. The trend that a higher excited state corresponds to a smaller coincides with [38–40]. For considering the spinspin contact hyperfine interaction, there are two s for the mesons. The larger one corresponds to the state and the smaller one the state.
As shown in [37, 41], the confinement potential is determinant for the properties of higher excited states. In [37], the masses for higher excited states with GeV^{2} and are closer to experimental data than the results given in [20]. Then we ignored the Coulomb interaction for , , , , and states. In this way, for these states increase about 100 MeV.
The masses of , , , and are usually within 1.8~2.1 GeV in various quark potential models [20, 25–27] (see in Table 2). The predicted spinaveraged masses of , , , and are also within this mass regions (bold ones in Table 1). Due to the uncertainty of the potential models, absolute deviation from experimental data are usually about 100~150 MeV for the higher excited states. Compared with these predicted masses, disfavors the assignment for its low mass. But the possibilities of , , and still exist. Here we do not consider the possibility of as the state because looks more like a good candidate [42–44].
Regge trajectories (RTs) are another useful tool for studying the mass spectrum of the light flavor mesons. In [45], the authors fitted the RTs for all lightquark meson states listed in the PDG tables. A global description was constructed as
Here, and mean the the radial and angularmomentum quantum number. Recently, the authors of [45] repeated their fits with the subset mesons of the paper [46]. They found a little smaller averaged slopes of GeV^{2} and GeV^{2} to be compared with GeV^{2} and GeV^{2} in (12). Here the and are the weighed averaged slopes for radial and angularmomentum RTs [45, 47].
Now , , and have been established as the , , and states in PDG [2]. With the differences between the mass squared of and these states (Table 3), could be assigned for the and . The mass of is too large for the state in the RTs. has been assigned as the meson [2]. Since GeV^{2} which is much smaller than GeV^{2}, looks unlike the state for its low mass. However, the difference of GeV^{2} matches the slopes GeV^{2} well. Then the RTs can not exclude the possibility of as the state.

As mentioned in Section 1, is also a good hybrid candidate since its mass overlaps the predictions given by different models. The predicted masses for , , and states by these models are collected in Table 4.
In this section, the mass of has been studied in the GI quark potential model and the RTs framework. In the GI quark potential model, can be interpreted as the , , or state with a reasonable uncertainty. In the RTs, favors the and assignments. But the assignment can not be excluded thoroughly. is also a good hybrid state candidate. Since the masses of and are nearly equal, the possible assignments of also suit . The investigations of the strong decay properties will be more helpful to distinguish the and .
3. The Strong Decay
3.1. The Final Mesons Include the Scalar Mesons below 1 GeV
Despite many theoretical efforts, the scalar nonet of mesons has never established well. The lowestlying scalar mesons including (or ), , , and are difficult to be described as states; for example, is associated with nonstrange quarks in the scheme. If this is true, its high mass and decay properties are difficult to be understood simultaneously. So interpretations as exotic states were triggered, For examples, two clusters of two quarks and two antiquarks [48], particular quasimolecular states [49–51], and uncorrelated fourquark states [52–54] have been proposed.
Though the structures of these scalar mesons below 1 GeV are still in dispute, the viewpoint that these scalar mesons can constitute a complete nonet states has been reached in most works of the literature (as illustrated in Figure 2). In the following, we will denote this nonet as “” multiplet for convenience.
Due to the unclear nature of the mesons, it seems much difficult to study the decay processes when the final mesons include a member. As an approximation, , , and were treated as mesons in [44, 55]. In [24, 43], this kind of decay channel was ignored. However, this kind of decay mode may be predominant for some mesons. For example, the observations indicate that , , and primarily decay via the channel [1].
In what follows, we will extract some useful information about this kind of decay mode by the flavor symmetry. We will show that , , and are the main decay channels for the isoscalar and the mesons when they decay primarily through “” mesons, where the sign “” denotes a light pseudoscalar meson. This will explain why has been first observed in the channel.
We noticed that the nonet could be interpreted like the nonet in the diquarkantidiquark scenario. In Wilczek and Jaffe’s terminology [56, 57], the mesons consist of a “good” diquark and a “good” antidiquark. When , quarks form a “good” diquark, it means that the two light quarks, and , could be treated as a quasiparticle in color , flavor , and the spin singlet. The “good” , diquark is usually denoted as .
In the diquarkantidiquark limit, the parity of a tetraquark is determined by [58] where the refers to the relative angular momentum between two clusters. Thus the mesons are the lightest tetraquark states in the diquarkantidiquark model with . The nonet in the full set of flavor representations is
Because the flavor symmetry is not exact, the two physical isoscalar mesons, and , are usually the mixing states of the and states [48], When the mixing angle equals the socalled ideal mixing angle, that is, , the composition of the and is
It seems that the deviation from the ideal mixing angle of the and is small [48]. In the following calculations, we will treat them in the ideal mixing scheme.
Under the flavor assumption, all the members of the octet have the same basic coupling constant in one type of reaction, while the singlet member has a different coupling constant. Particularly, when a quarkonium decays into and mesons, there are five independent coupling constants, that is, , , , , and , corresponding to five different channels
In order to determine the relations between these coupling constants, we will assume the process that the or meson decays into a and another mesons obey the OZI (OkuboZweigIizuka) rule; that is, the two quarks in the mother meson go into two daughter mesons, respectively. Therefore, there are four forbidden processes: , , and . With the help of the ClebschGordan coefficients [59], the ratios between the five coupling constants are extracted as
It is well known that the physical states, and , are the mixture of the flavor octet and singlet. They can be written in terms of a mixing angle, , as follows:
The mixing angle has been measured by various means. However, there is still uncertainty for . An excellent fit to the tensor meson decay widths was performed under the symmetry, and was obtained [23]. In our calculation, is taken as . The excited mixtures of and are denoted as
In this scheme, the ideal mixing occurs with the choice of . When and decay into a and pseudoscalar mesons, the relations of decay amplitudes are governed by the coefficients which are modelindependent in the limitation of symmetry. With the coupling constants in hand, the coefficients of and versus the mixing angle are shown in the Figures 3 and 4. When and occur in the ideal mixing, the values of are presented in Table 5. In the factorization framework, the decay difference of a hybrid and excited mesons comes from the spatial contraction [60]. Then the coefficients for hybrid states are the same as these of quarkonia.

Here the mixing of and has been considered. It is sure that the are zero for the processes , , and , since they are OZIforbidden. of has not been considered in Table 5 since lies below the threshold of .
As illustrated in Figures 3 and 4, the primary decay channels of a or predominant excitation are and . If the deviation of from the ideal mixing angle is not large, should be a or predominant state since primarily decays via the channel. At present, only the ground and the isoscalar mesons deviate from the ideal mixing distinctly. In addition, if the is produced via a diagram of Figure 1(b), it should also be or predominant state.
Of course, the symmetry breaking will affect the ratios of these channels listed in Table 5, because the threemomentum of the these products are different. However, the coefficients have presented the valuable information for these specific decay channels. When occupies the state, becomes a good candidate. In the following subsection, we will explore the twobody strong decays of within the model and the fluxtube model. Of course, the analysis of also suits for their nearly equal masses.
3.2. The Strong Decays of and
In [24], the model [61–63] and the fluxtube model [64] were employed to study the twobody strong decays of . There, the pair production (creation) strength and the simple harmonic oscillator (SHO) wave function scale parameter, s, were taken as constants.
However, a series of studies indicate that the strength may depend on both the flavor and the relative momentum of the produced quarks [28, 65]. may also depend on the reduced mass of quarkantiquark pair of the decaying meson [66]. Firstly, the relations of the model to “microscopic” QCD decay mechanisms have been studied in [65]. There, the authors found that the constant corresponds approximately to the dimensionless combination, , where is the mass of produced quark, means the meson wave function scale, and is the string tension. Secondly, the momentum dependent manner of has been studied in [28]. It was found that is dependent on the relative momentum of the created pair, and the form of with was suggested. Thirdly, Segovia et al. proposed that is a function of the reduced mass of quarkantiquark pair of the decaying meson [66]. Based on the first and third points above, will depend on the flavors of both the decaying meson and produced pairs. In our calculations, we will treat the as a free parameter and fix it by the wellmeasured partial decay widths.
In addition, the amplitudes given by the model and the fluxtube model often contain the nodaltype Gaussian form factors which can lead to a dynamic suppression for some channels. Then the values of are important to extract the decay width for the higher excited mesons in these two strong decay models.
In the following, the twobody strong decay of will be investigated in the model where the strength will be extracted by fitting the experimental data. The SHO wave function scale parameter, s, will be borrowed from Table 1 which are extracted by the GI relativized potential model. We will also check the possibility of as a possible hybrid state by the fluxtube model.
In the nonrelativistic limit, the transition operator of the model is depicted as where the and are the color and flavor wave functions of the pair created from vacuum. Thus, , are color and flavor singlets. The pair is also assumed to carry the quantum numbers of , suggesting that they are in a state. Then represents the pair production in a spin triplet state. The solid harmonic polynomial reflects the momentumspace distribution of the .
The helicity amplitude of is given by where represents the momentum of the outgoing meson in the rest frame of the meson . When the mock state [67] is adopted to describe the spatial wave function of a meson, the helicity amplitude can be constructed in the basis easily [62, 63]. The mock state for meson is
To obtain the analytical amplitudes, the SHO wave functions are usually employed for . For comparison with experiments, one obtains the partial decay width via the JacobWick formula [68]:
Finally, the decay width is derived analytically in terms of the partial wave amplitudes
More technical details of the model can be found in [63]. The inherent uncertainties of the decay model itself have been discussed in [28, 69, 70].
The dimensionless parameter will be fixed by the 8 wellmeasured partial decay widths which are listed in Table 6. The amplitudes of these decay channels are presented explicitly in Appendix A.

As mentioned before, may depend on the flavors of both the decaying meson and produced pairs. Then we divide the 8 decay channels into two groups: one is , and the other includes and . The values of here are a little different from these given in [28] where an potential (for details of potential, see [35]) was selected to determine the meson wave functions. Of course, the meson wave function given by different potentials will influence the values of .
It is clear in Table 6 that decrease with increase. In addition, our calculation indicates that depends on flavors of both the decaying meson and the produced quark pairs. For example, values of fixed by and are roughly equal.
In the following calculations, we assume that the values of corresponding to the processes of and are determined by one function. Similarly, we take the function, , for the creation vertex. The function of the creation vertex here is different from the one used in [28]. With the four decay channels listed in the fifth column of Table 6, we fix the function as . For the processes of (the first column of Table 6), we fix the creation vertex function as . The dependence of on the momentum is plotted in Figure 5. Obviously the functions can describe the dependence of and well. The functions of creation vertex given here need further test.
Since we neglected the mass splitting within the isospin multiplet, the partial width into the specific charge channel should be multiplied by the flavor multiplicity factor (Table 7). This factor also incorporates the statistical factor 1/2 if the final state mesons and are identical (as illustrated in Figure 6). More details of can be found in the Appendix of [71].

(a)
(b)
The partial decay widths of are shown in Table 8 except the channels of mesons. and are large channels for the state in our work and [24], which are consistent with the experimental observations of the . The partial widths of , , and are narrower in our work than the expectations from [24]. has been observed by the BES Collaboration in the radiative decay channel of [24]. However, no apparent signals were detected in the channels of [72] and [73, 74]. Therefore, improved experimental measurements of the radiative decay channels are needed for the in future.