Arxiv:2011.10959V2

Home , Charm (quantum number), Strangeness

arXiv:2011.10959v2 [hep-ph] 29 Mar 2021 eyrcnl,teBSI olbrto bevda xesover excess an the near observed mesons collaboration charmed conventional BESIII the recently, Very Introduction 1 inrms n it ftenwstructure, tetraquark new the hidden-charm of charged width the and of mass Wigner candidate first the is It pcrmwt h infiac f5.3 of significance the with spectrum the n 13 and Z ocuinta the that conclusion h ar-uroimmdl[,7,adteinitial-single-chiral-part the and the 7], like [4, Just model hadro-quarkonium the nldn h iur-niiur yettaur oe 3 ] th 4], [3, model tetraquark type diquark-antidiquark the including ls3975 olds h ert ftecagdexotic charged the of secrets the ihthe with uha h erqaksae[,10], [9, state tetraquark the as such hntedcyrt ocamnu nlstates. final charmonium to rate decay the than n ecnsuyisntr ihtepoopouto [19]. photo-production the 15 with 14, nature 13, its 12, study 11, can [9, we effects and coupled-channel the with resonance tagns ntefaeoko h C u ue,adeaieth examine scales and energy rules, the sum on QCD residues the pole of framework the in strangeness rttm.Orrlal acltosspotietfigthe identifying support calculations reliable Our time. first n 1 and niiur yettaur ttshvn idncamwt the with hidden-charm having states tetraquark type antidiquark tt erqaksae ihhde-hr u ihu strange without but investigate hidden-charm to with currents blo states building local tetraquark fundamental state four-quark the tensor as and respectively axialvector triplet color and titriplet cs eateto hsc,NrhCiaEeti oe nvriy Bao University, Power Electric China North Physics, of Department 1 38)aegvre yasmlrpouto ehns n aeasim a have and mechanism production similar a by governed are (3985) e od:Ttaur tt,QDsmrules sum QCD state, Tetraquark words: Key 12.38.Lg 12.39.Mk, number: PACS h xsec fa exotic an of existence The fe h icvr fthe of discovery the After nRf[0,w netgt h spin-parity the investigate we Ref.[20], In -al [email protected]. E-mail: Z nlsso the of Analysis c + xeietlvle3985 value experimental ue.Tepeitdttaur mass tetraquark predicted The rules. stefnaetlbidn lcst osrc h four-qu the construct states tetraquark to axialvector blocks type diquark-antidiquark building fundamental the as iyn the tifying codn otepeiu works. previous tetraqu the hidden-charm to type according diquark-antidiquark the of trum etk noacuttelgtflavor light the account into take We 38)wsosre nteprecess the in observed was (3885) . − 8 epciey nRf[1,w aetedqakadatdqakoper antidiquark and diquark the take we Ref.[21], In respectively. , − +8 nti ae,w hoetesaa n xavco iur o diquark axialvector and scalar the choose we paper, this In q . 5 e n 3977 and MeV 2 . . = 1 2 Z ± d c 4 or tts h ea aeo the of rate decay the states, Z . e,rsetvl.Acrigt h rdcinmd,i snature is it mode, production the to According respectively. MeV, 9 cs s Z 38)a h osno the of cousin the as (3985) h icvr fthe of discovery The . cs 38)sol eacui ftewell-known the of cousin a be should (3985) . e epciey a enpeitdi eea hoeia mod theoretical several in predicted been has respectively, MeV 0 Z . 2 Z Z +2 − cs cs 2 cs (3985) . . 1 0 38) eea osbeepaain o t auewr propos were nature its for explanations possible several (3985), µ Z tt ihams,wihle erthe near lies which mass, a with state ± c D fteseta este tteqakgunlvla eghfrth for length at level quark-gluon the at densities spectral the of 1 structures. . ∗ e rmteBSI olbrto,wihspot iden- supports which collaboration, BESIII the from MeV 7 σ D ¯ D ntepoesso the of processes the in s h-agWang Zhi-Gang steailetrttaur state tetraquark axialvector the as M − s − SU e + Z D D Z e 3 asbekn ffc oetmt h asspec- mass the estimate to effect mass-breaking (3) Z Abstract 3 = Z ∗ D cs − ¯ Z 0 cs cs 38)cudpoiesm nqehnst uncover to hints unique some provide could (3985) s ∗ c J → and 30)wt h unu numbers quantum the with (3900) . 38) eedtrie ob 3985 be to determined were (3985), arncmlclrsaeo yaial generated dynamically or state molecular hadronic ooe-hr nlsae sepce ob larger be to expected is states final open-charm to 99 P 1 ( ± 1 = D D 0 D ¯ s ∗− . 9GVi necletareetwt the with agreement excellent in is GeV 09 + ∗ ) D c − 1 idncamttaur ttswithout states tetraquark hidden-charm cu ¯ 0 π s ¯ X astrsod nthe in thresholds mass + ntefaeoko h C sum QCD the of framework the in hc en htthe that means which , r ttshvn h strangeness the having states ark 37)and (3872) r urnsadivsiaethe investigate and currents ark e esi h rmwr fteQCD the of framework the in ness + tt ihsrnees h Breit- The strangeness. with state eaosi h oo antitriplet color the in perators 6,r-cteigeet 1,18], [17, effects re-scattering 16], , h assetu fteground the of spectrum mass the e Z − h nw otiuin fthe of contributions known the unu numbers quantum eedneo h assand masses the of dependence e e c → (3885 D ceeiso ehns [8]. mechanism icle-emission D ig010,P .China R. P. 071003, ding k ocntuttescalar, the construct to cks s K D ¯ s − Z + lrqakstructure quark ilar / ∗ D ( c 90 ihstrangeness, with 3900) D 30)a h diquark- the as (3900) oeuemdl[,6], [5, model molecule ∗ tr nteclran- color the in ators 0 s − and D J ∗ C P 0 . K D 2 + − +2 Z + s ∗− 1 = 2 D J oda the draw to c . . recoil-mass 1 0 38)and (3885) D C P s ∗− ± + 0 1 − D . thresh- 1 = MeV 7 . 0 [1]. ) c cq ¯ els, ++ ed, u ¯ e sum rules comprehensively, and revisit the possible identifications of the existing tetraquark can- didates with hidden-charm, such as the X(3860), X(3872), X(3915), X(3940), X(4160), Zc(3900), Zc(4020), Zc(4050), Zc(4055), Zc(4100), Zc(4200), Zc(4250), Zc(4430), Zc(4600), etc. N P In Refs.[20, 21], we choose the local axialvector four-quark currents ηµ (x) and ηµ (x),

ijk imn N ε ε T ¯ T T ¯ T ηµ (x) = uj (x)Cγ5ck(x)dm(x)γµCc¯n (x) uj (x)Cγµck(x)dm(x)γ5Cc¯n (x) , √2 n − o ijk imn P ε ε T ¯ T T ¯ T ηµ (x) = uj (x)Cγ5ck(x)dm(x)γµCc¯n (x)+ uj (x)Cγµck(x)dm(x)γ5Cc¯n (x) , (1) √2 n o

PC + ++ to investigate the lowest tetraquark states with the quantum numbers J = 1 − and 1 , N respectively, where the i, j, k, m, n are color indices. The four-quark current ηµ (x) has the PC + + quantum numbers J =1 − and couples potentially to the Zc (3900), in fact, the Zc±(3900) have non-zero electric charge, and do not have definite charge conjugation, or they are not eigenstates 0 of the charge conjugation, only the electric neutral state Zc (3900) has definite charge conjugation. If the Zcs−(3985) is really a tetraquark state, irrespective of whether it is the diquark-antidiquark type or meson-meson type tetraquark state, its valence quarks are ccs¯ u¯, and has no definite electric conjugation indeed (to be more precisely), we suppose that it has definite conjugation, just like its cousins ccq¯ q¯ and ccs¯ s¯. In the present work, we tentatively identify the Zcs−(3985) as the diquark- antidiquark type axialvector tetraquark state with the four valence quarks ccs¯ u¯ and examine its mass in the framework of the QCD sum rules at length. Then we take into account the light flavor SU(3) mass-breaking effect to explore the mass spectrum of the diquark-antidiquark type tetraquark states with hidden-charm and with strangeness according to our previous works. The article is arranged as follows: in Sect.2, we get the QCD sum rules for the masses and pole residues of the J P =1+ tetraquark states with hidden-charm and with strangeness; in Sect.3, we obtain numerical results and give discussions; and Sect.4 is aimed to get a conclusion.

2 The QCD sum rules for the axialvector tetraquark states with strangeness

If we choose the favorable diquark conﬁgurations, the scalar (S) and axialvector (A) diquark states in the color antitriplet, as the fundamental building blocks to construct the diquark-antidiquark type tetraquark states, we can obtain two nonets with the symbolic structures,

I = 1 : [uc] [d¯c¯] [uc] [d¯c¯] , [dc] [¯uc¯] [dc] [¯uc¯] , S A − A S S A − A S [uc] [¯uc¯] [uc] [¯uc¯] [dc] [d¯c¯] + [dc] [d¯c¯] S A − A S − S A A S ; √2 [uc] [¯uc¯] [uc] [¯uc¯] + [dc] [d¯c¯] [dc] [d¯c¯] I = 0 : S A − A S S A − A S , √2 [sc] [¯sc¯] [sc] [¯sc¯] ; S A − A S 1 I = :[qc] [¯sc¯] [qc] [¯sc¯] , [sc] [¯qc¯] [sc] [¯qc¯] , (2) 2 S A − A S S A − A S

2 and

I = 1 : [uc]S[d¯c¯]A + [uc]A[d¯c¯]S , [dc]S[¯uc¯]A + [dc]A[¯uc¯]S , [uc] [¯uc¯] + [uc] [¯uc¯] [dc] [d¯c¯] [dc] [d¯c¯] S A A S − S A − A S ; √2 [uc] [¯uc¯] + [uc] [¯uc¯] + [dc] [d¯c¯] + [dc] [d¯c¯] I = 0 : S A A S S A A S , √2 [sc]S[¯sc¯]A + [sc]A[¯sc¯]S ; 1 I = :[qc] [¯sc¯] + [qc] [¯sc¯] , [sc] [¯qc¯] + [sc] [¯qc¯] , (3) 2 S A A S S A A S

1 where the I = 1, 0, 2 are the isospins of the hidden-charm tetraquark states, q = u, d. 1 In the first nonet, only the charge-neutral tetraquark states √ [uc]S[¯uc¯]A [uc]A[¯uc¯]S 2 − − ¯ ¯ 1 ¯ ¯ [dc]S[dc¯]A + [dc]A[dc¯]S , √ [uc]S[¯uc¯]A [uc]A[¯uc¯]S + [dc]S [dc¯]A [dc]A[dc¯]S and [sc]S[¯sc¯]A 2 − − − [sc]A[¯sc¯]S are eigenstates of the charge conjugation operators, and have the definite charge conjugation C = . − 1 In the second nonet, only the charge-neutral tetraquark states √ [uc]S[¯uc¯]A + [uc]A[¯uc¯]S 2 − ¯ ¯ 1 ¯ ¯ [dc]S[dc¯]A [dc]A[dc¯]S , √ [uc]S[¯uc¯]A + [uc]A[¯uc¯]S + [dc]S [dc¯]A + [dc]A[dc¯]S and [sc]S[¯sc¯]A + − 2 [sc]A[¯sc¯]S are eigenstates of the charge conjugation operators, and have the definite charge conjugation C = +. Thereafter, we will assume that the first nonet and second nonet have the negative and positive charge conjugations respectively so as to distinguish the two nonets, and we should bear in mind that the charge conjugation is not a good quantum number. Routinely, let us write down the two-point vacuum Green’s functions Πµν (p),

4 ip x Πµν (p) = i d xe · 0 T Jµ(x)J †(0) 0 , (4) Z h | ν | i N P where the interpolating currents Jµ(x)= Jµ (x) and Jµ (x),

ijk imn N ε ε T T T T Jµ (x) = uj (x)Cγ5ck(x)¯sm(x)γµCc¯n (x) uj (x)Cγµck(x)¯sm(x)γ5Cc¯n (x) , √2 n − o ijk imn P ε ε T T T T Jµ (x) = uj (x)Cγ5ck(x)¯sm(x)γµCc¯n (x)+ uj (x)Cγµck(x)¯sm(x)γ5Cc¯n (x) , (5) √2 n o the superscripts N and P stand for the negative and positive charge conjugations, respectively, N the i, j, k, m, n are color indices. We suppose that the interpolating four-quark currents Jµ (x) P and Jµ (x) have the negative and positive charge conjugation respectively in the sense of the limit Jµ(x) s u or Jµ(x) u s, which should be understood in the same way as in the two tetraquark | → | → N P nonets in Eqs.(2)-(3). In Refs.[20, 21], we choose the four-quark currents ηµ (x) and ηµ (x) to explore the axialvector tetraquark states ucd¯c¯, and observe that the ucd¯c¯ states with the quantum PC + ++ N P numbers J = 1 − and 1 have almost degenerated masses. The currents Jµ (x) and Jµ (x) N P are the SU(3) partners of the currents ηµ (x) and ηµ (x), respectively with the simple relation N P d s. Now we also expect that the four-quark currents Jµ (x) and Jµ (x) couple potentially to ↔ PC + ++ the J =1 − and 1 tetraquark states with almost the same masses. At the hadron side, we insert a complete set of intermediate tetraquark states with hidden- charm, strangeness and other quantum numbers, such as the spin, parity, charge conjugation, as the four-quark current operators Jµ(x), into the Green’s functions Πµν (p) to obtain the hadron spectral representation [22, 23], and separate the lowest tetraquark states ZN/P with hidden-charm

3 and with strangeness (or the lowest pole terms), and obtain the results:

λ2 p p Π (p) = Z g + µ ν + , µν M 2 p2 − µν p2 ··· Z − p p = Π(p2) g + µ ν + , (6) − µν p2 ··· where the pole residues λ (in other works, the decay constants) are defined by 0 J (0) Z (p) = Z h | µ | N/P i λZ εµ, the εµ are the polarization vectors of the axialvector tetraquark states ZN/P . On the other hand, there are two-particle scattering state contributions from the two-meson pairs KJ/ψ, ηcK∗, DsD¯ ∗, D∗D¯ s, , as the quantum field theory does allow non-vanishing couplings between the four-quark currents··· and two-particle scattering states in case that they share the same quantum numbers. In Ref.[24], we investigate the Zc(3900) as an axialvector tetraquark state with the quan- PC + tum numbers J = 1 − in the framework of the QCD sum rules at length by considering the two-particle scattering state contributions and the nonlocal effects between the two colored con- stituents (diquark and antidiquark) in the four-quark current operator, and obtain the conclusion that the contribution of the Zc(3900) as a pole term plays a non-substitutable role, we can saturate the QCD sum rules at the hadron side no matter with or without the two-meson scattering state contributions. The net effects of the two-particle scattering states of the intermediate meson pairs can be taken into account effectively by adding an energy-dependent finite width to the pole term. +8.1 In the present case, the energy-dependent Breit-Wigner width 13.8 5.2 4.9 MeV of the Zcs(3985) is really small enough so as to be neglected safely. − ± In the QCD side, we carry out the operator product expansion up to the vacuum condensates of dimension 10 in a consistent way, just as what we did in our previous works [20, 21], in the deep Euclidean region P 2 = p2 or Λ2 , which corresponds to the small spatial distance − → ∞ ≫ QCD and time interval ~x t 1 . We take into account or calculate the vacuum condensates qq¯ , ∼ ∼ √P 2 h i αsGG αsGG αsGG ss¯ , qg¯ sσGq , sg¯ sσGs , π , qq¯ ss¯ , qq¯ π , ss¯ π , qq¯ sg¯ sσGs , ss¯ qg¯ sσGq , h i h αsGGi h i h i h ih i h ih i h ih i h ih i h ih i qq¯ ss¯ π and qg¯ sσGq sg¯ sσGs , which are the vacuum expectation values of the quark- h ih ih i h ih i 2 k gs gluon operators of the orders (αs ) with the restriction k 1 as αs = 4π . The vacuum condensates 3 a b c αsGG 2 αOsGG 3 ≤ a b c gs fabcG G G , π , π qg¯ sσGq and qq¯ gs fabcG G G are of the dimensions 6, 8, 9 hand 9, respectively,i h andi areh vacuumih expectationi h valuesih of the quark-gluoni operators of the orders 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 (αs ), (αs ), (αs ) and (αs ), respectively, and are neglected in the present work, just like inO our previousO O works [21, 25,O 26, 27], direct calculations indicate that those contributions are tiny indeed [28]. In calculations, we have assumed vacuum saturation for the sake of factorizing the higher dimensional vacuum condensates into the lowest ones to reduce the numbers of the fundamental parameters, which works very well indeed in the large color numbers limit. Once we get the analytical expressions of the correlation (or Green’s) functions Π(p2) at the degrees of freedom of the quarks and gluons, then we resort to dispersion relation to get the spectral densities at the quark level straightforwardly, and match the two sides of the correlation (Green’s) functions Π(p2) (i.e. the hadron side and QCD side), accomplish the quark-hadron duality (in other words, the current-hadron duality) below the thresholds s0 of the continuum states or higher resonances, complete the Borel transform in regard to the variable or parameter P 2 = p2 and acquire the QCD sum rules: −

2 s0 2 MZ s λZ exp = ds ρQCD(s) exp , (7) − T 2 2 −T 2 Z4mc where the explicit expressions of the spectral densities ρQCD(s) at the quark level are neglected for simplicity. 1 We diﬀerentiate both sides of the above equation in regard to the parameter T 2 , then eliminate the pole residues λZ by introducing a fraction, and reach the QCD sum rules for the masses of the

4 hidden-charm axialvector tetraquark states with strangeness,

s0 d s 2 ds 2 ρQCD(s) exp 2 2 − 4mc d(1/T ) − T MZ = R s0 s . (8) 2 ds ρQCD(s) exp 2 4mc − T R 3 Numerical results and discussions

We adopt the standard values or conventional values of all the vacuum condensates qq¯ = (0.24 3 2 2 2 h i − ±2 0.01 GeV) , qg¯ sσGq = m0 qq¯ , ss¯ = (0.8 0.1) qq¯ , sg¯ sσGs = m0 ss¯ , m0 = (0.8 0.1) GeV , h i h4 i h i ± h i h i h i ± αsGG =0.012 0.004 GeV at the typical energy scale µ = 1GeV [22, 23, 29, 30, 31], and prefer h π i ± the MS masses of the charm and strange quarks, mc(mc) = (1.275 0.025)GeV and ms(µ = 2GeV) = (0.095 0.005) GeV, from the Particle Data Group [32], just± like in our previous works [20, 21]. In addition,± we take into account the energy-scale dependence of all the input parameters at the quark level, such as the quark condensates qq¯ , ss¯ , the mixed quark condensates qg¯ sσGq , sg¯ σGs and the MS masses m (µ), m (µ) in theh i lighth i of renormalization group equationh [33],i h s i c s 12 33−2 α (1GeV) nf qq¯ (µ) = qq¯ (1GeV) s , h i h i αs(µ) 12 33−2 α (1GeV) nf ss¯ (µ) = ss¯ (1GeV) s , h i h i αs(µ) 2 33−2n αs(1GeV) f qg¯ sσGq (µ) = qg¯ sσGq (1GeV) , h i h i αs(µ) 2 33−2n αs(1GeV) f sg¯ sσGs (µ) = sg¯ sσGs (1GeV) , h i h i αs(µ) 12 33−2n αs(µ) f mc(µ) = mc(mc) , αs(mc) 12 33−2n αs(µ) f ms(µ) = ms(2GeV) , αs(2GeV) 2 2 1 b1 log t b1(log t log t 1)+ b0b2 αs(µ) = 1 2 + − 4 2 − , (9) b0t − b0 t b0t

2 5033 325 2 µ 33 2nf 153 19nf 2857 9 nf + 27 nf 2 − − 2 − 3 where t = log Λ , b0 = 12π , b1 = 24π , b2 = 128π , Λ = 213MeV, 296MeV and 339 MeV for the quark flavor numbers nf = 5, 4 and 3, respectively [32]. In the present work, we investigate the hidden-charm tetraquark states ccu¯ s¯ with strangeness, it is better to adopt the quark flavor numbers nf = 4, then evolve all the input parameters at the quark level to a typical energy scale µ, which satisfies the restriction of the energy scale formula µ = M (2M )2 with Z − c the updated effective charm quark mass Mc =1.82 GeV [21, 25, 26, 27]. If wep take the Zcs(3985) as the ground state tetraquark candidate for the ZN/P with hidden-charm, with strangeness, and with J P = 1+, the best energy scales (or our preferred energy scales) of the spectral densities at the quark level are µ =1.6 GeV. Now let us take a short digression to discuss the energy scale dependence of the QCD sum rules. In preforming the operator product expansion, we can choose any energy scale if the perturbative calculations are feasible at this special energy scale, and the physical quantities extracted from the QCD sum rules should be independent on selections of the energy scales. In this sense, the 2 d 2 correlation functions Π(p ) are independent on the energy scales, dµ Π(p ) = 0. On the other hand, the two-quark (three-quark, four-quark, ) currents J(x) are operators and are renormalized at special energy scales, thus they are defin···ed at special energy scales and

5 are energy scale dependent quantities,

γJ J(x, µ) = L J(x, µ0) , (10) where L = αs(µ0) , and the γ are the anomalous dimensions of the currents J(x). We usually αs(µ) J neglect renormalization of the hadron states, and set the anomalous dimensions of the pole residues (or decay constants) to be the anomalous dimensions of the current operators,

0 J(0,µ) H(p) = λ (µ) , h | | i H = LγJ 0 J(0,µ ) H(p) h | 0 | i γJ = L λH (µ0) . (11)

In fact, even in the QCD sum rules for the conventional D meson, where the radiative corrections 2 of the perturbative terms have been calculated up to the order (αs) and the radiative corrections O 1 of the quark condensate have been calculated up to the order (αs ) [34, 35, 36], the relation for 12 O the decay constant fD(µ)= L 25 fD(µ0) cannot take account of the energy scale dependence of the QCD sum rules in a consistent way. On one hand, the non-local operators J(x)J(0) have their own anomalous dimensions γJJ , γJJ =2γJ , just like re-normalization of the quark fields q(x) alone is not enough for the conven- tional6 current operators J(x)=¯q(x)Γq(x), where the Γ stand for some Dirac γ-matrixes. On the other hand, we usually neglect the radiative corrections due to the cumbersome calculations and factorize the higher dimensional vacuum condensates to the lower dimension vacuum condensates in performing the operator product expansion, the energy scale dependence of the QCD sum rules is modified. Furthermore, we introduce the continuum threshold parameters s0 to exclude the con- taminations of the higher resonances and continuum states, the correlation between the thresholds and continuum thresholds is not clear. The energy scale dependence cannot be absorbed into the pole residues alone, we cannot obtain energy scale independent QCD sum rules for the masses, selections of the energy scales of the QCD spectral densities influence the masses extracted from the QCD sum rules. We can rewrite the energy scale formula in another form,

2 2 MX/Y/Z = µ + C, (12)

M2 where the constants C =4 c, then explain the energy scale formula in another way. We conjecture that the predicted tetraquark masses and pertinent energy scales of the QCD spectral densities have a Regge-trajectory-like relation, see Eq.(12), where the C are free parameters and fitted by the QCD sum rules. Direct calculations have proven that the C have universal values and work well for all the tetraquark (molecular) states. The standard values of the quark condensates and mixed condensates determined in the original works still survive [22, 29, 30, 31], while the value of the gluon condensate was updated from time to time in the literatures, however, the standard value determined in the original works [22] is still feasible [31]. The gluon condensate is the vacuum expectation value of the gluon operator 1 of the order (αs), and plays a minor important role in the present work, the standard value and updatedO value do not make much difference. The most important parameter is the c-quark mass mc(mc). In 2006, R. D. Matheus et al investigated the X(3872) as the diquark-antidiquark type tetraquark state with the QCD sum rules by carrying out the operator product expansion up to the vacuum condensates of dimension 8 [37]. Thereafter the QCD sum rules became a powerful theoretical approach in studying the exotic X, Y and Z states. In Ref.[37], the MS mass m (m )=1.23 0.05GeV was chosen, thereafter the value was adopted without or with c c ± slightly modified uncertainty [38]. Only in recent years, new values mc(mc) = 1266 6 MeV [39] +0.025 ± and 1.275 0.025GeV [9] and 1.275 0.035 GeV [16] were chosen. The values of the MS mass of the c-quark± listed in The Review of− Particle Physics in 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018 and 2020 were +0.025 1.275 0.025GeV, 1.275 0.025GeV, 1.27 0.03GeV, 1.275 0.035 GeV and 1.27 0.02 GeV, ± ± ± − ±

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4 |D(n)|

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0

-0.1

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011

Figure 1: The absolute values of the contributions of the vacuum condensates in the condition of central values of the input parameters, where the N and P stand for the negative and positive charge conjugation, respectively. respectively. We fitted the constants C with the value 1.275 0.025GeV from The Review of Particle Physics (2012) [25, 26], and adopted the value eversince.± The energy gaps between the ground states (or 1S) and the first radial excited states (or 2S) of the hidden-charm tetraquark states without strangeness or with hidden-strangeness are about 0.6 GeV [21, 40, 41, 42], we adopt the continuum threshold parameters as √s0 = MZ + 0.55 0.10GeV = 4.55 10 GeV tentatively, and vary the Borel parameters T 2 to satisfy the two requirements± that the pole± contributions dominate the QCD sum rules at the hadron side and the operator product expansions converge rather quickly at the QCD side via trial and error. In doing so, we should bear in mind that if our numerical results do no support identifying the Zcs(3985) to be the axialvector tetraquark state, we should refit the best continuum threshold parameters and the best energy scales of the spectral densities at the quark level to obtain the real ground state tetraquark masses. In the end, we acquire the Borel windows (or working Borel parameters) and pole contributions N P in the two QCD sum rules for the currents Jµ (x) and Jµ (x), and show them plainly in the Table 1. From the table, we can see clearly that the contributions of the lowest pole terms are about (42 62)%, while the central values exceed 50%, so we can say confidently that the contributions of the− pole terms dominate the QCD sum rules at the hadron side, one of the fundamental criterions is satisfied very well. In Fig.1, we plot the absolute values of the contributions of the vacuum condensates with the centroids of the values of all the input parameters under the condition that the total contributions are normalized to be 1. From the figure, we can see clearly that the largest contributions come from the quark condensates qq¯ and ss¯ , the vacuum condensates of the dimensions 7, 8 and 10 play a tiny role, the operatorh i producth i expansion converges very good. Now we can acquire the conclusion confidently that it is reliable and reasonable to extract the tetraquark masses in the Borel windows. We take into account all the uncertainties of the input parameters to accomplish the error analysis, and acquire the values of the masses and pole residues of the axialvector tetraquark states with hidden-charm and with the strangeness S = 1, which are presented explicitly in Table 1 and Fig.2. From Table 1, we can see clearly that the energy scale µ = 1.6 GeV is consistent 2 with the mass 3.99GeV inferred from the energy scale formula µ = MZ (2Mc) or the relation − 2 2 M2 between the tetraquark masses and the energy scales of the QCD spectralp densities MZ = µ +4 c.

7 PC 2 2 5 J T (GeV ) √s0(GeV) µ(GeV) pole M(GeV) λ(GeV ) + 2 1 − 3.0 3.4 4.55 0.10 1.6 (42 63)% 3.99 0.09 (2.85 0.45) 10− ++ − ± − ± ± × 2 1 3.0 3.4 4.55 0.10 1.6 (41 62)% 3.99 0.09 (2.85 0.45) 10− − ± − ± ± ×

Table 1: The Borel windows, continuum threshold parameters, ideal energy scales, pole contributions, masses and pole residues for the axialvector tetraquark states with strangeness.

5.0 5.0

4.8 4.8

Central value Central value

4.6 4.6 P Error bounds N Error bounds

Expt

Expt 4.4 4.4

4.2 4.2

4.0 4.0

3.8 M(GeV) 3.8 M(GeV)

3.6 3.6

3.4 3.4

3.2 3.2

3.0 3.0

1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

2 2 2 2

T (GeV ) T (GeV )

Figure 2: The masses of the axialvector tetraquark states with variations of the Borel parameter T 2, where the N and P stand for the negative and positive charge conjugation, respectively, the regions between the two vertical lines are the Borel windows, the Expt stands for the experimental value of the mass of the Zcs(3985).

In Fig.2, we plot the predicted tetraquark masses with respect to variations of the Borel parameters at much larger regions than the Borel windows, furthermore, we also show the experimental value of the mass of the Zcs(3985) from the BESIII collaboration for the sake of comparing [1]. From the figure, we can see clearly that there really appear very flat platforms in the Borel windows. In the Borel windows, the mass of the Zcs(3985) overlaps with the central values of the masses of PC + the tetraquark states with strangeness and sharing the quantum numbers J =1 ±. From the Table 1, we can see plainly that the axialvector tetraquark states with the negative and positive charge conjugation have degenerated masses. In fact, the central values of the masses of the axialvector tetraquark states with the negative and positive charge conjugation are 3.98669 GeV and 3.99303 GeV respectively, the axialvector tetraquark states having the J PC =1++ have slightly PC + larger masses than the corresponding states having the J = 1 − [21]. In all the calculations including the present work, we observe that if we choose the same values of the input parameters, such as the quark masses, vacuum condensates, continuum threshold parameters, Borel parameters, etc, the predicted masses of the J PC =1++ tetraquark states are slightly larger than that of the PC + J = 1 − tetraquark states. However, we should bear in mind that the tiny mass difference cannot be quantified considering the uncertainties of the QCD sum rules. PC + ++ In Fig.3, we plot the predicted masses of the J = 1 − and 1 tetraquark states with variations of the energy scales of the QCD spectral densities in the condition of central values of the input parameters. From the figure, we can see clearly that the predicted masses decrease monotonously with the increase of the energy scales. If we set Mc =1.82GeV [21, 25, 26, 27], we 2 2 can obtain the dash-dotted line MZ = µ +4 (1.82 GeV) , which intersects with the lines of PC + ++ × the masses of the J =1 − and 1 ptetraquark states at the energy scales about µ =1.6 GeV. In this way, we choose the energy scales of the QCD spectral densities in a consistent way. As a

4.20

4.15 N

4.10

ESF

4.05

4.00

M(GeV) 3.95

3.90

3.85

3.80

1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0

(GeV)

Figure 3: The masses of the axialvector tetraquark states with variations of the energy scales µ in the condition of central values of the input parameters, where the N and P stand for the negative and positive charge conjugation, respectively, the ESF denotes the formula M = µ2 +4 (1.82 GeV)2. × p byproduct, we can see clearly, if we choose the same input parameters, the predicted masses of the PC ++ PC + J =1 tetraquark states are slightly larger than that of the J =1 − tetraquark states. When we contract the quark ﬁelds in the correlation functions Πµν (p) with Wick theorem, we obtain the formula, ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ijk imn i j k i m n iε ε ε ε 4 ip x Πµν (p) = d xe · − 2 Z ′ ′ ′ ′ Tr γ Ckk (x)γ CU jj T (x)C Tr γ Cn n( x)γ CSm mT ( x)C 5 5 ν − µ − n h ′ ′ i h ′ ′ i +Tr γ Ckk (x)γ CU jj T (x)C Tr γ Cn n( x)γ CSm mT ( x)C µ ν 5 − 5 − h ′ ′ i h ′ ′ i Tr γ Ckk (x)γ CU jj T (x)C Tr γ Cn n( x)γ CSm mT ( x)C ∓ µ 5 ν − 5 − h ′ ′ i h ′ ′ i kk jj T n n m mT Tr γ5C (x)γν CU (x)C Tr γ5C ( x)γµCS ( x)C , (13) ∓ h i h − − io where the correspond the positive and negative charge conjugations of the currents, respectively, ∓ the Uij (x), Sij (x) and Cij (x) are the full u, s and c quark propagators, respectively. In carrying out the operator product expansion, we observe that the dominant contributions come from the ﬁrst two terms in the bracket, the contributions come from the last two terms in the bracket play a tiny role. It is natural that we obtain the almost degenerated tetraquark masses. From the Table 1, we can see clearly that the predicted tetraquark masses MZ =3.99 0.09 GeV +2.1 ± are in excellent agreement with the experimental value 3985.2 2.0 1.7MeV from the BESIII − ± collaboration [1], and support identifying the Zcs(3985) to be the tetraquark state with hidden- PC + PC + charm, with strangeness and with the J =1 −. We prefer the quantum numbers J =1 − to PC ++ 0 0 the quantum numbers J =1 as the Zcs(3985) was observed in the Ds−D∗ and Ds∗−D mass spectrum [1], just like the Zc(3900), which was observed in the DD¯ ∗ mass spectrum [2]. However, the assignment J PC =1++ cannot be excluded as the charge conjugation is not a good quantum number. In Ref.[21], we introduce the four-vector tµ = (1,~0) to project the axialvector and vector compo- ijk T nents of the tensor diquark operators, and take the color-antitriplet diquark operators ε qj Cγ5qk′

9 PC Zc(Xc) J MZ (GeV) Assignments Zc′ (Xc′ ) ++ [uc]S[dc]S 0 3.88 0.09 ? X(3860) ++ ± [uc]A[dc]A 0 3.95 0.09 ? X(3915) ++ ± [uc]A˜[dc]A˜ 0 3.98 0.08 ++ ± [uc]V [dc]V 0 4.65 0.09 ++ ± [uc]V˜ [dc]V˜ 0 5.35 0.09 ++ ± [uc]P [dc]P 0 5.49 0.09 + ± [uc]S[dc]A [uc]A[dc]S 1 − 3.90 0.08 ? Zc(3900) ? Zc(4430) − + ± [uc] [dc] 1 − 4.02 0.09 ? Z (4020/4055) ? Z (4600) A A ± c c e e + [uc]S[dc]A [uc]A[dc]S 1 − 4.01 0.09 ? Zc(4020/4055) ? Zc(4600) − + ± [uc] e[dc] [uc] [dc] e 1 − 4.02 0.09 ? Z (4020/4055) ? Z (4600) A A − A A ± c c e e + [uc]V [dc]V + [uc]V [dc]V 1 − 4.66 0.10 ? Zc(4600) + ± [uc]V [dc]V 1 − 5.46 0.09 + ± [uc] [dc] + [uc] [dc] 1 − 5.45 0.09 P V V P ± [uc] [dc] + [uc] [dc] 1++ 3.91 0.08 ? X(3872) S A A S ± [uc] [dc] e + [uc] e[dc] 1++ 4.02 0.09 ? Z (4050) S A A S ± c [uc] e [dc] [uc] [dc] e 1++ 4.08 0.09 ? Z (4050) V V − V V ± c [uc] e[dc] + [uc] [dc] e 1++ 5.19 0.09 A A A A ± [uc] [dc] [uc] [dc] 1++ 5.46 0.09 P V − V P ± [uc] [dc] 2++ 4.08 0.09 ? Z (4050) A A ± c [uc] [dc] 2++ 5.40 0.09 V V ±

Table 2: The possible assignments of the ground state hidden-charm tetraquark states, where the isospin limit is implied [21].

ijk T ijk T ijk T v ijk T ijk T t (S), ε qj Cqk′ (P ), ε qj Cγµqk′ (A), ε qj Cσµν qk′ (A), ε qj Cγµγ5qk′ (V ) and ε qj Cσµν qk′ (V ) as the fundamental building blocks to construct the four-quarke currents to investigate the mass- spectrum of the tetraquark states with hidden-charm but without strangeness in a comprehensive e way, where the S, P , A/A and V/V stand for the scalar, pseudoscalar, axialvector and vector t i t t v i v t v t diquark operators, respectively,e σµν =e 2 γµ,γν , σµν = 2 γµ,γν , γµ = γ ttµ, γµ = γµ γ ttµ. In h i h i · − · Table 2, we show plainly the mass-spectrum of the hidden-charm tetraquark states ccu¯ d¯ obtained via the QCD sum rules in Ref.[21] with the possible assignments. If we assign the Zcs(3985) to be the cousin of the Zc(3900) with strangeness, the mass gap or the light flavor SU(3) mass-breaking effect M M = 94 MeV, then we take the Zcs(3985) − Zc(3900) light flavor SU(3) mass-breaking effect ms = 0.09 GeV, and estimate the mass spectrum of the tetraquark states with hidden-charm and with strangeness based on our previous work [21], which are shown explicitly in Table 3. We should bear in mind that the charge conjugation is not a very good quantum number in the present case. We cannot exclude that the Zcs(3985) can be identified as the axialvector hidden-charm tetraquark state with the quantum numbers J PC =1++.

4 Conclusion

In present paper, we choose the scalar and axialvector diquark operators (in color antitriplet) and antidiquark (in color triplet) operators as the fundamental building blocks to construct the four- quark currents and investigate the diquark-antidiquark type axialvector tetraquark states ccu¯ s¯ with the QCD sum rules in the condition that we accomplish the operator product expansion up to the vacuum condensates of dimension 10 consistently based on our reasonable analysis and successful experience, and apply the energy scale formula µ = M (2M )2 using the eﬀective Z − c p 10 PC Zc(Xc) J MZ (GeV) Assignments ++ [uc]S[sc]S 0 3.97 0.09 ++ ± [uc]A[sc]A 0 4.04 0.09 ++ ± [uc]A˜[sc]A˜ 0 4.07 0.08 ++ ± [uc]V [sc]V 0 4.74 0.09 ++ ± [uc]V˜ [sc]V˜ 0 5.44 0.09 ++ ± [uc]P [sc]P 0 5.58 0.09 + ± [uc]S[sc]A [uc]A[sc]S 1 − 3.99 0.09 ? Zcs(3985) − + ± [uc] [sc] 1 − 4.11 0.09 A A ± e e + [uc]S[sc]A [uc]A[sc]S 1 − 4.10 0.09 − + ± [uc] e[sc] [uc] [sc] e 1 − 4.11 0.09 A A − A A ± e e + [uc]V [sc]V + [uc]V [sc]V 1 − 4.75 0.10 + ± [uc]V [sc]V 1 − 5.55 0.09 + ± [uc] [sc] + [uc] [sc] 1 − 5.54 0.09 P V V P ± [uc] [sc] + [uc] [sc] 1++ 3.99 0.09 ? Z (3985) S A A S ± cs [uc] [sc] e + [uc] e[sc] 1++ 4.11 0.09 S A A S ± [uc] e [sc] [uc] [sc] e 1++ 4.17 0.09 V V − V V ± e e ++ [uc]A[sc]A + [uc]A[sc]A 1 5.28 0.09 [uc] [sc] [uc] [sc] 1++ 5.55 ± 0.09 P V − V P ± [uc] [dc] 2++ 4.17 0.09 A A ± [uc] [dc] 2++ 5.49 0.09 V V ±

Table 3: The possible assignments of the ground state hidden-charm tetraquark states with strangeness.

charmed quark mass Mc = 1.82GeV to fix the best energy scales of the spectral densities at the quark level. The predicted tetraquark mass MZ = 3.99 0.09 GeV is in excellent agreement +2.1 ± with the experimental value 3985.2 2.0 1.7MeV from the BESIII collaboration, and supports − ± PC + identifying the Zcs(3985) as the cousin of the Zc(3900) with the quantum numbers J = 1 −. Furthermore, we obtain the mass of the corresponding tetraquark state ccu¯ s¯ with the quantum numbers J PC =1++, which can be compared to the international high energy experimental data in the future. We take into account the light flavor SU(3) mass-breaking effect about 90MeV, and make crude estimations of the mass spectrum of the diquark-antidiquark type tetraquark states with hidden-charm and with strangeness. Note added: After the manuscript was submitted to https://arxiv.org/, the LHCb collaboration reported two new exotic states with the valence quarks ccu¯ s¯ in the J/ψK+ mass spectrum in the decays B+ + +4 → J/ψφK [43]. The most significant state, Zcs(4000), has a mass of 4003 6 14 MeV, a width of P + ± − 131 15 26 MeV, and the spin-parity J =1 , while the broader state, Zcs(4220), has a mass ± ± +43 +97 P + of 4216 24 30 MeV, a width of 233 52 73 MeV, and the spin-parity J =1 or 1−, with a 2σ difference± in− favor of the first hypothesis± [43].− As there exist two tetraquark nonets, see Eqs.(2)-(3), and there maybe exist mixings between the two tetraquark nonets, so there are enough rooms to accommodate the Zcs(3985) and Zcs(4000) as the diquark-antidiquark type axialvector tetraquark states with strangeness.

Acknowledgements

This work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation, Grant Number 11775079.

11 References

[1] M. Ablikim et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (2021) 102001. [2] M. Ablikim et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 (2014) 022001. [3] D. Ebert, R. N. Faustov and V. O.Galkin, Eur. Phys. J. C58 (2008) 399. [4] J. Ferretti and E. Santopinto, JHEP 04 (2020) 119. [5] S. H. Lee, M. Nielsen and U. Wiedner, J. Korean Phys. Soc. 55 (2009) 424. [6] J. M. Dias, X. Liu and M. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. D88 (2013) 096014. [7] M. B. Voloshin, Phys. Lett. B798 (2019) 135022. [8] D. Y. Chen, X. Liu and T. Matsuki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (2013) 232001. [9] B. D. Wan and C. F. Qiao, arXiv:2011.08747 [hep-ph]. [10] J. Y. Sungu, A. Turkan, H. Sundu and E. V. Veliev, arXiv:2011.13013 [hep-ph]. [11] Z. Yang, X. Cao, F. K. Guo, J. Nieves and M. P. Valderrama, arXiv:2011.08725 [hep-ph]. [12] M. C. Du, Q. Wang and Q. Zhao, arXiv:2011.09225 [hep-ph]. [13] L. Meng, B. Wang and S. L. Zhu, arXiv:2011.08656 [hep-ph]. [14] R. Chen and Q. Huang, arXiv:2011.09156 [hep-ph]. [15] Z. F. Sun and C. W. Xiao, arXiv:2011.09404 [hep-ph]. [16] Q. N. Wang, W. Chen and H. X. Chen, arXiv:2011.10495 [hep-ph]. [17] J. Z. Wang, D. Y. Chen, X. Liu and T. Matsuki, arXiv:2011.08501 [hep-ph]. [18] J. Z. Wang, Q. S. Zhou, X. Liu and T. Matsuki, arXiv:2011.08628 [hep-ph]. [19] X. Cao, J. P. Dai and Z. Yang, arXiv:2011.09244 [hep-ph]. [20] Z. G. Wang and T. Huang, Phys. Rev. D89 (2014) 054019. [21] Z. G. Wang, Phys. Rev. D102 (2020) 014018. [22] M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein and V. I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B147 (1979) 385, 448. [23] L. J. Reinders, H. Rubinstein and S. Yazaki, Phys. Rept. 127 (1985) 1. [24] Z. G. Wang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A35 (2020) 2050138. [25] Z. G. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C74 (2014) 2874. [26] Z. G. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C76 (2016) 387. [27] Z. G. Wang and Y. F. Tian, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A30 (2015) 1550004; Z. G. Wang, Commun. Theor. Phys. 63 (2015) 325; Z. G. Wang, Commun. Theor. Phys. 63 (2015) 466; Z. G. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C76 (2016) 142. [28] X. W. Wang and Z. G. Wang, in preparation. [29] B. L. Ioﬀe, Nucl. Phys. B188 (1981) 317; Erratum: Nucl.Phys. B191 (1981) 591. [30] V. M. Belyaev and B. L. Ioﬀe, Sov. Phys. JETP 56 (1982) 493.

12 [31] P. Colangelo and A. Khodjamirian, hep-ph/0010175. [32] P. A. Zyla et al, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2020 (2020) 083C01. [33] S. Narison and R. Tarrach, Phys. Lett. 125 B (1983) 217. [34] K. G. Chetyrkin and M. Steinhauser, Phys. Lett. B502 (2001) 104. [35] K. G. Chetyrkin and M. Steinhauser, Eur. Phys. J. C21 (2001) 319. [36] M. Jamin and B. O. Lange, Phys. Rev. D65 (2002) 056005; Z. G. Wang, Phys. Rev. C92 (2015) 065205. [37] R. D. Matheus, S. Narison, M. Nielsen and J. M. Richard, Phys. Rev. D75 (2007) 014005. [38] R. M. Albuquerque, J. M. Dias, K. P. Khemchandani, A. M. Torres, F. S. Navarra, M. Nielsen and C. M. Zanetti, J. Phys. G46 (2019) 093002. [39] R. M. Albuquerque, S. Narison, D. Rabetiarivony and G. Randriamanatrika, Nucl. Phys. A1007 (2021) 122113. [40] L. Maiani, F. Piccinini, A. D. Polosa and V. Riquer, Phys. Rev. D89 (2014) 114010; M. Nielsen and F. S. Navarra, Mod. Phys. Lett. A29 (2014) 1430005; Z. G. Wang, Commun. Theor. Phys. 63 (2015) 325. [41] Z. G. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C77 (2017) 78; Z. G. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. A53 (2017) 19. [42] Z. G. Wang, Chin. Phys. C44 (2020) 063105. [43] R. Aaij et al, arXiv:2103.01803 [hep-ex].