Nature of the<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>s</mml:mi><mml:mn>1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msubsup><mml:mo stretchy="false">(</mml:mo><mml:mn>2710</mml:mn><mml:mo stretchy="false">)</mml:mo></mml:math>and<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>s</mml:mi><mml:mi>J</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msubsup><mml:mo stretchy="false">(</mml:mo><mml:mn>2860</mml:mn><mml:mo stretchy="false">)</mml:mo></mml:math>mesons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two charm-strange mesons, the ${D}_{s1}^{*}(2710)$ and the ${D}_{sJ}^{*}(2860)$, have recently been observed by several experiments. There has been speculation in the literature that the ${D}_{s1}^{*}(2710)$ is the $2^{3}{S}_{1}(c\overline{s})$ state and the ${D}_{sJ}^{*}(2860)$ is the $1^{3}{D}_{1}(c\overline{s})$ state. In this paper we explore this and other explanations in the context of the relativized quark model and the pseudoscalar emission decay model. We conclude that the ${D}_{s1}^{*}(2710)$ is most likely the $1^{3}{D}_{1}(c\overline{s})$ state and the ${D}_{sJ}^{*}(2860)$ is most likely the $1^{3}{D}_{3}(c\overline{s})$ state with the $1{D}_{2}$ resonances also contributing to the observed signals and explaining the observed ratios of branching ratios to ${D}^{*}K$ and $DK$ final states. We point out that measuring the ${D}_{sJ}^{*}(2860)$ spin can support or eliminate this explanation and that there are six excited ${D}_{s}$ states in this mass region: the $2^{3}{S}_{1}$, $2^{1}{S}_{0}$, $1^{3}{D}_{1}$, $1^{3}{D}_{3}$ and two $1{D}_{2}$ states. Observing some of the missing states would help confirm the nature of the ${D}_{s1}^{*}(2710)$ and ${D}_{sJ}^{*}(2860)$ states.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".