Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Charge dependence of mesons with flavored contact-interaction couplings

Fábio L. Braghin1,*, Bruno El-Bennich2,3,†, and Fernando E. Serna4,‡

  • *Contact author: braghin@ufg.br
  • †Contact author: bennich@unifesp.br
  • ‡Contact author: fernando.serna@unisucrevirtual.edu.co

Phys. Rev. D 113, 014010 – Published 12 January, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/pmwg-8t5d

Abstract

Effective interaction models of quantum chromodynamics, based on quark degrees of freedom, have been successfully employed to compute the properties of a large array of ground and excited meson and baryon states, along with their electromagnetic form factors, distribution functions, and thermal behavior. Amongst them, the contact-interaction model, while nonrenormalizable, implements confinement, satisfies Lorentz covariance, and correctly describes chiral symmetry and its dynamical breaking pattern. Original studies focused on the light hadron sector in the isospin limit and were thereafter extended to heavy mesons and baryons. The strong effective couplings, as well as infrared and ultraviolet regulators, are flavor-dependent model parameters adjusted to reproduce hadronic observables. In contrast, in this study we combine SU(4) flavor-symmetry breaking couplings, obtained from one-loop vacuum polarization amplitudes in the presence of background constituent quark currents, with the contact-interaction model. This allows us to reduce the number of mass-dimensioned parameters and to consistently relate all flavored couplings to a single mass scale, while the masses and weak decay constants of the pions, kaons, D and Ds mesons are in good agreement with average reference values. Allowing for realistic isospin breaking, md/mu=1.7, in conjunction with the effect of the flavored couplings, leads to a mass splitting, mπ+−mπ0≈0.3  MeV, that agrees with lattice QCD values. For the kaons, the mass difference is mK0−mK±≈2.3  MeV, whereas mD±−mD0≈0.5  MeV and the ηc is 6% lighter than the experimental mass.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (48)

  1. F. L. Braghin, Phys. Rev. D 103, 094028 (2021).
  2. F. L. Braghin, J. Phys. G 49, 055101 (2022); 50, 119501(E) (2023).
  3. W. F. de Sousa and F. L. Braghin, Eur. Phys. J. A 59, 271 (2023).
  4. F. L. Braghin, J. Phys. G 50, 095101 (2023).
  5. F. E. Serna, B. El-Bennich, and G. Krein, Phys. Rev. D 96, 014013 (2017).
  6. G. Hellstern, R. Alkofer, and H. Reinhardt, Nucl. Phys. A625, 697 (1997).
  7. L. X. Gutiérrez-Guerrero, A. Bashir, I. C. Cloët, and C. D. Roberts, Phys. Rev. C 81, 065202 (2010).
  8. J. M. Cornwall, Phys. Rev. D 26, 1453 (1982).
  9. A. C. Aguilar and A. A. Natale, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2004) 057.
  10. A. C. Aguilar, D. Binosi, and J. Papavassiliou, Phys. Rev. D 78, 025010 (2008).
  11. A. C. Aguilar, D. Binosi, and J. Papavassiliou, J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2012) 050.
  12. A. C. Aguilar, F. De Soto, M. N. Ferreira, J. Papavassiliou, F. Pinto-Gómez, C. D. Roberts, and J. Rodríguez-Quintero, Phys. Lett. B 841, 137906 (2023).
  13. F. E. Serna, C. Chen, and B. El-Bennich, Phys. Rev. D 99, 094027 (2019).
  14. L. Albino, A. Bashir, B. El-Bennich, E. Rojas, F. E. Serna, and R. C. da Silveira, J. High Energy Phys. 11 (2021) 196.
  15. B. El-Bennich, F. E. Serna, R. C. da Silveira, L. A. F. Rangel, A. Bashir, and E. Rojas, Rev. Mex. Fis. Suppl. 3, 0308092 (2022).
  16. J. R. Lessa, F. E. Serna, B. El-Bennich, A. Bashir, and O. Oliveira, Phys. Rev. D 107, 074017 (2023).
  17. B. El-Bennich, Symmetry 17, 110 (2025).
  18. L. X. Gutiérrez-Guerrero, A. Bashir, M. A. Bedolla, and E. Santopinto, Phys. Rev. D 100, 114032 (2019).
  19. L. X. Gutiérrez-Guerrero, G. Paredes-Torres, and A. Bashir, Phys. Rev. D 104, 094013 (2021).
  20. M. A. Sultan, Z. Xing, K. Raya, A. Bashir, and L. Chang, Phys. Rev. D 110, 054034 (2024).
  21. B. El-Bennich, G. Krein, E. Rojas, and F. E. Serna, Few Body Syst. 57, 955 (2016).
  22. M. Chen and L. Chang, Chin. Phys. C 43, 114103 (2019).
  23. P. Qin, S. Qin, and Y. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 101, 114014 (2020).
  24. F. E. Serna, R. C. da Silveira, J. J. Cobos-Martínez, B. El-Bennich, and E. Rojas, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 955 (2020).
  25. R. C. da Silveira, F. E. Serna, and B. El-Bennich, Phys. Rev. D 107, 034021 (2023).
  26. F. E. Serna, R. C. da Silveira, and B. El-Bennich, Phys. Rev. D 106, L091504 (2022).
  27. F. E. Serna, B. El-Bennich, and G. Krein, Phys. Rev. D 110, 114033 (2024).
  28. B. El-Bennich, O. Leitner, J.-P. Dedonder, and B. Loiseau, Phys. Rev. D 79, 076004 (2009).
  29. E. O. da Silva, J. P. B. C. de Melo, B. El-Bennich, and V. S. Filho, Phys. Rev. C 86, 038202 (2012).
  30. B. El-Bennich, J. P. B. C. de Melo, and T. Frederico, Few Body Syst. 54, 1851 (2013).
  31. J. P. B. C. de Melo, K. Tsushima, B. El-Bennich, E. Rojas, and T. Frederico, Phys. Rev. C 90, 035201 (2014).
  32. B. El-Bennich, J. P. B. C. de Melo, B. Loiseau, J.-P. Dedonder, and T. Frederico, Braz. J. Phys. 38, 465 (2008).
  33. B. El-Bennich, M. A. Ivanov, and C. D. Roberts, Nucl. Phys. B, Proc. Suppl. 199, 184 (2010).
  34. B. El-Bennich, J. P. B. C. de Melo, B. Loiseau, J. P. Dedonder, and T. Frederico, Braz. J. Phys. 38, 465 (2008).
  35. D. Ebert, T. Feldmann, and H. Reinhardt, Phys. Lett. B 388, 154 (1996).
  36. U. Vogl and W. Weise, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 27, 195 (1991).
  37. S. P. Klevansky, Rev. Mod. Phys. 64, 649 (1992).
  38. J. Bijnens, Phys. Rep. 265, 369 (1996).
  39. S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024).
  40. C. T. H. Davies, C. McNeile, E. Follana, G. P. Lepage, H. Na, and J. Shigemitsu, Phys. Rev. D 82, 114504 (2010).
  41. F. L. Braghin, Eur. Phys. J. A 60, 178 (2024).
  42. F. L. Braghin, J. Phys. G 52, 015003 (2025).
  43. G. S. Bali, S. Collins, and C. Ehmann, Phys. Rev. D 84, 094506 (2011).
  44. B. A. Zamora, E. C. Martínez, J. Segovia, and J. J. Cobos-Martínez, Phys. Rev. D 107, 114031 (2023).
  45. Y. Xu, M. A. Sultan, K. Raya, and L. Chang, Phys. Rev. D 110, 094036 (2024).
  46. D. Giusti, V. Lubicz, C. Tarantino, G. Martinelli, F. Sanfilippo, S. Simula, and N. Tantalo, Phys. Rev. D 95, 114504 (2017).
  47. J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Phys. Rep. 87, 77 (1982).
  48. J. F. Donoghue, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 39, 1 (1989).

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation