\section{Introduction}

Hadron resonances manifest themselves in the strongly interacting systems of the underlying hadronic states, such as the two- and many-body scattering processes, the form factors and the spectral functions of the hadrons, etc. The combination of the chiral effective field theory and the requirements of the unitarity and analyticity provides a reliable and powerful tool to systematically investigate the hadronic resonances appearing in various physical quantities. The methodology developed in the hadronic sector could also shed light on the exploring study of the possible resonances beyond the Standard Model that appear in the scattering processes of the $W$ and $Z$ bosons~\cite{bibchptew}.

The spontaneous $SU(3)_L\times SU(3)_R\to SU(3)_V$ chiral symmetry breaking of QCD leads to the eight pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone bosons (pNGBs), which can be identified as the eight light mesons $\pi, K$ and $\eta$. The small masses of the pNGBs are caused by the explicit breaking of the chiral symmetry from the light-flavor quark masses. Chiral perturbation theory ($\chi$PT)~\cite{Weinberg:1978kz,Gasser:1983yg,Gasser:1984gg}, as the first well-established effective theory of QCD, has been extensively demonstrated to be powerful to describe the physical processes involving the pNGBs $\pi, K$ and $\eta$.

Another important property of QCD at low energy is the $U_A(1)$ anomaly arising from the strong interactions, which is believed to be responsible for the large mass of the singlet $\eta_0$, that gives the most important component to the physical $\eta'$ state. Due to the $\uao$ anomaly effect, $M_0$, the mass of the singlet $\eta_0$, does not vanish and keeps a large value around 1~GeV even in the chiral limit. The appearance of the new scale $M_0$ breaks down the conventional chiral power-counting scheme, which relies on the perturbative expansions of the external momenta and light meson masses. One way to systematically include the $\eta'$ state in $\chi$PT is the large $N_C$ framework, being $N_C$ the number of colors in QCD. According to the large $N_C$ QCD~\cite{largenc}, the quark loops, which are responsible for the QCD $U_A(1)$ anomaly~\cite{ua1anomaly}, are $1/N_C$ suppressed, implying that in the $N_C\to \infty$ limit the QCD $\uao$ anomaly would disappear and the singlet $\eta_0$ would become a pNGB in the chiral limit~\cite{ua1nc}, as the $\pi, K$ and $\eta$. In this framework, the leading order mass squared of the $\eta_0$, $M_0^2$, scales as $1/N_C$ when $N_C\to \infty$. Based on this argument, the triple $\delta$ expansion scheme, i.e. $O(\delta) \sim O(1/N_C) \sim O(p^2) \sim O(m_q)$, is proposed to simultaneously study the $\pi, K, \eta$ and $\eta'$ in $\chi$PT, which is also referred as $U(3)$ $\chi$PT in literature~\cite{HerreraSiklody:1996pm,Kaiser:2000gs}. By taking both the chiral and large $N_C$ limits, the dynamical degrees of freedom of the very low energy QCD would be the nonet $\pi, K, \eta_8$ and $\eta_0$. From this point of view, specially when one attempts to probe the $N_C$ behaviors of various hadron resonances, the $U(3)$ $\chi$PT offers a better motivated theoretical framework to study the resonance properties than the conventional $SU(3)$ case~\cite{Gasser:1984gg}.

During the last decade, important progresses on the $U(3)$ $\chi$PT within the $\delta$ expansion scheme have been made, including the one-loop calculation of all the two-meson scattering amplitudes, scalar and pseudoscalar form factors and the study of the $N_C$ behaviors of the various light-flavor scalar and vector resonances~\cite{Guo:2011pa,Guo:2012ym,Guo:2012yt,Guo:2016zep}. Special attention has been paid to the light-flavor resonance dynamics in the scalar and pseudoscalar spectral sum rules, and the semilocal duality from the meson-meson scattering. In this note, we first briefly introduce the theoretical formalism and then discuss the key findings of the recent $U(3)$ $\chi$PT  developments.

\section{The theoretical setups of the $U(3)$ chiral theory}\label{sec.theorysetup}

At leading order (LO) in the $\delta$ expansion, the $U(3)$ Lagrangian consists of three independent terms
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq.laglo}
\mL^{(0)}= \frac{ F^2}{4}\bra u_\mu u^\mu \ket+
\frac{F^2}{4}\bra \chi_+ \ket
+ \frac{F^2}{12}M_0^2 X^2 \,,
\end{eqnarray}
where the basic chiral operators take the form
\begin{eqnarray}\label{defbb}
&& U =  u^2 = e^{i\frac{ \sqrt2\Phi}{ F}}\,, \qquad \chi = 2 B (s + i p) \,, \nn \\&&
X= \ln{(\det U)}\,, \quad \chi_\pm  = u^\dagger  \chi u^\dagger  \pm  u \chi^\dagger  u \,,  \quad u_\mu = i u^\dagger  D_\mu U u^\dagger \,,   \nn \\ &&
D_\mu U \, =\, \partial_\mu U - i (v_\mu + a_\mu) U\, + i U  (v_\mu - a_\mu) \,,
\end{eqnarray}
and the contents of the pNGBs in the $U(3)$ case are given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq.phi9}
\Phi \,=\, \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \pi^0+\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\eta_8+\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \eta_0 & \pi^+ & K^+ \\ \pi^- &
\frac{-1}{\sqrt{2}} \pi^0+\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\eta_8+\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \eta_0   & K^0 \\  K^- & \overline{K}^0 &
\frac{-2}{\sqrt{6}}\eta_8+\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \eta_0
\end{array} \right)\,.
\end{equation}
Here $F$ stands for the pion decay constant at LO, with the physical normalization $F_\pi=92.1$~MeV. $v_\mu, a_\mu, p$ and $s$ represent the vector, axial-vector, pseudoscalar and scalar external sources, respectively. By taking the vacuum expectation values of the scalar source as $s={\rm diag}(m_u,m_d,m_s)$, being $m_{q=u,d,s}$ the light quark masses, one can implement the explicit chiral symmetry breaking in the same way as that in QCD. It is noted that we work in the isospin symmetric situation throughout, that is to take $m_u=m_d=\hat{m}$. The quantity $B$ is proportional to the quark condensate via $\bra 0| \bar{q}^{a}q^{b} |0\ket = - B\,F^2 \delta^{ab}$. The last term in Eq.~\eqref{eq.laglo} introduces the QCD $\uao$ anomaly effect and gives the $\eta_0$ the LO mass $M_0$.

Generally, the higher-order operators in the effective field theory incorporates the higher energy dynamics. So that, apart from introducing the higher order local operators, another approach to take into account the higher order effects is to explicitly include dynamical degrees of freedom beyond low energy ones. One of such successful attempts along the line of this research is the resonance chiral theory (R$\chi$T), which explicitly includes the light-flavor vector, scalar and pseudoscalar resonances in its construction of the Lagrangians~\cite{Ecker:1988te}. Later on R$\chi$T also turns out to be very useful for the phenomenological study of the physical processes involving  resonances~\cite{rxtpheno}. Although the rigorous  generalization of the R$\chi$T into the loop calculation still faces problems, the large $N_C$ QCD argument provides useful guidelines for the construction of the R$\chi$T operators~\cite{Cirigliano:2006hb}. The relevant ones that enter the meson-meson scattering, the scalar and pseudoscalar form factors in our study are analyzed in detail in Refs.~\cite{Guo:2011pa,Guo:2012ym,Guo:2012yt}. The R$\chi$T Lagrangian that describes the interactions between the pNGBs and the vector resonances reads~\cite{Ecker:1988te}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq.lagvector}
\mL_{V}= \frac{i G_V}{2\sqrt2}\langle V_{\mu\nu}[ u^\mu, u^\nu]\rangle \,,
\end{eqnarray}
and the one describing the interactions between the pNGBs and the scalar resonances is given by
\begin{align}\label{eq.lagscalar}
\mL_{S}&= c_d\bra S_8 u_\mu u^\mu \ket + c_m \bra S_8 \chi_+ \ket
 + \widetilde{c}_d S_1 \bra u_\mu u^\mu \ket
+ \widetilde{c}_m  S_1 \bra  \chi_+ \ket \,.
\end{align}
The relevant Lagrangian involving the pseudoscalar resonances is
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq.lagpscalar}
\mL_{P} = i d_m \bra P_8 \chi_- \ket + i \widetilde{d}_m  P_1 \bra \chi_- \ket\,.
\end{eqnarray}
For the definitions of the explicit matrix contents of the vector nonet $V$, scalar octet $S_8$ and scalar singlet $S_1$, we refer to Ref.~\cite{Guo:2011pa} and references therein for details. The matrix contents of the pseudoscalar resonances share the same flavor structures of the pNGBs in Eq.~\eqref{eq.phi9}. Since we focus on the resonance dynamics in the study of the meson-meson scattering and the form factors, the R$\chi$T Lagrangians in Eqs.~\eqref{eq.lagvector}, \eqref{eq.lagscalar} and \eqref{eq.lagpscalar} are used in the calculation. By integrating out the resonances, one can get the higher-order local operators, most of which are the ones surviving in the large $N_C$ limit. In the $\delta$ expansion, there are two next-to-leading order (NLO) pure $U(3)$ local operators, namely
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq.laglam}
\mL^{(1)} &=&-\frac{F^2\, \Lambda_1}{12}   \partial^\mu X \partial_\mu X  -\frac{F^2\, \Lambda_2}{12} X \bra \chi_- \ket\,,
\end{eqnarray}
in the sense that they do not appear in the $SU(3)$ $\chi$PT. These two operators can not be generated from the resonance Lagrangians in Eqs.~\eqref{eq.lagvector},~\eqref{eq.lagscalar} and~\eqref{eq.lagpscalar}. So we explicitly include the $\Lambda_1$ and $\Lambda_2$ operators in the phenomenological study. Moreover, we also include a remnant part of the $L_8$ term to account for the large uncertainties of the pseudoscalar resonances~\cite{Guo:2012ym,Guo:2012yt}.

The complete one-loop two-pNGB scattering amplitudes involving the $\pi, K, \eta$ and $\eta'$ with tree-level resonance exchanges in the $U(3)$ chiral theory have been calculated in Ref.~\cite{Guo:2011pa}. The one-particle-irreducible (1PI) Feynman diagrams of the two-pNGB scattering amplitudes are illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig.fyndiagsc}. The one-loop diagrams of the self-energies and the decay constants of the light mesons are given in Fig.~\ref{fig.fyndiagsefp}. The 1PI one-loop diagrams with tree-level resonance exchanges of the two-pNGB scalar form factors and the one-pNGB pseudoscalar form factors are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig.fyndiagff} and they are calculated in Refs.~\cite{Guo:2012ym,Guo:2012yt}. Within the $\delta$ expansion scheme, the conventional dimensional regularization method that is used in the $SU(2)$ and $SU(3)$ $\chi$PT~\cite{Gasser:1983yg,Gasser:1984gg}, is still valid in the $U(3)$ case, since the new scale $M_0$, behaves as $1/N_C$ in the large $N_C$ limit. While by treating the $\eta_0$ as a heavy field, the dimensional regularization will break the well-established chiral power-counting rule and different regularization methods have been correspondingly suggested to study the $\eta'$ in Refs.~\cite{Beisert:2001qb,Beisert:2002ad}.

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth,angle=-0]{sc_diagram.eps}
  \caption{ 1PI Feynman diagrams for the meson-meson scattering up to one loop with explicit tree-level exchanges.   }
   \label{fig.fyndiagsc}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[htbp]
   \centering
      \begin{minipage}[t]{0.45\textwidth}
         \centering
   \includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth,angle=-0]{selfenergy.eps}
   \end{minipage}
     \begin{minipage}[t]{0.45\textwidth}
    \centering
   \includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth,angle=-0]{Fp.eps}
   \end{minipage}
  \caption{ Feynman diagrams for the one-loop self-energy (the left two diagrams) and the decay constant (the right two diagrams) for the light pseudoscalar meson.   }
   \label{fig.fyndiagsefp}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[htbp]
   \centering
      \begin{minipage}[t]{0.45\textwidth}
         \centering
   \begin{mdframed}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth,angle=-0]{sff.eps}
    \end{mdframed}
   \end{minipage}
     \begin{minipage}[t]{0.45\textwidth}
    \centering
      \begin{mdframed}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth,angle=-0]{pff.eps}
      \end{mdframed}
   \end{minipage}
  \caption{ Feynman diagrams for the scalar (left panel) and pseudoscalar (right panel) form factors.   }
   \label{fig.fyndiagff}
\end{figure}

To incorporate the meson-meson nonperturbative strong interactions at the resonance energy region, the perturbative calculations elaborated in Figs.~\ref{fig.fyndiagsc} and \ref{fig.fyndiagff}, even after the explicit inclusion of the bare resonance exchanges, are not enough, because the chiral interactions between the meson pairs could increase rapidly when the energies lie above the two-meson thresholds. One efficient way to include such nonperturbative effects is to perform the unitarization of the amplitudes, and  there are vast literatures on this subject, see recent comprehensive and pedagogical reviews in Refs.~\cite{Oller:2019opk,Oller:2020guq} and references therein for further details. The basic unitarization formalism for the two-body partial-wave scattering amplitudes that we use is an approximated version of the $N/D$ method~\cite{Oller:1998zr}
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq.ut}
\mT_{IJ}(s) = \dfrac{N_{IJ}(s)}{1 - N_{IJ}(s)\,G_{IJ}(s)}\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where the subscripts $IJ$ denote the quantum numbers of the isospin and angular momentum. We will omit the subscripts $IJ$ in the next discussions for simplicity. By construction, the quantity $N(s)$ only contains the crossed-channel contributions (including the local contact terms as well) and the function $G(s)$ includes the right-hand cut contributions. Above the threshold the unitarity of the S matrix determines the imaginary part of the $G(s)$ function
\begin{equation}\label{eq.img}
{\rm Im}G(s) = \rho(s) \, \equiv  \dfrac{q(s)}{8\pi\sqrt{s}} \,,  \,\,\, (s>s_{\rm th})\,
\end{equation}
where $s_{\rm th}=(m_1+m_2)^2$ stands for the threshold of the two particles with masses $m_1$ and $m_2$, and the center of mass (CM) three momentum takes the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq.q3}
q(s) = \dfrac{\sqrt{[s-(m_1+m_2)^2][s-(m_1-m_2)^2]}}{2\sqrt{s}}\,.
\end{equation}
The K-matrix unitarization method includes only the imaginary part of the $G(s)$ function in its construction of the unitarized scattering amplitudes. Clearly by taking only the imaginary part of the $G(s)$ the analyticity is not preserved. One can improve the K-matrix description by using a once subtracted dispersion relation to include the real part of the $G(s)$ function. It turns out that  by using the dimensional regularization method to calculate the one-loop two-point function we can also obtain the same result for the $G(s)$ function by replacing the divergent term with a free subtraction constant. The explicit expression takes the form~\cite{Oller:1998zr}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq.gfunc}
G(s)^{\rm DR} &=& -\frac{1}{16\pi^2}\left[ a(\mu^2) + \log\frac{m_2^2}{\mu^2}-x_+\log\frac{x_+-1}{x_+}
-x_-\log\frac{x_--1}{x_-} \right]\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mu$ is the regularization scale and will be set to $\mu=770$~MeV throughout, and $x_\pm$ are given by
\begin{equation}
 x_\pm =\frac{s+m_1^2-m_2^2}{2s}\pm \frac{q(s)}{\sqrt{s}}\,.
\end{equation}
Notice that due to the inclusion of the minus sign of the $G(s)$ function, comparing with the definition in Refs.~\cite{Guo:2011pa,Guo:2012ym,Guo:2012yt}, the positive sign in the denominator becomes the minus sign in Eq.~\eqref{eq.ut}. The corresponding changes should also apply in the following discussions. By matching the unitarized amplitudes of Eq.~\eqref{eq.ut} and the perturbative chiral amplitudes order by order~\cite{Oller:2000fj}, one can obtain the expression for the $N(s)$ function
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq.defn}
N_{IJ}(s) = T_{IJ}(s)^{\rm LO+Res+Loop} - T_{IJ}(s)^{\rm LO}\,G_{IJ}(s)\,T_{IJ}(s)^{\rm LO}\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $T_{IJ}(s)$ stand for the partial-wave projections of the perturbative chiral amplitudes. The explicit expressions for the leading order (LO), resonance exchanges (Res) and loop diagrams (Loop) are given in Ref.~\cite{Guo:2011pa}.

For the scalar form factors of the two-meson states, we use a similar unitarization method to resum the nonperturbative strong interactions between the two mesons~\cite{Guo:2012ym,Guo:2012yt}
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{F}_{I}(s)= \frac{R_{I}}{1-N_{IJ}(s)\,G_{IJ}(s)}\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $N_{IJ}(s)$ is given by Eq.~\eqref{eq.defn} and $R_{I}(s)$ can be obtained by matching the unitarized form factor $\mathcal{F}(s)$ and the perturbative chiral results
\begin{eqnarray}
R_{I}(s) = F_{I}(s)^{\rm LO+Res+Loop} - N_{IJ}(s)^{\rm LO}\,G_{IJ}(s)\,F_{I}(s)^{\rm LO}\,.
\end{eqnarray}
$F_{I}(s)$ stands for the scalar form factors from the perturbative chiral calculation with definite isospin number $I$. The explicit expressions for the chiral perturbative scalar form factors are given in Ref.~\cite{Guo:2012yt}.
In the coupled-channel case with $n$ channels, one should understand the functions $N_{IJ}(s)$ and $G_{IJ}(s)$ as $n\times n$ matrices, and $R_{I}(s)$ as an $n$-row vector.

\section{Resonance dynamics in the meson-meson scattering, form factor and spectral functions}

In order to fix the unknown parameters, we have fitted a large amount of experimental and lattice data. The experimental data include the phase shifts and inelasticities from the $S$- and $P$-wave $\pi\pi \to \pi\pi$,  $\pi\pi \to K\bar{K}$ and $\pi K \to \pi K$ scattering processes. Regarding the $\pi\eta$ case, the experimental measurement on this scattering process is still not available and there are only various $\pi\eta$ event distributions, which would require more theoretical inputs apart from the $\pi\eta$ scattering parameters. It turns out that the uncertainties of the $\pi\eta$ scattering amplitudes obtained from the fits to the event distributions alone are quite large~\cite{Guo:2011pa,Guo:2012ym,Guo:2012yt}. This motivates us to include the lattice finite-volume spectra from the Hadron Spectrum Collaboration~\cite{Dudek:2016cru} to further constrain the $\pi\eta$, $K\bar{K}$ and $\pi\eta'$ coupled-channel scattering amplitudes~\cite{Guo:2016zep}. Interested readers are recommended to go through Refs.~\cite{Guo:2011pa,Guo:2012yt,Guo:2016zep} for details of the fit results. Next we elaborate the resonance dynamics in the various physical processes.

\begin{table}[htbp]
\renewcommand{\tabcolsep}{0.05cm}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\begin{center}
{\small
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c| |c|c|c|}
\hline
R & M (MeV) & $\Gamma/2$ (MeV) & R & M (MeV) & $\Gamma/2$ (MeV)
\\
[0.1cm]
\hline
\hline
$f_0(500)$& $442^{+4}_{-4}$ & $246^{+7}_{-5}$  &  $\rho(770)$& $760^{+7}_{-5}$ & $71^{+4}_{-5}$
\\[0.1cm]
\hline
$f_0(980)$& $978^{+17}_{-11}$ & $29^{+9}_{-11}$ &  $K^*(892)$& $892^{+5}_{-7}$ & $25^{+2}_{-2}$
\\[0.1cm]  \hline
$f_0(1370)$& $1360^{+80}_{-60}$ & $170^{+55}_{-55}$ & $\phi(1020)$& $1019.1^{+0.5}_{-0.6}$ & $1.9^{+0.1}_{-0.1}$
\\[0.1cm]
\hline
$K^*_0(800)$& $643^{+75}_{-30}$ & $303^{+25}_{-75}$ &  $a_0(980)$ & $1019^{+22}_{-8}$ & $24^{+57}_{-17}$
\\[0.1cm]
 \hline
$K^*_0(1430)$&  $1482^{+55}_{-110}$ & $132^{+40}_{-90}$ & $a_0(1450)$ & $1397^{+40}_{-27}$ & $62^{+79}_{-8}$
 \\[0.1cm]
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
 \caption{ The masses and the half widths of the resonances appearing in the meson-meson scattering. The resonance poles of the $a_0(980)$ and $a_0(1450)$ are determined by fitting simultaneously the experimental $\pi\eta$ event distributions, the cross sections of $\gamma\gamma \to \pi\eta$ and also the lattice finite-volume spectra with the NLO chiral amplitudes~\cite{Guo:2016zep}. The other resonance poles are determined by fitting the experimental phase shifts and inelasticities~\cite{Guo:2012yt}.    }
\label{tab:pole}
\end{center}
\end{table}

The resonance contents are briefly summarized in Table~\ref{tab:pole}, where both the mass (real part) and the half width (imaginary part) for each pole are given. It is interesting to dissect the roles of these resonance poles that are played in the various physical quantities, such as the form factors, spectral functions and semilocal duality from the scattering. In Fig.~\ref{fig.sffpipi}, we show two different types of $\pi\pi$ scalar form factors with the scalar densities of $\bar{u}u+\bar{d}d$ and $\bar{s}s$. The real parts, imaginary parts and the magnitudes from the two similar fit results in Refs.~\cite{Guo:2011pa,Guo:2012yt} are shown together in Fig.~\ref{fig.sffpipi}. It is clear that the $f_0(500)$ or the $\sigma$ resonance should be responsible for the low energy bump around $0.5$~GeV in the scalar form factor $F_{\pi\pi}^{\bar{u}u+\bar{d}d}(s)$, which is defined as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq.defsffuudd}
B\,F_{\pi\pi}^{\bar{u}u+\bar{d}d}(s) = \bra 0|\, \bar{u} u + \bar{d} d \,|\,(\pi\pi)_{I=0} \,\ket\,.
\end{eqnarray}
In contrast the broad $\sigma$ resonance barely contributes to the scalar form factor $F_{\pi\pi}^{\bar{s}s}(s)$, which is defined as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq.defsffss}
B\,F_{\pi\pi}^{\bar{s}s}(s) = \bra 0|\, \bar{s}s \,|\,(\pi\pi)_{I=0} \,\ket\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Interestingly, the $f_0(980)$ manifests itself as a dip in the $F_{\pi\pi}^{\bar{u}u+\bar{d}d}(s)$, but shows up as a peak in the $F_{\pi\pi}^{\bar{s}s}(s)$. While in the energy region above 1~GeV, we do not see any narrow structure appearing in both types of scalar form factors of $\pi\pi$. In this way, one can discern the role of the higher mass resonance $f_0(1370)$ played in the $\pi\pi$ scalar form factors. Other types of strangeness conserving two-meson scalar form factors defined as $\bra 0|\, \bar{q} \lambda_a q \,|\,PQ \,\ket$ are also calculated, with $\lambda_a$ the Gell-Mann matrices.

The scalar spectral function, i.e. the imaginary part of the correlating two-point scalar-density function, can be given by the scalar form factors via
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq.impi}
{\rm Im} \Pi_{S^{a}}(s) = \sum_i \rho_i(s) |F^{a}_i(s)|^2 \theta(s-s_i^{\rm th})\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $i$ runs over the relevant two-meson channels, $s_i^{\rm th}$ stands for the threshold of the $i$th channel, $\theta(x)$ is the standard Heaviside step function and $\rho_i(s)$ is the kinematical factors defined in Eq.~\eqref{eq.img}. In Fig.~\ref{fig.sffimpi}, the scalar spectral functions of $a=0,3,8$ calculated with the parameters given in Refs.~\cite{Guo:2011pa,Guo:2012yt} are shown.

In the chiral limit the scalar and pseudoscalar spectral functions follow a set of sum rules~\cite{speclsumrule}
\begin{eqnarray}
\int_0^{\infty} \big[ {\rm Im} \Pi_{X}(s) - {\rm Im} \Pi_{X'}(s) \big] ds = 0 \,,
\end{eqnarray}
with $X$ or $X'$ corresponding to either scalar or pseudoscalar light-flavor quark densities $\bar{q}\lambda_a q$ or $i\bar{q}\lambda_a \gamma_5 q$. These scalar and pseudoscalar spectral sum rules offer an important tool to study the complicated scalar resonance dynamics. It is advisory to split the integrals of the above sum rules into the nonperturbative and perturbative parts as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq.specint}
 \int_0^{s_0}\big[ {\rm Im} \Pi_{X}(s) - {\rm Im} \Pi_{X'}(s) \big]ds + \int_{s_0}^{\infty}\big[ {\rm Im} \Pi_{X}(s) - {\rm Im} \Pi_{X'}(s) \big] ds = 0 \,,
\end{eqnarray}
where the nonperturbative integrands in the $0$ and $s_0$ region can be evaluated via Eq.~\eqref{eq.impi} and the operator product expansion (OPE) can be used to calculate the perturbative parts above $s_0$. According to the QCD OPE calculation~\cite{speclsumrule}, in the high energy perturbative region different types of the spectral integrals with $X$ or $X'$ $=S^{a}, P^{b}$ are equal in the chiral limit, which implies that the second integrals in Eq.~\eqref{eq.specint} are always zero in the chiral limit. This reduces the discussions of the spectral sum rules to the nonperturbative integrals in Eq.~\eqref{eq.specint}. Since there is lack of a rigorous criteria to set the separation scale $s_0$, we have chosen three different values for $s_0$, namely 2.5, 3.0 and 3.5~GeV$^2$, in our study. In practice, we find that the uncertainty caused by the ambiguity of $s_0$ is not that big, because the form factors and the spectral functions in our method tend to vanish in the high energy region, or at least they approach to rather small values in magnitudes, which can be clearly seen in Fig.~\ref{fig.sffimpi}. According to the curves in the figure, it seems that the broad $\sigma$ resonance contributes to both the spectral functions with $a=0$ and $a=8$, i.e. the isocalar $SU(3)$ singlet and octet currents, respectively. To be more specific, the height of the bump around the $\sigma$ resonance region in the isocalar singlet spectral function is around twice as that in the octet case. Similarly the $f_0(980)$ peak in the $a=0$ case is also higher than that in the $a=8$ case. While for the $f_0(1370)$ resonance, it dominantly contributes to the isocalar octet spectral function. For the isovector spectral function with $a=3$, both $a_0(980)$ and $a_0(1450)$ will contribute. Based on the fit results from Refs.~\cite{Guo:2011pa,Guo:2012yt}, which are obtained by only including the $\pi\eta$ event distributions to constrain the $\pi\eta$ scattering, we conclude that the $a_0(980)$ peak is much more prominent than the one from the $a_0(1450)$. Nevertheless there will be large uncertainties from those determinations. It will be interesting to make an analysis of the $\pi\eta$ form factor and to further explore its phenomenological application in a future work.

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth,angle=-0]{figsff-ffa-all.eps}
  \caption{ Results for the scalar $\pi\pi$ form factors. The curves labeled as PRD11 and PRD12 are obtained by using the parameters from Ref.~\cite{Guo:2011pa} and Ref.~\cite{Guo:2012yt}, respectively.   }
   \label{fig.sffpipi}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth,angle=-0]{figsffimpi-onlynew-symA.eps}
  \caption{ The scalar spectral functions with the definitions in Eq.~\eqref{eq.impi}. The left and right panels give the results with the parameters determined in Ref.~\cite{Guo:2012yt} by taking the physical masses and the chiral limit, respectively. }
   \label{fig.sffimpi}
\end{figure}

For the pseudoscalar spectral function, we will only consider the single-meson contributions, so that it is simply given by the $\delta$ functions
\begin{eqnarray}
 {\rm Im} \Pi_{P^a}(s)= \sum_k \pi \delta(s-m_{P_k}^2)|H_k^a(s)|^2\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $k$ runs over the proper intermediate pNGBs and the one-meson pseudoscalar form factor $H_k^a$ is defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
B\,H_k^{a}(s)=\bra 0 | i \bar{q} \lambda_a \gamma_5 q |P_k\ket\,.
\end{eqnarray}
The one-meson pseudoscalar form factors are calculated up to one-loop level, see the relevant Feynman diagrams in the right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig.fyndiagff}.

In order to quantity the fulfillment of the spectral sum rules in Eq.~\eqref{eq.specint},  several quantities based on the nonperturbative spectral integrals are proposed
\begin{eqnarray}
\overline{W} &=& \frac{\sum_n W_n}{3\times 6}\,, \\
\sigma_W &=& \sqrt{\sum_n\frac{(W_n-\overline{W})^2}{3\times6 -1}}\,,
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq.defw}
W_n = 16\pi  \int_0^{s_0} {\rm Im} \Pi_{n}(s)\, ds\,,\,\, \big( n=\{S^{0,3,8},P^{0,3,8}\} \big)\,.
\end{eqnarray}
The value $\sigma_W/\overline{W}$ can be interpreted as a parameter to judge at which level the spectral sum rules are satisfied.
The results by taking the fit parameters from Ref.~\cite{Guo:2012yt} and the physical masses for the mesons are
\begin{eqnarray}
 \overline{W}=9.0\,,\quad \sigma_W= 1.5\,\, \Rightarrow \,\, \frac{\sigma_W}{\overline{W}} = 0.16\,,
\end{eqnarray}
which implies that the scalar and pseudoscalar spectral sum rules in Eq.~\eqref{eq.specint} are only violated at the level  around $15\%$. However, the violation of such sum rules is more severe when taking the fit parameters from Ref.~\cite{Guo:2011pa}, which can reach around $30\%$. We have also tried to perform the chiral extrapolation of the spectral functions to the chiral limit case, which introduces more uncertainties due to the less controlled extrapolating behaviors of the subtraction constants in the unitarized amplitudes~\cite{Guo:2012ym,Guo:2012yt}.

The scalar and pseudoscalar spectral sum rules discussed previously enable us to discern the underlying relations of the scalar and pseudoscalar mesons. On the other hand, the semilocal or the average duality from the meson-meson scattering provides another interesting theoretical framework to study the possible relations between the scalar and the vector resonances. The semilocal/average duality here refers to the relations between the hadronic system and the Regge theory in the fixed-$t$ scattering amplitudes. The key object is given by
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq.defsd}
 \int_{\nu_1}^{\nu_2} \nu^{-n}{\rm Im} T_{\rm t,Regge}^{I}(\nu,t) d\nu =  \int_{\nu_1}^{\nu_2} \nu^{-n}{\rm Im} T_{\rm t,Hadron}^{I}(\nu,t) d\nu\,,
\end{eqnarray}
with $s,t,u$ the Mandelstam kinematical variables and $\nu=(s-u)/2$. The Regge amplitudes and the relevant phenomenological inputs are given in details in Refs.~\cite{bargerbook,RuizdeElvira:2010cs}.

The general linear relations between the $t$- and $s$-channel isospin amplitudes can be found in many text books in literature, e.g. the one in Ref.~\cite{collinsbook}. Usually the averaging integration region $\nu_2 -\nu_1$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq.defsd} should be taken as $k\cdot{\rm GeV}^2$, with $k=1,2,3,\cdots$. The semilocal duality in Eq.~\eqref{eq.defsd} should in principle work well for the forward scattering amplitude, i.e. by taking $t=0$. It is reasonable to also consider small changes of the $t$, e.g., by taking $t=t_{\rm th}=4m_\pi^2$ for the $\pi\pi$ scattering. Regarding the exponent $n$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq.defsd}, clearly different values of $n$ allow us to probe the interactions in different energy ranges. We will study the duality by setting $n$ at several integers from 0 to 3, which are demonstrated to be proper for the interested energy region below 3~GeV$^2$~\cite{RuizdeElvira:2010cs}. In practice it turns out to be useful to consider the ratios of the average integrations for the $\pi\pi$ scattering, e.g., two different types of ratios are considered in Refs.~\cite{RuizdeElvira:2010cs,Guo:2012ym,Guo:2012yt}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq.defsdr}
 R^I_n &=& \frac{ \int_{\nu_1}^{\nu_2} \nu^{-n}\, {\rm Im}\, T_{\rm t,Hadron}^{(I)}(\nu, t)\, d\nu}
{\int_{\nu_1}^{\nu_3} \nu^{-n}\, {\rm Im}\, T_{\rm t,Hadron}^{(I)}(\nu, t)\, d\nu}\,, \\
 F_n^{I I'} &=& \frac{ \int_{\nu_1}^{\nu_{\rm max} } \nu^{-n}\, {\rm Im}\, T_{\rm t,Hadron}^{(I)}(\nu, t)\, d\nu}
{\int_{\nu_1}^{\nu_{\rm max}} \nu^{-n}\, {\rm Im}\, T_{\rm t,Hadron}^{(I')}(\nu, t)\, d\nu}\,,\label{eq.defsdf}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\nu_1, \nu_2$ and $\nu_3$ will be set at the $\pi\pi$ threshold, 1~GeV$^2$ and 2~GeV$^2$, respectively. Two different values for $\nu_{\rm max}=$ 1 or 2 GeV~$^2$ are tested in our study. Nevertheless, since we include the excited scalar resonances around $1.4$~GeV, it is meaningful to fix $\nu_{\rm max}=2$~GeV$^2$, instead of 1~GeV$^2$. Indeed the results with $\nu_{\rm max}=2$~GeV$^2$ turn out to be more reasonable than the case with $\nu_{\rm max}=1$~GeV$^2$. Therefore in the following discussions, we only show the results by taking  $\nu_{\rm max}=2$~GeV$^2$. The integrands in the ratios~\eqref{eq.defsdr} and \eqref{eq.defsdf} can be decomposed into a set of the sum of the partial-wave amplitudes~\cite{RuizdeElvira:2010cs,Guo:2012yt}, which can be calculated with unitarized chiral approach in Eq.~\eqref{eq.ut}. In this way one can discern the roles of the resonances played in the semilocal duality.

We focus on the situation of the fulfillment of semilocal duality for the $\pi\pi$ scattering here. The values for the ratios with different isospin numbers and $n$ are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:sdratios}. The smaller(larger) values of $n$ enable us to probe the fulfillment of the semilocal duality in the higher(lower) energy region. Apart from the scalar and vector resonances, it is found that the inclusion of the $D$-wave tensor resonances generally improves the fulfillment of the semilocal duality, except the $n=0$ case. To incorporate the $D$-wave contributions to the ratios~\eqref{eq.defsdr} and \eqref{eq.defsdf}, we follow Ref.~\cite{Ecker:2007us} to include the tree-level tensor exchanges. In addition, the other contributions to the $D$-wave amplitudes from the chiral loops, higher order contact terms and the crossed-channel scalar and vector exchanges are also taken into account. The additional parameters related to the tensor resonances are fixed by properly reproducing the $f_2(1270)$ pole~\cite{Guo:2012yt}. The ratios of $F_n^{20}$ and $F_n^{21}$ are particularly interesting to probe the semilocal duality, since the Regge contributions to the $t$-channel amplitudes with $I=2$ are greatly suppressed. As a result, the values of $F_n^{20}$ and $F_n^{21}$ should tend to zero according to the Regge theory. Therefore one would expect the cancellations between the scalar, vector and tensor resonance exchanges for the integrals with $I=2$ in the ratios of $F_n^{20}$ and $F_n^{21}$. By only including the scalar or vector resonance contributions, one obtains that the magnitude of $F_n^{21}$ should approach to 1, which can be considered as a value that signals the complete violation of the semilocal duality. For the $n=1,2,3$ cases, the magnitudes of the $F_n^{21}$ are smaller than 0.3, which indicate that the semilocal duality is well satisfied. Similar conclusion is also obtained for the $F_n^{20}$ case. Regarding the values of the $R_n^{I}$, generally speaking the semilocal duality is better satisfied for higher values of $n$ and we verify that the inclusion of the $D$-wave tensor resonance contributions plays relevant roles in the description of the semilocal duality. It is verified that the results when taking $t=0$ lead to quantitatively similar conclusions as the case with $t=4m_\pi^2$.

\begin{table}[ht]
\renewcommand{\tabcolsep}{0.05cm}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\begin{center}
{\small
\begin{tabular}{l|l|llllll}
\hline
 n &  &&  $R_n^0$    && $R_n^1$   && $F_n^{21}$
\\
[0.1cm]
\hline
\hline
Regge & 0 && 0.225  &&  0.325  &&   $\simeq 0$
\\[0.1cm]
 &  1     && 0.425  &&  0.578  &&   $\simeq 0$
\\[0.1cm]
 & 2     && 0.705 &&  0.839  &&   $\simeq 0$
\\[0.1cm]
 &  3    && 0.916  &&  0.966  &&   $\simeq 0$
 \\[0.1cm]
\hline
Hadrons    & 0   && 0.410  &&  0.453   &&  0.531
\\[0.1cm]
{\footnotesize $(S+P+D)$} & 1 && 0.653  &&  0.694    &&  0.154
\\[0.1cm]
           & 2   && 0.850  &&  0.875   &&  0.027
\\[0.1cm]
           & 3   && 0.954  &&  0.965   &&  0.225
\\[0.1cm]
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{The results of the ratios defined in Eqs.~\eqref{eq.defsdr} and \eqref{eq.defsdf} to quantify the semilocal duality in the $\pi\pi$ scattering. All the numbers shown in this table are evaluated by taking $t=4m_\pi^2$ and $\nu_{\rm max}=2$~GeV$^2$. The entries in the hadronic parts include the contributions from the $S$, $P$ and $D$ waves. }
\label{tab:sdratios}
\end{center}
\end{table}

\section{$N_C$ behaviors of the resonances and various physical quantities}

As mentioned previously, the $U(3)$ chiral theory provides a more appropriate theoretical framework to study the large $N_C$ dynamics of QCD than the $SU(3)$ case, since the singlet $\eta_0$ would become the ninth pNGB in the large $N_C$ and chiral limits. Indeed rather different $N_C$ evolutions for the masses of the $\pi, K$ and $\eta$ in the $U(3)$ chiral theory, which can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig.ncpsmassandtheta}, have been found, when compared to the more or less flat behaviors in the $SU(3)$ case. The most significant change happens for the $\eta$ meson, which mass greatly decreases to 300~MeV and tends to become degenerate with the pion. For the kaon and $\eta'$, their masses still remain large in the large $N_C$ mainly due to the large physical strange quark mass. The leading order $\eta$-$\eta'$ mixing angle $\theta$ monotonically decreases and approaches to the ideal mixing value in the large $N_C$ limit. The $N_C$ evolutions of the masses for the pNGBs and the $\eta$-$\eta'$ mixing will be taken into account in the following discussions on the $N_C$ behaviors of the resonances and various physical quantities, including the spectral functions integrals and the ratios defined in the previous section to quantify the semilocal duality. It is mentioned that previous works on the study of $N_C$ behaviors of the resonances~\cite{nctrajmeson} have neglected the QCD $\uao$ anomaly effect. In order to explicitly show the influences of the QCD $\uao$ effect in the determinations of the $N_C$ trajectories for the resonances, we propose a way to imitate the $SU(3)$ results from the $U(3)$ case, which include the following operations: fixing the leading order mixing angle $\theta$ at zero throughout, freezing the $\pi, K$ and $\eta$ masses at their physical values and fixing the $\eta'$ mass at its leading order value. The results can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig.ncpoleu3su3}, where the resonance poles of the $K_0^{*}(1430)$ and $K^*(892)$ are taken as examples to illustrate the differences from the $U(3)$ and $SU(3)$ chiral theories. Generally we can conclude that the QCD $\uao$ effects are not negligible and they have more important influences on the scalar resonances than the vector ones.

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[angle=0, width=0.95\textwidth]{fig-nc-masstheta-symA.eps}
\caption{ The $N_C$ evolutions for the masses of the pNGBs (left panel) and the LO $\eta$-$\eta'$ mixing angle (right panel).} \label{fig.ncpsmassandtheta}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[angle=0, width=0.95\textwidth]{fig-nc-kvks-symA.eps}
\caption{ Comparisons of the $N_C$ trajectories from the $U(3)$ and $SU(3)$ cases. } \label{fig.ncpoleu3su3}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

According to the large $N_C$ QCD~\cite{largenc}, the mass and width for the conventional $\bar{q}q$ meson when $N_C \to \infty$ scale as $N_C^0$ and $1/N_C$, respectively. This fact provides us a qualitative criteria to study the inner structures of hadrons, once the $N_C$ trajectories of the resonance poles are known. In order to obtain the $N_C$ behaviors of the resonance poles, we need to provide the $N_C$ scaling rules for the various parameters in the unitarized scattering amplitudes. In Refs.~\cite{Guo:2012ym,Guo:2012yt} detailed discussions on the leading and subleading $N_C$ scalings of the relevant parameters are given. By taking into account the $N_C$ evolutions of the pNGBs' masses, the $\eta$-$\eta'$ mixing angle and the various parameters, the corresponding results for the $N_C$ trajectories of the scalar and vector resonances appearing in the $\pi\pi$ scattering are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig.ncpole}. The most important lesson we learn is that the poles of $f_0(980)$, $f_0(1370)$ and $\rho(770)$ fall down to the real axis when $N_C$ becomes large, indicating that at least there are some $\bar{q}q$ seeds inside these resonances in the large $N_C$ limit, which are also supported in our later calculations by using the generalized Weinberg compositeness relations in Refs.~\cite{Guo:2015daa,Gao:2018jhk}. To be more specific, it is verified that the width of the $\rho(770)$ behaves perfectly as $1/N_C$ for $N_C\geq3$ and its mass approaches to a constant for $N_C\geq 15$. Therefore the $N_C$ trajectory of the $\rho(770)$ clearly manifests itself as a standard $\bar{q}q$ resonance. For the $f_0(980)$ and $f_0(1370)$, although their $N_C$ trajectories show some peculiar trends when $N_C\leq 10$, the widths of both resonances approach to zero and their masses tend to constants for large values of $N_C$, implying that important $\bar{q}q$ components start to become dominant when $N_C\to \infty$. While for the $f_0(500)$ pole, its $N_C$ trajectory tends to go deep in the complex plane, instead of falling down to the real axis, i.e. the width of the $f_0(500)$ obviously does not behave as $1/N_C$ even at large $N_C$. This tells us that in our study the $\bar{q}q$ component does not seem playing dominant roles in the $f_0(500)$ when $N_C \to \infty$.

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[angle=0, width=0.95\textwidth]{fig-ncpole-symA.eps}
\caption{ $N_C$ trajectories of the scalar and vector resonance poles in the $\pi\pi$ scattering.} \label{fig.ncpole}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

The complex $N_C$ behaviors of the various resonances will be also reflected in the $N_C$ evolutions of the physical quantities, such as the form factors, spectral functions and semilocal dualities, etc. Regarding the $N_C$ evolutions of the spectral function sum rules, it is explicitly verified that the spectral integrals in Eq.~\eqref{eq.defw} obtained in the chiral limit, perfectly scale as $N_C$, as expected from the large $N_C$ QCD~\cite{Guo:2012ym,Guo:2012yt}. It is found that the subtle subleading $N_C$ scalings of the various parameters in the unitarized amplitudes also play relevant roles in the $N_C$ study of the semilocal duality. We show in Fig.~\ref{fig.ncf21} the $N_C$ evolutions of the ratios \eqref{eq.defsdf} by including the subleading $N_C$ scalings of the various parameters~\cite{Guo:2012yt}. The Regge theory predicts the vanishing values of the ratios $F_n^{21}$. Indeed the magnitudes of the $F_n^{21}$ ratios turn to be small for a wide range of $N_C$, indicating that there are cancellations between the contributions from different types of resonances. Nevertheless the cancellation pattern is not universal at different values of $N_C$. We find that rather different cancellation patterns happen for different values of $N_C$. E.g., in the physical case with $N_C=3$ the bump around the $\sigma$ resonance region gives dominant contribution that balances the one from the $\rho(770)$ in the ratio $F_2^{21}$. When $N_C=30$ the bump in the $\sigma$ region barely contributes any more and the contribution from the $\rho(770)$ to the $F_2^{21}$ also get greatly reduced. For the ratio  $F_0^{21}$, the $\rho(770)$ contribution for all the values of $N_C$ is mainly canceled by the one from the $f_0(1370)$, which however barely affects the ratios with $n\ge 1$. Comparing with the left and right panels of Fig.~\ref{fig.ncf21}, we see that the $D$-wave tensor contributions generally improve the fulfillment of the semilocal duality, except the $n=0$ case. This indicates that more types of resonances would be needed to better fulfill the duality for the $n=0$ ratio.

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[angle=0, width=0.99\textwidth]{figncduality-F21sim-symA.eps}
\caption{ The $N_C$ evolutions of the ratios $F_n^{21}$ defined in Eq.~\eqref{eq.defsdf}. The curves correspond to the results by including the subleading $N_C$ scalings of the various parameters~\cite{Guo:2012yt}. The left panel is to show the results by only considering the $S$ and $P$ waves. The right panel includes the contributions from the $D$ wave with tensor resonances, as well as the $S$ and $P$ waves.   } \label{fig.ncf21}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\section{Summary and conclusions}

Recently we have continuously pushed forward the consistent higher-order calculations in the $U(3)$ chiral effective field theory, which include not only the meson-meson scattering and the form factors briefly discussed here, but also the systematical calculations of the light pseudoscalar meson properties, the $\eta$-$\eta'$ mixing and their thermal behaviors. The $U(3)$ chiral effective field theory can be clearly used to investigate more subjects on the hadron phenomenologies than the $SU(3)$ case. The energy regions covered by the $U(3)$ theory in principle are higher than the $SU(3)$ one. It has been also demonstrated to be useful and efficient to analyze the various lattice data~\cite{Guo:2015xva,Guo:2016zep,Gu:2018swy}.

In this note we mainly focus on the resonance dynamics in various physical quantities calculated in the $U(3)$ resonance chiral theory. Special attention has been paid to the $N_C$ evolutions of the resonance poles and various physical quantities, including the spectral functions and the ratios to quantify the semilocal duality. To properly take into account the nonperturbative strong interactions between the meson pairs, the approximated $N/D$ method is employed to unitarize the perturbative $U(3)$ chiral amplitudes and the scalar form factors. All the relevant scalar resonances below around $1.4$~GeV and almost all the ground vector resonances are obtained in a consistent theoretical framework in our study, including $f_0(500)$, $f_0(980)$,  $f_0(1370)$, $K_0^*(800)$, $K_0^*(1430)$, $a_0(980)$, $a_0(1450)$, $\rho(770)$, $K^*(892)$ and $\phi(1020)$. The scalar spectral functions of the two-point correlators are calculated in terms of the unitarized scalar form factors and the pseudoscalar spectral functions are approximated by the single-meson contributions. Two kinds of ratios have been defined to quantify the semilocal duality, which gives us further insight into the underlying relations between different types of resonances.
The $N_C$ trajectory curves of the resonance poles reveal that in the large $N_C$ the $\bar{q}q$ components seem playing marginal roles for the $f_0(500)$, $a_0(980)$ and $K_0^*(800)$, while there are strong evidences in our study that the  $\bar{q}q$ seeds are important for the other resonances mentioned above. The scalar and pseudoscalar spectral sum rules are found to be rather well satisfied and perfectly scale as $N_C$ in the chiral limit. Although to a good extent the semilocal duality is generally fulfilled, the cancellation patterns among the contributions from the different resonances are found to be subtle at different values of $N_C$. We foresee that the $U(3)$ chiral theory can be further investigated to address many interesting phenomenological and lattice problems.

\section*{Acknowledgement}
I thank J.~A.~Oller and J.~Ruiz de Elvira for the pleasant collaborations and useful discussions on the topics covered here.
This work is supported in part by the Natural Science Foundation of China(NSFC) under Grants Nos.~11975090 and 11575052, the Natural Science Foundation of Hebei Province under Contract No.~A2015205205.


\section{mass formalisms}
The residual masses for the $s^P_l=\frac{1}{2}^-$ ($H$-sector), $s^P_l=\frac{1}{2}^+$ ($S$-sector), and $s^P_l=\frac{3}{2}^+$ ($T$-sector) charmed  mesons have been derived within HMChPT framework including one loop chiral corrections  \cite{ms05,Alhakami20}. They can be written as \cite{Alhakami,Alhakami20}
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}\label{rmassesN}
&m^r_{D_{(s)}}=\eta_H-\frac{3}{4}\xi_H+\alpha_{(s)} L_{H}-\beta_{(s)} F_{H}+\Sigma_{D_{(s)}},\\[1ex]
&m^r_{D^*_{(s)}}=\eta_H+\frac{1}{4}\xi_H+\alpha_{(s)} L_{H}+\frac{1}{3} \beta_{(s)} F_{H}+\Sigma_{D^*_{(s)}},\\[1ex]
&m^r_{D^*_{(s)0}}=\eta_S-\frac{3}{4}\xi_S+\alpha_{(s)} L_{S}-\beta_{(s)} F_{S}+\Sigma_{D^*_{(s)0}},\\[1ex]
&m^r_{D^\prime_{(s)1}}=\eta_S+\frac{1}{4}\xi_S+\alpha_{(s)} L_{S}+\frac{1}{3} \beta_{(s)} F_{S}+\Sigma_{D^\prime_{(s)1}},\\[1ex]
&m^r_{D_{(s)1}}=\eta_T-\frac{5}{8}\xi_T+\alpha_{(s)} L_{T}-\frac{5}{6} \beta_{(s)} F_{T}+\Sigma_{D_{(s)1}},\\[1ex]\
&m^r_{D^*_{(s)2}}=\eta_T+\frac{3}{8}\xi_T+\alpha_{(s)} L_{T}+\frac{1}{2}\beta_{(s)}  F_{T}+\Sigma_{D^*_{(s)2}},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha_{(s)}$ and $\beta_{(s)}$ are $\alpha=-1/3$, $\alpha_s=2/3$, $\beta=-1/4$, $\beta_s=1/2$; the subscript $s$ stands for the strange charmed meson. The $\eta$ and $L$ ($\xi$ and $F$) parameters in $H$, $S$, and $T$ sectors respect (violate) heavy quark spin-flavor symmetry. Note that the parameter $F_X$ (in this work and in \cite{Alhakami20}) has the same definition of the parameter $T_X$ in \cite{Alhakami}; we use $F$ instead of $T$ to avoid confusion with $T$-sector states. Masses in Eq.~\eqref{rmassesN} do not contain terms that only break heavy quark flavor symmetry. The self-energy corrections, which are represented by $\Sigma_{D^\pm}$, are nonlinear functions of the mass difference of charmed mesons and masses of the light pseudoscalar mesons $\pi$, $\eta$, and $K$. They depend quadratically on five ($g$, $g^\prime$,$g^{\prime\prime}$, $h$, and $h^\prime$) couplings. The $g$, $g^\prime$, and $g^{\prime\prime}$ couplings govern the strong interactions among states in the $s^P_l=\frac{1}{2}^-$, $s^P_l=\frac{1}{2}^+$, and $s^P_l=\frac{3}{2}^+$ doublets, respectively. The $h$ ($h^\prime$) coupling parametrizes the strong interactions of $s^P_l=\frac{1}{2}^-$ and $s^P_l=\frac{1}{2}^+$ ($s^P_l=\frac{1}{2}^+$ and $s^P_l=\frac{3}{2}^+$) mesons; for an illustration see Fig.~\ref{coupling}. The explicit expressions of self energies for the excited $s^P_l=\frac{1}{2}^+$ and $s^P_l=\frac{3}{2}^+$ charmed meson states are given in the Appendix of \cite{Alhakami20}. For the $s^P_l=\frac{1}{2}^-$ ground state, we use expressions given in Appendix of \cite{Alhakami}.
\begin{SCfigure}
\centering
\caption{A representation for the coupling constants entering the one-loop corrections.
The $g$, $g^\prime$, and $g^{\prime\prime}$ couplings govern the strong interactions among states in the $s^P_l=\frac{1}{2}^-$, $s^P_l=\frac{1}{2}^+$,
and $s^P_l=\frac{3}{2}^+$ doublets, respectively. The $h$ ($h^\prime$) coupling parametrizes the strong interactions of $s^P_l=\frac{1}{2}^-$ and $s^P_l=\frac{1}{2}^+$ ($s^P_l=\frac{1}{2}^+$ and $s^P_l=\frac{3}{2}^+$) mesons.}
\label{coupling}
\includegraphics[width=5cm,height=7cm]{couplings}
\end{SCfigure}

The chiral loop functions describing the interaction of heavy mesons with same (opposite) parity are denoted by $K_1$ ($K_2$). They are given, in the $\mathrm{\overline{MS}}$-scheme,  by \cite{Alhakami,Alhakami20}
\begin{equation}\label{K1}
\begin{split}
K_1(\omega, m_i,\mu)&=\frac{1}{16 \pi^2}\left[(-2\omega^3+3m_i^2\omega)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m_i^2}{\mu^2}\right)-4(\omega^2- m_i^2)F(\omega,m_i)+\frac{16}{3}\omega^3-7\omega\, m_i^2\right],\\[2ex]
K_2(\omega, m_i,\mu)&=\frac{1}{16 \pi^2} \left[ (-2\omega^3+ m_i^2\omega)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m_i^2}{\mu^2}\right)-4\omega^2 F(\omega,m_i)+4\omega^3- \omega\, m_i^2\right],
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where the arguments $\omega$, $m_i$, and $\mu$ represent the heavy meson mass differences, the masses of the Goldstone bosons, and the renormalization scale, respectively. The function $F(\omega,m_i)$ is given by
\begin{equation}
 F(\omega,m_i)=\left\{ \begin{array}{c c}-\sqrt{m_i^2-\omega^2} \cos^{-1}(\frac{\omega}{m_i}), & \mbox{$m_i^2>\omega^2,$} \\[2ex]
                                 \sqrt{\omega^2-m_i^2}[i \pi-\cosh^{-1}(-\frac{\omega}{m_i})], & \mbox{$\omega<-m_i,$}\\[2ex]
 \sqrt{\omega^2-m_i^2}\cosh^{-1}(\frac{\omega}{m_i}), & \mbox{$\omega>m_i.$}
                                \end{array} \right.
                                  \end{equation}

The HMChPT results for charmed mesons, Eq.~\eqref{rmassesN}, can be used to obtain the predictions for the analog beauty meson spectrum. For this, the heavy quark spin violating ($\xi$ and $F$) parameters should be rescaled by  $\frac{m_c}{m_b}$. Following Ref. \cite{Alhakami}, we use $\mathrm{\overline{MS}}$ masses, $m_b=4.18$ GeV and $m_c=1.27$ GeV, to define the rescaling factor $m_c/m_b=0.304(50)$, where an extra uncertainty of $O(\Lambda_{\text{QCD}})$ is added to cover the spread of $b$ and $c$ masses resulting from different schemes \cite{pdg12}. The HMChPT masses for the beauty mesons read
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}\label{rmassesNb}
&m^r_{B_{(s)}}=\eta_H-\frac{3}{4}\xi^b_H+\alpha_{(s)} L_{H}-\beta_{(s)} F^b_{H}+\Sigma_{B_{(s)}},\\[1ex]
&m^r_{B^*_{(s)}}=\eta_H+\frac{1}{4}\xi^b_H+\alpha_{(s)} L_{H}+\frac{1}{3} \beta_{(s)} F^b_{H}+\Sigma_{B^*_{(s)}},\\[1ex]
&m^r_{B^*_{(s)0}}=\eta_S-\frac{3}{4}\xi^b_S+\alpha_{(s)} L_{S}-\beta_{(s)} F^b_{S}+\Sigma_{B^*_{(s)0}},\\[1ex]
&m^r_{B^\prime_{(s)1}}=\eta_S+\frac{1}{4}\xi^b_S+\alpha_{(s)} L_{S}+\frac{1}{3} \beta_{(s)} F^b_{S}+\Sigma_{B^\prime_{(s)1}},\\[1ex]
&m^r_{B_{(s)1}}=\eta_T-\frac{5}{8}\xi^b_T+\alpha_{(s)} L_{T}-\frac{5}{6} \beta_{(s)} F^b_{T}+\Sigma_{B_{(s)1}},\\[1ex]\
&m^r_{B^*_{(s)2}}=\eta_T+\frac{3}{8}\xi^b_T+\alpha_{(s)} L_{T}+\frac{1}{2}\beta_{(s)}  F^b_{T}+\Sigma_{B^*_{(s)2}},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\xi^b_X=\frac{m_c}{m_b}\xi_X$ and $F^b_X=\frac{m_c}{m_b}F_X$. The one-loop corrections, $\Sigma_{B^\pm}$, are now nonlinear functions of the beauty meson mass differences and masses of the light Goldstone particles.

By fitting parameters in Eq.~\eqref{rmassesN} to charmed spectrum, we can use Eq.~\eqref{rmassesNb} to predict the mass splittings in the  beauty sector. To extract the absolute masses of the excited beauty mesons, other leading power corrections $O(\Lambda_{\text{QCD}}/m_c-\Lambda_{\text{QCD}}/m_b)$ to the HQ limit should be included to HMChPT masses. Such missing terms are needed to get the correct mass splittings among the different doublets in the predicted beauty meson spectrum.
We will elaborate how to properly include them to our masses. For this, let us first recall heavy meson masses in heavy quark effective theory (HQET). In a compact form, the mass of a heavy meson $X$ containing a single heavy quark flavor $Q$ can be expressed up to the leading power corrections to the HQ limit as \cite{hqet}
\begin{equation}\label{hqet}
m_{X^{(Q)}_\pm}=m_Q+\bar{\Lambda}^X-\frac{\lambda_{X,1}}{2m_Q}\pm n_\mp\frac{\lambda_{X,2}}{2m_Q},
\end{equation}
where $n_\pm=2J_\pm+1$ gives the number of spin states in the meson
$X_\pm$. The energy of the light degrees of freedom in the HQ limit is represented by the nonperturbative parameter $\bar{\Lambda}^X$. In the $SU(3)$ limit, this parameter has the same value for all particles in a given $s^P_l$ doublet. If $SU(3)$ breaking is considered, it is different for nonstrange, $\bar{\Lambda}_n^X$, and strange, $\bar{\Lambda}_s^X$, mesons. The other nonperturbative parameters $\lambda_{X,1}$ and $\lambda_{X,2}$ determine the heavy quark kinetic energy and the chromomagnetic energy, respectively.
They have the same values for all particles in a given $s^P_l$ heavy quark doublet. As kinetic energy is a positive quantity, the sign of $\lambda_{X,1}$ in Eq.~\eqref{hqet} should be negative.

In Eq.~\eqref{hqet}, the third term, which contains $\lambda_{X,1}$, breaks heavy quark flavor symmetry, but it leaves the heavy quark spin symmetry intact. However, the last term, which has $\lambda_{X,2}$, breaks both heavy quark flavor and spin symmetries. The spin averaged mass, $\bar{m}_X$, weighted by the number of helicity states
\begin{equation}\label{avg}
\bar{m}^{(Q)}_X=\frac{n_-m_{X^{(Q)}_-}+n_+m_{X^{(Q)}_+}}{n_++n_-},
\end{equation}
is independent of spin symmetry violating parameters, i.e., $\lambda_{X,2}$ ($\xi$ and $F$) in Eq.~\eqref{hqet}
[Eq.~\eqref{rmassesN}]. By using Eqs.~\eqref{hqet} and \eqref{avg}, one can define the difference of spin averaged masses in the beauty sector,
\begin{equation}\label{dbavg}
\begin{split}
\bar{m}^{(b)}_{A_{(s)}}-\bar{m}^{(b)}_{H_{(s)}}&=\bar{m}^{(c)}_{A_{(s)}}-\bar{m}^{(c)}_{H_{(s)}}+\delta^{(s)}_{AH},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $A\in \{S,T\}$, and
\begin{equation}\label{dbavgg}
\delta_{AH}^{(s)}=(\lambda_{A,1}-\lambda_{H,1})^{(s)}\left(\frac{1}{2m_c}-\frac{1}{2m_b}\right),
\end{equation}
represents the leading $O(\Lambda_{\text{QCD}}/m_c-\Lambda_{\text{QCD}}/m_b)$ corrections. Such corrections to the HQ limit are missing in HMChPT formalisms [Eq.~\eqref{rmassesN}]. Therefore, one has to incorporate them  properly into HMChPT masses for the beauty mesons. It should be noted that the HMChPT masses in Eq.~\eqref{rmassesN} not only involve  effects to first order in the inverse heavy quark mass, $1/m_Q$, as those of HQET in Eq.~\eqref{hqet},  but also involve effects due to the light quark mass, $m_q$, and $m_q/m_Q$ terms. These terms, which are buried in the ($\eta$, $\xi$, $L$, $F$) parameters of Eq.~\eqref{rmassesN}, scale as $\Lambda_{\text{QCD}}^2/m_Q\propto \Delta \sim Q$ and $m_q\sim Q^2$,  where $Q\sim m_\pi,~m_K, m_\eta$ and $\Delta$ is hyperfine splitting operator; for technical details see Refs. \cite{Alhakami,Alhakami20}. As HMChPT masses are defined up to third order, we add the factor,
\begin{equation}\label{dbavggg}
\begin{split}
\Delta^{(s)}_{AH}=\delta^{(s)}_{AH}\left(1+a\frac{M}{\Lambda_\chi}+b\frac{M^2}{\Lambda^2_\chi}\right),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
to the excited $s^P_l=\frac{1}{2}^+$ and $s^P_l=\frac{3}{2}^+$ beauty meson masses, see Eq.~\eqref{rmassesNbD} below. The chiral symmetry breaking scale is $\Lambda_\chi \simeq 1$ GeV and $M$ is $m_\pi$ ($m_K$) for nonstrange (strange) splittings. The magnitude and relative sign of the numerical factors $a$ and $b$ in the above expansion [Eq.~\eqref{dbavggg}] can be chosen to reproduce the observed beauty meson spectrum.
It is found that for $a$ and $b$ with values less than unity, good results can be obtained; the difference between the observed and predicted masses for the excited $j^P_l=\frac{3}{2}^+$ states is very small, i.e., of order few MeV.
Theoretical results are not much affected when taking any values for $a$ and $b$ less than unity. Here, we choose $a=0.82$ and $b=-0.18$, which provides more accurate results. In light of the foregoing, one can reexpress the HMChPT masses for the beauty mesons in Eq. ~\eqref{rmassesNb} as
\begin{equation}\label{rmassesNbD}
\begin{split}
&m^r_{B_{(s)}}=\eta_H-\frac{3}{4}\xi^b_H+\alpha_{(s)} L_{H}-\beta_{(s)} F^b_{H}+\Sigma_{B_{(s)}},\\[1ex]
&m^r_{B^*_{(s)}}=\eta_H+\frac{1}{4}\xi^b_H+\alpha_{(s)} L_{H}+\frac{1}{3} \beta_{(s)} F^b_{H}+\Sigma_{B^*_{(s)}},\\[1ex]
&m^r_{B^*_{(s)0}}=\Delta^{(s)}_{SH}+\eta_S-\frac{3}{4}\xi^b_S+\alpha_{(s)} L_{S}-\beta_{(s)} F^b_{S}+\Sigma_{B^*_{(s)0}},\\[1ex]
&m^r_{B^\prime_{(s)1}}=\Delta^{(s)}_{SH}+\eta_S+\frac{1}{4}\xi^b_S+\alpha_{(s)} L_{S}+\frac{1}{3} \beta_{(s)} F^b_{S}+\Sigma_{B^\prime_{(s)1}},\\[1ex]
&m^r_{B_{(s)1}}=\Delta^{(s)}_{TH}+\eta_T-\frac{5}{8}\xi^b_T+\alpha_{(s)} L_{T}-\frac{5}{6} \beta_{(s)} F^b_{T}+\Sigma_{B_{(s)1}},\\[1ex]\
&m^r_{B^*_{(s)2}}=\Delta^{(s)}_{TH}+\eta_T+\frac{3}{8}\xi^b_T+\alpha_{(s)} L_{T}+\frac{1}{2}\beta_{(s)}  F^b_{T}+\Sigma_{B^*_{(s)2}},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Both expressions [Eqs. ~\eqref{rmassesNb} and \eqref{rmassesNbD}] will be used in the next section to predict the mass splittings in the beauty sector. The
absolute masses for the beauty mesons will also be predicted
using Eq. ~\eqref{rmassesNbD}.

To proceed we need to extract the  values of $(\lambda_{A,1}-\lambda_{H,1})^{(s)}$ and $\delta^{(s)}_{AH}$ using Eqs.~\eqref{dbavg} and \eqref{dbavgg}. From the spectroscopy of the $s^P_l=\frac{1}{2}^-$ and $s^P_l=\frac{3}{2}^+$ charmed and beauty mesons, one finds  $\lambda_{T,1}-\lambda_{H,1}=-0.197~\text{GeV}^2$ ($\delta_{TH}=-54$ MeV) for nonstrange particles and $\lambda^s_{T,1}-\lambda^s_{H,1}=-0.174~\text{GeV}^2$ ($\delta^s_{TH}=-47.7$ MeV) for strange ones. The negative sign shows that the kinetic energy of the heavy quark in the excited $s^P_l=\frac{3}{2}^+$ mesons is larger than that in the $s^P_l=\frac{1}{2}^-$ ground state. From Eq.~\eqref{dbavggg}, the corrections are found to be $\Delta_{TH}=-60$ MeV for nonstrange beauty sector and  $\Delta^s_{TH}=-65$ MeV
for strange one. The extracted values for $\Delta^{(s)}_{TH}$ amount to lowering the masses of the excited $s^P_l=\frac{3}{2}^+$ beauty mesons, see Eq.~\eqref{rmassesNbD}. The nonperturbative parameter $\lambda^{(s)}_{S,1}$ is unknown, and, hence, we cannot extract $\Delta^{(s)}_{SH}$. In Refs. \cite{ms05,HYu}, the value $\lambda^{(s)}_{S,1}-\lambda^{(s)}_{H,1}\approx\lambda^{(s)}_{T,1}-\lambda^{(s)}_{H,1}$ is considered by assuming that the kinetic energy of the heavy quark in the $s^P_l=\frac{1}{2}^+$ states is comparable to that of $s^P_l=\frac{3}{2}^+$ states. To cover all possibilities for the value of the kinetic energy of heavy quark in the $s^P_l=\frac{1}{2}^+$ states and not limit it to values that are comparable to that of the $s^P_l=\frac{3}{2}^+$ states, we consider that the kinetic energy of heavy quark in the $s^P_l=\frac{1}{2}^+$ states lying between those of the $s^P_l=\frac{1}{2}^-$ and $s^P_l=\frac{3}{2}^+$ states and add a large uncertainty that measures our ignorance of $\lambda^{(s)}_{S,1}$. Thus, we take $(\lambda_{S,1}-\lambda_{H,1})^{(s)}=-0.09(6)~\text{GeV}^2$. From Eqs.~\eqref{dbavgg} and \eqref{dbavggg}, the beauty nonstrange (strange) $s^P_l=\frac{1}{2}^+$ masses in Eq.~\eqref{rmassesNbD} are lowered by $\Delta_{SH}=-27(18)$ MeV [$\Delta^{s}_{SH}=-33(22)$ MeV].
At our level of precision, the uncertainties due to experimental masses and higher order $O(\Lambda_{\text{QCD}}/m_c-\Lambda_{\text{QCD}}/m_b)$ corrections are negligible.

\section{results and discussion}
Before presenting our results, let us first illustrate the fitting and predicting methods. Here, we follow the approach employed in \cite{Alhakami} to fit $\eta$, $\xi$, $L$, and $F$ parameters and predict the beauty meson masses. The fitting method is essentially based on using physical masses of charmed mesons to evaluate the chiral loop functions, which ensures that the imaginary
parts of self-energies (loop functions) are correctly related to the observed decay widths. This makes fit linear and hence helps to extract unique values for the $\eta$, $\xi$, $L$, and $F$ parameters.
Because of computing loop integrals using physical masses,
the obtained values for the parameters will contain contributions beyond $\mathcal{O}(Q^3)$. The generated higher order $\mu$-dependent terms cannot properly be renormalized using $\mu$-dependence counterterms of the theory. Therefore, a theoretical error coming from such higher order terms should be estimated. As in \cite{Alhakami}, the $\beta$ functions of the $\eta$, $\xi$, $L$, and $F$ parameters will be defined to estimate the contributions from the generated higher-order terms.

In the fit, we use twelve masses of strange and nonstrange charmed mesons \cite{pdg12}, see Fig. \ref{Ddoublets}. We work in the isospin limit. We only average the masses of the well-determined charmed nonstrange mesons. The $\frac{1}{2}^+$ charmed nonstrange mesons, however, are poorly determined. So, we instead use the masses of the excited $D_0^{*0}$, 2300(19) MeV \cite{pdg12}, and $D^{0\prime}_1$, 2427(26)(25) MeV \cite{19}, mesons. For Goldstone particles, $m_{\pi}=140$ MeV, $m_K = 495$ MeV, and $m_\eta = 547$ MeV are used.
Our results smoothly change with the normalization scale $\mu$;
consequently, performing calculations at any other values of the normalization scale will not make much difference. In our numerical calculations, we set the normalization scale to the average of pion and kaon masses, $\mu = 317$ MeV, as in \cite{Alhakami}.
The numerical values for the couplings can be extracted using available data on strong decays of charmed mesons. The coupling constant $g$ at tree level can be extracted using the measured width of $D^{*\pm}$ \cite{pdg12}; this gives $g=0.5672(80)$. For the $h$ coupling, we use $h=0.514(17)$, which is extracted from the width of $D^{*\pm}_0$ \cite{cheng}. The $g^\prime$, $h^\prime$, and $g^{\prime\prime}$ couplings are unknown experimentally.  We, therefore, use lattice QCD result for $g^\prime=-0.122(8)(6)$ \cite{glattice} and restrict $h^\prime$ and $g^{\prime\prime}$ to lie between 0 and 1; so, one can study the variation of the calculated masses with the $h^\prime$ and $g^{\prime\prime}$ couplings. By confronting our resulting masses against experiments, these unmeasured couplings will be constrained to lie in a narrow range making our theory much reliable.

As our calculations are performed at different $h^\prime$ and $g^{\prime\prime}$, we will only show the fitting method considering $h^\prime=0.30$ and $g^{\prime\prime}=0.03$. In Eq.~\eqref{rmassesN}, $m_A^r$ represents the residual mass of the charmed meson $A$, which is taken to be the difference between the experimental mass and an arbitrarily chosen reference mass of $O(m_c)$ \cite{ms05}. Here we choose $m_{D^*}$ as a reference, which yields the following central values for charmed meson residual masses
\cite{pdg12,19}
\begin{equation}\label{rm0}
\begin{split}
m^r_D&=-141.32, ~~m^r_{D^*}=0,~~~~~~~~~m^r_{D_s}=-40.22,\\
m^r_{D^*_s}&= 103.65,~~~~m^r_{D_0^*}=291.45,~~~m^r_{D^\prime_1}= 418.45,\\
m^r_{D^*_{s0}}&=309.25,~~~ m^r_{D^\prime_{s1}}=450.95,~~~m^r_{D_1}=413.45,\\
m^r_{D_{s1}}&= 526.56,~~~~m^r_{D^*_2}=454.5,~~~~ m^r_{D^*_{s2}}=560.55
\end{split}
\end{equation}
in MeV units. By fitting the mass expressions in Eq.~\eqref{rmassesN} to the corresponding empirical masses  in Eq.~\eqref{rm0}, one obtains
\begin{equation}\label{rm1}
\begin{split}
\eta_H&=104(7),~~~~~~\xi_H=149(5),\\
L_H&=212(14),~~~~F_H=-44(11),\\
\eta_S&=385(19),~~~~~\xi_S=138(27),\\
L_S&=20(31),~~~~~F_S=12(42),\\
\eta_T&=490(1),~~~~~~\xi_T=41(1),\\
L_T&=119(1),~~~~~F_T=-4(2),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
which are given in MeV units. The fit results are obtained by computing the chiral loop functions in Eq.~\eqref{rmassesN} using physical masses and couplings, as mentioned above. The errors use to get this fit are the experimental errors on masses and couplings, the lattice QCD error on $g^\prime$, and the theoretical error that we have estimated from the $\beta$  functions of the parameters. The uncertainty in the nonstrange $D_0^{*0}$ and $D^{0\prime}_1$ masses gives rise to the large uncertainties seen in $\eta_S,~\xi_S,~L_S$, and $F_S$ parameters.

The charm sector results on HMChPT parameters, Eq.~\eqref{rm1}, can be used in Eq.~\eqref{rmassesNb} [Eq.~\eqref{rmassesNbD}]
to predict the mass splittings (the mass splittings and absolute masses) in the beauty sector. For an illustration, we will use Eq.~\eqref{rmassesNbD} to extract the beauty meson masses.
Following \cite{Alhakami}, one can choose the ground state, $B$, as a reference mass to define eleven independent mass splittings, $\Delta m_A=m_A-m_B$, where $A\in \{B^*,B_s,B^*_s,B^*_0,B^\prime_1,B^*_{s0},B^\prime_{s1},
B_1,B^*_2,B_{s1},B^*_{s2}\}$. As the self-energies represent nonlinear functions of the beauty meson mass differences, these independent splittings form nonlinear equations. An iterative method is utilized to solve them starting from the tree-level masses. Adding the mean value of the observed mass $m_B$, which are chosen as a reference mass in our calculations, to the predicted mass splittings, yields
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}\label{predict}
m_{B^*}&=5325(9),~~~~~~~~~~~~m_{B_s}=5369(13),\\
m_{B_s^*}&=5415(15),~~~~~~~~~~m_{B_0^*}=5681(25)(18),\\
m_{B_1^\prime}&=5719(26)(18),~~~~m_{B_{s0}^*}=5711(32)(22),\\
m_{B_{s1}^\prime}&=5756(31)(22),~~~~~m_{B_1}=5726(13),\\
m_{B_2^*}&=5739(14),~~~~~~~~~~m_{B_{s1}}=5830(14),\\
m_{B_{s2}^*}&=5840(14)
\end{split}
\end{equation}
in MeV units. The  errors (first for the $s^P_l=\frac{1}{2}^+$ masses) come from the uncertainties in the charmed masses, coupling constants, lattice QCD computation on $g^\prime$, rescaling factor, and estimated theoretical error. The first error on the predicted masses of the excited $s^P_l=\frac{1}{2}^+$ beauty mesons is dominated by the uncertainty in $D_0^{*0}$ and $D^{0\prime}_1$ masses and the second is the uncertainty in $\lambda^{(s)}_{S,1}$.

To investigate the influence of virtual loop effects on the predicted beauty meson spectrum, our calculations  are performed considering different input values for $h^\prime$ and $g^{\prime\prime}$. The spectrum of the $s^P_l=\frac{1}{2}^-$ and $s^P_l=\frac{1}{2}^+$ beauty mesons depend only on the $h^\prime$ coupling. Both $h^\prime$ and $g^{\prime\prime}$ couplings, however, affect the excited $s^P_l=\frac{3}{2}^+$ beauty meson masses. The results can be justified by confronting them with the experiments.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[width = 0.7\textwidth]{T5gpp}
\caption{The predicted hyperfine splittings (upper panel) and $SU(3)$ flavor splittings (lower panel) in the excited $s^P_l=\frac{3}{2}^+$ doublets using HMChPT masses in Eqs.~\eqref{rmassesNb} and \eqref{rmassesNbD} plotted against $g^{\prime\prime}$. The associated errors include the experimental errors on the charmed masses
and coupling constants, the error from the lattice QCD calculations of $g^\prime$, the error from the input parameter $\frac{m_c}{m_b}$, and the estimated theoretical error. Different symbols are given to the experiment and two theoretical predictions using HMChPT masses in Eqs.~\eqref{rmassesNb} and \eqref{rmassesNbD} according to the key in the ($m_{B^*_{s2}}-m_{B^*_2}$) plot.}
\label{Tsector}
\end{figure}

We first look at the dependence of the higher excited $s^P_l=\frac{3}{2}^+$ states on $g^{\prime\prime}$. To neglect loops effect from the virtual excited $s^P_l=\frac{1}{2}^+$ states, the $h^\prime$ coupling is set to zero. As shown in Fig.~\ref{Tsector}, the self-energy effects within $s^P_l=\frac{3}{2}^+$ states, which are parametrized by $g^{\prime\prime}$, have a strong impact on the predicted masses. The calculated  masses of $B_1$ and $B_{s1}$ ($B^*_2$ and $B^*_{s2}$) mesons significantly increase (decrease) as $g^{\prime\prime}$ increases. The observations and predictions are in a good agreement for small values of the coupling, $g^{\prime\prime}< 0.10$. At $g^{\prime\prime}\simeq 0.15$ ($g^{\prime\prime}\simeq 0.25$), the excited $B_{s1}$ and $B^*_{s2}$ ($B_1$ and $B^*_2$) states become degenerate; which in turn implies that the predictions are unreliable in the limit $g^{\prime\prime}>0.10$. Accordingly, $g^{\prime\prime}$ should be constrained to lie between $0$ and $0.10$. Hyperfine splittings are independent of $O(\Lambda_{\text{QCD}}/m_c-\Lambda_{\text{QCD}}/m_b)$ corrections, and this is confirmed in our theoretical results. However, there is no exact cancellation between the $O(\Lambda_{\text{QCD}}/m_c-\Lambda_{\text{QCD}}/m_b)$ corrections to nonstrange and strange heavy meson masses. Such corrections lower the predicted $SU(3)$ splittings [compare results from Eqs.~\eqref{rmassesNb} and \eqref{rmassesNbD}] by nearly 5 MeV with central values close to the observed ones for $g^{\prime\prime}< 0.10$. In the following, we will use $g^{\prime\prime}=0.03$.

The variation of the predicted beauty meson splittings with $h^\prime$ is presented in Figs.~\ref{HTp} and \ref{Sp} and compared with the available experimental data. In Fig.~\ref{HTp}, the predicted hyperfine splittings in the $s^P_l=\frac{1}{2}^-$ and $s^P_l=\frac{3}{2}^+$ doublets, which exhibit weak dependence on $h^\prime$, are in excellent agreement with the observed values.
Evidently, the $O(\Lambda_{\text{QCD}}/m_c-\Lambda_{\text{QCD}}/m_b)$ corrections will, in general, lower the $SU(3)$ flavor splittings in
the $s^P_l=\frac{1}{2}^-$ and $s^P_l=\frac{3}{2}^+$ doublets
by nearly 10 and 5 MeV, respectively. In the lower panel of Fig.~\ref{HTp}(a), the results for the flavor splittings in the $s^P_l=\frac{1}{2}^-$ doublet obtained using Eqs.~\eqref{rmassesNb} and \eqref{rmassesNbD} show weak dependence on $h^\prime$. The extracted values from applying Eq.~\eqref{rmassesNbD}, which takes into account $O(\Lambda_{\text{QCD}}/m_c-\Lambda_{\text{QCD}}/m_b)$ corrections, are in excellent agreement with the reported values. However, for those obtained using Eq.~\eqref{rmassesNb}, the agreement are within 1$\sigma$ standard deviation.
For the $SU(3)$ flavor splittings in the excited $s^P_l=\frac{3}{2}^+$  doublet, the theoretical results are in good agreement with data for $h^\prime\leqslant0.5$, as shown in the lower panel of Fig.~\ref{HTp}(b).  For $h^\prime>0.5$, the results (more precisely the central values) extracted using Eq.~\eqref{rmassesNbD} start to deviate from the observations. Therefore, the coupling $h^\prime$ should be restricted to values smaller than $0.5$. The Fig.~\ref{HTp}(b) also shows how theoretical error, which is estimated from the $\beta$ functions of the parameters, varies with $h^\prime$.

\begin{figure}[h!]
\subfloat[ ]{\includegraphics[width = 0.7\textwidth]{Hp-sector}} \\
\subfloat[ ]{\includegraphics[width = 0.7\textwidth]{Tp-sector}}
\caption{The predicted hyperfine splittings (upper panel) and $SU(3)$ flavor splittings (lower panel) in the (a) $s^P_l=\frac{1}{2}^-$ and (b) $s^P_l=\frac{3}{2}^+$ heavy quark doublets plotted against $h^\prime$.
The notation is the same as in Fig.\ref{Tsector}.}
\label{HTp}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[width = 0.7\textwidth]{Sp-sector}
\caption{The predicted hyperfine splittings (upper panel) and $SU(3)$ flavor splittings (lower panel) in the excited $s^P_l=\frac{1}{2}^+$ heavy quark doublets plotted against $h^\prime$. The notation is the same as in Fig.\ref{Tsector}. These beauty mesons have not yet been discovered. Our predictions (upper right panel) confirm the mass relation $m_{B^\prime_{s1}}-m_{B^*_{s0}}\approx m_{B^*}-m_B \approx m_{B^*_s}-m_{B_s}$, which has been observed in the charm sector and expected in the beauty sector by heavy quark symmetry; for details please
refer to the text.}
\label{Sp}
\end{figure}
The $s^P_l=\frac{1}{2}^+$ beauty mesons have not yet been observed. Our theoretical calculations of hyperfine and flavor splittings for these missing states are shown in Fig.~\ref{Sp}. The empirical relation $m_{D^\prime_{s1}}-m_{D^*_{s0}}\approx m_{D^*}-m_D \approx m_{D^*_s}-m_{D_s}$ in the charm sector is expected in the beauty sector by heavy quark symmetry \cite{pdg12,cheng}.
Our predictions confirm that $m_{B^\prime_{s1}}-m_{B^*_{s0}}\approx m_{B^*}-m_B \approx m_{B^*_s}-m_{B_s}$, as shown in the upper right panel of Fig.~\ref{Sp}.
Our calculations show that there is an accidental cancellation
between counterterms and $SU(3)$ breaking loop corrections
in the predicted flavor splittings.
The predicted $SU(3)$ splittings
$m_{B^*_{s0}}-m_{B^*_0}\simeq 19$ MeV and $m_{B^\prime_{s1}}-m_{B^\prime_1}\simeq 25$ MeV ($m_{B^*_{s0}}-m_{B^*_0}\simeq 30$ MeV and $m_{B^\prime_{s1}}-m_{B^\prime_1}\simeq 36$ MeV) are obtained using Eq.~\eqref{rmassesNb} [Eq. \eqref{rmassesNbD}]. These results are far below theoretical expectations like those in the charm sector; i.e., $m_{D^*_{s0}}-m_{D^{*0}_0}\approx 18$ MeV and $m_{D^\prime_{s1}}-m_{D^{0\prime}_1}\approx 33$ MeV \cite{pdg12,19}. Thus, our results are consistent with the expectations of heavy quark spin-flavor symmetry.

We have shown the predicted hyperfine and flavor splittings from applying HMChPT masses in Eq. \eqref{rmassesNbD}, which incorporates $O(\Lambda_{\text{QCD}}/m_c-\Lambda_{\text{QCD}}/m_b)$ corrections, in Figs.~
\ref{Tsector}--\ref{Sp}.
The variation of the predicted beauty meson
masses with $h^\prime$ is presented in Table \ref{tab:2} and compared with the experimental data. The masses of the $s^P_l=\frac{1}{2}^-$ and nonstrange $s^P_l=\frac{3}{2}^+$ ($s^P_l=\frac{1}{2}^+$ and strange $s^P_l=\frac{3}{2}^+$) states show a weak (strong) dependence on the $h^\prime$ coupling. For $B^*$, $B_s$, $B^*_s$, $B_1$, and $B^*_2$ states, the difference between the mean values of the observed and predicted masses is very small, i.e., of order few MeV. However, this is not the case for the $s^P_l=\frac{1}{2}^+$ and strange $s^P_l=\frac{3}{2}^+$ beauty mesons, where the virtual loop effects lower their masses  by an amount of $\sim O(15)$ MeV.

\begin{table*}[ht!]
\def2.5{2.5}
\begin{center}
\caption{Comparison of the experimental data \cite{pdg12} and our theoretical results
using HMChPT masses in Eq.~\eqref{rmassesNbD}. We take the isospin average of $B^-_1$ and $B^0_1$ ($B^{*-}_2$ and $B^{*0}_2$) to obtain the mass of nonstrange excited state $B_1$ ($B^*_2$). In our calculations, we fix $g^{\prime\prime}=0.03$ and use different values for the $h^\prime$ coupling.
Masses are in units of MeV.}
\begin{tabular}{lllllllllc}
\hline\hline
\multicolumn{10}{c}{Theoretical predictions at different $h^\prime$} \\
\cline{4-7}
$j^P_l$&$J^P$&Meson&$0.00$&$0.30$&$0.50$&$0.90$&Experiment&   &\\ \hline
$\frac{1}{2}^-$&$1^-$&$B^*$&5325(9)&5325(9)&5325(9)&5325(9)&5324.70(21)&   &  \\
$\frac{1}{2}^-$&$0^-$&$B_s$&5369(13)&5369(13)&5368(13)&5366(13)&5366.88(14)&   &\\
$\frac{1}{2}^-$&$1^-$&$B_s^*$&5415(15)&5415(15)&5414(15)&5413(15)&5415.4(2.3)&  &\\
$\frac{1}{2}^+$&$0^+$&$B^*_0$&5683(25)(18)&5681(25)(18)&5678(25)(18)&5667(28)(18)&unseen&   &  \\
$\frac{1}{2}^+$&$1^+$&$B_1^\prime$&5721(26)(18)&5719(26)(18)&5717(26)(18)&5709(28)(18)&unseen&  &  \\
$\frac{1}{2}^+$&$0^+$&$B^*_{s0}$&5713(32)(22)&5711(32)(22)&5709(32)(22)&5699(36)(22)&unseen&  &  \\
$\frac{1}{2}^+$&$1^+$&$B_{s1}^\prime$&5757(31)(22)&5756(31)(22)&5754(31)(22)&5749(36)(22)&unseen&  &  \\
$\frac{3}{2}^+$&$1^+$&$B_1$&5727(13)&5726(13)&5725(14)&5724(19)&5726(2)&   &\\
$\frac{3}{2}^+$&$2^+$&$B_2^*$&5739(14)& 5739(14)&5738(15)&5737(19)&5738.35(49)&   &\\
$\frac{3}{2}^+$&$1^+$&$B_{s1}$&5832(13)&5830(14)&5826(15)&5813(28)&5828.7(2)&    &\\
$\frac{3}{2}^+$&$2^+$&$B_{s2}^*$&5842(14)&5840(14)&5837(16)&5826(29)&5839.86(12)&   &\\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:2}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
By analyzing the predicted and observed spectrum in Table \ref{tab:2}, it is clear that  the $s^P_l=\frac{1}{2}^-$ and $s^P_l=\frac{3}{2}^+$ states are well reproduced, which without a doubt reflects the power of HMChPT. Clearly, the best values for the masses of the strange excited $s^P_l=\frac{3}{2}^+$ states are those extracted considering $h^\prime\leqslant0.50$. It is worth remarking that the predicted excited $s^P_l=\frac{1}{2}^+$ beauty nonstrange (strange) masses are well above (below) the threshold for decays to ground state $B$ mesons and pions (kaons), and therefore these mesons are expected to be very broad (narrow) like $s^P_l=\frac{1}{2}^+$ charmed nonstrange (strange) mesons.  Our predictions for the not yet discovered $B^*_{s0}$ and $B^\prime_{s1}$ states are remarkably close to the lattice QCD results in \cite{B}: $m_{B^*_{s0}}=5711(13)(19)$ MeV and $m_{B^\prime_{s1}}=5750(17)(19)$ MeV.

It should be noted that the approach employed in the current paper and \cite{Alhakami} to predict the beauty meson spectrum within HMChPT framework is different from the one utilized in \cite{HYu,cheng,col}. In this work and in \cite{Alhakami}, a third-order one-loop mass expansion for the heavy-light mesons, which takes into account the effects to first order in light quark mass, $m_q$, and to first order in $1/m_Q$, and $m_q/m_Q$ terms, is considered. The unknown parameters in such mass expansion, i.e., Eq. \eqref{rmassesN}, are fixed using charm spectrum. Then, the fitted hyperfine parameters, which are functions of $\mathcal{O}(1/m_c)$, are scaled by $m_c/m_b$ to define the mass expansion, i.e., Eqs. \eqref{rmassesNb} and  \eqref{rmassesNbD}, for the corresponding beauty meson states. A self-consistent approach is then used to extract the beauty meson masses. In \cite{HYu,cheng,col}, on the other hand, the treatment is based on the heavy quark symmetry argument. In these studies, the one-loop corrections and chiral symmetry breaking terms are neglected. In the rest of this section, we will briefly review and discuss the approach employed in these studies. For this, we will use the notation of \cite{col}
and restrict the discussion to the missing excited $s^P_l=\frac{1}{2}^+$ states. In the strict HQ limit \cite{col},
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}\label{col}
\Delta^{(c)}_S &=\Delta^{(b)}_S,\\
\lambda^{(c)}_S &=\lambda^{(b)}_S,\\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\Delta_S$ measures the spin-averaged mass splittings between the excited $S$ doublet and ground state $H$ doublet (this corresponds to $\delta_S-\delta_H$ in \cite{ms05,Alhakami,Alhakami20})
and $\lambda_S$ measures the mass splitting between spin partners of $S$ doublet. The quantity $\lambda_S$ represents the HQET  nonperturbative parameter $\lambda_{S,2}$, see Eq.~\eqref{hqet}. The HMChPT hyperfine parameter, which is denoted by $\Delta_S$ in \cite{ms05,Alhakami,Alhakami20}, is related to this HQET parameter by $\Delta_S=\lambda_S/m_c$ for the case of the charmed mesons. Note that the mass expansion in \cite{ms05,Alhakami,Alhakami20} is defined up to to first order in $1/m_c$, which in turn implies that $\lambda^{(c)}_S\equiv\lambda^{(b)}_S$. Therefore, it is sufficient to rescale the hyperfine parameters ($\xi$ and $F$) in the charmed meson mass expansion [Eq.~\eqref{rmassesN}] by the mass ratio $m_c/m_b$ to define the HMChPT mass expansion for the analog beauty meson states, i.e., Eqs. \eqref{rmassesNb} and  \eqref{rmassesNbD}. The leading QCD corrections and $1/m_Q$ effect \cite{lamdc} to $\lambda^{(c)}_X\equiv\lambda^{(b)}_X$
are beyond the order, i.e., $\mathcal{O}(Q^3)$, to which we are working. Such corrections, which have been considered
in \cite{cheng,HYu}, are found to shift the masses by a few MeV; see the text below Eq.~\eqref{2014}.

The lhs of the relations in Eq.~\eqref{col} is experimentally determined. The two relations are then used to predict states in the corresponding beauty doublets. For the missing excited $s^P_l=\frac{1}{2}^+$ states, the authors of \cite{col} obtained
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}\label{12}
m_{B^*_0}&=5708.2(22.5),~~~m_{B^\prime_1}=5753.3(31.1),\\
m_{B^*_{s0}}&=5706.6(1.2),~~~m_{B^\prime_{s1}}=5765.6(1.2)
\end{split}
\end{equation}
in MeV units. The leading QCD corrections and $1/m_Q$ effect to the relations in Eq.~\eqref{col} are taken into account
in \cite{cheng,HYu}. The leading $1/m_Q$ correction to $\Delta^{(c)}_S=\Delta^{(b)}_S$ is estimated using HQET as done above. It is given by
\begin{equation}\label{kk}
 \Delta^{(b)}_S=\Delta^{(c)}_S+\delta_{SH},
\end{equation}
where $\delta_{SH}\sim \mathcal{O}(-35)$ MeV is obtained using $4.65$ and $1.275$ GeV for the beauty and charm quark masses, respectively, and by assuming that the kinetic energy of the heavy quark in the $s^P_l=\frac{1}{2}^+$ states is comparable to that of $s^P_l=\frac{3}{2}^+$ states.
The next-to-leading corrections to the relation
$\lambda^{(c)}_S=\lambda^{(b)}_S$ has not yet been calculated.
The authors of \cite{HYu} have generalized the calculations of Amoros, Beneke, and Neubert \cite{lamdc}
for the negative-parity mesons by considering the leading QCD corrections to the relation $\lambda^{(c)}_S=\lambda^{(b)}_S$, i.e., \begin{equation}\label{hl}
\lambda^{(b)}_S=\lambda^{(c)}_S\left(\frac{\alpha_s{(m_b)}}{\alpha_s{(m_c)}}\right)^{9/25}.
\end{equation}
With aforementioned improvements [Eqs.~\eqref{kk} and \eqref{hl}], the authors of \cite{HYu} obtained (in MeV)
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}\label{14}
m_{B^*_0}&=5715(22)+\delta_{SH},~~~m_{B^\prime_1}=5752(31)+\delta_{SH},\\
m_{B^*_{s0}}&=5715(1)+\delta_{SH},~~~m_{B^\prime_{s1}}=5763(1)+\delta_{SH},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where the $\delta_{SH}$ correction amounts to lowering the masses of the excited $s^P_l=\frac{1}{2}^+$ beauty states.

The predicted masses in \cite{col,cheng,HYu}, which are given in Eqs.~\eqref{12} and \eqref{14}, are obtained using $m_{D^{*0}_0}=2318(29)$ MeV for the nonstrange scalar charmed meson, which is very close to its strange partner, $D^{*+}_{s0}$. Our theoretical predictions in Figs.~\ref{Tsector}--\ref{Sp} and Table \ref{tab:2} are obtained
using the 2020 PDG \cite{pdg12}, where the updated value for the mass of the scalar $D^{*0}_0$ state is $2300(19)$ MeV, which is smaller than $D^{*+}_{s0}$ by nearly 18 MeV. To compare the approach employed in this work with the one used in \cite{col,cheng,HYu}, the results in
Eqs.~\eqref{12} and \eqref{14} must be updated
using the 2020 PDG \cite{pdg12}. This leads to the following predicted masses (in MeV)
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}\label{2012}
m_{B^*_0}&=5696(19),~~~~~~~m_{B^\prime_1}=5749(31),\\
m_{B^*_{s0}}&=5706.9(1.8),~~~m_{B^\prime_{s1}}=5765.9(1.8),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
in the HQ limit [Eq.~\eqref{col}] and
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}\label{2014}
m_{B^*_0}&=5702(20)+\delta_{SH},~~~m_{B^\prime_1}=5746(30)+\delta_{SH},\\
m_{B^*_{s0}}&=5714.0(1.8)+\delta_{SH},\\
m_{B^\prime_{s1}}&=5763.5(1.8)+\delta_{SH},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
when considering the $1/m_Q$ [Eq.~\eqref{kk}] and
leading QCD [Eq.~\eqref{hl}] corrections. By comparing Eqs.~\eqref{2012} and \eqref{2014}, it is obvious that including the leading QCD corrections enhances (reduces) the masses of the scalar (axial-vector) beauty mesons by nearly 7 MeV (2 MeV), as already noted in \cite{HYu,cheng}. The predicted $B^*_{s0}$ and $B^\prime_{s1}$ states in Eq.~\eqref{2014} are close to our predictions in Table \ref{tab:2}. However, the masses for $B^*_0$ and $B^\prime_1$ states in Eq.~\eqref{2014} are higher than the predicted masses in Table \ref{tab:2} by order 20 and 30 MeV, respectively.
\section{CONCLUSIONS}
The spectroscopy of the ground-state ($s_l^P=\frac{1}{2}^-$) and lowest-excited ($s_l^P=\frac{1}{2}^+$ and $s_l^P=\frac{3}{2}^+$) beauty mesons were analyzed within HMChPT framework. The mass expressions used in our study include all leading contributions from one-loop corrections and those due to chiral and  heavy quark symmetry breakings. The charmed spectrum was used to fix the unknown parameters that appear in the mass formulas. Then, we used charm results to make predictions for the analog beauty meson spectrum.

Our calculations were performed at different values for the experimentally and theoretically unknown ($h^\prime$ and $g^{\prime\prime}$) couplings, which helped to examine the influence of virtual loops effect on the calculated masses. It was found that the data is more consistent with the predicted
$s_l^P=\frac{3}{2}^+$ masses when $g^{\prime\prime}<0.10$. For self-energy corrections parametrized by $h^\prime$, the calculated masses for the $s^P_l=\frac{1}{2}^-$ and nonstrange $s^P_l=\frac{3}{2}^+$ ($s^P_l=\frac{1}{2}^+$ and strange $s^P_l=\frac{3}{2}^+$) beauty mesons were found to have a weak (strong) dependence on $h^\prime$. The $s^P_l=\frac{1}{2}^+$ and strange $s^P_l=\frac{3}{2}^+$ beauty mesons were pushed down by nearly $O(15)$ MeV. The resulting masses for the $s_l^P=\frac{1}{2}^-$ and $s_l^P=\frac{3}{2}^+$
beauty mesons are consistent with the observed values.
However, the $s^P_l=\frac{1}{2}^+$ beauty mesons have not yet been discovered; so, our findings could provide useful information for experimentalists investigating such states.

\section{Acknowledgments}
The author extends his appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University for funding this work through Research  Group No. RG-1441-537.