Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Magnetic dipole moments of the singly-heavy baryons with spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ and spin-$\frac{3}{2}$

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Using quantum chromodynamics light-cone sum rules with scalar and axial-vector diquark currents, the paper predicts the magnetic dipole moments of all singly-heavy baryons with spin 1/2 and 3/2, and interprets the signs of the light- and…

desk verdict Useful comprehensive LCSR set of singly-heavy baryon moments, but the anti-triplet bottom row likely fails the heavy-quark limit and should not be used as a benchmark. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09405 v1 pith:UWZ4SEEW submitted 2024-11-14 hep-ph hep-exhep-lat

U. Özdem This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-exhep-lat
keywords singly-heavybaryonsmagneticdipolemomentQCDlight-conesumrulesdiquarkinterpolatingcurrentselectricquadrupoleoctupolecharmbottom
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that QCD light-cone sum rules—a technique that expresses hadron properties in terms of quark and gluon degrees of freedom and then matches them to physical baryon states—determine the magnetic dipole moments of all singly-heavy baryons with $J^P = \frac{1}{2}^+$ and $J^P = \frac{3}{2}^+$. The analysis separates light- and heavy-quark contributions and finds that light quarks dominate the spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ sextet moments, while the heavy quark is significantly more important in anti-triplet and spin-$\frac{3}{2}$ states, with the two contributions opposite in sign. It also obtains nonzero electric quadrupole and magnetic octupole moments for the spin-$\frac{3}{2}$ baryons, which it reads as evidence of non-spherical charge distributions. These predictions matter because accelerator experiments are now aiming to measure charm-baryon magnetic moments directly, and the numbers here give those experiments concrete targets to test.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the QCD light-cone sum rule in an external electromagnetic field. Two diquark interpolating currents are used: the scalar current $\varepsilon^{abc}(q_1^{aT} C \gamma_5 q_2^b) Q^c$ for anti-triplet baryons and the axial-vector current $\varepsilon^{abc}(q_1^{aT} C \gamma_\mu q_2^b) \gamma_\mu \gamma_5 Q^c$ for sextet and spin-$\frac{3}{2}$ baryons, where the diquark is a correlated pair of light quarks. The correlation function is computed once with hadronic parameters (mass, residue, form factors) and once with quark propagators plus photon distribution amplitudes, and the two representations are matched after Borel transformation and continuum subtraction. For the spin-$\frac{3}{2}$ states, only the $\epsilon_\mu q_\nu \not q$, $q_\mu q_\nu \not\epsilon$, $q_\mu q_\nu \not\epsilon \not q$, and $(\epsilon\cdot p) q_\mu q_\nu \not q$ Lorentz structures are kept, which the paper argues removes spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ contamination. The magnetic dipole, electric quadrupole, and magnetic octupole moments are extracted from the $q^2 = 0$ limit of the corresponding form factors.

What would settle it

A measurement of the $\Lambda_c^+$ or $\Sigma_c^{++}$ magnetic moment from bent-crystal spin precession at the Large Hadron Collider, or a lattice QCD calculation with controlled continuum extrapolation, that disagrees with the predicted $0.46 \pm 0.09\,\mu_N$ or $2.02 \pm 0.18\,\mu_N$ by more than the combined uncertainties would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that QCD light-cone sum rules, evaluated with scalar and axial-vector diquark interpolating currents, fix the magnetic dipole moments of all singly-heavy baryons with $J^P = \frac{1}{2}^+$ and $J^P = \frac{3}{2}^+$. The numerical results are collected in the paper's Tables III and IV; representative values are $\mu(\Sigma_c^{++}) = 2.02 \pm 0.18\,\mu_N$, $\mu(\Lambda_c^+) = 0.46 \pm 0.09\,\mu_N$, and $\mu(\Sigma_c^{*++}) = 3.40 \pm 0.34\,\mu_N$. The light-quark sector governs the spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ sextet moments, while the heavy quark contributes much more strongly in anti-triplet and spin-$\frac{3}{2}$ states, with light- and heavy-quark contributions of opposite sign, which the paper reads as anti-aligned quark spins. For the spin-$\frac{3}{2}$ baryons the paper also obtains nonzero electric quadrupole and magnetic octupole moments, taken as evidence of non-spherical charge distributions with prolate or oblate shape depending on the baryon.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that each diquark current creates mostly the ground-state baryon, so that excited states and spin-1/2 pieces in the spin-3/2 correlation function do not distort the extracted moments.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The predicted magnetic moments in Tables III and IV can be used as comparison targets for the Large Hadron Collider bent-crystal measurements of charm-baryon magnetic moments.
  • If confirmed, the pattern in which light quarks dominate spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ sextet moments while the heavy quark is enhanced in anti-triplet and spin-$\frac{3}{2}$ states would support the diquark picture of singly-heavy baryon structure.
  • The nonzero electric quadrupole and magnetic octupole moments imply that spin-$\frac{3}{2}$ singly-heavy baryons are not spherically symmetric, with charge distributions that are prolate or oblate depending on the baryon.
  • The opposite signs of the light- and heavy-quark contributions indicate that the quark spins are anti-aligned inside these baryons.
  • The discrepancies among model predictions, especially for bottom anti-triplet baryons, would be resolved by direct measurement or by more precise lattice calculations.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: because the same photon distribution amplitudes enter every baryon, the relative ordering of sextet moments is likely more stable than the absolute scale; a useful check would be to compare predicted moment differences, such as $\mu(\Sigma_c^{++}) - \mu(\Sigma_c^0)$, with future measurements.
  • Editorial inference: the spin-$\frac{3}{2}$ subtraction can be stress-tested by repeating the calculation with a different interpolating current and checking that the extracted quadrupole and octupole moments stay within the quoted uncertainties.
  • Editorial inference: the large model spread for bottom anti-triplet baryons noted in the paper suggests that $\Lambda_b^0$ and $\Xi_b^-$ are the most discriminating targets; a single precise measurement would select among the competing pictures.
  • Editorial inference: the linear dependence of the moments on the magnetic susceptibility $\chi$ means a sufficiently precise set of measured charm-baryon moments could be inverted to extract $\chi$ independently of radiative heavy-meson decays.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a QCD light-cone sum-rule calculation of the magnetic dipole moments of all singly-heavy baryons with J^P = 1/2^+ and J^P = 3/2^+, using scalar (Cγ5) diquark currents for the anti-triplet states and axial-vector (Cγμ) diquark currents for the sextet and spin-3/2 states. The same formalism is used to extract electric quadrupole and magnetic octupole moments of the spin-3/2 baryons. Numerical outputs are collected in Tables III-V and compared with lattice QCD and many quark-model, chiral, and previous sum-rule results. The paper also reports a decomposition of each moment into light- and heavy-quark contributions and concludes that spin-1/2 sextet moments are dominated by light quarks, while heavy-quark contributions are enhanced in anti-triplet and spin-3/2 states; nonzero quadrupole and octupole moments are interpreted as evidence of non-spherical charge distributions.

Significance. If the calculation is correct, the paper would provide a complete, uniform set of LCSR predictions for the electromagnetic multipole moments of the singly-heavy baryon sector, which is directly relevant to the proposed LHC fixed-target measurements of charm-baryon magnetic moments. The manuscript has genuine strengths: it covers all singly-heavy baryon channels with a single method, the final sum-rule expressions are displayed, and the charm-sector sextet results agree reasonably with available lattice QCD determinations (e.g., μ_Σ_c^++ = 2.02(18) μ_N versus 2.220(505) μ_N from LQCD, and μ_Ω_c^0 = -0.73(8) versus -0.639(88) μ_N). The comparison tables are extensive and useful. The central concern is that the same method, applied to the bottom anti-triplet sector, produces results that violate a robust heavy-quark-limit expectation and that the manuscript itself acknowledges as unresolved; this prevents the overall claim from being accepted as it stands.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III, Tables III and VII; Eq. (21)] The bottom anti-triplet results are inconsistent with a rigorous limit of the same theory. For Λ_b the light diquark is a J^P = 0^+ scalar, so in the m_b → ∞ limit the magnetic moment must approach the b-quark Dirac moment, μ_b = e_b/(2m_b) = -0.075 μ_N, up to power corrections of order 1/m_b. Table III gives μ_Λ_b = -0.29 ± 0.03 μ_N, about four times larger in magnitude, and Table VII shows the same pattern for Ξ_b^0 (-0.33 μ_N) and Ξ_b^- (-0.25 μ_N), which are far outside the model range near -0.06 μ_N. The perturbative term in ρ2, Eq. (21), contains a leading e_Q m_Q^2 term multiplied by m_Q^4 and m_Q^2 integrals; for m_Q = m_b this term is large and opposite in sign to the charm case, so the anti-triplet results appear to be dominated by a contribution that must cancel against other OPE terms if the heavy-quark limit is to be recovered. The manuscript itself states (Sec. III, bullet 4) that the bottom anti-triplet findings 'have not aligned with those of other models' and that the 'discrepancy remains unresolved.' This is a load-bearing failure for the claim that the method determines these moments; the author needs to identify the missing or mis-normalized OPE contributions, demonstrate the required cancellation, and re-evaluate the numerical results.
  2. [Sec. II.A, Eqs. (19)-(21) and Sec. II.B, Eqs. (34)-(41)] The central OPE derivation is not auditable. After Eqs. (10)-(18), the text proceeds directly to 'lengthy and complicated steps' and then presents only the final Borel-transformed functions ρ_i and F_i. No intermediate results are shown for the perturbative, quark-condensate, gluon-condensate, or photon-distribution-amplitude contributions, and the explicit photon DAs and the projections onto the selected Lorentz structures are not listed. Because every numerical prediction in Tables III-V depends on these expressions, the absence of intermediate results prevents an independent check of signs, dimensions, and the relative normalization of the m_Q^2 terms that drive the anti-triplet problem described above. I request a detailed appendix or supplementary file with the step-by-step OPE, including the explicit definitions of all DA integrals and the continuum-subtraction procedure.
  3. [Sec. II.B, Eq. (29)] The statement that the structures ε_μ q_ν q-slash, q_μ q_ν ε-slash, q_μ q_ν ε-slash q-slash, and (ε·p) q_μ q_ν q-slash 'effectively exclude' spin-1/2 contamination in the spin-3/2 correlator is asserted but not demonstrated. The hadronic side in Eq. (29) contains only spin-3/2 contributions, and the QCD-side projection is not shown. Since the axial-vector diquark current J_μ in Eq. (24) generically has overlap with J = 1/2 baryons, the extracted F_i, and hence μ, Q, and O in Eqs. (34)-(37), will be shifted if the spin-1/2 contributions are not exactly projected out. Please provide an explicit demonstration (or cite a specific prior derivation that shows it) that the spin-1/2 terms vanish after the chosen projection in the Borel window used here.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (7)] The sentence following Eq. (7) says 'f1(q2) and f1(q2) are the form factors'; the second symbol should be f2(q2). In addition, Eq. (8) should be checked for consistency with the Gordon decomposition used to obtain the displayed tensor structures.
  2. [Table III] In the Sextet-B=1 row for Σ_b^-, the uncertainty is printed as '-1.01 ± 0.9'; this is inconsistent with all other entries and with Table VII, and should presumably read '-1.01 ± 0.09'.
  3. [Sec. III, bullet list] The text says 'for spin-3/2 singly-heavy baryons, it was observed that the U-symmetry violation is large (< 20%)'. The inequality appears to be reversed; it should be '> 20%' if the violation is large, or the wording should be changed.
  4. [Sec. III and Figs. 1-5] The numerical section does not show any Borel-mass or continuum-threshold stability plots; Figs. 1-5 only compare final predictions. At least one representative stability plot per current type is needed to justify the quoted systematic uncertainties from the M^2 and s0 windows.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the magnetic moments are OPE outputs matched to hadronic representations, with all external inputs (masses, residues, condensates, photon DAs) taken from independent sources and error estimates propagated from parameter stability rather than from fits to the target moments.

full rationale

The paper's central quantities are the magnetic dipole moments obtained from QCD light-cone sum rules. The derivation chain is: (i) choose interpolating currents based on external QCD sum-rule studies of diquark configurations [85,86]; (ii) compute the correlator in an external electromagnetic field at both hadronic and quark-gluonic levels; (iii) match the two representations and apply Borel transformation and continuum subtraction; (iv) extract moments from the resulting sum rules, Eqs. (19), (20), (21), (34)-(41). None of these steps fits the final moment values. The hadronic side contains the unknown residues and masses, but the residues are taken from prior independent QCD sum-rule calculations [101-103] and the masses from the PDG [98], not from the magnetic-moment data. The Borel mass M^2 and continuum threshold s0 are chosen by requiring minimal variation of the extracted moments within given intervals, not tuned to reproduce a target value. The photon distribution amplitudes are borrowed from Ref. [91] and the condensates from standard sources [99,100]. The paper explicitly compares its results with many other models and reports discrepancies, including the statement that the singly-bottom anti-triplet results 'have not aligned with those of other models' and that 'the source of this evident discrepancy remains unresolved.' Such an admission is inconsistent with a procedure that had been circularly fitted to those other results. The author does cite his own earlier methodological papers [66,67,71,92,93], but these citations are used for general technical procedures (e.g., how the perturbative and non-perturbative photon contributions are included) and the relevant analytical expressions are displayed in the present paper rather than merely imported. No load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation. Concerns about current contamination, Lorentz-structure projection, and the unusually large anti-triplet bottom moments are physical correctness risks, not circularity: they concern whether the OPE and the chosen currents correctly isolate the ground states, not whether the output is equivalent to the input by construction. Therefore no circular step is established.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calculation rests on five axioms: Wick/OPE validity, quark-hadron duality, interpolating-current ground-state dominance, adequacy of the photon distribution amplitudes, and reliability of external inputs. Two parameters, the Borel mass and continuum threshold, are chosen by hand in stability windows rather than fitted to data. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Borel mass parameter M^2 = Ranges by baryon, e.g., 2.0-2.6 GeV^2 for Sigma_c and 5.5-7.0 GeV^2 for Sigma_b (Tables III-IV)
    Chosen by hand in intervals where the magnetic moments are least sensitive; the final values shift within these intervals.
  • Continuum threshold s0 = Ranges from 7.5 GeV^2 to 46.5 GeV^2 depending on baryon (Tables III-IV)
    Chosen by hand to model the onset of the continuum and to maximize ground-state dominance; variations enter the quoted uncertainties.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Wick contraction and the operator product expansion in the light-cone limit are valid for the external-photon correlation functions.
    Used in Eqs. (10)-(11) and (33) to reduce the correlators to quark propagators and photon distribution amplitudes.
  • standard math Borel transform and quark-hadron duality with a continuum threshold s0 correctly isolate the ground-state contribution.
    Invoked after Eq. (19) as the standard LCSR procedure; the results depend on the chosen s0 and Borel window.
  • domain assumption The scalar (C gamma5) and axial-vector (C gamma_mu) diquark interpolating currents predominantly excite the physical ground-state singly-heavy baryons.
    Justified in Sec. I by citing diquark QCD sum rule studies [85,86]; if false, the extracted moments shift.
  • domain assumption The photon distribution amplitudes of Ref. [91] and the truncation implemented in the paper capture the long-distance quark-photon interactions.
    Long-distance contributions are roughly 21-35% of the total (Sec. III), and no independent test of these amplitudes is provided.
  • domain assumption Input quark masses, condensates, baryon masses, residues, and the magnetic susceptibility chi are taken from prior determinations.
    Stated in Sec. III; the final moments inherit any errors in these inputs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetic dipole moments of the singly-heavy baryons with spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ and spin-$\frac{3}{2}$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UWZ4SEEW

@misc{pith2026241109405,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetic dipole moments of the singly-heavy baryons with spin-$\frac12$ and spin-$\frac32$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UWZ4SEEW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09405}
}
abstract

The electromagnetic characteristics of singly-heavy baryons at low energies are responsive to their internal composition, structural configuration, and the associated chiral dynamics of light diquarks. To gain further insight, experimentalists are attempting to measure the magnetic and electric dipole moments of charm baryons at the LHC. In view of these developments, we conducted an extensive analysis of the magnetic dipole moments of both $\rm{J^P}=\frac{1}{2}^+$ and $\rm{J^P}=\frac{3}{2}^+$ singly-heavy baryons by means of the QCD light-cone sum rules. Our findings have been compared with other phenomenological estimations that could prove a valuable supplementary resource for interpreting the singly-heavy baryon sector. To shed light on the internal structure of these baryons we study the contributions of the individual quark sectors to the magnetic dipole moments. It was observed that the magnetic dipole moments of the spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ sextet singly-heavy baryons are governed by the light quarks. Conversely, the role of the heavy quark is significantly enhanced for the spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ anti-triplet and spin-$\frac{3}{2}$ sextet singly-heavy baryons. The contribution of light and heavy quarks is observed to have an inverse relationship. The signs of the magnetic dipole moments demonstrate the interaction of the spin degrees of freedom of the quarks. The opposing signs of the light and heavy-quark magnetic dipole moments imply that the spins of these quarks are anti-aligned with respect to each other in the baryon. As a byproduct, the electric quadrupole and magnetic octupole moments of spin-$\frac{3}{2}$ singly-heavy baryons are also calculated. We ascertained the existence of non-zero values for the electric quadrupole and magnetic octupole moments of these baryons, indicative of a non-spherical charge distribution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09405 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Magnetic dipole moments of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Magnetic dipole moments of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Magnetic dipole moments of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Magnetic dipole moments of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Magnetic dipole moments of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Electromagnetic polarizabilities of the spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ singly heavy baryons in heavy baryon chiral perturbation theory

    hep-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    At O(p^3) in heavy baryon chiral perturbation theory, sextet heavy baryons acquire polarizabilities from pion/kaon loops and from B6* to B6 magnetic transitions, while antitriplet heavy baryons have zero polarizability.

  2. Shedding light on the nature of the $P_{cs}(4459)$ pentaquark state

    hep-ph 2024-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    QCD light-cone sum rules with three diquark-diquark-antiquark currents predict Pcs(4459) magnetic dipole moments of -0.60, 1.60, and 0.99 nuclear magnetons.

  3. Electromagnetic form factors of singly charmed baryons $\Sigma_c$ and $\Lambda_c$ in a covariant quark-diquark model

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Spacelike electromagnetic form factors of Σc and Λc are computed in a covariant quark-diquark model, finding compact charge distributions and a charm-quark-dominated magnetic form factor for Λc.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

109 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Albrecht, et al., Observation of a new charmed baryon, Phys

    H. Albrecht, et al., Observation of a new charmed baryon, Phys. Lett. B 317 (1993) 227–232.doi:10.1016/0370-2693(93) 91598-H

    doi:10.1016/0370-2693(93 1993

  2. [2]

    K. W. Edwards, et al., Observation of excited baryon states decaying to Lambda(c)+ pi+ pi-, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 (1995) 3331–3335. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.3331

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.74.3331 1995

  3. [3]

    Magnetic dipole moments ofJP = 3 2 + singly-bottom baryons in units of the nuclear magnetonµN

    [56] [57] [55] [47] [62] [54] Sextet-C=1 Σ∗++ c 3.578 3.98 4.11 3.92 2.41 4.81(122) − 3.40(34) Σ∗+ c 1.185 1.337 1.32 0.97 0.67 2.00(46) − 0.90(10) Σ∗0 c −1.214 −1.49 −1.47 −1.99 −1.07 −0.81(20) − −1.44(19) Ξ∗+ c 1.453 1.47 1.64 1.59 0.81 1.68(42) − 0.80(8) Ξ∗0 c −0.987 −1.2 −1.15 −1.43 −0.90 −0.68(18) − −0.51(5) Ω∗0 c −0.75 −0.936 −0.83 −0.86 −0.70 −0.70...

  4. [4]

    [82] [81] [56] [55] [62] Sextet-B=1 Σ∗+ b 3.56 3.46 3.10 3.46 3.08 2.52(50) 3.20(26) Σ∗0 b 0.87 0.819 0.705 0.82 0.724 0.50(15) 0.93(10) Σ∗− b −1.92 −1.82 −1.75 −1.82 −1.63 −1.50(36) −1.54(12) Ξ∗0 b 1.19 − 0.915 1.03 0.875 0.50(15) 0.48(5) Ξ∗− b −1.60 − −1.59 −1.55 −1.48 −1.42(35) −0.57(5) Ω∗− b −1.28 − −1.39 −1.31 −1.29 −1.40(35) −0.61(5)

  5. [5]

    Artuso, et al., Observation of new states decaying into Lambda+(c) pi- pi+, Phys

    M. Artuso, et al., Observation of new states decaying into Lambda+(c) pi- pi+, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 (2001) 4479–4482. arXiv:hep-ex/0010080, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.4479

    arXiv 2001

  6. [6]

    Aubert, et al., Observation of a charmed baryon decaying to D0p at a mass near 2.94-GeV/c**2, Phys

    B. Aubert, et al., Observation of a charmed baryon decaying to D0p at a mass near 2.94-GeV/c**2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (2007) 012001. arXiv:hep-ex/0603052, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.012001

    arXiv 2007

  7. [7]

    Albrecht, et al., Evidence for Lambda(c)+ (2593) production, Phys

    H. Albrecht, et al., Evidence for Lambda(c)+ (2593) production, Phys. Lett. B 402 (1997) 207–212. doi:10.1016/ S0370-2693(97)00503-0

    1997

  8. [8]

    P. L. Frabetti, et al., An Observation of an Excited State of the Λ+ c Baryon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72 (1994) 961–964. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.72.961

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.72.961 1994

Show all 109 references
  1. [9]

    V. V. Ammosov, et al., Observation of the production of charmed Sigma(c)*++ baryons in neutrino interactions at the SKAT bubble chamber, JETP Lett. 58 (1993) 247–251

    1993

  2. [10]

    Brandenburg, et al., Observation of two excited charmed baryons decaying into Lambda(c)+ pi+-, Phys

    G. Brandenburg, et al., Observation of two excited charmed baryons decaying into Lambda(c)+ pi+-, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 (1997) 2304–2308. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.2304

    1997 doi

  3. [11]

    Abe, et al., Experimental constraints on the possible J**P quantum numbers of the Lambda(c)(2880)+, Phys

    K. Abe, et al., Experimental constraints on the possible J**P quantum numbers of the Lambda(c)(2880)+, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (2007) 262001.arXiv:hep-ex/0608043, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.262001

    2007 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Aaij, et al., Study of theD0p amplitude in Λ0 b → D0pπ− decays, JHEP 05 (2017) 030

    R. Aaij, et al., Study of theD0p amplitude in Λ0 b → D0pπ− decays, JHEP 05 (2017) 030. arXiv:1701.07873, doi: 10.1007/JHEP05(2017)030

    2017 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Gibbons, et al., Observation of an excited charmed baryon decaying into Xi(c)0 pi+, Phys

    L. Gibbons, et al., Observation of an excited charmed baryon decaying into Xi(c)0 pi+, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996) 810–813. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.810

    1996 doi

  6. [14]

    P. L. Frabetti, et al., Observation of a narrow state decaying into xi0(c) pi+, Phys. Lett. B 426 (1998) 403–410.doi: 10.1016/S0370-2693(98)00348-7

    1998 doi

  7. [15]

    Mizuk, et al., Observation of an isotriplet of excited charmed baryons decaying to Lambda+(c) pi, Phys

    R. Mizuk, et al., Observation of an isotriplet of excited charmed baryons decaying to Lambda+(c) pi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 (2005) 122002. arXiv:hep-ex/0412069, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.122002

    2005 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Avery, et al., Observation of a narrow state decaying into Xi(c)+ pi-, Phys

    P. Avery, et al., Observation of a narrow state decaying into Xi(c)+ pi-, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995) 4364–4368.arXiv: hep-ex/9508010, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.4364

    1995 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Aaij, et al., Observation of NewΞ0 c Baryons Decaying toΛ+ cK−, Phys

    R. Aaij, et al., Observation of NewΞ0 c Baryons Decaying toΛ+ cK−, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 (22) (2020) 222001.arXiv: 2003.13649, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.222001

    2020

  10. [18]

    Aubert, et al., A Study of anti-B —> Xi(c) anti-Lambda-(c) and anti-B —> anti-Lambda+(c) anti-Lambda-(c) anti-K decays at BABAR, Phys

    B. Aubert, et al., A Study of anti-B —> Xi(c) anti-Lambda-(c) and anti-B —> anti-Lambda+(c) anti-Lambda-(c) anti-K decays at BABAR, Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 031101.arXiv:0710.5775, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.031101. 15 2.5 2.12 2.19 2.25 2.07 2.4 2.02 NRQM PM EMS BM RTQM LCQSR Our ...

    2008 arXiv

  11. [19]

    S. E. Csorna, et al., Evidence of new states decaying into Xi-prime(c) pi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 (2001) 4243–4246.arXiv: hep-ex/0012020, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.4243

    2001 arXiv

  12. [20]

    J. P. Alexander, et al., Evidence of new states decaying into Xi(c)* pi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1999) 3390–3393.arXiv: hep-ex/9906013, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.3390. 14 2.09 2.22 2.35 1.76 1.5 2 2.4 2.22 2.02 EMS BM NRQM RTQM HBχPT BχPT LCQSR LQCD Our 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 μ...

    1999 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Aubert, et al., Observation of an excited charm baryon Omega(C)* decaying to Omega(C)0 gamma, Phys

    B. Aubert, et al., Observation of an excited charm baryon Omega(C)* decaying to Omega(C)0 gamma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 (2006) 232001. arXiv:hep-ex/0608055, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.232001. 17 3.578 3.98 4.11 3.92 2.41 4.81 3.4 EMS BM NRQM χCQM HBχPT LCQSR Our 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4...

    2006 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Aaij, et al., Observation of five new narrowΩ0 c states decaying toΞ+ cK−, Phys

    R. Aaij, et al., Observation of five new narrowΩ0 c states decaying toΞ+ cK−, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (18) (2017) 182001. arXiv:1703.04639, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.182001

    2017 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Chistov, et al., Observation of new states decaying into Lambda(c)+ K- pi+ and Lambda(c)+ K0(S) pi-, Phys

    R. Chistov, et al., Observation of new states decaying into Lambda(c)+ K- pi+ and Lambda(c)+ K0(S) pi-, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 (2006) 162001.arXiv:hep-ex/0606051, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.162001

    2006 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Aubert, et al., A Study of Excited Charm-Strange Baryons with Evidence for new Baryons Xi(c)(3055)+ and Xi(c)(3123)+, Phys

    B. Aubert, et al., A Study of Excited Charm-Strange Baryons with Evidence for new Baryons Xi(c)(3055)+ and Xi(c)(3123)+, Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 012002.arXiv:0710.5763, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.012002. 16 0.38 0.335 0.39 0.42 0.24 0.24 0.4 0.46 EMS BM NRQM RTQM HBχPT BχPT LCQSR ...

    2008 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Aaij, et al., Observation of New Resonances in theΛ0 bπ+π− System, Phys

    R. Aaij, et al., Observation of New Resonances in theΛ0 bπ+π− System, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (15) (2019) 152001.arXiv: 1907.13598, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.152001. 19

    2019

  18. [26]

    Aaij, et al., Observation of Two Resonances in theΛ0 bπ± Systems and Precise Measurement ofΣ± b and Σ∗± b properties, Phys

    R. Aaij, et al., Observation of Two Resonances in theΛ0 bπ± Systems and Precise Measurement ofΣ± b and Σ∗± b properties, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (1) (2019) 012001.arXiv:1809.07752, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.012001

    2019 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Aaij, et al., Observation of excitedΛ0 b baryons, Phys

    R. Aaij, et al., Observation of excitedΛ0 b baryons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012) 172003.arXiv:1205.3452, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.109.172003. 18 3.56 3.46 3.1 3.46 3.08 2.52 3.2 NRQM PM EMS BM χCQM LCQSR Our 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 μΣb *+ [μN] (a) -1.92 -1.82 -1.75 -1.82 -...

    2012 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Aaij, et al., Observation of a new baryon state in theΛ0 bπ+π− mass spectrum, JHEP 06 (2020) 136.arXiv:2002.05112, doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2020)136

    R. Aaij, et al., Observation of a new baryon state in theΛ0 bπ+π− mass spectrum, JHEP 06 (2020) 136.arXiv:2002.05112, doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2020)136

    2020

  21. [29]

    Aaij, et al., Observation of a newΞ0 b state, Phys

    R. Aaij, et al., Observation of a newΞ0 b state, Phys. Rev. D 103 (1) (2021) 012004.arXiv:2010.14485, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.103.012004

    2021

  22. [30]

    Aaij, et al., First observation of excited Ω− b states, Phys

    R. Aaij, et al., First observation of excited Ω− b states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 (8) (2020) 082002. arXiv:2001.00851, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.082002

    2020

  23. [31]

    A. M. Sirunyan, et al., Observation of a New Excited Beauty Strange Baryon Decaying toΞ− bπ+π−, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (25) (2021) 252003.arXiv:2102.04524, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.252003

    2021 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Aaij, et al., Observation of a newΞ− b resonance, Phys

    R. Aaij, et al., Observation of a newΞ− b resonance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (7) (2018) 072002.arXiv:1805.09418, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.072002

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, Y.-R. Liu, S.-L. Zhu, A review of the open charm and open bottom systems, Rept. Prog. Phys. 80 (7) (2017) 076201.arXiv:1609.08928, doi:10.1088/1361-6633/aa6420

    2017 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Cheng, Charmed baryon physics circa 2021, Chin

    H.-Y. Cheng, Charmed baryon physics circa 2021, Chin. J. Phys. 78 (2022) 324–362.arXiv:2109.01216, doi:10.1016/ j.cjph.2022.06.021

    2022 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Cheng, Charmed baryons circa 2015, Front

    H.-Y. Cheng, Charmed baryons circa 2015, Front. Phys. (Beijing) 10 (6) (2015) 101406. doi:10.1007/ s11467-015-0483-z

    2015

  28. [36]

    Klempt, J.-M

    E. Klempt, J.-M. Richard, Baryon spectroscopy, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82 (2010) 1095–1153.arXiv:0901.2055, doi:10.1103/ RevModPhys.82.1095

    2010 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Aiola, et al., Progress towards the first measurement of charm baryon dipole moments, Phys

    S. Aiola, et al., Progress towards the first measurement of charm baryon dipole moments, Phys. Rev. D 103 (7) (2021) 072003. arXiv:2010.11902, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.072003

    2021 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Neri, et al., Advancements in experimental techniques for measuring dipole moments of short-lived particles at the LHC, Nucl

    N. Neri, et al., Advancements in experimental techniques for measuring dipole moments of short-lived particles at the LHC, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 1069 (2024) 169875.doi:10.1016/j.nima.2024.169875

    2024

  31. [39]

    L. Meng, B. Wang, G.-J. Wang, S.-L. Zhu, Chiral perturbation theory for heavy hadrons and chiral effective field theory for heavy hadronic molecules, Phys. Rept. 1019 (2023) 1–149.arXiv:2204.08716, doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2023.04.003

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, Y.-R. Liu, S.-L. Zhu, An updated review of the new hadron states, Rept. Prog. Phys. 86 (2) (2023) 026201.arXiv:2204.02649, doi:10.1088/1361-6633/aca3b6

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Bagli, et al., Electromagnetic dipole moments of charged baryons with bent crystals at the LHC, Eur

    E. Bagli, et al., Electromagnetic dipole moments of charged baryons with bent crystals at the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (12) (2017) 828, [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 80, 680 (2020)].arXiv:1708.08483, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5400-x

    2017 arXiv

  34. [42]

    A. S. Fomin, S. Barsuk, A. Y. Korchin, V. A. Kovalchuk, E. Kou, M. Liul, A. Natochii, E. Niel, P. Robbe, A. Stocchi, The prospect of charm quark magnetic moment determination, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (5) (2020) 358.arXiv:1909.04654, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-7891-0

    2020 arXiv

  35. [43]

    V. G. Baryshevsky, The possibility to measure the magnetic moments of short-lived particles (charm and beauty baryons) at LHC and FCC energies using the phenomenon of spin rotation in crystals, Phys. Lett. B 757 (2016) 426–429.doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2016.04.025

    2016 doi

  36. [44]

    A. S. Fomin, et al., Feasibility of measuring the magnetic dipole moments of the charm baryons at the LHC using bent crystals, JHEP 08 (2017) 120.arXiv:1705.03382, doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2017)120

    2017 arXiv

  37. [45]

    V. M. Braun, I. E. Filyanov, QCD Sum Rules in Exclusive Kinematics and Pion Wave Function, Z. Phys. C 44 (1989)

    1989

  38. [46]

    I. I. Balitsky, V. M. Braun, A. V. Kolesnichenko, Radiative Decay Sigma+ —> p gamma in Quantum Chromodynamics, Nucl. Phys. B 312 (1989) 509–550.doi:10.1016/0550-3213(89)90570-1

    1989 doi

  39. [47]

    Akiba, F

    K. Akiba, F. Alessio, M. Benettoni, M. Bizzeti, F. Borgato, F. Bucci, R. Cardinale, S. Cesare, M. Citterio, V. Coco, P. Collins, E. Dall’Occo, M. Ferro-Luzzi, A. Fomin, R. Forty, J. Fu, P. Gandini, M. Giorgi, J. Grabowski, S. J. Jaimes Elles, S. Jakobsen, E. Kou, G. Lamanna, H...

    2024

  40. [48]

    V. L. Chernyak, I. R. Zhitnitsky, B meson exclusive decays into baryons, Nucl. Phys. B 345 (1990) 137–172. doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(90)90612-H

    1990 doi

  41. [49]

    G.-J. Wang, L. Meng, S.-L. Zhu, Radiative decays of the singly heavy baryons in chiral perturbation theory, Phys. Rev. D 99 (3) (2019) 034021.arXiv:1811.06208, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.034021

    2019 arXiv

  42. [50]

    K. U. Can, G. Erkol, B. Isildak, M. Oka, T. T. Takahashi, Electromagnetic structure of charmed baryons in Lattice QCD, JHEP 05 (2014) 125.arXiv:1310.5915, doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2014)125

    2014 arXiv

  43. [51]

    K. U. Can, G. Erkol, M. Oka, T. T. Takahashi, Look inside charmed-strange baryons from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 92 (11) (2015) 114515.arXiv:1508.03048, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.114515

    2015 arXiv

  44. [52]

    G.-J. Wang, L. Meng, H.-S. Li, Z.-W. Liu, S.-L. Zhu, Magnetic moments of the spin-1 2 singly charmed baryons in chiral perturbation theory, Phys. Rev. D 98 (5) (2018) 054026.arXiv:1803.00229, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.054026

    2018 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Meng, G.-J

    L. Meng, G.-J. Wang, C.-Z. Leng, Z.-W. Liu, S.-L. Zhu, Magnetic moments of the spin-3 2 singly heavy baryons, Phys. Rev. D 98 (9) (2018) 094013.arXiv:1805.09580, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.094013

    2018 arXiv

  46. [54]

    K. U. Can, Lattice QCD study of the elastic and transition form factors of charmed baryons, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 36 (23) (2021) 2130013. arXiv:2107.13159, doi:10.1142/S0217751X21300131

    2021 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Sharma, H

    N. Sharma, H. Dahiya, P. K. Chatley, M. Gupta, Spin1 2 + , spin 3 2 + and transition magnetic moments of low lying and charmed baryons, Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 073001.arXiv:1003.4338, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.81.073001

    2010 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Simonis, Improved predictions for magnetic moments and M1 decay widths of heavy hadrons (3 2018)

    V. Simonis, Improved predictions for magnetic moments and M1 decay widths of heavy hadrons (3 2018). arXiv: 1803.01809

    2018 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Magnetic dipole moments ofJP = 3 2 + singly-charm baryons in units of the nuclear magnetonµN

    [82] [81] [56] [58] [63–65] Sextet-B=1 Σ+ b 2.50 2.12 2.19 2.25 2.07 2.40 2.02(19) Σ0 b 0.64 0.547 0.563 0.603 0.53 0.60 0.53(6) Σ− b −1.22 −1.03 −1.064 −1.15 −1.01 −1.30 −1.01(9) Ξ′0 b 0.90 0.658 0.756 0.782 0.66 0.70 0.49(5) Ξ′− b −1.02 −0.941 −0.913 −0.968 −0.91 −1.20 −0.78...

  50. [58]

    Bahtiyar, K

    H. Bahtiyar, K. U. Can, G. Erkol, M. Oka,Ωcγ→ Ω∗ c transition in lattice QCD, Phys. Lett. B 747 (2015) 281–286. arXiv:1503.07361, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015.06.006

    2015 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Bahtiyar, K

    H. Bahtiyar, K. U. Can, G. Erkol, M. Oka, T. T. Takahashi,Ξcγ→ Ξ′ c transition in lattice QCD, Phys. Lett. B 772 (2017) 121–126. arXiv:1612.05722, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.06.022. 20

    2017 arXiv

  52. [60]

    M.-Z. Liu, Y. Xiao, L.-S. Geng, Magnetic moments of the spin-1/2 doubly charmed baryons in covariant baryon chiral perturbation theory, Phys. Rev. D 98 (1) (2018) 014040.arXiv:1807.00912, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.014040

    2018 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Shi, L.-S

    R.-X. Shi, L.-S. Geng, Magnetic moments of the spin-3 2 doubly charmed baryons in covariant baryon chiral perturbation theory, Phys. Rev. D 103 (11) (2021) 114004.arXiv:2103.07260, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.114004

    2021 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Bernotas, V

    A. Bernotas, V. Simonis, Magnetic moments of heavy baryons in the bag model reexamined (9 2012).arXiv:1209.2900, doi:10.3952/physics.v53i2.2668

    2012 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Faessler, T

    A. Faessler, T. Gutsche, M. A. Ivanov, J. G. Korner, V. E. Lyubovitskij, D. Nicmorus, K. Pumsa-ard, Magnetic moments of heavy baryons in the relativistic three-quark model, Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 094013.arXiv:hep-ph/0602193, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.73.094013

    2006 arXiv

  56. [64]

    R.-X. Shi, Y. Xiao, L.-S. Geng, Magnetic moments of the spin-1/2 singly charmed baryons in covariant baryon chiral perturbation theory, Phys. Rev. D 100 (5) (2019) 054019.arXiv:1812.07833, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.054019

    2019 arXiv

  57. [65]

    T. M. Aliev, K. Azizi, A. Ozpineci, Magnetic Moments of HeavyΞQ Baryons in Light Cone QCD Sum Rules, Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 114006.arXiv:0803.4420, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.114006

    2008 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Özdem, Magnetic moments of doubly heavy baryons in light-cone QCD, J

    U. Özdem, Magnetic moments of doubly heavy baryons in light-cone QCD, J. Phys. G 46 (3) (2019) 035003.arXiv: 1804.10921, doi:10.1088/1361-6471/aafffc

    2019 arXiv

  59. [67]

    T. M. Aliev, K. Azizi, A. Ozpineci, Mass and Magnetic Moments of the Heavy Flavored Baryons with J=3/2 in Light Cone QCD Sum Rules, Nucl. Phys. B 808 (2009) 137–154.arXiv:0807.3481, doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2008.09.018

    2009 arXiv

  60. [68]

    T. M. Aliev, T. Barakat, M. Savci, Magnetic moments of heavyJ P = 1 2 + baryons in light cone QCD sum rules, Phys. Rev. D 91 (11) (2015) 116008.arXiv:1502.06233, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.116008

    2015 arXiv

  61. [69]

    T. M. Aliev, A. Ozpineci, M. Savci, The Magnetic moments of Lambda(b) and Lambda(c) baryons in light cone QCD sum rules, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 056008.arXiv:hep-ph/0107196, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.65.056008

    2002 arXiv

  62. [70]

    T. M. Aliev, K. Azizi, H. Sundu, RadiativeΩ∗ Q→ ΩQγ and Ξ∗ Q→ Ξ′ Qγ transitions in light cone QCD, Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (1) (2015) 14.arXiv:1409.7577, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3229-0

    2015 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Ozdem, Magnetic dipole moments of bottom-charm baryons in light-cone QCD, Eur

    U. Ozdem, Magnetic dipole moments of bottom-charm baryons in light-cone QCD, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (10) (2023) 887. arXiv:2305.10063, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-12055-z

    2023 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Özdem, Magnetic dipole moments of the spin-3 2 doubly heavy baryons, Eur

    U. Özdem, Magnetic dipole moments of the spin-3 2 doubly heavy baryons, Eur. Phys. J. A 56 (2) (2020) 34.arXiv: 1906.08353, doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-020-00049-4

    2020 arXiv

  65. [73]

    T. M. Aliev, A. Ozpineci, Radiative decays of decuplet to octet baryons in light cone QCD, Nucl. Phys. B 732 (2006) 291–320. arXiv:hep-ph/0406331, doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2005.07.038

    2006 arXiv

  66. [74]

    T. M. Aliev, K. Azizi, A. Ozpineci, Radiative Decays of the Heavy Flavored Baryons in Light Cone QCD Sum Rules, Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 056005.arXiv:0901.0076, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.056005

    2009 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Zhu, Y.-B

    S.-L. Zhu, Y.-B. Dai, Radiative decays of heavy hadrons from light cone QCD sum rules in the leading order of HQET, Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999) 114015.arXiv:hep-ph/9810243, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.59.114015

    1999 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Patel, A

    B. Patel, A. K. Rai, P. C. Vinodkumar, Masses and magnetic moments of heavy flavour baryons in hyper central model, J. Phys. G 35 (2008) 065001.arXiv:0710.3828, doi:10.1088/0954-3899/35/6/065001

    2008 arXiv

  69. [77]

    T. M. Aliev, T. Barakat, M. Savcı, Analysis of the radiative decaysΣQ→ ΛQγ and Ξ′ Q→ ΞQγ in light cone sum rules, Phys. Rev. D 93 (5) (2016) 056007.arXiv:1603.04762, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.056007

    2016 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Wang, Analysis of the vertexesΩ∗ QΩQϕ and radiative decaysΩ∗ Q→ ΩQγ, Phys

    Z.-G. Wang, Analysis of the vertexesΩ∗ QΩQϕ and radiative decaysΩ∗ Q→ ΩQγ, Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 036002.arXiv: 0909.4144, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.81.036002

    2010 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Magnetic dipole moments ofJP = 1 2 + singly-bottom baryons in units of the nuclear magnetonµN

    [56] [57] [58] [47] [59, 60] [63–65] [53, 54] Sextet-C=1 Σ++ c 2.095 2.280 2.350 1.760 1.50 2.00 2.40 2.220(505) 2.02(18) Σ+ c 0.432 0.487 0.490 0.360 0.30 0.46 0.50 − 0.50(5) Σ0 c −1.234 −1.310 −1.370 −1.040 −0.91 −1.08 −1.50 −1.073(269) −1.01(9) Ξ′+ c 0.623 0.633 0.890 0.470...

  72. [80]

    Wang, Analysis of the vertexes Xi(Q)* Xi-prime(Q)V, Sigma(Q)* Sigma(Q) V and radiative decays Xi(Q)* — > Xi-prime(Q) gamma, Sigma(Q)* —> Sigma(Q) gamma, Eur

    Z.-G. Wang, Analysis of the vertexes Xi(Q)* Xi-prime(Q)V, Sigma(Q)* Sigma(Q) V and radiative decays Xi(Q)* — > Xi-prime(Q) gamma, Sigma(Q)* —> Sigma(Q) gamma, Eur. Phys. J. A 44 (2010) 105–117. arXiv:0910.2112, doi:10.1140/epja/i2010-10952-8

    2010 arXiv

  73. [81]

    R. Dhir, C. S. Kim, R. C. Verma, Magnetic Moments of Bottom Baryons: Effective mass and Screened Charge, Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 094002.arXiv:1309.4057, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.094002

    2013 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Yang, H.-C

    G.-S. Yang, H.-C. Kim, Magnetic transitions and radiative decays of singly heavy baryons, Phys. Lett. B 801 (2020) 135142. arXiv:1909.03156, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.135142

    2020 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Kim, H.-C

    J.-Y. Kim, H.-C. Kim, G.-S. Yang, M. Oka, Electromagnetic transitions of the singly charmed baryons with spin 3/2, Phys. Rev. D 103 (7) (2021) 074025.arXiv:2101.10653, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.074025

    2021 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Mohan, T

    B. Mohan, T. M. S., A. Hazra, R. Dhir, Screening of the quark charge and mixing effects on transition moments and M1 decay widths of baryons, Phys. Rev. D 106 (11) (2022) 113007.arXiv:2211.16418, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.113007

    2022 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Hazra, S

    A. Hazra, S. Rakshit, R. Dhir, Radiative M1 transitions of heavy baryons: Effective quark mass scheme, Phys. Rev. D 104 (5) (2021) 053002.arXiv:2108.01840, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.053002

    2021 arXiv

  78. [86]

    R. T. Kleiv, T. G. Steele, A. Zhang, I. Blokland, Heavy-light diquark masses from QCD sum rules and constituent diquark models of tetraquarks, Phys. Rev. D 87 (12) (2013) 125018.arXiv:1304.7816, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.125018

    2013 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Majethiya, B

    A. Majethiya, B. Patel, P. C. Vinodkumar, Single Heavy Flavour Baryons using Coulomb plus Power law interquark Potential, Eur. Phys. J. A 38 (2008) 307–315.arXiv:0805.3439, doi:10.1140/epja/i2008-10674-6

    2008 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Peng, S.-Q

    Y.-X. Peng, S.-Q. Luo, X. Liu, Refining radiative decay studies in singly heavy baryons, Phys. Rev. D 110 (7) (2024) 074034. arXiv:2405.12812, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.074034. 21

    2024 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Wang, Y.-X

    K.-L. Wang, Y.-X. Yao, X.-H. Zhong, Q. Zhao, Strong and radiative decays of the low-lyingS- andP-wave singly heavy baryons, Phys. Rev. D 96 (11) (2017) 116016.arXiv:1709.04268, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.116016

    2017 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Wang, Analysis of the scalar and axial-vector heavy diquark states with QCD sum rules, Eur

    Z.-G. Wang, Analysis of the scalar and axial-vector heavy diquark states with QCD sum rules, Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011)

    2011

  83. [91]

    P. Ball, V. M. Braun, N. Kivel, Photon distribution amplitudes in QCD, Nucl. Phys. B 649 (2003) 263–296.arXiv: hep-ph/0207307, doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(02)01017-9

    2003 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Özdem, Electromagnetic form factors of the Bc-like tetraquarks: Molecular and diquark-antidiquark pictures, Phys

    U. Özdem, Electromagnetic form factors of the Bc-like tetraquarks: Molecular and diquark-antidiquark pictures, Phys. Lett. B 838 (2023) 137750.arXiv:2211.10169, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023.137750

    2023 arXiv

  85. [93]

    J. G. Korner, M. Kramer, D. Pirjol, Heavy baryons, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 33 (1994) 787–868.arXiv:hep-ph/9406359, doi:10.1016/0146-6410(94)90053-1

    1994 arXiv

  86. [94]

    K.-C. Yang, W. Y. P. Hwang, E. M. Henley, L. S. Kisslinger, QCD sum rules and neutron proton mass difference, Phys. Rev. D 47 (1993) 3001–3012.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.47.3001

    1993 doi

  87. [95]

    V. M. Belyaev, B. Y. Blok, CHARMED BARYONS IN QUANTUM CHROMODYNAMICS, Z. Phys. C 30 (1986) 151. doi:10.1007/BF01560689

    1986 doi

  88. [96]

    Li, C.-D

    H.-D. Li, C.-D. Lü, C. Wang, Y.-M. Wang, Y.-B. Wei, QCD calculations of radiative heavy meson decays with subleading power corrections, JHEP 04 (2020) 023.arXiv:2002.03825, doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2020)023

    2020 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Ramalho, M

    G. Ramalho, M. T. Pena, F. Gross, Electric quadrupole and magnetic octupole moments of the Delta, Phys. Lett. B 678 (2009) 355–358. arXiv:0902.4212, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2009.06.052

    2009 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Navas, et al., Review of particle physics, Phys

    S. Navas, et al., Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D 110 (3) (2024) 030001.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001

    2024 doi

  91. [99]

    Özdem, Electromagnetic properties of doubly heavy pentaquark states, Eur

    U. Özdem, Electromagnetic properties of doubly heavy pentaquark states, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 137 (2022) 936.arXiv: 2201.00979, doi:10.1140/epjp/s13360-022-03125-4

    2022 arXiv

  92. [100]

    H. J. Weber, H. Arenhovel, Isobar Configurations in Nuclei, Phys. Rept. 36 (1978) 277–348.doi:10.1016/0370-1573(78) 90187-4

    1978 doi

  93. [101]

    Nozawa, D

    S. Nozawa, D. B. Leinweber, Electromagnetic form-factors of spin 3/2 baryons, Phys. Rev. D 42 (1990) 3567–3571. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.42.3567

    1990 doi

  94. [102]

    Pascalutsa, M

    V. Pascalutsa, M. Vanderhaeghen, S. N. Yang, Electromagnetic excitation of the Delta(1232)-resonance, Phys. Rept. 437 (2007) 125–232. arXiv:hep-ph/0609004, doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2006.09.006

    2007 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Wang, Analysis of the3 2 + heavy and doubly heavy baryon states with QCD sum rules, Eur

    Z.-G. Wang, Analysis of the3 2 + heavy and doubly heavy baryon states with QCD sum rules, Eur. Phys. J. C 68 (2010) 459–472. arXiv:1002.2471, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-010-1357-8

    2010 arXiv

  96. [105]

    J. Rohrwild, Determination of the magnetic susceptibility of the quark condensate using radiative heavy meson decays, JHEP 09 (2007) 073.arXiv:0708.1405, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/09/073

    2007 arXiv

  97. [106]

    B. L. Ioffe, QCD at low energies, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 56 (2006) 232–277.arXiv:hep-ph/0502148, doi:10.1016/j. ppnp.2005.05.001

    2006 arXiv

  98. [107]

    Wang, Reanalysis of the heavy baryon states Omega(b), Omega(c), Xi’(b), Xi’(c), Sigma(b) and Sigma(c) with QCD sum rules, Phys

    Z.-G. Wang, Reanalysis of the heavy baryon states Omega(b), Omega(c), Xi’(b), Xi’(c), Sigma(b) and Sigma(c) with QCD sum rules, Phys. Lett. B 685 (2010) 59–66.arXiv:0912.1648, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2010.01.039

    2010 arXiv

  99. [108]

    Wang, H.-J

    Z.-G. Wang, H.-J. Wang, Analysis of the 1S and 2S states of ΛQ and ΞQ with QCD sum rules, Chin. Phys. C 45 (1) (2021) 013109. arXiv:2006.16776, doi:10.1088/1674-1137/abc1d3

    2021 arXiv

  100. [157]

    doi:10.1007/BF01548594

    doi

  101. [1524]

    arXiv:1008.4449, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-010-1524-y

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.