Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Strong decay properties of P-wave single bottom baryons of the SU(3) flavor antitriplet $\bf\bar 3_F$

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The observed $\Lambda_b(5912)^0$, $\Lambda_b(5920)^0$, $\Xi_b(6087)^0$ and $\Xi_b(6095)^0/\Xi_b(6100)^-$ can be explained as one $[\bar 3_F,1,1,\rho]$ P-wave doublet, with $J^P = 1/2^-$ and $3/2^-$ partners, while a companion doublet…

desk verdict Useful systematic LCSR calculation of the missing decay channels, but the headline assignments rest on input masses whose uncertainties are far larger than the phase-space margins. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19846 v4 pith:MQCQUEKV submitted 2024-12-25 hep-ph

Yi-Jie Wang , Xuan Luo , Hua-Xing Chen , Er-Liang Cui , Wei-Han Tan , Zhi-Yong Zhou This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords excitedbottombaryonQCDsumruleslight-coneheavyquarkeffectivetheoryP-wavebaryonsSU(3)flavorantitripletstrongdecaysXi_b(6087)
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 tries to show that the four narrow excited bottom baryons seen in experiment, $\Lambda_b(5912)^0$, $\Lambda_b(5920)^0$, $\Xi_b(6087)^0$ and $\Xi_b(6095)^0/\Xi_b(6100)^-$, are all members of one P-wave doublet of the SU(3) flavor antitriplet, the $[\bar 3_F,1,1,\rho]$ multiplet. Using light-cone sum rules within heavy quark effective theory, it computes their D-wave decays into ground-state bottom baryons plus pseudoscalar mesons and their S-wave decays into ground-state baryons plus vector mesons, combined with earlier S-wave pseudoscalar and radiative results. The calculation assigns spin-parity $1/2^-$ to $\Lambda_b(5912)^0$ and $\Xi_b(6087)^0$, and $3/2^-$ to $\Lambda_b(5920)^0$ and $\Xi_b(6095)^0/\Xi_b(6100)^-$. It also predicts a companion $[\bar 3_F,2,1,\rho]$ doublet with four further narrow states, which would be observable in the same decay channels. If the identification holds, it supports an internal structure in which the orbital excitation sits between the two light quarks ($\rho$-mode) rather than between the bottom quark and the light diquark.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the light-cone QCD sum rule in the heavy quark effective theory, applied to two-point correlation functions such as $\Pi^{\alpha}(\omega,\omega') = \int d^4x\, e^{-ik\cdot x} \langle 0| J^{\alpha}_{\Lambda_b[3/2^-]}(0) \bar J_{\Sigma_b^+}(x) |\pi^-(q)\rangle$, with the pion or rho described by light-cone distribution amplitudes. Matching the hadronic representation, where the amplitude factorizes into couplings $g_S$ or $g_D$ times decay constants, against the operator product expansion after a Borel transform, yields the $S$- and $D$-wave couplings. These couplings are inserted into effective Lagrangians to obtain partial widths; the multiplet labels $[\bar 3_F,j_l,s_l,\rho/\lambda]$ organize which baryons belong together. The key numerical feature is that the $D$-wave decays that would make these states broad are suppressed by small phase space, so the predicted total widths stay at or below the few-MeV scale.

What would settle it

Measure the spin-parity of $\Xi_b(6087)^0$ and of $\Xi_b(6095)^0/\Xi_b(6100)^-$; the assignment requires $1/2^-$ and $3/2^-$ respectively, so a measured $J^P$ that differs would break the identification. In the same run, search for the predicted $[\bar 3_F,2,1,\rho]$ states ($\Lambda_b(3/2^-)$, $\Lambda_b(5/2^-)$, $\Xi_b(3/2^-)$, $\Xi_b(5/2^-)$) in the $\Lambda_b\pi^+\pi^-$ and $\Xi_b\pi^+\pi^-$ spectra; finding them broad, or absent near 5.93-6.11 GeV, would falsify the paper's central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims one coherent assignment for the four observed excited bottom baryons: they belong to the $[\bar 3_F,1,1,\rho]$ doublet, the P-wave multiplet with light-quark spin $s_l=1$, light angular momentum $j_l=1$, and the orbital excitation between the two light quarks ($\rho$-mode). Within this doublet, $\Lambda_b(1/2^-)$ and $\Lambda_b(3/2^-)$ reproduce the observed $\Lambda_b(5912)^0$ and $\Lambda_b(5920)^0$ masses and tiny widths, while $\Xi_b(1/2^-)$ and $\Xi_b(3/2^-)$ reproduce $\Xi_b(6087)^0$ and $\Xi_b(6095)^0/\Xi_b(6100)^-$. The paper shows that the alternative $[\bar 3_F,1,0,\lambda]$ doublet explains the two $\Lambda_b$ states but fails for the two $\Xi_b$ states, and that all four observed states are accommodated as a whole only by the $[\bar 3_F,1,1,\rho]$ doublet. Table II lists masses, mass splittings, strong and radiative widths for the eight $\Lambda_b$ and $\Xi_b$ states of the two $\rho$-mode doublets, four of which match the narrow observed states and four of which are predictions.

Load-bearing premise

The input masses of the P-wave baryons, taken from an earlier QCD sum-rule calculation, carry uncertainties of 100-200 MeV, and several predicted widths hinge on the parent mass sitting at or below the decay threshold; a shift of tens of MeV can change a width from essentially zero to several MeV.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The assignments fix quantum numbers: $\Lambda_b(5912)^0$ and $\Xi_b(6087)^0$ are $J^P = 1/2^-$, and $\Lambda_b(5920)^0$ and $\Xi_b(6095)^0/\Xi_b(6100)^-$ are $J^P = 3/2^-$.
  • The $[\bar 3_F,2,1,\rho]$ doublet predicts four new narrow states: $\Lambda_b(3/2^-)$, $\Lambda_b(5/2^-)$, $\Xi_b(3/2^-)$ and $\Xi_b(5/2^-)$, with masses near 5.93-6.11 GeV and widths of order 1 MeV or less.
  • Observing these predicted states in the $\Lambda_b\pi^+\pi^-$ or $\Xi_b\pi^+\pi^-$ spectra would confirm the $\rho$-mode interpretation and rule out the pure $\lambda$-mode picture for the observed quartet.
  • The combined set of strong and radiative widths in Table II gives a fingerprint that future measurements can compare against, channel by channel.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the predicted narrowness of several states comes from their masses sitting at or below the $\Xi'_b\pi$ threshold, the same machinery would turn a slightly higher measured mass into a broad state; a lattice or high-statistics measurement of the $\Xi_b$ P-wave mass would decisively test the prediction.
  • The same multiplet logic applied to charmed P-wave baryons should produce analogous narrow doublets, so the pattern could be checked across the charm sector where more states are already measured.
  • A dedicated amplitude analysis of the $\Xi_b\pi^+\pi^-$ channel looking for the predicted $[\bar 3_F,2,1,\rho]$ states, including their angular distributions, would provide a direct falsification test.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper computes strong decay widths of P-wave bottom baryons in the SU(3)_F antitriplet using light-cone QCD sum rules within heavy-quark effective theory. It extends previous work by evaluating D-wave decays into ground-state bottom baryons plus light pseudoscalar mesons and S-wave decays into ground-state bottom baryons plus light vector mesons, for the multiplets [¯3_F,1,0,λ], [¯3_F,0,1,ρ], [¯3_F,1,1,ρ], and [¯3_F,2,1,ρ]. The results are collected in Table II. The paper concludes that the [¯3_F,1,1,ρ] doublet can explain Λ_b(5912)^0, Λ_b(5920)^0, Ξ_b(6087)^0, and Ξ_b(6095)^0/Ξ_b(6100)^− as P-wave states, and that the [¯3_F,2,1,ρ] doublet predicts four additional narrow states.

Significance. If correct, this would give a unified assignment of the observed narrow excited bottom baryons and a concrete prediction of new states with definite J^P quantum numbers. The calculation is systematic and transparent: the sum-rule expressions are given in Appendix A, the couplings are extracted from light-cone sum rules rather than fitted to the observed widths, and the inputs are tabulated. The main weakness is that the final widths are controlled by phase-space factors evaluated at masses from the same group's earlier QCD sum-rule analysis (Table I), whose uncertainties are 0.1–0.2 GeV; near threshold this makes the quoted widths, and hence the narrow-state identification, much less robust than the tables suggest.

major comments (3)
  1. [Table II, [¯3_F,1,1,ρ] rows] The central masses of Λ_b(1/2^-) and Λ_b(3/2^-) in this doublet are 5.92 GeV (Table I), which is below the Σ_bπ threshold of 5.951 GeV computed from the PDG values in Sec. II. Table II nevertheless reports finite widths of 2.0^{+13.0}_{-2.0}×10^{-3} MeV for Λ_b(1/2^-)→Σ_bπ and 1.7^{+2.1}_{-1.2}×10^{-3} MeV for Λ_b(3/2^-)→Σ_bπ. A strong decay below threshold is kinematically forbidden, and the momentum factor in Eq. (55) (|\(\vec p\)| for S-wave, |\(\vec p\)|^5 for the D-wave example) becomes imaginary. Please state exactly which parent mass was used in the phase-space factor and recompute the widths for masses above threshold, or set them to zero. This is directly relevant to the claim that these states are narrow enough to be observed.
  2. [Sec. IV and Table I] The paper explicitly concedes for [¯3_F,1,0,λ] that "the relevant phase spaces are highly uncertain" because the Ξ_b(1/2^-) mass 6.10^{+0.20}_{-0.10} GeV differs from the Ξ'_bπ threshold by 73–227 MeV, but it does not propagate the same uncertainty into the [¯3_F,1,1,ρ] identification. For example, the central Ξ_b(1/2^-) mass 6.09 GeV leaves only about 17 MeV above the Ξ'_bπ threshold (5935.02+138.04 MeV); a shift to the +0.13 GeV endpoint increases the S-wave momentum by roughly an order of magnitude in the width, and D-wave channels are even more sensitive because Γ∝|\(\vec p\)|^5. The uncertainties in Table II come only from the Borel window, hadron parameters, and QCD parameters in the couplings, not from the ±0.10–0.20 GeV mass uncertainties in Table I. Since the narrowness of the assigned states is the basis for the central claim, the paper should present the widths as functions of the parent masses, or use the precisely measured experimental masses for the assigned states and include the residual mass uncertainty.
  3. [Table II, [¯3_F,2,1,ρ] rows] The predicted new states inherit the same threshold problem. For instance, Λ_b(5/2^-) with central mass 5.94 GeV has total width 0.01^{+0.08}_{-0.01} MeV because the Σ_bπ and Σ^*_bπ channels are closed or nearly closed at the central mass; at the upper end of the Table I mass range the channels open and the width is no longer small. Thus the prediction of "four more narrow states" is a threshold effect of the central input masses rather than a robust consequence of the calculated couplings. Please scan the masses over their quoted ranges and state which of the four predicted states remain narrow over the entire range.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eqs. (17), (25), (56)] There are several channel misprints: Eq. (17) has "Σ∗_c", Eq. (25) has "Ξ_c + π + π", and Eq. (56) has "Σ_cπ"; all should refer to bottom baryons (Σ∗_b, Ξ_b, Σ_b).
  2. [Appendix A, Ξ_b(5/2^-) sum rule] The intermediate expression for G_{Ξ^-_b[5/2^-]→Ξ∗+_c ρ^-} uses charm labels "Ξ∗+_c" and "f_{Ξ0_c[5/2^-]}"; these should be "Ξ∗0_b" and "f_{Ξ^-_b[5/2^-]}".
  3. [Eqs. (52)–(53)] The symbol \(\int D\alpha\) is used with two different normalizations: with a δ(1−α1−α2−α3) in Eq. (52) and without it in Eq. (53). Please define the convention once and use it consistently.
  4. [Table II, [¯3_F,0,1,ρ] row] For Λ_b(1/2^-) in the [¯3_F,0,1,ρ] singlet no decay channels are listed; please state explicitly whether the channels are kinematically closed or have not been computed.
  5. [Abstract and Sec. IV] The paper alternates between "limited decay widths" and "less than 100 MeV"; since the identified states have predicted total widths around 0.03–4 MeV, a precise statement of the narrowness criterion would help the reader interpret the predictions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the decay widths are computed from light-cone sum rules using PDG ground-state masses and the authors' previously predicted P-wave masses; no fitted input is relabeled as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained against external benchmarks. The decay couplings are extracted from light-cone sum rules (Sec. III, e.g., Eq. (53)) using standard QCD parameters, PDG ground-state masses, and P-wave masses taken from Table I, which are the authors' own QCD sum-rule predictions from Refs. [49, 51]. These masses are not fitted to the observed widths; the observed states are only compared with the resulting theoretical widths in Table II. The narrow widths for the [\bar 3_F,1,1,\rho] assignments arise kinematically because the predicted P-wave masses sit near or below the relevant two-body thresholds, and the paper explicitly acknowledges the resulting phase-space uncertainty (Sec. IV: 'the relevant phase spaces are highly uncertain, e.g., the mass of Xi_b(1/2-) is taken from Table I as 6.10+0.20-0.10 GeV...'). That sensitivity is a robustness concern, not a circularity: the calculation produces definite numbers that could have disagreed with experiment, and the agreement constitutes a genuine test. No step in the paper equates its output to its input by construction, and no load-bearing argument reduces to an unverified self-citation. Therefore, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The calculation sits on a chain of model assumptions: HQET to separate heavy and light scales, QCD sum rules to extract masses and couplings, and SU(3)/isospin symmetry to relate channels. The masses and decay constants that set the phase space come from the authors' previous sum-rule papers, so they are not independent inputs. No new particles are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • P-wave baryon masses (from Ref [51], Table I) = Lambda_b: 5.91 to 5.94 GeV; Xi_b: 6.09 to 6.11 GeV
    Every decay width depends on the phase space set by these masses. The paper's selection of eight narrow states hinges on these values; a 20-30 MeV shift can move a channel below threshold and change the width by orders of magnitude.
  • P-wave baryon decay constants (from Ref [51], Table I) = 0.038 to 0.222 GeV^4
    The LCSR extractions of g_S and g_D divide by the product of the initial and final baryon decay constants, so the reported couplings inherit their uncertainties.
  • Borel windows T and thresholds omega_c = e.g., T = 0.26 to 0.39 GeV, omega_c = 2.17 GeV for the Lambda_b(3/2-) example
    Chosen by hand as stability windows for each sum rule. Fig. 3 shows the extracted coupling varies by a factor of several across the window, so the central values carry a subjective component.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Heavy quark effective theory applies: the bottom quark is treated as a static color source, and the light degrees of freedom are expanded in 1/m_b.
    Used throughout Secs. II-III to define multiplets and sum rules. This is standard in heavy hadron spectroscopy but is a model assumption.
  • domain assumption The light-cone QCD sum rule OPE converges and is dominated by the ground-state baryon.
    The couplings g_S, g_D are extracted by Borel transforming the correlation function and truncating the OPE at twist-4. The paper chooses Borel windows to try to ensure this, but no proof of convergence is given.
  • domain assumption Isospin symmetry for the light u/d quarks.
    The relations like Gamma(Lambda_b->Sigma_b pi) = 3 x Gamma(Lambda_b0->Sigma+ pi-) in Sec. III assume isospin symmetry. Electromagnetic and u-d mass differences are neglected.
  • domain assumption SU(3) flavor symmetry for coupling relations.
    The classification into \bar 3_F multiplets and the relation between Lambda_b and Xi_b couplings assume SU(3) symmetry, with symmetry breaking entering only through the measured masses.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Strong decay properties of P-wave single bottom baryons of the SU(3) flavor antitriplet $\bf\bar 3_F$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MQCQUEKV

@misc{pith2026241219846,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Strong decay properties of P-wave single bottom baryons of the SU(3) flavor antitriplet $\bf\bar 3_F$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MQCQUEKV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19846}
}
abstract

We study the $P$-wave bottom baryons of the $SU(3)$ flavor antitriplet and systematically calculate their strong decay properties, including their $D$-wave decays into ground-state bottom baryons with light pseudoscalar mesons and $S$-wave decays into ground-state bottom baryons with light vector mesons. Together with Refs.~\cite{Tan:2023opd,Yang:2019cvw,Yang:2020zrh,Luo:2024jov}, a rather complete investigation has been performed to study their mass spectra and strong/radiative decay properties, through the methods of QCD sum rules and light-cone sum rules within the framework of heavy quark effective theory. Among various possibilities, we identify four $\Lambda_b$ and four $\Xi_b$ baryons, with limited decay widths and so capable of being observed in experiments. Their masses, mass splittings within the same multiplets, and strong/radiative decay widths are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:decayb3f} for future experimental searching.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.19846 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Jacobi coordinates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Categorization of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Coupling constant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Topped baryons from QCD sum rules

    hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    QCD sum rules in HQET predict ground-state singly topped baryon masses near 174 GeV, some 1.1-1.5 GeV above the top quark pole mass.

  2. Radiative decays of $P$-wave charmed baryons in the $SU(3)$ flavor $\bf6_F$ representation

    hep-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The authors predict radiative decay widths for all P-wave charmed baryons in the 6F representation, and propose Omega_c gamma channels as the best route to identify the excited Omega_c states seen at LHCb.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Karliner, B

    M. Karliner, B. Keren-Zur, H. J. Lipkin and J. L. Rosner, The Quark Model and b Baryons, Annals Phys. 324, 2 (2009). doi:10.1016/j.aop.2008.05.003. arXiv:0504. 1575

    work page doi:10.1016/j.aop.2008.05.003 2009

  2. [2]

    Ebert, R

    D. Ebert, R. N. Faustov, V. O. Galkin, A. P. Marty- nenko and V. A. Saleev, Heavy baryons in the relativis- tic quark model doi:10.1007/s002880050534, arXiv: hep-ph/9607314

    arXiv

  3. [3]

    Gell-Mann, A Schematic Model of Baryons and Mesons, Phys

    M. Gell-Mann, A Schematic Model of Baryons and Mesons, Phys. Lett. 8, 214-215 (1964) doi:10.1016/ S0031-9163(64)92001-3

    1964

  4. [4]

    S. M. Gerasyuta and D. V. Ivanov, Charmed baryons in bootstrap quark model, Nuovo Cim. A 112, 261- 276 (1999), doi:10.1007/BF03035848, arXiv:hep-ph/ 0101310

    doi:10.1007/bf03035848 1999

  5. [5]

    Zweig, An SU(3) model for strong interaction symme- try and its breaking

    G. Zweig, An SU(3) model for strong interaction symme- try and its breaking. Version 1, CERN-TH-401

  6. [6]

    P. A. Zyla et al.[Particle Data Group], Review of Particle Physics, PTEP 2020 (2020) no.8, 083C01. doi:10.1093/ ptep/ptaa104

    2020

  7. [7]

    T. A. Aaltonen et al. [CDF], Evidence for a Bottom Baryon Resonance Λ ∗0 b in CDF Data, Phys. Rev. D 88, no.7, 071101 (2013). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.071101, arXiv:1308.1760

    work page Pith review arXiv 2013

  8. [8]

    Observation of excited Lambda_b0 baryons

    R. Aaij et al.[LHCb], Observation of excited Λ0 b baryons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012), 172003. doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.109.172003, arXiv:1205.3452

    work page Pith review arXiv 2012

Show all 93 references
  1. [9]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. [Particle Data Group], Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) no.3, 030001. doi:10. 1103/PhysRevD.110.030001,

    2024

  2. [10]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS], Observation of a New Excited Beauty Strange Baryon Decaying to Ξ − b π+π−, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (2021) no.25, 252003. doi:10. 1103/PhysRevLett.126.252003, arXiv:2102.04524

    2021 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Observation of New Baryons in the Ξ − b π+π− and Ξ 0 bπ+π− Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023) no.17, 171901. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett. 131.171901, arXiv:2307.13399

    2023

  4. [12]

    Crede and W

    V. Crede and W. Roberts, Progress towards understand- ing baryon resonances, Rept. Prog. Phys. 76 (2013), 13 076301. doi:10.1088/0034-4885/76/7/076301, arXiv: 1302.7299[nucl-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  5. [13]

    H. X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, Y. R. Liu and S. L. Zhu, A review of the open charm and open bottom systems, Rept. Prog. Phys. 80 (2017) no.7, 076201. doi:10.1088/ 1361-6633/aa6420, arXiv:1609.08928[hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  6. [14]

    H. Y. Cheng, Charmed baryon physics circa 2021, Chin. J. Phys. 78 (2022), 324-362. doi:10.1016/j.cjph.2022. 06.021, arXiv:2109.01216[hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    H. X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, Y. R. Liu and S. L. Zhu, An updated review of the new hadron states, Rept. Prog. Phys. 86 (2023) no.2, 026201. doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ aca3b6, arXiv:2204.02649[hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    M. Z. Liu, Y. W. Pan, Z. W. Liu, T. W. Wu, J. X. Lu and L. S. Geng, Three ways to decipher the nature of ex- otic hadrons: Multiplets, three-body hadronic molecules, and correlation functions, Phys. Rept. 1108, 1-108 (2025). doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2024.12.001, arXiv: 2404.06399[hep-ph

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Garcilazo, J

    H. Garcilazo, J. Vijande and A. Valcarce, Faddeev study of heavy baryon spectroscopy, J. Phys. G 34 (2007), 961-

    2007

  10. [18]

    Roberts and M

    W. Roberts and M. Pervin, Heavy baryons in a quark model, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 23 (2008), 2817-2860. doi: 10.1142/S0217751X08041219, arXiv:0711.2492

    2008 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Ebert, R

    D. Ebert, R. N. Faustov and V. O. Galkin, Masses of ex- cited heavy baryons in the relativistic quark model, Phys. Lett. B 659 (2008), 612-620. doi:10.1016/j.physletb. 2007.11.037, arXiv:0705.2957

    2008 arXiv

  12. [20]

    P. G. Ortega, D. R. Entem and F. Fernandez, Quark model description of the Λ c(2940)+ as a molecular D∗N state and the possible existence of theΛ b(6248), Phys. Lett. B 718 (2013), 1381-1384. doi:10.1016/j. physletb.2012.12.025, arXiv:1210.2633

    2013 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Nagahiro, S

    H. Nagahiro, S. Yasui, A. Hosaka, M. Oka and H. Noumi, Structure of charmed baryons studied by pionic decays, Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) no.1, 014023. doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.95.014023, arXiv:1609.01085

    2017 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Yoshida, E

    T. Yoshida, E. Hiyama, A. Hosaka, M. Oka and K. Sadato, Spectrum of heavy baryons in the quark model, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) no.11, 114029. doi:10. 1103/PhysRevD.92.114029, arXiv:10.1103/PhysRevD. 92.114029

    2015 doi

  15. [23]

    Kawakami and M

    Y. Kawakami and M. Harada, Singly heavy baryons with chiral partner structure in a three-flavor chiral model, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) no.9, 094016. doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.99.094016, arXiv:1902.06774

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    H. Z. He, W. Liang, Q. F. L¨ u and Y. B. Dong, Strong decays of the low-lying bottom strange baryons, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 64, no.6, 261012 (2021). doi:10.1007/s11433-021-1704-x , arXiv:2102.07391

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

    K. L. Wang, Y. X. Yao, X. H. Zhong and Q. Zhao, Strong and radiative decays of the low-lying S- and P -wave singly heavy baryons, Phys. Rev. D 96, no.11, 116016 (2017). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96. 116016, arXiv:1709.04268

    2017 arXiv

  18. [26]

    K. L. Wang, Q. F. L¨ u and X. H. Zhong, Interpreta- tion of the newly observed Σ b(6097)± and Ξ b(6227)− states as the P -wave bottom baryons, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) no.1, 014011. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.014011, arXiv:1810.02205

    2019 arXiv

  19. [27]

    L. Y. Xiao, K. L. Wang, M. S. Liu and X. H. Zhong, Possible interpretation of the newly observed Ω b states, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) no.3, 279. doi:10.1140/epjc/ s10052-020-7823-z , arXiv:2001.05110

    2020 arXiv

  20. [28]

    L. X. Guti´ errez-Guerrero, A. Bashir, M. A. Bedolla and E. Santopinto, Masses of Light and Heavy Mesons and Baryons: A Unified Picture, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) no.11, 114032. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100. 114032, arXiv:1911.09213

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Garcia-Recio, J

    C. Garcia-Recio, J. Nieves, O. Romanets, L. L. Salcedo and L. Tolos, Odd parity bottom-flavored baryon reso- nances, Phys. Rev. D 87, 034032 (2013). doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.87.034032, arXiv:1210.4755

    2013 arXiv

  22. [30]

    W. H. Liang, C. W. Xiao and E. Oset, Baryon states with open beauty in the extended local hidden gauge approach, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) no.5, 054023. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.054023, arXiv:1401.1441

    2014 arXiv

  23. [31]

    C. S. An and H. Chen, Observed Ω 0 c resonances as pen- taquark states, Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) no.3, 034012. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.034012, arXiv:1705.08571

    2017 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Nieves, R

    J. Nieves, R. Pavao and L. Tolos, Ωc excited states within a SU(6)lsf × HQSS model, Eur. Phys. J. C78 (2018) no.2,

    2018

  25. [33]

    V. R. Debastiani, J. M. Dias, W. H. Liang and E. Oset, Molecular Ω c states generated from coupled meson- baryon channels, Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) no.9, 094035. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.094035, arXiv:1710.04231

    2018 arXiv

  26. [34]

    R. Chen, A. Hosaka and X. Liu, Searching for possi- ble Ω c-like molecular states from meson-baryon interac- tion, Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) no.3, 036016. doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.97.036016, arXiv:1711.07650

    2018 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Monta˜ na, A

    G. Monta˜ na, A. Feijoo and `A. Ramos, A meson-baryon molecular interpretation for some Ωc excited states, Eur. Phys. J. A 54 (2018) no.4, 64. doi:10.1140/epja/ i2018-12498-1 , arXiv:1709.08737

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Nieves, R

    J. Nieves, R. Pavao and L. Tolos, Ξ c and Ξ b ex- cited states within a SU(6) lsf ×HQSS model, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) no.1, 22. doi:10.1140/epjc/ s10052-019-7568-8 , arXiv:1911.06089

    2020 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Q. X. Yu, R. Pavao, V. R. Debastiani and E. Oset, De- scription of the Ξ c and Ξ b states as molecular states, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) no.2, 167. doi:10.1140/epjc/ s10052-019-6665-z , arXiv:1811.11738

    2019 arXiv

  30. [38]

    W. H. Liang and E. Oset, Observed Ω b spectrum and meson-baryon molecular states, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) no.5, 054033. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101. 054033, arXiv:2001.02929

    2020 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Huang, C

    Y. Huang, C. j. Xiao, L. S. Geng and J. He, Strong decays of the Ξ b(6227) as a Σ b ¯K molecule, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) no.1, 014008. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.014008, arXiv:1811.10769

    2019 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Huang, C

    Y. Huang, C. j. Xiao, Q. F. L¨ u, R. Wang, J. He and L. Geng, Strong and radiative decays of DΞ molecular state and newly observed Ω c states, Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) no.9, 094013. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.094013, arXiv:1801.03598

    2018 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Chen and X

    B. Chen and X. Liu, Assigning the newly reported Σb(6097) as a P -wave excited state and predicting its partners, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) no.7, 074032. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.074032, arXiv:1810.00389

    2018 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Liang and Q

    W. Liang and Q. F. L¨ u, Strong decays of the newly ob- served narrow Ω b structures, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) no.3, 198. doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-7759-3 , arXiv:2001.02221. 14

    2020 arXiv

  35. [43]

    P. Yang, J. J. Guo and A. Zhang, Identification of the newly observed Σb(6097)± baryons from their strong de- cays, Phys. Rev. D99 (2019) no.3, 034018. doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.99.034018, arXiv:1810.06947

    2019 arXiv

  36. [44]

    T. M. Aliev, K. Azizi, Y. Sarac and H. Sundu, Determi- nation of the quantum numbers of Σ b(6097)± via their strong decays, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) no.9, 094003. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.094003, arXiv:1811.05686

    2019 arXiv

  37. [45]

    T. M. Aliev, K. Azizi, Y. Sarac and H. Sundu, Struc- ture of the Ξ b(6227)− resonance, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) no.9, 094014. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.094014, arXiv:1808.08032

    2018 arXiv

  38. [46]

    H. X. Chen, Q. Mao, W. Chen, A. Hosaka, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, Decay properties of P -wave charmed baryons from light-cone QCD sum rules, Phys. Rev. D95 (2017) no.9, 094008. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.094008, arXiv:1703.07703

    2017 arXiv

  39. [47]

    H. X. Chen, W. Chen, Q. Mao, A. Hosaka, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, P-wave charmed baryons from QCD sum rules, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) no.5, 054034. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.054034, arXiv:1502.01103

    2015 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Z. G. Wang, Analysis of the Ω b(6316), Ω b(6330), Ωb(6340) and Ω b(6350) with QCD sum rules, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 35 (2020) no.07, 2050043. doi:10.1142/ S0217751X20500438, arXiv:2001.02961

    2020 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Q. Mao, H. X. Chen, W. Chen, A. Hosaka, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, QCD sum rule calculation for P-wave bottom baryons, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) no.11, 114007. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.114007, arXiv:1510.05267

    2015 arXiv

  42. [50]

    X. Liu, H. X. Chen, Y. R. Liu, A. Hosaka and S. L. Zhu, Bottom baryons, Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008), 014031. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.014031, arXiv:0710.0123

    2008 arXiv

  43. [51]

    W. H. Tan, H. M. Yang and H. X. Chen, Predicted Ξb(6087)0 and further predictions, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) no.4, 382. doi:10.1140/epjc/ s10052-024-12717-6 . arXiv:2311.18380

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    H. M. Yang, H. X. Chen, E. L. Cui, A. Hosaka and Q. Mao, Decay properties of P -wave bot- tom baryons within light-cone sum rules, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) no.2, 80. doi:10.1140/epjc/ s10052-020-7637-z , arXiv:1909.13575

    2020 arXiv

  45. [53]

    H. M. Yang and H. X. Chen, P -wave bottom baryons of the SU (3) flavor 6F Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) no.11, 114013. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.114013, arXiv: 2003.07488

    2020 arXiv

  46. [54]

    X. Luo, H. M. Yang and H. X. Chen, Radiative decays of P -wave bottom baryons from light-cone sum rules, arXiv:2407.04433[hep-ph]

    arXiv

  47. [55]

    H. M. Yang, H. X. Chen, E. L. Cui and Q. Mao, Iden- tifying the Ξ b(6100)− as the P-wave bottom baryon of J P = 3 2 − , Phys. Rev. D 106, no.3, 036018 (2022). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.036018, arXiv:2205.07224

    2022 arXiv

  48. [56]

    H. X. Chen, E. L. Cui, A. Hosaka, Q. Mao and H. M. Yang, Excited Ωb baryons and fine structure of strong interaction, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) no.3,

    2020

  49. [57]

    E. L. Cui, H. M. Yang, H. X. Chen and A. Hosaka, Identifying the Ξ b(6227) and Σ b(6097) as P -wave bot- tom baryons of J P = 3 /2−, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) no.9, 094021. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.094021, arXiv:1903.10369

    2019 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Padmanath and N

    M. Padmanath and N. Mathur, Quantum Numbers of Recently Discovered Ω 0 c Baryons from Lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017) no.4, 042001. doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.119.042001, arXiv:1704.00259

    2017 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Padmanath, R

    M. Padmanath, R. G. Edwards, N. Mathur and M. Pear- don, Excited-state spectroscopy of singly, doubly and triply-charmed baryons from lattice QCD. arXiv:1311. 4806

  52. [60]

    Burch, Heavy hadrons on Nf = 2 and 2 + 1 improved clover-Wilson lattices

    T. Burch, Heavy hadrons on Nf = 2 and 2 + 1 improved clover-Wilson lattices. arXiv:1502.00675

    arXiv

  53. [61]

    K. U. Can, H. Bahtiyar, G. Erkol, P. Gubler, M. Oka and T. T. Takahashi, Spectrum of the Charmed Baryons in 2+1-flavor Lattice QCD, JPS Conf. Proc. 26 (2019), 022028. doi:10.7566/JPSCP.26.022028

    2019 doi

  54. [62]

    H. Y. Cheng and C. K. Chua, Strong Decays of Charmed Baryons in Heavy Hadron Chiral Perturbation The- ory, Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007), 014006. doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.75.014006, arXiv:hep-ph/0610283

    2007 arXiv

  55. [63]

    H. Y. Cheng and C. K. Chua, Strong Decays of Charmed Baryons in Heavy Hadron Chiral Perturbation Theory: An Update, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) no.7, 074014. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.074014, arXiv:1508.05653

    2015 arXiv

  56. [64]

    J. X. Lu, Y. Zhou, H. X. Chen, J. J. Xie and L. S. Geng, Dynamically generated J P = 1 /2−(3/2−) singly charmed and bottom heavy baryons, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) no.1, 014036. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92. 014036, arXiv:1409.3133

    2015 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Grinstein, The Static Quark Effective Theory, Nucl

    B. Grinstein, The Static Quark Effective Theory, Nucl. Phys. B 339 (1990), 253-268. doi:10.1016/ 0550-3213(90)90349-I

    1990

  58. [66]

    Eichten and B

    E. Eichten and B. R. Hill, An Effective Field The- ory for the Calculation of Matrix Elements Involving Heavy Quarks, Phys. Lett. B 234 (1990), 511-516. doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(90)92049-O

    1990 doi

  59. [67]

    A. F. Falk, H. Georgi, B. Grinstein and M. B. Wise, Heavy Meson Form-factors From QCD, Nucl. Phys. B 343 (1990), 1-13. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(90)90591-Z

    1990 doi

  60. [68]

    Narison, QCD as a Theory of Hadrons : From Partons to Confinement, Camb

    S. Narison, QCD as a Theory of Hadrons : From Partons to Confinement, Camb. Monogr. Part. Phys. Nucl. Phys. Cosmol. 17 (2007), 1-812 Oxford University Press, 2005,. doi:10.1017/9781009290296, arXiv:hep-ph/0205006

    2007 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Gimenez, V

    V. Gimenez, V. Lubicz, F. Mescia, V. Porretti and J. Reyes, Operator product expansion and quark con- densate from lattice QCD in coordinate space, Eur. Phys. J. C 41 (2005), 535-544. doi:10.1140/epjc/ s2005-02250-9 , arXiv:hep-lat/0503001

    2005 arXiv

  62. [70]

    M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein and V. I. Zakharov, QCD and Resonance Physics. Theoretical Foundations, Nucl. Phys. B 147, 385-447 (1979). doi:10.1016/ 0550-3213(79)90022-1 ,

    1979

  63. [71]

    M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein and V. I. Zakharov, QCD and Resonance Physics: Applications, Nucl. Phys. B 147, 448-518 (1979) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(79) 90023-3,

    1979 doi

  64. [72]

    L. J. Reinders, H. Rubinstein and S. Yazaki, Hadron Properties from QCD Sum Rules, Phys. Rept. 127, 1 (1985). doi:10.1016/0370-1573(85)90065-1 ,

    1985 doi

  65. [73]

    Nielsen, F

    M. Nielsen, F. S. Navarra and S. H. Lee, New Char- monium States in QCD Sum Rules: A Concise Review, Phys. Rept. 497, 41-83 (2010). doi:10.1016/j.physrep. 2010.07.005, arXiv:0911.1958

    2010 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Gubler and D

    P. Gubler and D. Satow, Recent Progress in QCD Con- densate Evaluations and Sum Rules, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 106, 1-67 (2019). doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2019.02. 005, arXiv:1812.00385. 15

    2019 arXiv

  67. [75]

    V. M. Braun and I. E. Filyanov, QCD Sum Rules in Exclusive Kinematics and Pion Wave Function, Z. Phys. C 44 (1989), 157. doi:10.1007/BF01548594

    1989 doi

  68. [76]

    V. L. Chernyak and 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

  69. [77]

    Ball, Theoretical update of pseudoscalar meson distri- bution amplitudes of higher twist: The Nonsinglet case, JHEP 01 (1999), 010

    P. Ball, Theoretical update of pseudoscalar meson distri- bution amplitudes of higher twist: The Nonsinglet case, JHEP 01 (1999), 010. doi:10.1088/1126-6708/1999/ 01/010, arXiv:hep-ph/9812375

    1999 arXiv

  70. [78]

    P. Ball, V. M. Braun and A. Lenz, Higher-twist dis- tribution amplitudes of the K meson in QCD, JHEP 05 (2006), 004. doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2006/05/004, arXiv:hep-ph/0603063

    2006 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Ball and V

    P. Ball and V. M. Braun, Exclusive semileptonic and rare B meson decays in QCD, Phys. Rev. D 58 (1998), 094016. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.58.094016, arXiv:hep-ph/9805422

    1998 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Ball and R

    P. Ball and R. Zwicky, Bd,s → ρ, ω, K∗, ϕdecay form- factors from light-cone sum rules revisited, Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005), 014029. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.014029, arXiv:hep-ph/0412079

    2005 arXiv

  73. [81]

    P. Ball, V. M. Braun, Y. Koike and K. Tanaka, Higher twist distribution amplitudes of vector mesons in QCD: Formalism and twist - three distributions, Nucl. Phys. B 529 (1998), 323-382. doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(98) 00356-3, arXiv:hep-ph/9802299

    1998 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Ball and G

    P. Ball and G. W. Jones, Twist-3 distribution amplitudes of K* and phi mesons, JHEP 03 (2007), 069. doi:10. 1088/1126-6708/2007/03/069, arXiv:hep-ph/0702100

    2007 arXiv

  75. [83]

    P. Ball, V. M. Braun and A. Lenz, Twist-4 distribution amplitudes of the K* and phi mesons in QCD, JHEP 08 (2007), 090. doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/08/090, arXiv:0707.1201

    2007 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Ball and V

    P. Ball and V. M. Braun, Higher twist distribution am- plitudes of vector mesons in QCD: Twist - 4 distribu- tions and meson mass corrections, Nucl. Phys. B 543 (1999), 201-238. doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(99)00014-0 , arXiv:hep-ph/9810475

    1999 arXiv

  77. [85]

    B. L. Ioffe and K. N. Zyablyuk, Gluon condensate in charmonium sum rules with three loop corrections, Eur. Phys. J. C 27 (2003), 229-241. doi:10.1140/epjc/ s2002-01099-8 , arXiv:hep-ph/0207183

    2003 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Jamin, Flavor symmetry breaking of the quark condensate and chiral corrections to the Gell-Mann- Oakes-Renner relation, Phys

    M. Jamin, Flavor symmetry breaking of the quark condensate and chiral corrections to the Gell-Mann- Oakes-Renner relation, Phys. Lett. B 538 (2002), 71-76. doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(02)01951-2 , arXiv:hep-ph/ 0201174

    2002 doi

  79. [87]

    A. A. Ovchinnikov and A. A. Pivovarov, QCD sum rule calculation of the quark gluon condensate, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 48 (1988), 721-723

    1988

  80. [88]

    Shifman and B

    M. Shifman and B. Ioffe, At the frontier of particle physics. Handbook of QCD. Vol. 1-3, World Scientific,

  81. [89]

    K. C. Yang, W. Y. P. Hwang, E. M. Henley and 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

  82. [90]

    W. Y. P. Hwang and K. C. Yang, QCD sum rules: Delta- N and Sigma0-Lambda mass splittings, Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994), 460-465. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.49.460

    1994 doi

  83. [114]

    doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5597-3 , arXiv: 1712.00327

    arXiv

  84. [256]

    doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-7824-y , arXiv: 2001.02147

    2001 arXiv

  85. [976]

    doi:10.1088/0954-3899/34/5/014, arXiv:hep-ph/ 0703257

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.