Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 3 minor 2 cited by

CP Violation in Hadronic Weak Decays of Charmed Baryons in the Topological Diagrammatic Approach

T0 review · 5 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Charm-baryon CP violation can reach the per-mille level through final-state rescattering.

desk verdict Per-mille CP asymmetries in charmed baryons from rescattering—worth engaging, but the tree-to-penguin inversion is the load-bearing assumption that needs scrutiny. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.07150 v2 pith:RSVK5XXP submitted 2025-05-11 hep-ph hep-ex

Hai-Yang Cheng , Fanrong Xu , Huiling Zhong This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords CPviolationcharmedbaryonstopologicaldiagrammaticapproachSU(3)flavorsymmetryfinal-staterescatteringpenguintopologyhairpindiagramper-milleasymmetry
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

The paper argues that CP violation in two-body hadronic decays of antitriplet charmed baryons can be much larger than the naive $10^{-4}$ expectation, because long-distance penguin amplitudes are generated by final-state rescattering. Working with the topological diagrammatic approach and the irreducible SU(3) approach, it projects $s$-, $t$- and $u$-channel rescattering diagrams onto penguin and tree topologies, introducing one overall parameter per channel ($S_-$, $T_-$, $U_-$). A global fit to branching fractions and Lee-Yang parameters fixes the tree-level amplitudes and the rescattering strengths, which then determine the four penguin coefficients $\tilde b_{1,2,3,4}$. The paper predicts per-mille CP asymmetries in four singly Cabibbo-suppressed modes, with the $\eta,\eta'$ modes receiving sizable contributions from the SU(3)-flavor-singlet hairpin diagram.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the decomposition of final-state rescattering into topological amplitudes. In the topological diagrammatic approach (TDA), decay amplitudes are organized by quark-flow diagrams with five independent tree amplitudes $\tilde T,\tilde C,\tilde C',\tilde E_1,\tilde E_h$ and four penguin coefficients $\tilde b_1,\dots,\tilde b_4$; the irreducible SU(3) approach (IRA) supplies the equivalent tensor invariants. The paper assigns one overall parameter to each rescattering channel, $S_-$ for $s$-channel, $T_-$ for $t$-channel and $U_-$ for $u$-channel, and relates all penguin coefficients to the tree amplitudes through Eqs. (70) and (71). The hairpin coefficient $\tilde b_1$ carries the SU(3)-singlet component of the emitted pseudoscalar and is what drives the enhanced asymmetries in the $\eta$ and $\eta'$ modes.

What would settle it

Measure $A_{CP}(\Lambda_c^+\to p\eta')$ and $A_{CP}(\Xi_c^0\to\Sigma^0\eta)$ with a precision of a few times $10^{-4}$; the paper predicts $+(1.4\pm0.1)\times10^{-3}$ and $+(1.2\pm0.2)\times10^{-3}$, so results consistent with zero at that precision would falsify the per-mille enhancement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a set of charmed-baryon decay channels with hadronic final states should exhibit CP asymmetries of order $10^{-3}$, roughly an order of magnitude above the standard short-distance estimate, because the penguin topology receives large long-distance contributions from final-state rescattering. The paper establishes this by decomposing the $s$-, $t$- and $u$-channel rescattering diagrams at the hadron level and showing, through their flavor structure, that they project onto the same topological amplitudes as the penguin diagrams. After fixing the tree-level amplitudes from a global fit and extracting the rescattering strengths $S_-$, $T_-$, $U_-$, the penguin coefficients are obtained and the CP observables computed. Independent TDA and IRA fits give the same predictions within errors; the four modes with per-mille asymmetry are $\Lambda_c^+\to p\pi^0$ with $-(0.8\pm0.3)\times10^{-3}$, $\Lambda_c^+\to p\eta'$ with $(1.4\pm0.1)\times10^{-3}$, $\Xi_c^0\to\Sigma^0\eta$ and $\Xi_c^+\to\Sigma^+\eta$, each with $(1.2\pm0.2)\times10^{-3}$.

Load-bearing premise

The per-mille predictions rest on the assumption that one overall parameter per rescattering channel ($S_-$, $T_-$, $U_-$) is universal across all decay modes and can be extracted from the CP-conserving tree-level fit alone, with the u channel dominated by the tensor coupling of the exchanged vector meson.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The four modes listed in Eq. (76) become specific targets for CP-violation searches; measuring their asymmetries at the $10^{-4}$ level would confirm or exclude the per-mille enhancement.
  • The updated global fits including six new $\Xi_c^+$ measurements sharpen the predicted branching fractions, Lee-Yang parameters and phase shifts, giving concrete numbers that future data can test.
  • The U-spin relations such as $A_{CP}(\Lambda_c^+\to n\pi^+)=-A_{CP}(\Xi_c^+\to\Xi^0K^+)$ are predicted to hold in sign, which provides a cross-check of the SU(3) decomposition.
  • The u-channel contribution is found to be non-negligible because the small $U_-$ is compensated by the large tensor-coupling ratio $\rho_+$; omitting the u channel, as earlier treatments did, misses part of the penguin amplitude.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the per-mille asymmetries are confirmed, the same machinery should produce measurable CP asymmetries in other singly Cabibbo-suppressed channels listed in the paper's tables, so a multi-channel measurement would test the mechanism more stringently than any single mode.
  • A sharper test than rate asymmetries alone would be a measurement of the strong phase difference $\delta_P-\delta_S$ in $\Lambda_c^+\to p\eta'$, because the size and even the sign of the predicted $A_{CP}$ depend on that phase.
  • One could stress-test the universality assumption by allowing $S_-$, $T_-$, $U_-$ to depend on the quantum numbers of the intermediate resonances; if future data demanded such variation, the pattern of asymmetries across the four predicted modes would change.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper studies CP violation in the two-body weak decays of antitriplet charmed baryons within the topological diagrammatic approach (TDA) and its irreducible SU(3) counterpart. After updating the global fit of the five tree-level TDA amplitudes with six new Belle/Belle-II branching-fraction measurements, the authors project the s-, t-, and u-channel final-state rescattering (FSR) diagrams in Fig. 3 onto tree and penguin topologies, introducing five FSR parameters (F_V^±, S_-, T_-, U_-). Equation (70) converts the fitted tree amplitudes into these FSR parameters, and Eq. (71) then determines the penguin coefficients b_i. The main phenomenological results are the CP asymmetries in Eq. (76): per-mille asymmetries in Λ_c→pπ^0, Λ_c→pη′, Ξ_c^0→Σ^0η and Ξ_c^+→Σ^+η, with the last three attributed to the SU(3)-singlet hairpin penguin b_1.

Significance. The predicted per-mille asymmetries are an order of magnitude above naive short-distance expectations and are testable at LHCb and Belle II; if confirmed, they would indicate that long-distance FSR, rather than short-distance penguins, dominates CP violation in these decays. The paper also provides a useful explicit mapping between TDA and IRA coefficients, includes a u-channel contribution and the hairpin topology beyond earlier work, and gives falsifiable predictions in Eq. (76). However, the numerical predictions inherit strong model assumptions, the fit quality is poor, and there is an internal sign inconsistency, so the significance is conditional on the robustness checks described below.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section III.B.2, Eqs. (70)-(71), Table II] The extraction of the FSR parameters from the fitted tree amplitudes is an inversion of a model, not a determination from independent data. In Eq. (70) the five fitted tree amplitudes (T, C, C′, E1, Eh) of Table II are used to solve for the five FSR parameters (F_V^+, F_V^-, S_-, T_-, U_-). The text after Eq. (65) explicitly drops the nonfactorizable terms E1S, E1A, E3 and Eh from the weak vertex, so the procedure assumes that the entire fitted W-exchange amplitude E1 and hairpin amplitude Eh are generated by rescattering of T and C. Since Table II gives |E1|_S = 2.79 and |Eh|_S = 4.30 (in units of 10^-2 G_F GeV^2), any short-distance component of E1 or Eh is forced into S_-, T_- and U_- by construction. These parameters enter every b_i in Eq. (71), and b1 drives the η and η′ asymmetries highlighted in Eq. (76). The errors in Table IV do not include this assignment uncertainty. Please provide a robustness test, for example allowing an independent short-distance component in E1/Eh, and show that the per-mille predictions for Λ_c→pη′, Ξ_c^0→Σ^0η and Ξ_c^+→Σ^+η are stable under that relaxation.
  2. [Section IV.B, Table VI, Eq. (76)] The quality of the underlying global fits is poor, and the central predictions are made only for the better-fitting data subset. Table VI reports χ²/dof = 3.27 in Case I and 3.73-3.75 in Case II, so the tree-level TDA does not describe the data within errors. All CP asymmetries in Eq. (76) are taken from Case I, which excludes the recent Belle measurements of Ξ_c^0→Ξ^0π^0, Ξ^0η and Ξ^0η′ [50]; including these data makes the fit worse. The paper does not report the Case-II CP observables or any stability analysis. Because the penguin coefficients in Eq. (71) are constructed from the fitted tree amplitudes, the poor fit quality and the data-selection dependence must be quantified before the per-mille claim can be evaluated.
  3. [Section III.B.2, after Eq. (55); Eq. (71); Tables II and IV] The u-channel contribution is retained through the assumption of tensor-coupling dominance with ρ+ = -21, but this assumption is not validated at the level needed for the central predictions. The value ρ+ = -21 is taken from light-cone QCD sum rules, and the only dynamical evidence quoted for the dominance is a single-mode estimate |b/a| ≈ 1.06 for Λ_c^+→pφ (Ref. [47], a private communication). Equation (71) shows that b2, b3 and b4 contain (2ρ++1)U_- and (10ρ++1)U_-; with ρ+ = -21 the small fitted U_- is enhanced by an order of magnitude. The uncertainties of ρ+ and of r_- = 2.5 are not propagated into the errors of Table IV. Please justify the dominance for all channels or propagate the uncertainties; as it stands the error bars in Eq. (76) are likely underestimated.
  4. [Eq. (76) and Table IV] There is an internal sign inconsistency in the headline prediction for Λ_c^+→pη′. Equation (76) quotes A_CP(Λ_c^+→pη′) = (1.4±0.1)×10^-3, while Table IV gives −14.40±1.26 in units of 10^-4, i.e., −(1.44±0.13)×10^-3, with the negative sign. The abstract repeats the positive sign, so this is not an isolated typo. Please correct the sign and verify the corresponding entries in Tables VIII-X and the discussion.
  5. [Section III.B.2, Eqs. (58)-(62)] The flavor projection of the rescattering amplitudes depends on the choice that the SU(3)-singlet η1 is removed from the intermediate pseudoscalar loop but kept in the emitted meson (Eqs. (58)-(62)). This is a model assumption motivated by the axial anomaly, but it directly affects the hairpin coefficient b1 in Eq. (71), which the paper identifies as the source of the large η and η′ asymmetries. The sensitivity of the predictions to this choice should be tested, for example by repeating the projection with η1 included in P′ or by using a nonet closure relation. Without such a test, the highlighted per-mille asymmetries in the three η/η′ modes are not robust.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Section I] The phrase 'the flavor structure of the these diagrams' contains a duplicated article; the same typo appears in the introduction.
  2. [Section II.A, after Eq. (11)] 'In terms of the the decomposition of 3⊗ ¯3⊗ 3' should read 'In terms of the decomposition of 3⊗ ¯3⊗ 3'.
  3. [Section III.B.2, after Eq. (70); Ref. [47]] The sentence 'They are ready extracted from Eq. (70)' should be 'readily extracted', and Ref. [47] has 'privite communication' for 'private communication'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular reduction: per-mille CP asymmetries are model outputs derived from a tree-level fit to non-CP data, not fitted inputs renamed as predictions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is transparent and not circular. The five tree-level TDA amplitudes are fitted to branching-fraction and Lee-Yang data (Table II); Eq. (70) is then inverted to fix the FSR parameters (F_V±, S−, T−, U−); Eq. (71) expresses the penguin coefficients b_i in terms of those same FSR parameters; and the CP asymmetries in Eq. (76) are computed from the interference between the fitted tree amplitudes and these b_i. The CP asymmetries are not inputs to the fit—no CP data exist in the charmed baryon sector—so the per-mille results are genuine model predictions rather than fitted quantities renamed as predictions. The tree-to-penguin mapping does rest on explicit dynamical assumptions: the text states 'we have dropped nonfactorizable terms such as E1S, E1A, E3 and Eh' after Eq. (65), and 'we shall assume hereafter that the u-channel decay amplitude ... is dominated by the tensor coupling' after Eq. (55). These assumptions mean that if E1 or Eh contains short-distance pieces, the extracted FSR parameters and hence b_i would be contaminated; but that is a model risk or limitation, not a circular reduction by the paper's own equations. Self-citations (Refs. [20], [22], [35]) supply prior fits and the P_LD=E_LD motivation, but the baryon FSR construction follows the independent Ref. [30], and the global fit is redone in this paper with the new Belle/Belle-II data, so no load-bearing circular self-citation is present. The quoted uncertainties in Table IV also omit this model-assignment uncertainty, but that is a robustness concern, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on a global fit with 19 free parameters for the tree-level TDA amplitudes, five FSR parameters derived from those amplitudes, and several fixed strong-interaction inputs (ρ+ = −21, r− = 2.5). The penguin coefficients that produce CP violation are not measured; they are linear combinations of these fitted parameters. The main axioms are SU(3) flavor symmetry, the KPW theorem, universality of FSR parameters, tensor dominance of the u-channel, and the exclusion of η1 in the loop. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Tree-level TDA amplitudes T̃,C̃,C̃′,Ẽ1,Ẽh (S- and P-wave magnitudes and phases) = Table II (Case I), e.g., |T̃|_S=4.31±0.11 ×10^-2 GF GeV^2, |T̃|_P=12.11±0.31
    These are determined by a global fit to roughly 44 branching fractions and Lee-Yang parameters listed in Table VII. They are the foundation for the FSR parameters and hence for the b_i penguin coefficients.
  • FSR parameters S−, T−, U−, F+V, F−V = Table II middle entries, e.g., S−_S=0.12±0.01, T−_S=0.39±0.04, U−_S=0.04±0.00
    Extracted from Eq. (70) using the fitted tree amplitudes; not independently measured. They enter the penguin coefficients b_i via Eq. (71), so the CP asymmetry predictions inherit the fit uncertainties.
  • Vector-baryon coupling ratio ρ+ = -21
    Used in u-channel amplitude; value from QCD sum rules [45]. The choice matters because the smallness of U− is compensated by the largeness of ρ+. No uncertainty is propagated into the CP predictions.
  • Strong-coupling ratio r− = 2.5
    From He-Liu [30] (2.5±0.8); used in s- and t-channel amplitudes. The 0.8 uncertainty is not propagated into the quoted errors of ACP.
  • η-η′ mixing angle θ = 35.3°
    Standard input; affects amplitudes with η and η′. Small effect compared to model uncertainties.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption SU(3) flavor symmetry of QCD for nonleptonic charmed baryon decays
    The whole TDA/IRA framework assumes approximate SU(3) symmetry to relate amplitudes, with no SU(3) breaking corrections. Used throughout Section II.
  • standard math Körner-Pati-Woo theorem
    Used to set E2A=-E1A and E2S=-E1S and to eliminate four H15 IRA amplitudes (Eq. (10) and text after Eq. (21)).
  • ad hoc to paper Universality of the FSR parameters S−, T−, U− across all decay modes
    The paper assigns one overall parameter per channel (s,t,u) and then extracts them from the global tree-level fit. If these parameters depend on the external hadrons, the penguin coefficients and the CP predictions change. Introduced in Sec. III.B.2, Eqs. (62)-(68).
  • ad hoc to paper Tensor-coupling dominance in the u-channel
    Assumed after Eq. (55) to avoid the vector/tensor ambiguity; it determines the size of U− contribution. The paper notes |f̃/f|≈11 as supporting evidence but does not test the assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper Exclusion of the SU(3)-singlet η1 in the final-state loop but inclusion in the emitted meson
    Stated in Sec. III.B.2 ('For the pseudoscalar mesons... we should not consider the η1 meson inside the loop'). This is essential for the hairpin contribution that drives the large η, η′ asymmetries.
  • domain assumption Factorization plus neglect of nonfactorizable terms in Eq. (65)
    The factorizable contributions to Bc→BP are taken as T and C with f_d=f_b=T−C and f_e=T+C; nonfactorizable E1S,E1A,E3,Eh are dropped. This may bias the extracted FSR parameters.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CP Violation in Hadronic Weak Decays of Charmed Baryons in the Topological Diagrammatic Approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RSVK5XXP

@misc{pith2026250507150,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CP Violation in Hadronic Weak Decays of Charmed Baryons in the Topological Diagrammatic Approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RSVK5XXP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.07150}
}
abstract

CP violation in the charmed baryon sector is generally expected to be very small, of order $10^{-4}$ or even smaller. Nevertheless, large long-distance penguin topologies can be induced through final-state rescattering. At the hadron level, they are manifested as the triangle and bubble diagrams. However, these diagrams consist of not only the penguin but also other tree topologies. Therefore, we focus on the flavor structure of the these diagrams and project out their contributions to penguin and tree topologies. The analysis is performed within the framework of the topological diagram approach and the irreducible SU(3) approach in which the SU(3) flavor symmetry of QCD is realized to describe the nonleptonic decays of charmed baryons. CP violation at the per mille level is found in the following decay modes: $\Lambda_c^+ \to p \pi^0,~\Lambda_c^+ \to p \eta', ~\Xi_c^0 \to \Sigma^0\eta$ and $\Xi_c^+ \to \Sigma^+ \eta$. CP asymmetries in the last three modes receive sizable contributions from the SU(3)-flavor-singlet hairpin diagram.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.07150 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Topological diagrams contributing to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_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. From topological amplitudes to rescattering dynamics in charmed baryon decays

    hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The authors build a bridge between topological and rescattering amplitudes for charmed baryon decays and claim the Koerner-Pati-Woo theorem fails, suggesting a measurement of Lambda_c^+ -> Sigma^+ K_S^0.

  2. Topological Diagram Analysis of Charmed Baryon Decays with Vector Mesons

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Topological diagram analysis of charmed baryon decays to baryon-vector meson final states requires five parameters after applying the Korner-Pati-Woo theorem and yields branching fraction predictions consistent with e...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [50]

    The fitted results of tree TDA parameters in Case I are shown in Table II

    and Case II with all the data included. The fitted results of tree TDA parameters in Case I are shown in Table II. As for the penguin-related TDA parameters ˜b1,..., ˜b4, they cannot be determined owing to the lack of experimental data on CP violation in the charmed baryon sector. The observation that sizable penguin topology can be induced from final-sta...

    work page

  2. [47]

    Direct CP violation in two-body hadronic charmed meson decays,

    H. Y. Cheng and C. W. Chiang, “Direct CP violation in two-body hadronic charmed meson decays,” Phys. Rev. D 85, 034036 (2012) [arXiv:1201.0785 [hep-ph]]; 85, 079903(E) (2012)

    arXiv 2012

  3. [1]

    (38) They are related to weak and strong phase differences between S- andP -wave amplitudes, ∆ϕ and ∆δ≡δP−δS, respectively, via Aα =− tan ∆δ tan ∆ϕ, R β = tan ∆ϕ

    Observables In the charmed baryon sector, besides CP asymmetries in partial decay rates, two other CP- violation quantities of interest are: Aα = α + ¯α α− ¯α, R β = β + ¯β α− ¯α. (38) They are related to weak and strong phase differences between S- andP -wave amplitudes, ∆ϕ and ∆δ≡δP−δS, respectively, via Aα =− tan ∆δ tan ∆ϕ, R β = tan ∆ϕ. (39) CP asymme...

    work page

  4. [2]

    (26)) or ˜bi in the TDA, Eq

    Final-state rescattering Our next task is to determine the coefficients ˜fi 3 in the IRA (see Eq. (26)) or ˜bi in the TDA, Eq. (16) in order to studyCP violation in the charmed baryon sector. In analogue to the charmed meson case, the penguin topology can be generated through final-state s-, t- and u-channel rescattering contributions toBc→PB from the ext...

    work page

  5. [3]

    fVBB′γµ + ˜fVBB′ mB′ +mB iσµνqν # gVPP′(p1 +p3)α(p /2 +mB′) × gµα− qµqα m2 V FBcB′P′ (q2−m2 V )(p2 1−m2 P′)(p2 2−m2 B′) uBc, = X V,B′,P′ ¯uB Z d4q (2π)4

    The vector meson matrix reads Vi j =   ρ0+ω√ 2 ρ+ K∗+ ρ− −ρ0+ω√ 2 K∗0 K∗− K ∗0 ϕ  . (46) The relevantVPP interaction is given by LVPP = gVPP TrVµ[P,∂µP ] = −igVPP ρ+ µπ0↔ ∂ µπ− +ρ− µπ+↔ ∂ µπ0 +ρ0 µπ−↔ ∂ µπ+ +K∗− µ K+↔ ∂ µπ0 + √ 3K∗− µ K+↔ ∂ µη + √ 3(ϕ8)µK+↔ ∂ µK− +··· , (47) whereϕ8 is referred to the octet component of theϕ meson, which is given ...

    work page 2024

  6. [4]

    3(a), 3(b) and 3(c), respectively

    Final-state s-, t- and u-channel rescattering contributions to Bc→ PB from the external W -emission are depicted in Figs. 3(a), 3(b) and 3(c), respectively. They have the same topology as the penguin one. Although we do not know how to evaluate these diagrams at the quark level, their contributions at the hadron level manifested as the pole and triangle d...

    work page

  7. [5]

    [46] In Ref

    Comparison with Jia et al. [46] In Ref. [46], the loop integrals in the hadronic triangle diagrams are evaluated completely to take into account both real and imaginary parts of amplitudes so that the nontrivial strong phases, 21 TABLE IV: The predicted CP observables calculated with ρ+ =−21 and r− = 2.5 in both TDA (upper) and IRA (lower). Channel 10 3B ...

    work page

  8. [6]

    Comparison with He and Liu [30] The final-state rescattering (FSR) approach to charmed baryon CP violation has also been explored recently in Ref. [30]. The interaction at the hadron level is obtained by contracting all 23 possible SU(3)F indices of antitriplet charmed baryons, the baryon octet, the meson nonet as well as the H matrices, in analogue to th...

    work page

Show all 67 references
  1. [7]

    The equivalence of the TDA and IRA is formally demonstrated in Sec.II.B. The numerical analyses within their errors do support the conclusion that the two approaches are equivalent, although some differences are observed in the uncertainties of certain observables, originated ...

  2. [8]

    We urge to apply Eqs. (82) and (83) to extract the phase shift δP−δS from the decay parametersα andβ and the phase difference ∆ between the two helicity amplitudes from β and γ, respectively, to avoid a possible ambiguity of ±π

  3. [9]

    The fitting branching fractions, decay parameters, magnitudes of S- andP -wave amplitudes and their phase shifts in both the TDA and IRA are presented in Tables VIII-X

    Since we use the new LHCb measurements to fix the sign ambiguity of β and γ, the fit results for the phase shift δP−δS and the magnitudes of S- and P -wave amplitudes are 26 substantially improved over our previous analyses with smaller errors. The fitting branching fractions,...

  4. [10]

    Equivalent SU(3) f approaches for two-body anti- triplet charmed baryon decays,

    Y. K. Hsiao, Y. L. Wang and H. J. Zhao, “Equivalent SU(3) f approaches for two-body anti- triplet charmed baryon decays,” JHEP 09, 035 (2022) [arXiv:2111.04124 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  5. [11]

    For the u-channel decay amplitude ofBc→PB mediated by the vector-meson exchange, we have made the assumption that it is dominated by the tensor coupling ˜fVB′B

  6. [12]

    CP asymmetries at the per mille are found in the following decay modes: Λc→pπ0, Λc→pη′, Ξ0 c→ Σ0η, Ξ+ c → Σ+η

    The predicted CP-violating observables are summarized in Table IV. CP asymmetries at the per mille are found in the following decay modes: Λc→pπ0, Λc→pη′, Ξ0 c→ Σ0η, Ξ+ c → Σ+η. In particular, we do not observe significant CP violation in the decays Ξ 0 c → Σ+π− and Ξ0 c→pK− a...

  7. [13]

    Charmed baryon physics circa 2021,

    H. Y. Cheng, “Charmed baryon physics circa 2021,” Chin. J. Phys. 78, 324-362 (2022) [arXiv:2109.01216 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Asymmetries of anti-triplet charmed baryon decays,

    C. Q. Geng, C. W. Liu and T. H. Tsai, “Asymmetries of anti-triplet charmed baryon decays,” Phys. Lett. B 794, 19-28 (2019) [arXiv:1902.06189 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  9. [15]

    Weak decays of antitriplet charmed baryons from the perspective of flavor symmetry,

    H. Zhong, F. Xu, Q. Wen and Y. Gu, “Weak decays of antitriplet charmed baryons from the perspective of flavor symmetry,” JHEP 02, 235 (2023) [arXiv:2210.12728 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  10. [16]

    Global analysis of measured and unmeasured hadronic two-body weak decays of antitriplet charmed baryons,

    Z. P. Xing, X. G. He, F. Huang and C. Yang, “Global analysis of measured and unmeasured hadronic two-body weak decays of antitriplet charmed baryons,” Phys. Rev. D 108, no.5, 053004 (2023) [arXiv:2305.14854 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [17]

    Charmed Baryon Weak Decays with Decuplet Baryon and SU(3) Flavor Symmetry,

    C. Q. Geng, C. W. Liu, T. H. Tsai and Y. Yu, “Charmed Baryon Weak Decays with Decuplet Baryon and SU(3) Flavor Symmetry,” Phys. Rev. D 99, no.11, 114022 (2019) [arXiv:1904.11271 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  12. [18]

    Charmed Baryon Weak Decays with Vector Mesons,

    C. Q. Geng, C. W. Liu and T. H. Tsai, “Charmed Baryon Weak Decays with Vector Mesons,” Phys. Rev. D 101, no.5, 053002 (2020) [arXiv:2001.05079 [hep-ph]]. TABLE VII: Updated experimental data on branching fractions and Lee-Yang parameters. The upper entries correspond to those ...

    2020 arXiv

  13. [19]

    A global analysis of charmless two body hadronic decays for anti-triplet charmed baryons,

    F. Huang, Z. P. Xing and X. G. He, “A global analysis of charmless two body hadronic decays for anti-triplet charmed baryons,” JHEP 03, 143 (2022) [erratum: JHEP 09, 087 (2022)] [arXiv:2112.10556 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  14. [20]

    Quark diagram analysis of charmed baryon decays,

    Y. Kohara, “Quark diagram analysis of charmed baryon decays,” Phys. Rev. D 44, 2799-2802 (1991)

    1991

  15. [21]

    Analysis of two-body decays of charmed baryons using the quark diagram scheme,

    L. L. Chau, H. Y. Cheng and B. Tseng, “Analysis of two-body decays of charmed baryons using the quark diagram scheme,” Phys. Rev. D 54, 2132 (1996) [arXiv:hep-ph/9508382 [hep-ph]]

    1996 arXiv

  16. [22]

    Hadronic weak decays of charmed baryons in the topological diagrammatic approach: An update,

    H. Y. Cheng, F. Xu and H. Zhong, “Hadronic weak decays of charmed baryons in the topological diagrammatic approach: An update,” Phys. Rev. D 111, no.3, 034011 (2025) [arXiv:2410.04675 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  17. [23]

    A diagrammatic analysis of two-body charmed baryon decays with flavor symmetry,

    H. J. Zhao, Y. L. Wang, Y. K. Hsiao and Y. Yu, “A diagrammatic analysis of two-body charmed baryon decays with flavor symmetry,” JHEP 02, 165 (2020) [arXiv:1811.07265 [hep- ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  18. [24]

    Two-body charmed baryon decays involv- ing decuplet baryon in the quark-diagram scheme,

    Y. K. Hsiao, Q. Yi, S. T. Cai and H. J. Zhao, “Two-body charmed baryon decays involv- ing decuplet baryon in the quark-diagram scheme,” Eur. Phys. J. C 80, no.11, 1067 (2020) [arXiv:2006.15291 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  19. [25]

    Unification of Flavor SU(3) Analyses of Heavy Hadron Weak Decays,

    X. G. He, Y. J. Shi and W. Wang, “Unification of Flavor SU(3) Analyses of Heavy Hadron Weak Decays,” Eur. Phys. J. C 80, no.5, 359 (2020) [arXiv:1811.03480 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  20. [26]

    Topological amplitudes of charmed baryon decays in the SU (3)F limit,

    D. Wang and J. F. Luo, “Topological amplitudes of charmed baryon decays in the SU (3)F limit,” Phys. Rev. D 110, no.9, 093001 (2024) [arXiv:2406.14061 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [27]

    SU(3) symmetry analysis in charmed baryon two body decays with penguin diagram contribution,

    Z. P. Xing, Y. J. Shi, J. Sun and Y. Xing, “SU(3) symmetry analysis in charmed baryon two body decays with penguin diagram contribution,” Eur. Phys. J. C 84, no.10, 1014 (2024) [arXiv:2407.09234 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [28]

    Analysis of charmed baryon decays with strong phases under SU(3) symmetry,

    J. Sun, Z. P. Xing and R. Zhu, “Analysis of charmed baryon decays with strong phases under SU(3) symmetry,” Eur. Phys. J. C 85, no.3, 262 (2025) [arXiv:2407.00426 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  23. [29]

    Two-body hadronic charmed meson decays,

    H. Y. Cheng and C. W. Chiang, “Two-body hadronic charmed meson decays,” Phys. Rev. D 81, 074021 (2010) [arXiv:1001.0987 [hep-ph]]

    2010 arXiv

  24. [30]

    Global analysis of two-body D→ VP decays within the framework of flavor symmetry,

    H. Y. Cheng, C. W. Chiang and A. L. Kuo, “Global analysis of two-body D→ VP decays within the framework of flavor symmetry,” Phys. Rev. D 93, 114010 (2016) [arXiv:1604.03761 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  25. [31]

    Updated analysis of D→PP,VP andVV decays: Implica- tions for K0 S−K0 L asymmetries and D0-D 0 mixing,

    H. Y. Cheng and C. W. Chiang, “Updated analysis of D→PP,VP andVV decays: Implica- tions for K0 S−K0 L asymmetries and D0-D 0 mixing,” Phys. Rev. D 109, no.7, 073008 (2024) [arXiv:2401.06316 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [32]

    Analysis of hadronic weak decays of charmed baryons in the topological diagrammatic approach,

    H. Zhong, F. Xu and H. Y. Cheng, “Analysis of hadronic weak decays of charmed baryons in the topological diagrammatic approach,” Phys. Rev. D109, 114027 (2024) [arXiv: 2404.01350 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [33]

    Topological Diagrams and Hadronic Weak Decays of Charmed Baryons,

    H. Zhong, F. Xu and H. Y. Cheng, “Topological Diagrams and Hadronic Weak Decays of Charmed Baryons,” arXiv: 2401.15926 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  28. [34]

    Observation of CP Violation in Charm Decays,

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], “Observation of CP Violation in Charm Decays,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, no.21, 211803 (2019) [arXiv:1903.08726 [hep-ex]]

    2019 arXiv

  29. [35]

    Measurement of Λ 0 b, Λ + c and Λ decay parameters using Λ 0 b→ Λ+ ch− decays,

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], “Measurement of Λ 0 b, Λ + c and Λ decay parameters using Λ 0 b→ Λ+ ch− decays,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, no.26, 261804 (2024) [arXiv:2409.02759 [hep-ex]]

    2024

  30. [36]

    Measurements of the branching fractions of Ξ+ c → Σ+K0 S, Ξ+ c → Ξ0π+, and Ξ + c → Ξ0K+ at Belle and Belle II,

    I. Adachi et al. [Belle-II and Belle], “Measurements of the branching fractions of Ξ+ c → Σ+K0 S, Ξ+ c → Ξ0π+, and Ξ + c → Ξ0K+ at Belle and Belle II,” [arXiv:2503.17643 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv

  31. [37]

    Observations of the singly Cabibbo-suppressed decays Ξ+ c → pK0 S, Ξ + c → Λπ+, and Ξ + c → Σ0π+ at Belle and Belle II,

    I. Adachi et al. [Belle and Belle-II], “Observations of the singly Cabibbo-suppressed decays Ξ+ c → pK0 S, Ξ + c → Λπ+, and Ξ + c → Σ0π+ at Belle and Belle II,” JHEP 03, 061 (2025) 30 [arXiv:2412.10677 [hep-ex]]

    2025 arXiv

  32. [38]

    Charmed baryon decays: SU (3)F breaking and CP violation,

    C. Yang, X. G. He and C. W. Liu, “Charmed baryon decays: SU (3)F breaking and CP violation,” [arXiv:2506.19005 [hep-ph]]

  33. [39]

    Octet behaviour of single-particle matrix elements⟨B′|HW|B⟩ and⟨M′|HW|M⟩ using a weak current current quark Hamiltonian,

    J. G. K¨ orner, “Octet behaviour of single-particle matrix elements⟨B′|HW|B⟩ and⟨M′|HW|M⟩ using a weak current current quark Hamiltonian,” Nucl. Phys. B25, 282-290 (1971); J. C. Pati and C. H. Woo, “∆I = 1/2 rule with fermion quarks,” Phys. Rev. D 3, 2920-2922 (1971)

    1971

  34. [40]

    Complete determination of SU (3)F amplitudes and strong phase in Λ + c → Ξ0K+,

    C. Q. Geng, X. G. He, X. N. Jin, C. W. Liu and C. Yang, “Complete determination of SU (3)F amplitudes and strong phase in Λ + c → Ξ0K+,” Phys. Rev. D 109, no.7, L071302 (2024) [arXiv:2310.05491 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [41]

    SU(3) Sum Rules for Charm Decay,

    Y. Grossman and D. J. Robinson, “SU(3) Sum Rules for Charm Decay,” JHEP 04, 067 (2013) [arXiv:1211.3361 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  36. [42]

    Large CP violation in charmed baryon decays,

    X. G. He and C. W. Liu, “Large CP violation in charmed baryon decays,” arXiv:2404.19166 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  37. [43]

    Singly Cabibbo suppressed decays of Λ + c with SU(3) flavor symmetry,

    C. Q. Geng, C. W. Liu and T. H. Tsai, “Singly Cabibbo suppressed decays of Λ + c with SU(3) flavor symmetry,” Phys. Lett. B 790, 225-228 (2019) [arXiv:1812.08508 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  38. [44]

    Evidence for CP violation in time-integratedD0→h+h− decay rates,

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], “Evidence for CP violation in time-integratedD0→h+h− decay rates,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 111602 (2012) [arXiv:1112.0938 [hep-ex]]

    2012 arXiv

  39. [45]

    Search for direct CP violation inD0→h+h− modes using semileptonic B decays,

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], “Search for direct CP violation inD0→h+h− modes using semileptonic B decays,” Phys. Lett. B 723, 33-43 (2013) [arXiv:1303.2614 [hep-ex]]

    2013 arXiv

  40. [46]

    Final-state rescattering mechanism of charmed baryon decays,

    C. P. Jia, H. Y. Jiang, J. P. Wang and F. S. Yu, “Final-state rescattering mechanism of charmed baryon decays,” JHEP 11, 072 (2024) [arXiv:2408.14959 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [48]

    SU(3) symmetry breaking and CP violation in D→ PP decays,

    H. Y. Cheng and C. W. Chiang, “SU(3) symmetry breaking and CP violation in D→ PP decays,” Phys. Rev. D 86, 014014 (2012) [arXiv:1205.0580 [hep-ph]]

    2012 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Branching ratios and direct CP asymmetries in D→ PP decays,

    H. n. Li, C. D. Lu and F. S. Yu, “Branching ratios and direct CP asymmetries in D→ PP decays,” Phys. Rev. D 86, 036012 (2012) [arXiv:1203.3120 [hep-ph]]

    2012 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Revisiting CP violation in D→PP andVP decays,

    H. Y. Cheng and C. W. Chiang, “Revisiting CP violation in D→PP andVP decays,” Phys. Rev. D 100, no.9, 093002 (2019) [arXiv:1909.03063 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  44. [52]

    CP violation in quasi-two-body D → VP decays and three-body D decays mediated by vector resonances,

    H. Y. Cheng and C. W. Chiang, “CP violation in quasi-two-body D → VP decays and three-body D decays mediated by vector resonances,” Phys. Rev. D 104, no.7, 073003 (2021) [arXiv:2104.13548 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  45. [53]

    From topological amplitude to rescattering dynamics,

    D. Wang, “From topological amplitude to rescattering dynamics,” JHEP 03, 155 (2022) [arXiv:2111.11201 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Final-state interactions in the CP asymmetries of charm-meson two-body decays,

    A. Pich, E. Solomonidi and L. Vale Silva, “Final-state interactions in the CP asymmetries of charm-meson two-body decays,” Phys. Rev. D 108, no.3, 036026 (2023) [arXiv:2305.11951 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Enhanced Charm CP Asymmetries from Final State Interactions,

    I. Bediaga, T. Frederico and P. C. Magalh˜ aes, “Enhanced Charm CP Asymmetries from Final State Interactions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, no.5, 051802 (2023) [arXiv:2203.04056 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Two body non-leptonic D0 decays from LCSR and implications for ∆adir CP,

    A. Lenz, M. L. Piscopo and A. V. Rusov, “Two body non-leptonic D0 decays from LCSR and implications for ∆adir CP,” JHEP 03, 151 (2024) [arXiv:2312.13245 [hep-ph]]; “Towards a SM prediction for CP violation in charm,” [arXiv:2403.02267 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Some Results on Vector and Tensor Meson Mixing in a Gener- alized QCD-like Theory,

    H. Y. Cheng and R. Shrock, “Some Results on Vector and Tensor Meson Mixing in a Gener- alized QCD-like Theory,” Phys. Rev. D 84, 094008 (2011) [arXiv:1109.3877 [hep-ph]]

    2011 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Vector meson-baryon strong coupling constants in light cone QCD sum rules,

    T. M. Aliev, A. Ozpineci, M. Savci and V. S. Zamiralov, “Vector meson-baryon strong coupling constants in light cone QCD sum rules,” Phys. Rev. D 80, 016010 (2009) [arXiv:0905.4664 31 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Cai-Ping Jia, privite communication

  52. [60]

    Nonleptonic two-body weak decays of charmed baryons,

    C. W. Liu, “Nonleptonic two-body weak decays of charmed baryons,” Phys. Rev. D 109, no.3, 033004 (2024) [arXiv:2308.07754 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  53. [62]

    Measurements of the branching fractions of Ξ 0 c→ Ξ0π0, Ξ0 c→ Ξ0η, and Ξ 0 c→ Ξ0η′ and asymmetry parameter of Ξ 0 c→ Ξ0π0,

    I. Adachi et al. [Belle-II and Belle], “Measurements of the branching fractions of Ξ 0 c→ Ξ0π0, Ξ0 c→ Ξ0η, and Ξ 0 c→ Ξ0η′ and asymmetry parameter of Ξ 0 c→ Ξ0π0,” JHEP 10, 045 (2024) [arXiv:2406.04642 [hep-ex]]

    2024 arXiv

  54. [63]

    Sum rules for CP asymmetries of charmed baryon decays in the SU (3)F limit,

    D. Wang, “Sum rules for CP asymmetries of charmed baryon decays in the SU (3)F limit,” Eur. Phys. J. C 79, no.5, 429 (2019) [arXiv:1901.01776 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  55. [64]

    Final state interactions in hadronic B decays,

    H. Y. Cheng, C. K. Chua and A. Soni, “Final state interactions in hadronic B decays,” Phys. Rev. D 71, 014030 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0409317 [hep-ph]]

    2005 arXiv

  56. [65]

    First Measurement of the Decay Asymmetry of pure W-exchange Decay Λ+ c → Ξ0K+,

    M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII], “First Measurement of the Decay Asymmetry of pure W-exchange Decay Λ+ c → Ξ0K+,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 031801 (2024) [arXiv:2309.02774 [hep-ex]]

    2024

  57. [66]

    Introduction to Unitary Symmetry

    P. Carruthers, “Introduction to Unitary Symmetry” (Interscience Publishers, 1966)

    1966

  58. [67]

    M. P. Khanna and R. C. Verma, Z. Phys. C 47, 275-279 (1990)

    1990

  59. [68]

    The Review of Particle Physics,

    S. Navas et al. [Particle Data Group], “The Review of Particle Physics,” Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024). 32 TABLE VIII: The fit results based on the tilde TDA (upper) and tilde IRA (lower) in Case I. Experimental data from Belle [50] with an asterisk are not included in the f...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.