Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

The nonleptonic decays $\Xi_{cc}^{++}\to\Xi_{c}^{(\prime)+}\pi^{+}$ within the nonrelativistic quark model

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read By combining $\Xi_c$--$\Xi_c^\prime$ mixing with pole-model $W$-exchange amplitudes computed from Schrödinger wave functions, this paper reproduces the LHCb ratio $R=1.41$ and fixes the mixing angle to $\theta\in(-18.2^\circ,-14.3^\circ)$.

desk verdict A legitimate quark-model calculation with new wave-function input and concrete, testable numbers—but the headline agreement with LHCb comes from fitting the mixing angle, and the dominant nonfactorizable amplitude changes sign relative to earlier pole-model results, so the predictions are conditional on the model in a way the paper does not face squarely. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.19758 v2 pith:6OQYGNAN submitted 2025-05-26 hep-ph

Yu-Shuai Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph PACS 12.39.Jh13.30.-a14.20.Lq
keywords doublycharmedbaryonsnonleptonicdecaysXi_c-Xi_c'mixingnonrelativisticquarkmodelpoleW-exchangediagrambranchingfractionasymmetryparameter
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

Doubly charmed baryon decays offer a direct test of how nonfactorizable weak amplitudes behave in QCD. The paper tries to show that the measured ratio $R=1.41$ — which factorizable diagrams alone cannot explain — follows naturally when $\Xi_c$--$\Xi_c^\prime$ mixing is combined with $W$-exchange contributions computed through a pole model in a nonrelativistic quark model. If the calculation is right, the same physical mixing angle $\theta\in(-18.2^\circ,-14.3^\circ)$ fixes absolute branching fractions at the percent level and predicts negative decay-asymmetry parameters, making the scheme testable with the upcoming data.

What carries the argument

The machinery has two connected parts. First, the physical states $\Xi_c$ and $\Xi_c^\prime$ are written as a rotation of the $\bar{3}$ and $6$ flavor-spin representations: $|\Xi_c\rangle=\cos\theta|\Xi_c^{\bar{3}}\rangle+\sin\theta|\Xi_c^{6}\rangle$, $|\Xi_c^\prime\rangle=-\sin\theta|\Xi_c^{\bar{3}}\rangle+\cos\theta|\Xi_c^{6}\rangle$. Second, the nonfactorizable $W$-exchange amplitude is evaluated with a pole model: intermediate $\Xi_{cc}^+$ states connect the weak $cd\to su$ transition to the pion-emission vertex, with $1S$ and $2S$ poles carrying the parity-conserving amplitude and $1P_\rho,1P_\lambda,2P_\rho,2P_\lambda$ poles carrying the parity-violating one. The baryon spatial wave functions are obtained by solving the nonrelativistic three-quark Schrödinger equation with a linear-plus-Coulomb potential plus spin-dependent terms using the Gaussian expansion method, which turns the pole-model overlaps into concrete numbers.

What would settle it

Measure the absolute branching fraction $\mathcal{B}[\Xi_{cc}^{++}\to\Xi_c^{+}\pi^+]$ with the quoted lifetime: the allowed mixing window predicts $(3.2\sim4.3)\%$, so a value outside this range—or an asymmetry parameter $\alpha$ far from $-0.80$—would rule out the combined mixing-plus-pole-model explanation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery this paper argues for is that the measured ratio $R=\mathcal{B}[\Xi_{cc}^{++}\to\Xi_c^{\prime+}\pi^+]\big/\mathcal{B}[\Xi_{cc}^{++}\to\Xi_c^{+}\pi^+]=1.41\pm0.17\pm0.10$ is not a puzzle for the standard weak-decay picture: once $\Xi_c$--$\Xi_c^\prime$ mixing is included and the nonfactorizable $W$-exchange amplitudes are computed in a nonrelativistic quark model with wave functions obtained by solving the Schrödinger equation with a realistic potential, the ratio is reproduced for $\theta\in(-18.2^\circ,-14.3^\circ)$. In that window the model predicts $\mathcal{B}[\Xi_{cc}^{++}\to\Xi_c^{+}\pi^+]=(3.2\sim4.3)\%$, $\mathcal{B}[\Xi_{cc}^{++}\to\Xi_c^{\prime+}\pi^+]=(4.2\sim6.0)\%$, and asymmetry parameters $\alpha[\Xi_{cc}^{++}\to\Xi_c^{+}\pi^+]=(-0.80\sim-0.81)$, $\alpha[\Xi_{cc}^{++}\to\Xi_c^{\prime+}\pi^+]=(-0.61\sim-0.62)$.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that the nonfactorizable $W$-exchange amplitude is fully captured by the pole model with only a small set of low-lying intermediate $\Xi_{cc}^+$ states, so any sizable contribution from higher states, continuum, or rescattering would move the extracted mixing angle and the predicted rates.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The measured $R>1$ is reproduced without new dynamics; the fit selects a sizable negative mixing angle $\theta\simeq-16.4^\circ$.
  • Absolute branching fractions of both $\Xi_{cc}^{++}\to\Xi_c^{+}\pi^+$ and $\Xi_{cc}^{++}\to\Xi_c^{\prime+}\pi^+$ are predicted at the few-percent level, which can be checked once absolute rates are measured.
  • The asymmetry parameters are predicted to be close to $-0.8$ and $-0.6$ and almost independent of $\theta$ in the allowed window, so they provide a sharper test than the ratio itself.
  • If correct, the approach moves the uncertainty from assumed Gaussian wave functions to spectroscopically constrained Schrödinger wave functions, which can be applied to other doubly charmed baryon decays.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the large negative mixing window survives, it would put pressure on the small positive mixing angles extracted from lattice QCD and QCD sum rules, suggesting one of the two determinations misses a contribution.
  • Because the asymmetry parameters are nearly $\theta$-independent, a future measurement of $\alpha$ could discriminate between this pole-model scheme and earlier pole-model treatments that give different asymmetries.
  • The same pole truncation could be tested by adding the next radial excitations ($3S$, $3P$) to the intermediate-state sum; a significant shift in $R$ would indicate that the low-lying pole set is not sufficient.
  • The method of using potential-model Schrödinger wave functions in weak-decay amplitudes could be extended to other doubly heavy baryon modes, where the nonfactorizable terms are similarly important.
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 computes the two-body nonleptonic decays Ξ_cc^{++} → Ξ_c^{(′)+} π^+ in a nonrelativistic quark model, using baryon spatial wave functions obtained by solving the Schrödinger equation with a nonrelativistic potential and a Gaussian expansion method. The weak amplitudes include the factorizable T and C′ diagrams and the nonfactorizable W-exchange diagram treated in a pole model with 1S/2S and 1P/2P intermediate Ξ_cc^+ states. With the Ξ_c−Ξ_c′ mixing angle θ taken in the range (−18.2°, −14.3°), the ratio R = B[Ξ_cc^{++}→Ξ_c^{′+}π^+]/B[Ξ_cc^{++}→Ξ_c^+π^+] is matched to the LHCb value, and the branching fractions and asymmetry parameters are then quoted. The paper also compares its amplitudes with earlier pole-model, CCQM, and LCSR results.

Significance. The calculation is detailed and internally consistent, and the use of Schrödinger-equation wave functions supported by baryon spectroscopy is a methodological strength. If the calculation were robust, the paper would provide a simultaneous extraction of a large negative Ξ_c−Ξ_c′ mixing angle and testable predictions for absolute branching fractions and asymmetry parameters. However, the central 'reproduction' of R is a parameter fit in θ, and the dominant nonfactorizable PC amplitude disagrees in sign and magnitude with earlier pole-model calculations; no systematic uncertainty is propagated from the model inputs. The significance is therefore conditional on additional checks and a reformulated interpretation of the fit.

major comments (3)
  1. [§IV, Fig. 4 and Eq. (4.2)] The ratio R is used as input to fix the mixing angle θ, so the statement that the model 'successfully reproduce[s]' R is circular. Since θ ∈ (−18.2°, −14.3°) is determined by requiring R = 1.41 ± 0.20, the agreement is by construction. The absolute branching fractions and asymmetry parameters should be presented as conditional predictions at the fitted θ, and the theoretical uncertainty in θ from all model inputs should be propagated into the quoted ranges. As written, the only source of the ranges in Eq. (4.2) is the experimental 1σ band on R.
  2. [§II.B, Table VII and Table VIII] The PC nonfactorizable amplitude is dominated by the Ξ_cc^+(1S) pole (e.g., −31.20 versus a total of −41.56 for Ξ_cc^{++}→Ξ_c^+π^+ in Table VII), so the reliability of the central results rests on that single term. The convergence argument in Sec. IV bounds only the next pole (2S ≈ 3% of 1S; 2P ≈ 4% of 1P); it does not bound the continuum or higher excitations. More importantly, Table VIII shows that the nonfactorizable Bnf for Ξ_cc^{++}→Ξ_c^+π^+ is −35.65 in this work, whereas Refs. [9], [10], and [11] obtain +18.91, +13.6, and +16.8, respectively—opposite sign and roughly half the magnitude. The claim that solving the Schrödinger equation 'reduces uncertainties' is not supported by this comparison; it indicates strong model dependence. Please add a stability test of the 1S pole amplitude under variation of the Gaussian-basis parameters and the pion size R, and include further intermediate states (3S, 3P) or a completeness estimate.
  3. [§IV, Table IV and Eq. (4.2)] No systematic uncertainty is propagated from the nonrelativistic potential parameters, the constituent quark masses, fπ, the pion size R, or the pole-model truncation. The ranges quoted in Eq. (4.2) and for α reflect only the experimental θ band. Please provide an uncertainty budget, at minimum by varying the potential parameters in Table IV and R = 0.28 GeV within reasonable ranges, and by checking sensitivity to the Gaussian-basis expansion parameters (r_min, r_max, n_max).
minor comments (4)
  1. [§IV, Eq. (4.2)] The branching fraction for Ξ_cc^{++}→Ξ_c^+π^+ is quoted as (3.0~4.3)% in the body text, but the abstract and summary quote (3.2~4.3)%; please reconcile these numbers.
  2. [Table VIII] The columns Afac, Anf, Bfac, Bnf, B, and α are not defined in the table caption or in the text; in particular, the column labeled 'B' mixes the B amplitude with the branching-fraction value, and the label should be clarified.
  3. [§III] There is a typo in 'nonrelativisitc Hamiltonian' near Eq. (3.3); it should read 'nonrelativistic Hamiltonian'.
  4. [§II.A, Eq. (2.11)] The pion size parameter R = 0.28 GeV is taken from Refs. [28,29] without discussing its uncertainty; given that R enters all spatial convolutions, its variation should at least be listed among the model inputs to be varied.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The ratio R is fitted, not predicted: the mixing angle θ is tuned to the LHCb value and the same value is then quoted as a successful reproduction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section IV (Numerical Results), Fig. 4 and Eq. (4.2); echoed in Section V Summary]
    "In order to restrict the mixing angle, we utilize the ratio of branching fractions R = 1.41 ± 0.20 [2], which was measured by the LHCb Collaboration... Obviously, the experimental value can be well reproduced for the mixing angle range θ ∈ (−18.2◦,−14.3◦), and the center value can be obtained with θ = −16.4◦."

    The mixing angle θ is a free parameter, and here it is explicitly adjusted so that the computed R matches the measured R. Therefore the statement that the experimental value is 'well reproduced' is a restatement of the fitting condition, not an independent test of the model. The branching fractions quoted in Eq. (4.2) are evaluated at this fitted θ, so they are conditional outputs of the fit rather than stand-alone predictions; the asymmetry parameters retain some independent content because they are not used to determine θ, but the central claimed success—reproducing R—reduces by construction to the input used to fix θ.

full rationale

The paper's main numerical strategy is to scan the free mixing angle and select the interval where the computed ratio R crosses the LHCb band. This makes 'successfully reproduce the measured ratio R' a fitting result, not a prediction: a one-parameter model tuned to one observable cannot be validated by that same observable. However, the analysis is not wholly circular. The absolute branching fractions and the two asymmetry parameters are not used to fix θ, and they are computed from the full PC/PV amplitudes, so they are genuine predictions conditional on the fitted parameter; they could be falsified by future data. The comparison with earlier pole-model calculations, including the sign and magnitude spread of the W-exchange amplitude, is a model-dependence or correctness concern rather than circularity. The author's self-citation [27] for the Gaussian-basis parameter sequence is a minor technical input and is not load-bearing for the central claim. Overall, the central R-reproduction claim reduces to the fitted input, while the remaining observables carry independent predictive content, giving a partial circularity score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a standard but model-dependent phenomenology: NRQM matrix elements, a pole-model treatment of the nonfactorizable diagram, and a two-state mixing hypothesis. The mixing angle theta is the only parameter fitted to the headline data point, while the rest of the parameters are imported from baryon spectroscopy and prior quark-model fits.

free parameters (4)
  • Xi_c-Xi_c' mixing angle theta = (-18.2 deg, -14.3 deg), center -16.4 deg
    Scanned to reproduce the LHCb ratio R = 1.41 +/- 0.20; this is the principal free parameter and its fitted range drives all subsequent predictions.
  • Pion SHO size parameter R = 0.28 GeV
    Phenomenological pion wave-function size taken from Refs [28,29]; not fitted here but affects the T and C' amplitudes.
  • Nonrelativistic potential parameters and quark masses = b=0.165 GeV^2, const.=-1.139 GeV, K=90 MeV, alpha_ss=1.2, alpha_so=alpha_ten=0.077, Lambda=3.5 fm^-1, m_u,d=300 MeV…
    Taken from Ref [47]; these are phenomenological inputs fitted to baryon spectra and directly affect the computed wave functions and amplitudes.
  • Gaussian expansion basis parameters = r_min=0.2 fm, r_max=2.0 fm, n_max=6
    Numerical parameters of the basis chosen for convergence; the results depend mildly on this truncation.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The nonrelativistic approximation applies to the charm quark weak transitions in this mass regime, so relativistic corrections are neglected.
    Stated in Section II.A: 'the relativistic effect may not be negligible... we still work in the nonrelativistic framework.' The entire Hamiltonian of Eq. (2.2) relies on this.
  • domain assumption The pole model with a limited set of low-lying intermediate states (1S, 2S for PC; 1P_rho, 1P_lambda, 2P_rho, 2P_lambda for PV) saturates the W-exchange amplitude.
    Section II.B follows Refs [28-30,33]; the paper shows 2S and 2P contributions are small but does not quantify omitted states or continuum.
  • domain assumption Xi_c and Xi_c' are related to antitriplet and sextet states by a single mixing angle theta.
    Eq. (1.2) from Ref [6]; the whole interpretation of R greater than 1 rests on this two-state mixing.
  • domain assumption The nonrelativistic potential of Eq. (3.2) with parameters from Ref [47] yields reliable spatial wave functions when diagonalized in a Gaussian basis.
    Section III; these wave functions enter every decay amplitude in Section IV.
  • domain assumption Naive factorization applies to the T and C' diagrams with color factors beta=2 and beta=2/3 respectively.
    Used in Section II.A; the factorizable amplitudes are directly proportional to beta.
  • domain assumption The pion spatial wave function is a simple harmonic oscillator function with R = 0.28 GeV.
    Eq. (2.11) borrowed from Refs [28,29]; used in the T and C' overlap integrals.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The nonleptonic decays $\Xi_{cc}^{++}\to\Xi_{c}^{(\prime)+}\pi^{+}$ within the nonrelativistic quark model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6OQYGNAN

@misc{pith2026250519758,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The nonleptonic decays $\Xi_cc^++\to\Xi_c^(\prime)+\pi^+$ within the nonrelativistic quark model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6OQYGNAN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.19758}
}
abstract

In this work, we study the nonleptonic decays $\Xi_{cc}^{++}\to\Xi_{c}^{(\prime)+}\pi^{+}$ with considering $\Xi_{c}-\Xi_{c}^{\prime}$ mixing. The relevant decay amplitudes are evaluated within the framework of nonrelativistic quark model, combining the baryon spatial wave functions adopted from solving the Schr\"{o}dinger equation with a nonrelativistic potential. With the mixing angle ranging $\theta\in(-18.2^{\circ},-14.3^{\circ})$, we successfully reproduce the measured ratio $R=\mathcal{B}[\Xi_{cc}^{++}\to\Xi_{c}^{\prime+}\pi^{+}]/\mathcal{B}[\Xi_{cc}^{++}\to\Xi_{c}^{+}\pi^{+}]$ reported by the LHCb Collaboration. Furthermore, we estimate the branching fractions as $\mathcal{B}[\Xi_{cc}^{++}\to\Xi_{c}^{+}\pi^{+}]=(3.2\sim4.3)\%$ and $\mathcal{B}[\Xi_{cc}^{++}\to\Xi_{c}^{\prime+}\pi^{+}]=(4.2\sim6.0)\%$, and the asymmetry parameters as $\alpha[\Xi_{cc}^{++}\to\Xi_{c}^{+}\pi^{+}]=(-0.80\sim-0.81)$ and $\alpha[\Xi_{cc}^{++}\to\Xi_{c}^{\prime+}\pi^{+}]=(-0.61\sim-0.62)$. The measurements of absolute branching fractions and asymmetry parameters by the ongoing LHCb and Belle II experiments will be helpful for further testing our numerical results and confirming the mixing angle.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.19758 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The topological diagrams for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The kinematic conventions of external [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The kinematic conventions of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Semileptonic and nonleptonic weak decays of bottom baryons $\Omega^{(*)}_{b}$

    hep-ph 2025-10 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    QCD sum-rule calculation predicts Ω_b^*→Ω_c and Ω_b→Ω_c^* semileptonic and nonleptonic decay widths, e.g. Γ(Ω_b^*→Ω_c eν)=(1.54+0.29−0.27)×10^-14 GeV.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [9]

    H. Y . Cheng, G. Meng, F. Xu and J. Zou, Two-body weak de- cays of doubly charmed baryons, Phys. Rev. D101 (2020) no.3, 034034

    work page 2020

  2. [10]

    C. W. Liu and C. Q. Geng, Nonleptonic decays of Ξcc→ Ξcπ with Ξc− Ξ′ c mixing, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) no.1, 013006

    work page 2023

  3. [11]

    S. Zeng, F. Xu, P. Y . Niu and H. Y . Cheng, Doubly charmed baryon decays Ξ++ cc → Ξ(′)+ c π+ in the quark model, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) no.3, 034009

    work page 2023

  4. [1]

    H. Y . Cheng, Charmed baryon physics circa 2021, Chin. J. Phys. 78 (2022), 324-362

    work page 2022

  5. [2]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Observation of the doubly charmed baryon decay Ξ++ cc → Ξ′+ c π+, JHEP 05 (2022), 038

    work page 2022

  6. [3]

    W. Wang, F. S. Yu and Z. X. Zhao, Weak decays of doubly heavy baryons: the 1/2→ 1/2 case, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) no.11, 781

    work page 2017

  7. [4]

    H. W. Ke, F. Lu, X. H. Liu and X. Q. Li, Study on Ξcc→ Ξc 12 and Ξcc→ Ξ′ c weak decays in the light-front quark model, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) no.2, 140

    work page 2020

  8. [5]

    Y . J. Shi, W. Wang and Z. X. Zhao, QCD Sum Rules Analysis of Weak Decays of Doubly-Heavy Baryons, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) no.6, 568

    work page 2020

Show all 62 references
  1. [6]

    H. W. Ke and X. Q. Li, Revisiting the transition Ξ++ cc → Ξ(′)+ c to understand the data from LHCb, Phys. Rev. D105 (2022) no.9, 096011

    2022

  2. [7]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII], Measurements of absolute hadronic branching fractions of Λ+ c baryon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016) no.5, 052001

    2016

  3. [8]

    Sharma and R

    N. Sharma and R. Dhir, Estimates of W-exchange contributions to Ξcc decays, Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) no.11, 113006

    2017

  4. [12]

    Groote and J

    S. Groote and J. G. K ¨orner, Eur. Phys. J. C82 (2022) no.4, 297

    2022

  5. [13]

    C. W. Liu, Nonleptonic two-body weak decays of charmed baryons, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) no.3, 033004

    2024

  6. [14]

    Y . J. Shi, Z. X. Zhao, Y . Xing and U. G. Meißner, W-exchange contribution to the decays Ξ++ cc → Ξ+(′) c π+ using light-cone sum rules, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) no.3, 034004

    2022

  7. [15]

    Gutsche, M

    T. Gutsche, M. A. Ivanov, J. G. K ¨orner, V . E. Lyubovitskij and Z. Tyulemissov, Ab initio three-loop calculation of the W- exchange contribution to nonleptonic decays of double charm baryons, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) no.5, 056013

    2019

  8. [16]

    M. A. Ivanov, J. G. K ¨orner and V . E. Lyubovitskij, Nonlep- tonic Decays of Doubly Charmed Baryons, Phys. Part. Nucl. 51 (2020) no.4, 678-685

    2020

  9. [17]

    C. Q. Geng, Y . K. Hsiao, C. W. Liu and T. H. Tsai, Charmed Baryon Weak Decays with SU(3) Flavor Symmetry, JHEP 11 (2017), 147

    2017

  10. [18]

    W. Wang, Z. P. Xing and J. Xu, Weak Decays of Doubly Heavy Baryons: SU(3) Analysis, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) no.11, 800

    2017

  11. [19]

    Wang, Generation of SU(3) sum rule for charmed baryon decay, JHEP 12 (2022), 003

    D. Wang, Generation of SU(3) sum rule for charmed baryon decay, JHEP 12 (2022), 003

    2022

  12. [20]

    Y . J. Shi, W. Wang, Y . Xing and J. Xu, Weak Decays of Doubly Heavy Baryons: Multi-body Decay Channels, Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) no.1, 56

    2018

  13. [21]

    D. M. Li, X. R. Zhang, Y . Xing and J. Xu, Weak decays of doubly heavy baryons: four-body nonleptonic decay channels, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 136 (2021) no.7, 772

    2021

  14. [22]

    Wang, From topological amplitude to rescattering dynamics in doubly charmed baryon decays, Phys

    D. Wang, From topological amplitude to rescattering dynamics in doubly charmed baryon decays, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) no.7, 073002

    2022

  15. [23]

    F. S. Yu, H. Y . Jiang, R. H. Li, C. D. L ¨u, W. Wang and Z. X. Zhao, Discovery Potentials of Doubly Charmed Baryons, Chin. Phys. C 42 (2018) no.5, 051001

    2018

  16. [24]

    R. H. Li, J. J. Hou, B. He and Y . R. Wang, Weak Decays of Doubly Heavy Baryons:Bcc→B D(∗), Chin. Phys. C 45 (2021) no.4, 043108

    2021

  17. [25]

    J. J. Han, H. Y . Jiang, W. Liu, Z. J. Xiao and F. S. Yu, Rescatter- ing mechanism of weak decays of double-charm baryons, Chin. Phys. C 45 (2021) no.5, 053105

    2021

  18. [26]

    X. H. Hu, C. P. Jia, Y . Xing and F. S. Yu, Final-state rescattering mechanism of double-charm baryon decays: Bcc→ BcP, Phys. Rev. D 111 (2025) no.7, 076002

    2025

  19. [27]

    Y . S. Li and X. Liu, Revisiting heavy-flavor conserving weak decays of charmed baryons within the nonrelativistic quark model, Phys. Rev. D 111 (2025) no.5, 053004

    2025

  20. [28]

    P. Y . Niu, Q. Wang and Q. Zhao, Study of heavy quark conserv- ing weak decays in the quark model, Phys. Lett. B 826 (2022), 136916

    2022

  21. [29]

    P. Y . Niu, J. M. Richard, Q. Wang and Q. Zhao, Hadronic weak decays of Λc in the quark model, Phys. Rev. D102 (2020) no.7, 073005

    2020

  22. [30]

    P. Y . Niu, Q. Wang and Q. Zhao, The Cabibbo-favored hadronic weak decays of the Ξc in the quark model, [arXiv:2502.04099 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  23. [31]

    Perez-Marcial, R

    R. Perez-Marcial, R. Huerta, A. Garcia and M. Avila-Aoki, Pre- dictions for Semileptonic Decays of Charm Baryons. 2. Nonrel- ativistic and MIT Bag Quark Models, Phys. Rev. D 40 (1989), 2955 [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 44 (1991), 2203]

    1989

  24. [32]

    Hiyama, Y

    E. Hiyama, Y . Kino and M. Kamimura, Gaussian expansion method for few-body systems, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 51 (2003), 223-307

    2003

  25. [33]

    H. Y . Cheng and B. Tseng, Nonleptonic weak decays of charmed baryons, Phys. Rev. D46 (1992), 1042 [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 55 (1997), 1697]

    1992

  26. [34]

    H. Y . Cheng, C. Y . Cheung, G. L. Lin, Y . C. Lin, T. M. Yan and H. L. Yu, Heavy flavor conserving nonleptonic weak decays of heavy baryons, Phys. Rev. D 46 (1992), 5060-5068

    1992

  27. [35]

    H. Y . Cheng and B. Tseng, Cabibbo allowed nonleptonic weak decays of charmed baryons, Phys. Rev. D 48 (1993), 4188- 4202

    1993

  28. [36]

    Uppal, R

    T. Uppal, R. C. Verma and M. P. Khanna, Constituent quark model analysis of weak mesonic decays of charm baryons, Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994), 3417-3425

    1994

  29. [37]

    H. Y . Cheng, X. W. Kang and F. Xu, Singly Cabibbo-suppressed hadronic decays of Λ+ c , Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) no.7, 074028

    2018

  30. [38]

    J. Zou, F. Xu, G. Meng and H. Y . Cheng, Two-body hadronic weak decays of antitriplet charmed baryons, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) no.1, 014011

    2020

  31. [39]

    S. Hu, G. Meng and F. Xu, Hadronic weak decays of the charmed baryon Ωc, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) no.9, 094033

    2020

  32. [40]

    G. Meng, S. M. Y . Wong and F. Xu, Doubly Cabibbo- suppressed decays of antitriplet charmed baryons, JHEP 11 (2020), 126

    2020

  33. [41]

    H. Y . Cheng and F. Xu, Heavy-flavor-conserving hadronic weak decays of charmed and bottom baryons, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) no.9, 094011

    2022

  34. [42]

    H. Y . Cheng, C. W. Liu and F. Xu, Heavy-flavor-conserving hadronic weak decays of charmed and bottom baryons: An up- date, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) no.9, 093005

    2022

  35. [43]

    M. A. Ivanov, V . E. Lyubovitskij and Z. Tyulemissov, Study of the nonleptonic decay Ξ0 c → Λ+ cπ− in the covariant confined quark model, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) no.7, 073002

    2023

  36. [44]

    Dhir and N

    R. Dhir and N. Sharma, Weak decays of doubly heavy charm Ω+ cc baryon, Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) no.9, 743

    2018

  37. [45]

    L. Y . Xiao, Q. F. L ¨u and S. L. Zhu, Strong decays of the 1P and 2D doubly charmed states, Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) no.7, 074005

    2018

  38. [46]

    L. Y . Xiao, K. L. Wang, Q. f. Lu, X. H. Zhong and S. L. Zhu, Strong and radiative decays of the doubly charmed baryons, Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) no.9, 094005

    2017

  39. [47]

    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

    2015

  40. [48]

    L. A. Copley, N. Isgur and G. Karl, Charmed Baryons in a Quark Model with Hyperfine Interactions, Phys. Rev. D 20 (1979), 768 [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 23 (1981), 817]

    1979

  41. [49]

    Pervin and W

    M. Pervin and W. Roberts, Strangeness -2 and -3 baryons in a constituent quark model, Phys. Rev. C 77 (2008), 025202. 13

    2008

  42. [50]

    Roberts and M

    W. Roberts and M. Pervin, Heavy baryons in a quark model, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 23 (2008), 2817-2860

    2008

  43. [51]

    Hiyama and M

    E. Hiyama and M. Kamimura, Study of various few-body sys- tems using Gaussian expansion method (GEM), Front. Phys. (Beijing) 13 (2018) no.6, 132106

    2018

  44. [52]

    Y . S. Li, X. Liu and F. S. Yu, Revisiting semileptonic decays of Λb(c) supported by baryon spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) no.1, 013005

    2021

  45. [53]

    S. Q. Luo, L. S. Geng and X. Liu, Double-charm heptaquark states composed of two charmed mesons and one nucleon, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) no.1, 014017

    2022

  46. [54]

    Y . L. Shu, Q. F. Song and Q. F. L ¨u, Strong decays of P−wave doubly charmed and bottom baryons, [arXiv:2408.11578 [hep- ph]]

    arXiv

  47. [55]

    Ortiz-Pacheco and R

    E. Ortiz-Pacheco and R. Bijker, Masses and radiative decay widths of S- and P-wave singly, doubly, and triply heavy charm and bottom baryons, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) no.5, 054014

    2023

  48. [56]

    G. L. Yu, Z. Y . Li, Z. G. Wang, J. Lu and M. Yan, Systematic analysis of doubly charmed baryons Ξcc and Ωcc, Eur. Phys. J. A 59 (2023) no.6, 126

    2023

  49. [57]

    Ebert, R

    D. Ebert, R. N. Faustov, V . O. Galkin and A. P. Martynenko, Mass spectra of doubly heavy baryons in the relativistic quark model, Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002), 014008

    2002

  50. [58]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. [Particle Data Group], Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) no.3, 030001

    2024

  51. [59]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], First Observation of the Doubly Charmed Baryon Decay Ξ++ cc → Ξ+ cπ+, Phys. Rev. Lett.121 (2018) no.16, 162002

    2018

  52. [60]

    X. Y . Sun, F. W. Zhang, Y . J. Shi and Z. X. Zhao, Revisiting ΞQ− Ξ′ Q mixing in QCD sum rules, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) no.10, 961

    2023

  53. [61]

    H. Liu, L. Liu, P. Sun, W. Sun, J. X. Tan, W. Wang, Y . B. Yang and Q. A. Zhang, Ξc− Ξ′ c mixing from lattice QCD, Phys. Lett. B 841 (2023), 137941

    2023

  54. [62]

    H. Liu, W. Wang and Q. A. Zhang, Improved method to deter- mine the Ξc−Ξ′ c mixing, Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) no.3, 036037

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.