Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

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

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 Radiative decays of excited Omega_c baryons are predicted to be measurable and to distinguish their spin-parity assignments.

desk verdict Fills a real gap with a standard LCSR analysis, but unexplained 10-55 MeV widths in two tables are a red flag, and the Omega_c predictions are testable but unvalidated. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08335 v1 pith:ZOKO6HGL submitted 2025-06-10 hep-ph

Xuan Luo , Hua-Xing Chen , Er-Liang Cui , Hui-Min Yang , Dan Zhou , Zhi-Yong Zhou This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords P-wavecharmedbaryonsOmega_c(3000)radiativedecayslight-coneQCDsumrulesheavyquarkeffectivetheorySU(3)flavorsextetHQETmixing
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 calculates the electromagnetic (radiative) decay widths of the $P$-wave singly charmed baryons in the $SU(3)$ flavor $\mathbf{6}_F$ representation, using light-cone QCD sum rules within heavy quark effective theory. The central payoff is for the excited $\Omega_c$ states observed in recent experiments: several of them have strong (pion- or kaon-emitting) decays that are suppressed or zero, so a photon transition to the ground-state $\Omega_c$ becomes the practical way to identify their spin and parity. The paper finds that the $\Omega_c(3000)^0$ candidate, if it belongs to the $[6_F,1,0,\rho]$ doublet, should radiate with width $76^{+170}_{-76}\,\text{keV}$ (for $J^P=1/2^-$) or $20^{+43}_{-20}\,\text{keV}$ (for $3/2^-$), and proposes the $\Omega_c^0\gamma$ channel to confirm the assignment. Combined with earlier mass and strong-decay analyses, the results turn radiative decays into a discriminating observable for the whole sextet of $P$-wave charmed baryons.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a two-point light-cone QCD sum rule for the correlation function $\Pi_\mu(\omega,\omega') = \int d^4x\, e^{-ik\cdot x}\langle 0| J_{P\text{-wave}}(0)\,\bar J_{\text{ground-state}}^\mu(x) |\gamma\rangle$, evaluated in heavy quark effective theory and matched, after a double Borel transformation, to the pole contribution of the initial and final baryon. The photon enters through light-cone distribution amplitudes ($\phi_\gamma$, $\psi_\alpha$, $f_{3\gamma}A$, $f_{3\gamma}V$) and quark condensates, and the coupling $g$ is extracted from the Borel-transformed sum rule at a symmetric point $T_1=T_2=2T$. The physical $3/2^-$ states are obtained by diagonalizing a $2\times2$ mixing angle $\theta = 37^\circ \pm 5^\circ$ between the $[6_F,1,1,\lambda]$ and $[6_F,2,1,\lambda]$ HQET doublets, so the radiative widths of the mixed states differ from the unmixed ones.

What would settle it

Measure the radiative decay $\Omega_c(3000)^0 \to \Omega_c^0\gamma$ at an experiment capable of collecting the photon line: if the width is not in the $20$\,--\,$250$ keV range, or if the line is absent, the $[6_F,1,0,\rho]$ assignment is ruled out. A quicker check is to apply the same sum rule to the already-measured $\Xi_c(2815)/\Xi_c(2790)\to\Xi_c\gamma$ transitions: if the method cannot reproduce those widths, its $\Omega_c$ predictions are not trustworthy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the radiative channel is not a small correction but the decisive window: for the $\Omega_c(1/2^-)$ and $\Omega_c(3/2^-)$ members of the $[6_F,1,0,\rho]$ doublet, whose strong decay widths were previously calculated to be exactly zero, the radiative widths are computed here as $76^{+170}_{-76}\,\text{keV}$ and $20^{+43}_{-20}\,\text{keV}$, respectively. Because $\Omega_c(3000)^0$ can be interpreted as either of those two states, a measurement of the photon line separates the $J^P=1/2^-$ from the $3/2^-$ assignment. The same pattern is predicted for the $[6_F,1,1,\lambda]$ doublet, where $\Omega_c(3050)^0$ and $\Omega_c(3066)^0$ are matched to states with radiative widths $48^{+69}_{-41}\,\text{keV}$ and $160^{+140}_{-88}\,\text{keV}$ (after mixing), and the paper proposes the $\Omega_c^{(*)} \gamma$ channels as the confirmation route for upcoming experiments.

Load-bearing premise

The whole prediction rests on the assumption that the ground-state baryon pole dominates the sum rule in the chosen Borel window and that leading-order heavy quark effective theory gives quantitative results for charm quarks; the paper does not calibrate this against any measured radiative width.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The $\Omega_c(3000)^0$ state, if it is the $[6_F,1,0,\rho]$ $1/2^-$ or $3/2^-$ member, has a $\Omega_c^0\gamma$ radiative width of $76^{+170}_{-76}\,\text{keV}$ or $20^{+43}_{-20}\,\text{keV}$, large enough to be searched for in current and upcoming experiments.
  • For the $[6_F,1,1,\lambda]$ doublet, $\Omega_c(3050)^0$ and $\Omega_c(3066)^0$ are predicted to have radiative widths $48^{+69}_{-41}\,\text{keV}$ and $160^{+140}_{-88}\,\text{keV}$, respectively, providing a photon-based way to confirm those assignments.
  • States with large strong widths, such as most $\Sigma_c$ and $\Xi'_c$ members, have radiative widths in the keV-to-MeV range that are comparatively negligible, so the radiative search is most useful exactly where the strong decay channel is closed.
  • The mixing between the $[6_F,1,1,\lambda]$ and $[6_F,2,1,\lambda]$ doublets changes the predicted radiative patterns, so photon measurements also probe the mixing angle.
  • If the predicted widths are confirmed, the same sum-rule framework gives a complete HQET-based description of $P$-wave singly charmed baryons in the $\mathbf{6}_F$ representation, with masses, strong decays, and radiative decays all computed from one consistent set of inputs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the $\Omega_c(3000)^0\to\Omega_c^0\gamma$ line is observed with a width near the lower end of the predicted range, the $3/2^-$ assignment is preferred; near the upper end, the $1/2^-$ assignment is preferred, assuming the two-state interpretation exhausts the possibilities.
  • The same light-cone sum rule machinery could be applied to the $\bar{3}_F$ charmed baryons, where the already-measured $\Xi_c(2815)/\Xi_c(2790)\to\Xi_c\gamma$ transitions would serve as a direct benchmark of the method.
  • The near-zero strong widths of the $[6_F,1,0,\rho]$ $\Omega_c$ doublet are a prediction of the $SU(3)$/HQET classification; a measured radiative width consistent with zero would instead suggest a different multiplet classification or significant higher-order $1/m_c$ corrections.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. Using light-cone QCD sum rules in leading-order HQET, the authors compute radiative decay widths of P-wave singly charmed baryons in the SU(3) flavor 6_F representation, extending a prior analysis of bottom baryons. Input masses, decay constants, and the mixing angle are taken from the authors' earlier sum-rule studies; radiative couplings are extracted from two-point correlation functions with an external photon, and mixing between the [6_F,1,1,λ] and [6_F,2,1,λ] doublets is included. The central phenomenological claim is that Ω_c(3000) can be interpreted as either the 1/2^- or 3/2^- state of the [6_F,1,0,ρ] doublet, with predicted Ω_c γ widths of 76^{+170}_{-76} keV and 20^{+43}_{-20} keV, and that the radiative channel can confirm the assignment.

Significance. The paper fills a genuine gap: radiative decays of sextet P-wave charmed baryons have not been systematically studied in this framework. It provides a complete set of predictions, transparent OPE expressions in Eqs. (29)-(30), and a supplementary notebook, and it proposes falsifiable tests for the Ω_c states. If the predictions survive scrutiny, the Ω_c(3000) radiative channel would be a useful distinguishing observable at Belle-II and LHCb. However, the reliability of the central claim is currently undermined by unphysically large radiative widths (10-55 MeV) for several Σ_c and Ξ'_c channels in Tables II and III, by internal unit inconsistencies in Table V, and by the absence of any benchmark against the measured Ξ_c(2815)/Ξ_c(2790)→Ξ_cγ transition.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III, Tables II and III] The radiative widths reported for Σ_c and Ξ'_c transitions to the ground-state Λ_c and Ξ_c are unphysically large and are not discussed. For example, Table II gives Γ(Σ_c^+(1/2^-)[6_F,1,1,λ]→Λ_c^+γ)=10000^{+18000}_{-8100} keV (about 10 MeV), and Table III gives Γ(Ξ'^+_c(1/2^-)[6_F,1,1,λ]→Ξ_c^+γ)=27000^{+29000}_{-20000} keV (about 27 MeV) and Γ(Ξ'^+_c(3/2^-)[6_F,1,1,λ]→Ξ_c^+γ)=55000^{+62000}_{-37000} keV (about 55 MeV). These values are orders of magnitude above the keV scale expected for electromagnetic decays and are comparable to the strong decay widths of the same states. Since the same light-cone sum-rule extraction is used for the Ω_c channels that carry the central claim, the paper must either explain these anomalies or demonstrate that they do not reflect contamination by excited states or continuum in the radiative correlators. A concrete check is to benchmark the formalism against the measured Ξ_c(2815)/Ξ_c(2790)→Ξ_cγ transition (Belle, Ref. [109]) and to report pole-dominance and continuum-subtraction measures for each channel.
  2. [Table V] Table V, in the row for [Ω_c(1/2^-),1,1,λ], quotes Γ(Ω_c^0(1/2^-)→Ω_c^0γ)=48^{+69}_{-41} MeV, whereas Table IV reports the same transition as 48^{+69}_{-41} keV. Because Table V is the summary table used to propose Ω_c assignments, this unit inconsistency is load-bearing: read literally, the [6_F,1,1,λ] candidate would have a 48 MeV radiative width, which is unphysical. The units of every entry in Table V should be made explicit and consistent, and the quoted values should be cross-checked against Tables II-IV.
  3. [Tables I-IV] The mass-difference inputs are internally inconsistent. Table I lists a 15±6 MeV mass difference for [6_F,1,0,ρ] Σ_c(1/2^-), while Table II's row for this state lists 3±1 MeV; [6_F,1,1,λ] Σ_c(1/2^-) has 41±16 MeV in Table I but 6±3 MeV in Table II; and [6_F,2,1,λ] Σ_c(3/2^-) has 86±36 MeV in Table I but 12±5 MeV in Table II. Since the radiative width in Eq. (23) depends on the photon momentum, a factor of 3-7 in the mass difference changes the predicted widths dramatically. Please define precisely what the 'Mass Difference' column in Tables II-IV denotes and reconcile it with Table I.
  4. [Section IV] The authors note in Section IV that HQET is less applicable to charmed baryons because of the relatively light charm quark, yet all predictions are made at leading order in HQET with no estimate of 1/m_c corrections. Given the anomalous widths in Tables II and III, the size of these corrections is not a formality; the paper should at least estimate the 1/m_c effects on the extracted couplings, or argue qualitatively why they are under control for the Ω_c channels that carry the main conclusion.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to 'Table~\ref{tab:result}' while the body refers to Table V; the label should be fixed.
  2. [Section III, Eq. (33)] In Eq. (33), '6.9+13,3−6.6 keV' should use a decimal point rather than a comma: 6.9^{+13.3}_{-6.6} keV.
  3. [Table II] Table II contains rows labeled 'Σb(3/2−)' in the [6_F,1,1,λ] and [6_F,1,0,ρ] blocks; these should read 'Σ_c(3/2−)'.
  4. [References] Reference [100] lists the concatenated identifier 'arXiv:2004.00531arXiv:2407.04433'; the two arXiv numbers should be separated.
  5. [Section III, Eq. (30)] Eq. (30) uses the decay constant f_{Ξ_c^+[1/2^-]}, but the correlation function in Eq. (24) was built from the Ξ'^+_c interpolating field; the prime notation should be checked throughout the derivation.
  6. [Table V] In Table V, the 'Width' column mixes strong widths in MeV with radiative widths in keV without clear sublabels; use separate columns or explicit per-cell units to avoid ambiguity.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Radiative widths are genuine sum-rule outputs, but the mixed-state 'confirmations' inherit the mixing angle and assignments from the same authors' prior strong-decay paper.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section IV (Mixing Effects), after Eqs. (34)-(36)]
    "We adopt θ= 37◦ ±5◦, consistent with the value used in Ref. [107] for the mixing between the [6F ,1,1, λ] and [6F ,2,1, λ] doublets."

    The mixed-state radiative widths in Table V (e.g., Γ(Ω_c^0(3/2^-)_1 → Ω_c^0 γ) = 160+140−86 keV) are obtained by rotating the unmixed [6F,1,1,λ] and [6F,2,1,λ] amplitudes with this θ. Ref. [107] is the same authors' earlier paper that assigned Ω_c(3066) to |Ω_c(3/2^-)>_1 and Ω_c(3090) to |Ω_c(3/2^-)>_2 from strong decays. Using θ from that assignment to compute radiative widths and then proposing to 'confirm' those assignments is a self-citation loop: the radiative prediction is not independent of the strong-decay analysis that fixed the mixing. The unmixed [6F,1,0,ρ] Ω_c(3000) claim does not use θ, so it is not affected by this particular loop.

full rationale

The central radiative widths, including the headline Ω_c(3000) values of 76+170−76 keV and 20+43−20 keV, are genuine outputs of the light-cone sum-rule machinery: the coupling g is extracted by matching the hadronic pole representation, Eq. (28), to the OPE side, Eq. (30), and no measured radiative width is fitted anywhere in the paper. The calculation is therefore not self-definitional in the strong sense. However, the paper imports its masses, decay constants, thresholds, Borel windows, and the mixing angle from the same authors' earlier sum-rule papers (Table I, Refs. [31,107]; Section IV, Ref. [107]). For the mixed [6F,1,1,λ]–[6F,2,1,λ] states highlighted in the summary (Ω_c(3050)/(3066), Ξ_c(2939)/(2965)), the radiative 'confirmation' inherits the mixing angle and candidate assignments from the prior strong-decay analysis, creating a closed self-consistency loop rather than an independent test. This warrants a moderate circularity score, but not a high one, because the underlying widths are not forced by the input data and the unmixed Ω_c(3000) prediction remains an independent, falsifiable output. The paper also contains a separate, non-circular internal inconsistency: Table V lists one Ω_c radiative width as '48+69−41 MeV' where Table IV gives keV, and the MeV-scale Σ_c/Ξ'_c electromagnetic widths in Tables II/III are a correctness/validity risk, not a circularity.

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

The central predictions rest on the sum rule framework, its inputs from the authors' earlier papers, and the adopted mixing angle. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Working region parameters (Borel mass T, continuum threshold omega_c) = e.g., T = 0.34 GeV, omega_c = 1.72 GeV for the [6F,1,1,lambda] Xi'_c(1/2-) channel
    Chosen by hand within stability windows; the paper explicitly calls these the two free parameters governing the coupling extraction.
  • Mixing angle theta between [6F,1,1,lambda] and [6F,2,1,lambda] doublets = 37 +/- 5 degrees
    Adopted from the authors' previous strong decay analysis (Ref. [107]); its central value is not derived in this paper.
  • Baryon masses and decay constants from Table I = e.g., omega_c = 1.74 GeV, f = 0.067 GeV^4 for [6F,1,0,rho] Sigma_c
    Taken from previous papers by the same group using the same HQET sum rule framework; they determine kinematic phase space and the sum rule pole terms.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Heavy quark effective theory is quantitatively valid for the charm quark.
    The entire calculation is performed at leading order in HQET; the charm quark mass (1.27 GeV) is not much larger than Lambda_QCD, so higher-order corrections could be significant.
  • domain assumption Pole dominance and quark-hadron duality hold in the chosen Borel windows.
    The sum rule extraction assumes the ground-state baryon pole dominates the correlation function and the continuum is modeled by duality; this is standard but not validated for each channel in the paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The mixing of the 1/2- and 3/2- states is fully described by a single angle theta between two doublets.
    The paper assumes only [6F,1,1,lambda] and [6F,2,1,lambda] mix, and that theta is the same for Sigma_c, Xi'_c, and Omega_c. This simplification follows Ref. [108] but neglects possible mixing with [6F,1,0,rho] and other modes.
  • domain assumption The photon distribution amplitudes and condensate values from the literature are accurate.
    The OPE uses standard LCDAs and condensates; the paper quotes uncertainties but does not assess their reliability in this application.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Radiative decays of $P$-wave charmed baryons in the $SU(3)$ flavor $\bf6_F$ representation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZOKO6HGL

@misc{pith2026250608335,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Radiative decays of $P$-wave charmed baryons in the $SU(3)$ flavor $\bf6_F$ representation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZOKO6HGL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08335}
}
abstract

We perform a comprehensive investigation of the radiative decays of $P$-wave charmed baryons in the $SU(3)$ flavor $\mathbf{6}_F$ representation, employing the light-cone QCD sum rule approach within the framework of heavy quark effective theory. We analyze their electromagnetic transitions into ground-state charmed baryons via photon emission. When combined with the mass spectra and strong decay properties previously studied in Ref.~\cite{Yang:2021lce}, our results constitute a systematic and complete QCD sum rule analysis of the $P$-wave singly charmed baryons within the framework of heavy quark effective theory. As summarized in Table~\ref{tab:result}, several excited charmed baryons are found to possess suppressed strong decay widths, thereby rendering their radiative decay channels particularly significant for experimental identification and theoretical understanding.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08335 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Categorization of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Feynman diagrams for the process Ξ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The 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 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Analysis of the semileptonic decays $\Sigma_b\to\Sigma_cl\bar{\nu}_l$, $\Xi'_b\to\Xi'_cl\bar{\nu}_l$ and $\Omega_b\to\Omega_cl\bar{\nu}_l$ in QCD sum rules

    hep-ph 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    QCD sum-rule calculations predict Σ_b→Σ_c, Ξ'_b→Ξ'_c and Ω_b→Ω_c semileptonic widths that differ by less than 13%, supporting approximate SU(3) flavor symmetry.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

133 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [109]

    Study of Electromagnetic Decays of Orbitally Excited $\Xi_c$ Baryons

    J. Yeltonet al.[Belle], Study of electromagnetic de- cays of orbitally excited Ξ c baryons, Phys. Rev. D 102no.7, 071103 (2020)doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102. 071103. arXiv:2009.03951

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  2. [1]

    Crede and W

    V. Crede and W. Roberts, Progress towards under- standing baryon resonances, Rept. Prog. Phys.76 (2013), 076301.doi:10.1088/0034-4885/76/7/076301. arXiv:1302.7299

    arXiv 2013

  3. [2]

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

    arXiv 2017

  4. [3]

    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

    arXiv 2022

  5. [4]

    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/ 10 TABLE IV: Radiative decay widths of theP-wave charmed baryons Ω c belonging to theSU(3) flavor6 F representation. Multiplets Baryon Mass Difference Decay channels Coupling Width Total (jP ) (GeV) (MeV) (G...

    arXiv 2023

  6. [5]

    Aaijet al.[LHCb], Observation of five new narrow Ω0 c states decaying to Ξ + c K −, Phys

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], Observation of five new narrow Ω0 c states decaying to Ξ + c K −, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, no.18, 182001 (2017)doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.182001. arXiv:1703.04639

    arXiv 2017

  7. [6]

    Yeltonet al.[Belle Collaboration], Observation of Excited Ω c Charmed Baryons ine +e− Collisions, Phys

    J. Yeltonet al.[Belle Collaboration], Observation of Excited Ω c Charmed Baryons ine +e− Collisions, Phys. Rev. D97, no. 5, 051102 (2018).doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.97.051102

    2018

  8. [7]

    Aaijet al.[LHCb], Observation of excited Ω 0 c baryons in Ω − b →Ξ + c K −π−decays, Phys

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], Observation of excited Ω 0 c baryons in Ω − b →Ξ + c K −π−decays, Phys. Rev. D104, no.9, L091102 (2021).doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.L091102

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.l091102 2021

Show all 133 references
  1. [8]

    Navaset al.[Particle Data Group], Review of particle physics, Phys

    S. Navaset al.[Particle Data Group], Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D110(2024) no.3, 030001.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001,

    2024 doi

  2. [9]

    Artusoet al.[CLEO], Phys

    M. Artusoet al.[CLEO], Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 4479-4482 (2001)doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.4479

    2001 doi

  3. [10]

    Aaijet al.[LHCb], Phys

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], Phys. Rev. Lett.124, no.22, 222001 (2020)doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.222001

    2020 doi

  4. [11]

    Capstick and N

    S. Capstick and N. Isgur, Baryons in a Relativized Quark Model with Chromodynamics, Phys. Rev. D 34(1986) 2809.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.34.2809,10. 1063/1.35361

    1986 doi

  5. [12]

    Ebert, R

    D. Ebert, R. N. Faustov and V. O. Galkin, Masses of excited heavy baryons in the relativistic quark model, Phys. Lett. B659(2008) 612.doi:10.1016/j. physletb.2007.11.037. arXiv:0705.2957

    2008 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Garcilazo, J

    H. Garcilazo, J. Vijande and A. Valcarce, Faddeev study of heavy baryon spectroscopy, J. Phys. G34 (2007) 961.doi:10.1088/0954-3899/34/5/014.arXiv: hep-ph/0703257

    2007 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Roberts and M

    W. Roberts and M. Pervin, Heavy baryons in a quark model, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A23(2008) 2817.doi:10. 1142/S0217751X08041219. arXiv:0711.2492

    2008 arXiv

  8. [15]

    X. H. Zhong and Q. Zhao, Charmed baryon strong decays in a chiral quark model, Phys. Rev. D 77(2008) 074008.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.074008. arXiv:0711.4645

    2008 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Valcarce, H

    A. Valcarce, H. Garcilazo and J. Vijande, Towards an understanding of heavy baryon spectroscopy, Eur. Phys. J. A37(2008) 217.doi:10.1140/epja/i2008-10616-4. arXiv:0807.2973

    2008 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Ebert, R

    D. Ebert, R. N. Faustov and V. O. Galkin, Spec- troscopy and Regge trajectories of heavy baryons in the relativistic quark-diquark picture, Phys. Rev. D 84(2011) 014025.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.84.014025. arXiv:1105.0583

    2011 arXiv

  11. [18]

    P. G. Ortega, D. R. Entem and F. Fernandez, Quark model description of the Λc(2940)+ as a molecularD ∗N state and the possible existence of theΛ b(6248), Phys. Lett. B718(2013) 1381.doi:10.1016/j.physletb. 2012.12.025. arXiv:1210.2633

    2013 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Yoshida, E

    T. Yoshida, E. Hiyama, A. Hosaka, M. Oka and K. Sadato, Spectrum of heavy baryons in the quark model, Phys. Rev. D92(2015) no.11, 114029.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.114029. arXiv:1510.01067

    2015 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Nagahiro, S

    H. Nagahiro, S. Yasui, A. Hosaka, M. Oka and H. Noumi, Structure of charmed baryons studied by pionic decays, Phys. Rev. D95(2017) no.1, 014023. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.014023. arXiv:1609.01085

    2017 arXiv

  14. [21]

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

    2017 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Q. F. L¨ u, Canonical interpretations of the newly ob- served Ξc(2923)0, Ξc(2939)0, and Ξc(2965)0 resonances, Eur. Phys. J. C80, no. 10, 921 (2020).doi:10.1140/ epjc/s10052-020-08488-5

    2020

  16. [23]

    B. Chen, S. Q. Luo and X. Liu, Universal behavior of 11 TABLE V: Mass spectra and decay properties of theP-wave charmed baryons belonging to theSU(3) flavor6 F representation, which may be accessible through their radiative decay processes. Possible experimental candidates are...

    2021

  17. [24]

    K. C. Bowleret al.[UKQCD Collaboration], Heavy baryon spectroscopy from the lattice, Phys. Rev. D54(1996) 3619.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.54.3619. arXiv:hep-lat/9601022

    1996 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Burch, C

    T. Burch, C. Hagen, C. B. Lang, M. Limmer and A. Schafer, Excitations of single-beauty hadrons, Phys. Rev. D79(2009) 014504.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79. 014504. arXiv:0809.1103

    2009 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Z. S. Brown, W. Detmold, S. Meinel and K. Orginos, Charmed bottom baryon spectroscopy from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D90(2014) no.9, 094507.doi:10. 1103/PhysRevD.90.094507. arXiv:1409.0497

    2014 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Padmanath, R

    M. Padmanath, R. G. Edwards, N. Mathur and M. Peardon, Excited-state spectroscopy of singly, dou- bly and triply-charmed baryons from lattice QCD. arXiv:1311.4806

    arXiv

  21. [28]

    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, 042001.10.1103/ PhysRevLett.119.042001. arXiv:1704.00259

    2017 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Bahtiyar, K

    H. Bahtiyar, K. U. Can, G. Erkol, P. Gubler, M. Oka and T. T. Takahashi, Charmed baryon spectrum from lattice QCD near the physical point. Phys. Rev. D 102(2020) no.5, 054513.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102. 054513. arXiv:2004.08999

    2020 arXiv

  23. [30]

    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. D91, no.5, 054034 (2015).doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.054034. arXiv:1502.01103

    2015 arXiv

  24. [31]

    H. X. Chen, Q. Mao, W. Chen, A. Hosaka, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, Decay properties ofP-wave charmed baryons from light-cone QCD sum rules, Phys. Rev. D 95, 094008 (2017).doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.094008

    2017 doi

  25. [32]

    Bagan, P

    E. Bagan, P. Ball, V. M. Braun and H. G. Dosch, QCD sum rules in the effective heavy quark theory, Phys. Lett. B278(1992) 457.doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92) 90585-R

    1992 doi

  26. [33]

    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. D92, 114007 (2015).doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.92.114007

    2015

  27. [34]

    Neubert, Heavy meson form-factors from QCD sum rules, Phys

    M. Neubert, Heavy meson form-factors from QCD sum rules, Phys. Rev. D45(1992) 2451.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.45.2451

    1992

  28. [35]

    D. J. Broadhurst and A. G. Grozin, Operator prod- uct expansion in static quark effective field theory: Large perturbative correction, Phys. Lett. B274(1992) 421.doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92)92009-6. arXiv:hep- ph/9908363

    1992

  29. [36]

    Huang and C

    T. Huang and C. W. Luo, Light quark dependence of the Isgur-Wise function from QCD sum rules, Phys. Rev. D50(1994) 5775.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.50

    1994 doi

  30. [37]

    Y. B. Dai, C. S. Huang, M. Q. Huang and C. Liu, QCD sum rules for masses of excited heavy mesons, Phys. Lett. B390(1997) 350.doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(96) 01412-8. arXiv:hep-ph/9609436

    1997 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Groote, J

    S. Groote, J. G. Korner and O. I. Yakovlev, QCD sum rules for heavy baryons at next-to-leading order in alpha-s, Phys. Rev. D55(1997) 3016.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.55.3016. arXiv:hep-ph/9609469

    1997 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Colangelo, F

    P. Colangelo, F. De Fazio and N. Paver, Universal τ1/2(y) Isgur-Wise function at the next-to-leading order in QCD sum rules, Phys. Rev. D58(1998) 116005.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.58.116005. arXiv:hep-ph/9804377

    1998 arXiv

  33. [40]

    C. S. Huang, A. l. Zhang and S. L. Zhu, Excited heavy baryon masses in HQET QCD sum rules, Phys. Lett. B492(2000) 288.doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(00) 01088-1. arXiv:hep-ph/0007330

    2000 arXiv

  34. [41]

    J. P. Lee, C. Liu and H. S. Song, QCD sum rule analysis of excited Lambda(c) mass parameter, Phys. Lett. B476(2000) 303.doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(00) 00144-1. arXiv:hep-ph/0002034

    2000 arXiv

  35. [42]

    D. W. Wang and M. Q. Huang, Excited charmed baryon masses to order Λ QCD/mQ from QCD sum rules, Phys. Rev. D68(2003) 034019.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.68.034019. arXiv:hep-ph/0306207

    2003 arXiv

  36. [43]

    F. O. Duraes and M. Nielsen, QCD sum rules study of Ξc and Ξ b baryons, Phys. Lett. B658(2007) 40.doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2007.10.054. arXiv:0708.3030

    2007 arXiv

  37. [44]

    J. R. Zhang and M. Q. Huang, Heavy baryon spec- troscopy in QCD, Phys. Rev. D78(2008) 094015. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.094015. arXiv:0811.3266

    2008 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Z. G. Wang, Analysis of the 1/2 − and 3/2 − heavy and doubly heavy baryon states with QCD sum rules, Eur. Phys. J. A47(2011) 81.doi:10.1140/epja/ i2011-11081-8. arXiv:1003.2838

    2011 arXiv

  39. [46]

    D. Zhou, E. L. Cui, H. X. Chen, L. S. Geng, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, D-wave heavy-light mesons from QCD sum rules, Phys. Rev. D90(2014) no.11, 114035.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.114035. arXiv:1410.1727

    2014 arXiv

  40. [47]

    D. Zhou, H. X. Chen, L. S. Geng, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, F-wave heavy-light meson spectroscopy in QCD sum rules and heavy quark effective theory, Phys. Rev. D 92(2015) no.11, 114015.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92. 114015. arXiv:1506.00766

    2015 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Z. G. Wang, Analysis of Ω c(3000) , Ωc(3050) , Ωc(3066) , Ω c(3090) and Ω c(3119) with QCD sum rules, Eur. Phys. J. C77, no.5, 325 (2017).doi:10.1140/epjc/ s10052-017-4895-5

    2017 doi

  42. [49]

    T. M. Aliev, K. Azizi and H. Sundu,On the nature of Ξc(2930), Eur. Phys. J. A54(2018) no.9, 159.doi: 10.1140/epja/i2018-12593-3. arXiv:1803.04002

    2018 arXiv

  43. [50]

    Y. J. Xu, Y. L. Liu, C. Y. Cui and M. Q. Huang,P-wave Ωb states: masses and pole residues, arXiv:2010.10697

    2010 arXiv

  44. [51]

    S.L.Zhu, Strong and electromagnetic decays ofPwave heavy baryons Λ c1, Λ ∗ c1, Phys. Rev. D61, 114019 (2000).doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.61.114019. arXiv:hep- ph/0002023

    2000

  45. [52]

    X. Liu, H. X. Chen, Y. R. Liu, A. Hosaka and S. L. Zhu, Bottom baryons, Phys. Rev. D77(2008) 014031.10. 1103/PhysRevD.77.014031. arXiv:0710.0123. arXiv:1703.07703

    2008 arXiv

  46. [53]

    S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi and H. Sundu, Interpreta- tion of the new Ω 0 c states via their mass and width, Eur. Phys. J. C77, 395 (2017).doi:10.1140/epjc/ s10052-017-4953-z. arXiv:1704.04928

    2017 arXiv

  47. [54]

    S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi and H. Sundu, Decay widths of the excited Ω b baryons, arXiv:1708.07348

    arXiv

  48. [55]

    C. Chen, X. L. Chen, X. Liu, W. Z. Deng and S. L. Zhu, Strong decays of charmed baryons, Phys. Rev. D 75(2007) 094017.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.75.094017. arXiv:0704.0075

    2007 arXiv

  49. [56]

    D. D. Ye, Z. Zhao and A. Zhang, Study ofP- wave excitations of observed charmed strange baryons, 13 Phys. Rev. D96(2017) no.11, 114009.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.96.114009. arXiv:1709.00689

    2017 arXiv

  50. [57]

    Chen and X

    B. Chen and X. Liu, Six Ω 0 c states discovered by LHCb as new members of 1Pand 2Scharmed baryons, arXiv:1704.02583

    arXiv

  51. [58]

    Z. Zhao, D. D. Ye and A. Zhang, Hadronic decay prop- erties of newly observed Ω c baryons, arXiv:1704.02688

    arXiv

  52. [59]

    H. Y. Cheng and C. K. Chua, Strong Decays of Charmed Baryons in Heavy Hadron Chiral Perturbation The- ory, Phys. Rev. D75, 014006 (2007).doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.75.014006. arXiv:hep-ph/0610283

    2007 arXiv

  53. [60]

    M. Q. Huang, Y. B. Dai and C. S. Huang, Decays of excited charmed Lambda type and Sigma type baryons in heavy hadron chiral perturbation theory, Phys. Rev. D52, 3986 (1995) Erratum: [Phys. Rev. D55, 7317 (1997)].doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.55.7317

    1995 doi

  54. [61]

    Chiladze and A

    G. Chiladze and A. F. Falk, Phenomenology of new baryons with charm and strangeness, Phys. Rev. D 56, R6738 (1997).doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.56.R6738. arXiv:hep-ph/9707507

    1997 arXiv

  55. [62]

    J. X. Lu, Y. Zhou, H. X. Chen, J. J. Xie and L. S. Geng,Dynamically generatedJ P = 1/2 −(3/2−) singly charmed and bottom heavy baryons, Phys. Rev. D92(2015) no.1, 014036.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92. 014036. arXiv:1409.3133

    2015 arXiv

  56. [63]

    H. Y. Cheng and C. K. Chua,Strong Decays of Charmed Baryons in Heavy Hadron Chiral Perturbation Theory: An Update, Phys. Rev. D92(2015) no.7, 074014.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.074014. arXiv:1508.05653

    2015 arXiv

  57. [64]

    P. L. Cho, Strong and electromagnetic decays of two new Λ ∗ c baryons, Phys. Rev. D50, 3295 (1994).doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.50.3295. arXiv:hep-ph/9401276

    1994 arXiv

  58. [65]

    Pirjol and T

    D. Pirjol and T. M. Yan, Predictions forSwave andPwave heavy baryons from sum rules and con- stituent quark model. 1. Strong interactions, Phys. Rev. D56, 5483 (1997).doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.56.5483. arXiv:hep-ph/9701291

    1997 arXiv

  59. [66]

    A. E. Blechman, A. F. Falk, D. Pirjol and J. M. Yel- ton, Threshold effects in excited charmed baryon de- cays, Phys. Rev. D67, 074033 (2003).doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.67.074033. arXiv:hep-ph/0302040

    2003 arXiv

  60. [67]

    Tawfiq, P

    S. Tawfiq, P. J. O’Donnell and J. G. Korner, Charmed baryon strong coupling constants in a light front quark model, Phys. Rev. D58, 054010 (1998).doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.58.054010. arXiv:hep-ph/9803246

    1998 arXiv

  61. [68]

    Tawfiq and P

    S. Tawfiq and P. J. O’Donnell,Pwave toSwave pion transitions of charmed baryons, Phys. Rev. D60, 014013 (1999).doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.60.014013

    1999 doi

  62. [69]

    M. A. Ivanov, J. G. Korner, V. E. Lyubovitskij and A. G. Rusetsky, Strong and radiative decays of heavy flavored baryons, Phys. Rev. D60, 094002 (1999).doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.60.094002. arXiv:hep-ph/9904421

    1999 arXiv

  63. [70]

    M. A. Ivanov, J. G. Korner, V. E. Lyubovitskij and A. G. Rusetsky, One pion charm baryon tran- sitions in a relativistic three quark model, Phys. Lett. B442, 435 (1998).doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(98) 01245-3. arXiv:hep-ph/9807519

    1998 arXiv

  64. [71]

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

    1994 arXiv

  65. [72]

    Hussain, J

    F. Hussain, J. G. Korner and S. Tawfiq, One pion transitions between heavy baryons in the constituent quark model, Phys. Rev. D61, 114003 (2000).doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.61.114003. arXiv:hep-ph/9909278

    2000 arXiv

  66. [73]

    Albertus, E

    C. Albertus, E. Hernandez, J. Nieves and J. M. Verde- Velasco, Study of the strong Σ c →Λ cπ, Σ ∗ c →Λ cπ and Ξ ∗ c →Ξ cπdecays in a nonrelativistic quark model, Phys. Rev. D72, 094022 (2005).doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.72.094022. arXiv:hep-ph/0507256

    2005 arXiv

  67. [74]

    C. W. Hwang, Combined Chiral Dynamics and MIT Bag Model Study of Strong Σ ∗ Q →Λ QπDecays, Eur. Phys. J. C50, 793 (2007).doi:10.1140/epjc/ s10052-007-0267-x. arXiv:hep-ph/0611221

    2007 arXiv

  68. [75]

    X. H. Guo, K. W. Wei and X. H. Wu, Strong decays of heavy baryons in Bethe-Salpeter formalism, Phys. Rev. D77, 036003 (2008).doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77. 036003. arXiv:0710.1474

    2008 arXiv

  69. [76]

    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 Univer- sity Press, 2005,.doi:10.1017/9781009290296,arXiv: hep-ph/0205006

    2007 arXiv

  70. [77]

    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. C41(2005), 535-544.doi:10.1140/epjc/ s2005-02250-9,arXiv:hep-lat/0503001

    2005 arXiv

  71. [78]

    M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein and V. I. Zakharov, QCD and Resonance Physics. Theoretical Foundations, Nucl. Phys. B147, 385-447 (1979).doi:10.1016/ 0550-3213(79)90022-1,

    1979

  72. [79]

    M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein and V. I. Zakharov, QCD and Resonance Physics: Applications, Nucl. Phys. B147, 448-518 (1979)doi:10.1016/0550-3213(79) 90023-3,

    1979 doi

  73. [80]

    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

  74. [81]

    Nielsen, F

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

    2010 arXiv

  75. [82]

    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

    2019 arXiv

  76. [83]

    V. M. Braun and I. E. Filyanov, QCD Sum Rules in Exclusive Kinematics and Pion Wave Function, Z. Phys. C44, 157 (1989) [Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.50, 511 (1989)] [Yad. Fiz.50, 818 (1989)].doi:10.1007/BF01548594

    1989 doi

  77. [84]

    V. L. Chernyak and I. R. Zhitnitsky, B meson exclusive decays into baryons, Nucl. Phys. B345, 137 (1990). doi:10.1016/0550-3213(90)90612-H

    1990 doi

  78. [85]

    Ball, Theoretical update of pseudoscalar meson distribution amplitudes of higher twist: The Nons- inglet case, JHEP9901, 010 (1999).doi:10.1088/ 1126-6708/1999/01/010

    P. Ball, Theoretical update of pseudoscalar meson distribution amplitudes of higher twist: The Nons- inglet case, JHEP9901, 010 (1999).doi:10.1088/ 1126-6708/1999/01/010

    1999

  79. [86]

    P. Ball, V. M. Braun and A. Lenz, Higher-twist distri- bution amplitudes of the K meson in QCD, JHEP0605, 004 (2006).doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2006/05/004

    2006 doi

  80. [87]

    Ball and R

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

    2005 doi

  81. [88]

    Ball and V

    P. Ball and V. M. Braun, Exclusive semileptonic and rare B meson decays in QCD, Phys. Rev. D58, 094016 (1998).doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.58.094016

    1998 doi

  82. [89]

    P. Ball, V. M. Braun, Y. Koike and K. Tanaka, Higher twist distribution amplitudes of vector mesons in QCD: 14 Formalism and twist-three distributions, Nucl. Phys. B529, 323 (1998).doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(98) 00356-3

    1998 doi

  83. [90]

    Ball and V

    P. Ball and V. M. Braun, Higher twist distribution am- plitudes of vector mesons in QCD: Twist-4 distributions and meson mass corrections, Nucl. Phys. B543, 201 (1999).doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(99)00014-0

    1999 doi

  84. [91]

    Ball and G

    P. Ball and G. W. Jones, Twist-3 distribution ampli- tudes ofK ∗ andϕmesons, JHEP0703, 069 (2007). doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/03/069

    2007 doi

  85. [92]

    P. Ball, V. M. Braun and A. Lenz, Twist-4 distribution amplitudes of theK ∗ andϕmesons in QCD, JHEP 0708, 090 (2007).doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/08/ 090

    2007 doi

  86. [93]

    P. Ball, V. M. Braun and N. Kivel, Photon distribution amplitudes in QCD, Nucl. Phys. B649(2003), 263- 296.doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(02)01017-9,arXiv: hep-ph/0207307

    2003 arXiv

  87. [94]

    Grinstein, The Static Quark Effective Theory, Nucl

    B. Grinstein, The Static Quark Effective Theory, Nucl. Phys. B339, 253-268 (1990).doi:10.1016/ 0550-3213(90)90349-I,

    1990

  88. [95]

    Eichten and B

    E. Eichten and B. R. Hill, An Effective Field Theory for the Calculation of Matrix Elements Involving Heavy Quarks, Phys. Lett. B234, 511-516 (1990).doi:10. 1016/0370-2693(90)92049-O

    1990

  89. [96]

    A. F. Falk, H. Georgi, B. Grinstein and M. B. Wise, Heavy Meson Form-factors From QCD, Nucl. Phys. B343, 1-13 (1990).doi:10.1016/0550-3213(90) 90591-Z,

    1990 doi

  90. [97]

    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. D106, no.3, 036018 (2022).doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.036018,arXiv:2205.07224

    2022 arXiv

  91. [98]

    W. H. Tan, H. M. Yang and H. X. Chen, Pre- dictedΞ b(6087)0 and further predictions, Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024) no.4, 382.doi:10.1140/epjc/ s10052-024-12717-6.arXiv:2311.18380

    2024 arXiv

  92. [99]

    Y. J. Wang, X. Luo, H. X. Chen, E. L. Cui, W. H. Tan and Z. Y. Zhou, Strong decay properties of P-wave single bottom baryons of the SU(3) flavor antitriplet 3¯F, Phys. Rev. D111, no.7, 076003 (2025)doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.076003.arXiv:2412.19846

    2025 arXiv

  93. [101]

    H. M. Yang and H. X. Chen,P-wave bottom baryons of theSU(3) flavor6 F Phys. Rev. D101(2020) no.11, 114013.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.114013,arXiv: 2003.07488

    2020 arXiv

  94. [102]

    H. M. Yang, H. X. Chen, E. L. Cui, A. Hosaka and Q. Mao, Decay properties ofP-wave bot- tom baryons within light-cone sum rules, Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) no.2, 80.doi:10.1140/epjc/ s10052-020-7637-z,arXiv:1909.13575

    2020 arXiv

  95. [103]

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

    2019 arXiv

  96. [104]

    H. X. Chen, E. L. Cui, A. Hosaka, Q. Mao and H. M. Yang, ExcitedΩ b baryons and fine structure of strong interaction, Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) no.3, 256. doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-7824-y,arXiv:2001. 02147

    2020 doi

  97. [105]

    H. M. Yang and H. X. Chen, 2P-wave charmed baryons from QCD sum rules, Phys. Rev. D 109(2024) no.3, 036032.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109. 036032. arXiv:2311.01991

    2024 arXiv

  98. [106]

    X. Luo, Y. J. Wang and H. X. Chen, P-wave single charmed baryons of the SU(3) flavor ¯3F , Phys. Rev. D111, no.9, 094039 (2025).doi:10.1103/p48x-mbnm. arXiv:2504.11219

    2025 arXiv

  99. [107]

    H. M. Yang and H. X. Chen,P-wave charmed baryons of theSU(3) flavor 6 F , Phys. Rev. D 104(2021) no.3, 034037.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104. 034037. arXiv:2106.15488

    2021 arXiv

  100. [108]

    H. M. Yang, H. X. Chen and Q. Mao, PIdentify- ing the Ξ 0 c baryons observed by LHCb asP-wave Ξ ′ c baryons, Phys. Rev. D102(2020), 114009.doi:10. 1103/PhysRevD.102.114009. arXiv:2004.00531

    2020 arXiv

  101. [110]

    C. K. Chow, Radiative decays of excited Λ Q baryons in the bound state picture, Phys. Rev. D54, 3374 (1996).doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.54.3374. arXiv:hep- ph/9510421

    1996

  102. [111]

    T. M. Aliev, K. Azizi and A. Ozpineci,Radiative De- cays of the Heavy Flavored Baryons in Light Cone QCD Sum Rules, . Phys. Rev. D79(2009) 056005. arXiv:0901.0076

    2009 arXiv

  103. [112]

    Tawfiq, J

    S. Tawfiq, J. G. Korner and P. J. O’Donnell, Electro- magnetic transitions of heavy baryons in the SU(2Nf )× O(3) symmetry, Phys. Rev. D63, 034005 (2001).doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.63.034005. arXiv:hep-ph/9909444

    2001 arXiv

  104. [113]

    Gamermann, C

    D. Gamermann, C. E. Jimenez-Tejero and A. Ramos, Radiative decays of dynamically generated charmed baryons, Phys. Rev. D83, 074018 (2011).doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.83.074018. arXiv:1011.5381

    2011 arXiv

  105. [114]

    M. A. Ivanov, J. G. Korner and V. E. Lyubovit- skij, One photon transitions between heavy baryons in a relativistic three quark model, Phys. Lett. B448, 143 (1999).doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(99) 00029-5. arXiv:hep-ph/9811370

    1999 arXiv

  106. [115]

    Bahtiyar, K

    H. Bahtiyar, K. U. Can, G. Erkol, M. Oka and T. T. Takahashi, Ξ cγ→Ξ ′ c transition in lattice QCD, Phys. Lett. B772, 121 (2017).doi:10.1016/j. physletb.2017.06.022. arXiv:1612.05722

    2017 arXiv

  107. [116]

    Bahtiyar, K

    H. Bahtiyar, K. U. Can, G. Erkol and M. Oka, Ωcγ→Ω ∗ c transition in lattice QCD, Phys. Lett. B 747, 281 (2015).doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015.06

    2015 doi

  108. [117]

    S. L. Zhu and Y. B. Dai, Radiative decays of heavy hadrons from light cone QCD sum rules in the leading order of HQET, Phys. Rev. D59, 114015 (1999).doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.59.114015. arXiv:hep-ph/9810243

    1999 arXiv

  109. [118]

    Z. G. Wang, Analysis of the vertexes Ξ ∗ QΞ′ QV, Σ ∗ QΣQV and radiative decays Ξ ∗ Q →Ξ ′ Qγ, Σ ∗ Q →Σ Qγ, Eur. Phys. J. A44, 105 (2010).doi:10.1140/epja/ i2010-10952-8. arXiv:0910.2112

    2010 arXiv

  110. [119]

    Z. G. Wang, Analysis of the vertexes Ω ∗ QΩQϕand radiative decays Ω ∗ Q →Ω Qγ,” Phys. Rev. D 81, 036002 (2010).doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.81.036002. arXiv:0909.4144

    2010 arXiv

  111. [120]

    T. M. Aliev, K. Azizi and H. Sundu, Radiative Ω ∗ Q → ΩQγand Ξ ∗ Q →Ξ ′ Qγtransitions in light cone QCD, 15 Eur. Phys. J. C75, 14 (2015).doi:10.1140/epjc/ s10052-014-3229-0. arXiv:1409.7577

    2015 arXiv

  112. [121]

    T. M. Aliev, T. Barakat and M. Savcı, Analysis of the radiative decays Σ Q →Λ Qγand Ξ ′ Q →Ξ Qγin light cone sum rules, Phys. Rev. D93, no. 5, 056007 (2016). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.056007. arXiv:1603.04762

    2016 arXiv

  113. [122]

    M. J. Savage,E2 strength in the radiative charmed baryon decay Σ∗ c →Λ cγ, Phys. Lett. B345, 61 (1995). doi:10.1016/0370-2693(94)01597-6. arXiv:hep- ph/9408294

    1995

  114. [123]

    M. C. Banuls, A. Pich and I. Scimemi, Electromag- netic decays of heavy baryons, Phys. Rev. D61, 094009 (2000).doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.61.094009. arXiv:hep- ph/9911502

    2000

  115. [124]

    H. Y. Cheng, C. Y. Cheung, G. L. Lin, Y. C. Lin, T. M. Yan and H. L. Yu, Chiral Lagrangians for radia- tive decays of heavy hadrons,” Phys. Rev. D47, 1030 (1993).doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.47.1030. arXiv:[hep- ph/9209262]

    1993

  116. [125]

    Jiang, X

    N. Jiang, X. L. Chen and S. L. Zhu, Electromagnetic decays of the charmed and bottom baryons in chiral perturbation theory, Phys. Rev. D92, 054017 (2015). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.054017. arXiv:1505.02999

    2015 arXiv

  117. [126]

    T. M. Aliev, M. Savcı and V. S. Zamiralov, Vector me- son dominance and radiative decays of heavy spin-3/2 baryons to heavy spin-1/2 baryons, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 27, 1250054 (2012).doi:10.1142/S021773231250054X. arXiv:1109.2473

    2012 arXiv

  118. [127]

    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, no.5, 054014 (2023)doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108. 054014. arXiv:2307.04939

    2023 arXiv

  119. [128]

    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. B538(2002), 71-76.doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(02)01951-2,arXiv: hep-ph/0201174

    2002 arXiv

  120. [129]

    B. L. Ioffe and K. N. Zyablyuk, Gluon condensate in charmonium sum rules with three loop corrections, Eur. Phys. J. C27(2003), 229-241.doi:10.1140/epjc/ s2002-01099-8,arXiv:hep-ph/0207183

    2003 arXiv

  121. [130]

    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

  122. [131]

    K. C. Yang, W. Y. P. Hwang, E. M. Henley and L. S. Kisslinger, QCD sum rules and neutron proton mass difference, Phys. Rev. D47(1993), 3001-3012. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.47.3001

    1993 doi

  123. [132]

    Shifman and B

    M. Shifman and B. Ioffe, At the frontier of particle physics. Handbook of QCD. Vol. 1-3, World Scientific, 2001.doi:10.1142/4544

    2001 doi

  124. [133]

    W. Y. P. Hwang and K. C. Yang, QCD sum rules: Delta- N and Sigma0-Lambda mass splittings, Phys. Rev. D49 (1994), 460-465.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.49.460

    1994 doi

  125. [5775]

    arXiv:hep-ph/9408303

    arXiv

Pith tools

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