Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 104 references

Understanding the low-lying $\Omega_c$ structures from a coupled-channel perspective

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A coupled-channel calculation of the low-lying $\Omega_c$ spectrum predicts an undiscovered bound state at 2954 MeV and assigns spin-parities to $\Omega_c(3000)$ and $\Omega_c(3050)$.

desk verdict Coupled-channel study of the Omega_c family with testable spin-parity assignments, but the headline bound state is parameter-sensitive and the paper oversells its stability. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.06611 v2 pith:L3DEV67H submitted 2025-07-09 hep-ph hep-ex

Ying Zhang , Qing-Fu Song , Qi-Fang Lü , Hideko Nagahiro , Atsushi Hosaka This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords Omega_cbaryonscoupled-channeleffectshadronicmoleculesthree-quarkbarestatesheavyquarkspinsymmetryBethe-Salpeterequationboundstatepredictionhadronspectroscopy
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 the low-lying $\Omega_c$ baryons seen in production experiments are not pure three-quark states and not pure hadronic molecules, but mixtures of meson-baryon channels and three-quark cores. In this coupled-channel picture the $j=0$ system yields a bound state at 2954 MeV, just below the $\Xi_c \bar K$ threshold, which would show up as the observed threshold enhancement and should be searchable in $\Omega_c^{(*)}\pi$ and $\Omega_c^{(*)}\gamma$ final states. The same calculation places $\Omega_c(3000)$ as the lower $(1/2^-,1)$ pole and $\Omega_c(3050)$ as the lower $(3/2^-,1)$ pole, giving specific spin-parity predictions that future measurements can directly test.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a coupled-channel Bethe-Salpeter equation whose interaction is the sum of a Weinberg-Tomozawa contact term for the meson-baryon channels (energy dependent, with flavor factors from chiral SU(3)) and a transition term $V_{\rm bare}$ that connects each channel to a bare $\Omega_c(1P_\lambda)$ state through an axial-vector quark-meson coupling. Eliminating the bare states produces a pole term proportional to the squared transition amplitude divided by $(s-M_0^2)$, with Gaussian form factors replaced by a sharp momentum cutoff $\Lambda$. Solving $T_{\rm full} = (1 - V_{\rm full}G)^{-1}V_{\rm full}$ for poles on the first and second Riemann sheets yields the bound state and resonances; quantum numbers are organized by the light-quark spin $j$ combined with the heavy quark spin, so heavy-quark spin symmetry dictates which channels couple to which bare states.

What would settle it

A high-statistics search for $\Omega_c$ structures in $\Omega_c^{(*)}\pi$ and $\Omega_c^{(*)}\gamma$ final states near 2954 MeV: finding no narrow pole would remove the predicted bound state. Alternatively, measuring the spin-parity of $\Omega_c(3000)$ to be anything other than $1/2^-$, or of $\Omega_c(3050)$ to be anything other than $3/2^-$, would falsify the classification.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the low-lying $\Omega_c$ spectrum is governed by the superposition of $S$-wave meson-baryon molecular channels ($\Xi_c\bar K$, $\Xi'_c\bar K$, $\Xi^*_c\bar K$, $\Omega_c\eta$, $\Omega^*_c\eta$) with three-quark bare states $\Omega_c(1P_\lambda)$. Coupling the $j=0$ channel $\Xi_c\bar K$ to a bare state at 3020 MeV converts the pure-channel virtual state into a genuine bound state at 2954 MeV, slightly below threshold, which explains the threshold enhancement and produces a narrow state decaying through isospin-breaking and radiative channels. In the $j=1$ systems each channel develops two poles, and the lower poles land at 3003 MeV (with $J^P=1/2^-$) and 3044 MeV (with $J^P=3/2^-$), matching the observed $\Omega_c(3000)$ and $\Omega_c(3050)$. The higher $j=1$ poles at 3066 and 3113 MeV are interpreted as an as-yet-unseen state and as $\Omega_c(3119)$, while $\Omega_c(3065)$ and $\Omega_c(3090)$ remain essentially $j=2$ three-quark states. The authors stress that these assignments differ from both the traditional three-quark picture and the pure molecular scenario.

Load-bearing premise

The bare three-quark core masses are taken to be 3020, 3040, and 3060 MeV for the $(1/2^-,0)$, $(1/2^-,1)$, and $(3/2^-,1)$ systems, chosen from expected mass splittings; the computed pole positions move with these inputs, so tens of MeV of error would shift the assignments.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A narrow state near 2954 MeV should appear in $\Omega_c^{(*)}\pi$ and $\Omega_c^{(*)}\gamma$ final states at Belle II and LHCb, since all OZI-allowed strong decays are closed for it.
  • The spin-parity of $\Omega_c(3000)$ should be measured as $1/2^-$ and that of $\Omega_c(3050)$ as $3/2^-$, replacing the assignments excluded by the 2021 LHCb helicity analysis.
  • The enhancement near the $\Xi_c\bar K$ threshold in the LHCb mass spectra is interpreted as the signature of this subthreshold bound state rather than as an independent wide resonance.
  • $\Omega_c(3065)$ and $\Omega_c(3090)$ keep the conventional $j=2$ three-quark assignment, while $\Omega_c(3119)$ becomes a higher $(3/2^-,1)$ pole.
  • The model produces a broad higher $j=0$ pole around 3206 MeV, which predicts a broad bump in the $\Xi_c\bar K$ channel that future data could identify.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the 2954 MeV state exists, its radiative decay to $\Omega_c\gamma$ may give a cleaner experimental signature than the isospin-breaking pion modes, which are suppressed but still observable.
  • The same coupled-channel treatment, with thresholds shifted by the bottom-quark mass, could be applied to the $\Omega_b$ family, where the equivalent bound state may sit at a different distance from threshold.
  • A lattice QCD determination of the $1P_\lambda$ $\Omega_c$ core masses near 3020--3060 MeV would directly test the input on which the bound state and pole assignments depend.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a coupled-channel Bethe-Salpeter model for the low-lying Omega_c states, coupling the meson-baryon channels Xi_c Kbar, Xi'_c Kbar, Xi*_c Kbar, Omega_c eta, and Omega*_c eta to three-quark 1P_lambda bare states classified by light-quark spin j. The main claims are: a bound state Omega_c(2954) below the Xi_c Kbar threshold with (J^P,j)=(1/2^-,0); the assignment of Omega_c(3000) and Omega_c(3050) as the lower (1/2^-,1) and (3/2^-,1) states; the interpretation of Omega_c(3065) and Omega_c(3090) as bare j=2 states; and the identification of a higher (3/2^-,1) pole near 3113 MeV with Omega_c(3119). The formalism combines Weinberg-Tomozawa contact interactions with quark-model transition amplitudes for the bare states, and uses a sharp cutoff to regulate loop functions. The paper provides pole trajectories as functions of the cutoff and bare masses, and tabulates couplings of the resulting states to meson-baryon channels.

Significance. If correct, the paper offers a unified, testable scheme for the low-lying Omega_c spectrum that differs from both the conventional quark-model and pure molecular interpretations. The prediction of a narrow bound state just below the Xi_c Kbar threshold is concrete and falsifiable: Belle II and LHCb can search for it in Omega_c^(*) pi and Omega_c^(*) gamma final states, and the spin-parity assignments for Omega_c(3000) and Omega_c(3050) can be checked by angular analyses. The framework is standard and the presentation is transparent, with explicit formulas, parameter dependence shown in figures, and a clear tabulation of pole positions and couplings. The main value is the set of quantitative, experimentally accessible predictions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III.A and Fig. 3(b)] The existence of the bound state Omega_c(2954) is conditional on the unmeasured bare mass M[Omega_c0(1/2^-)] = 3020 MeV. The pure Weinberg-Tomozawa interaction in the Xi_c Kbar channel gives only a virtual state at 2886 - 71i MeV (for Lambda = 1000 MeV), and the bound state appears only after coupling to this bare state. Figure 3(b) shows the lower-pole mass for three bare masses (3000, 3020, 3040 MeV) as a function of the cutoff, but it never identifies the critical bare mass or cutoff at which the pole crosses the Xi_c Kbar threshold at 2965 MeV. The statement in Sec. III.C that 'the conclusions ... do not change' is therefore not substantiated for the headline prediction. The authors should map the existence region of the bound state in the (M0, Lambda) plane and demonstrate that the bound state remains for a physically acceptable range of model parameters.
  2. [Sec. III.B and Fig. 4(b,d)] The assignments of Omega_c(3000) and Omega_c(3050) to the lower j=1 poles rely on bare masses M[Omega_c1(1/2^-)] = 3040 MeV and M[Omega_c1(3/2^-)] = 3060 MeV, which are chosen from expected quark-model mass splittings rather than determined within the model. The lower poles at 3003 and 3044 MeV are not numerically equal to these inputs, so the procedure is not a pure identity, but the agreement with the observed masses is achieved by selecting the inputs. The paper should quantify the sensitivity of the lower-pole positions to the bare masses and state the range of M[Omega_c1] over which the identification with Omega_c(3000) and Omega_c(3050) remains within the experimental mass uncertainties.
  3. [Sec. III.A, Sec. III.B, and Table IV] The paper makes statements about the decay widths of the identified states, for example that the Omega_c(2954) bound state is naturally narrow and that the Omega_c(3000) and Omega_c(3050) poles are expected to be narrow because decays to Xi_c Kbar violate heavy quark spin symmetry. These statements are based on symmetry arguments only; no partial widths are computed. Since the abstract and the phenomenological claims rely on the consistency with the measured narrow widths (e.g., 0.67 MeV for Omega_c(3050)), the authors should either compute the relevant widths (including the isospin-breaking and radiative widths of the bound state) or explicitly state that the widths are not predicted by the model and that the agreement is only qualitative.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. I] In the abstract and the introduction, the phrase 'hunt for in the Omega_c^(*) )gamma and Omega_c^(*) pi final states' contains an extra parenthesis; it should read 'in the Omega_c^(*) gamma and Omega_c^(*) pi final states.'
  2. [Fig. 5] The caption and labels of Fig. 5 are garbled: the threshold labels appear as 'cK', 'c'K', and 'c*K', and the caption itself is incomplete. The figure should be regenerated with full labels such as 'Xi_c Kbar', 'Xi'_c Kbar', and 'Xi*_c Kbar'.
  3. [Sec. III.A] The broad pole at 3206 - 118i MeV is mentioned in the text but is not shown in any figure; including it in Fig. 3 or in a table of all poles would make the full spectrum easier to follow.
  4. [Sec. III.C] The claim that 'the conclusions of the Omega_c(2954), Omega_c(3000) and Omega_c(3050) states do not change in our coupled-channel perspective' is too strong given the parameter sensitivity shown in the preceding figures; a more cautious phrasing with explicit parameter ranges would be more appropriate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reduction: the Omega_c(2954) bound state and the j=1 classifications are genuine coupled-channel outputs, not identities with their inputs.

full rationale

I checked the three load-bearing outputs against the model inputs. For the (1/2-,0) sector, the pure Weinberg-Tomozawa Xi_c Kbar interaction already produces a virtual state at 2886-71i MeV (Sec. III.A, Lambda=1000 MeV); after coupling the bare Omega_c0(1/2-) state at 3020 MeV, the pole moves to a bound state at 2954 MeV, 66 MeV below the bare input and 11 MeV below the Xi_c Kbar threshold. This is a dynamical shift, not an identity, so the headline prediction is not equivalent to the chosen M0. For the j=1 sectors, the text adopts M[Omega_c1(1/2-)]=3040 and M[Omega_c1(3/2-)]=3060 on the basis of expected 1P_lambda mass splittings and then finds lower poles at 3003 and 3044 MeV; the paper phrases this as 'consistent with' and 'classified as' the observed Omega_c(3000) and Omega_c(3050), rather than claiming the observed masses are derived from first principles. The bare masses are not described as having been fitted to the experimental masses, and Figs. 3(b) and 4(b,d) show explicit three-point scans in Lambda and M0, so the parameter dependence is displayed rather than hidden. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work; citations [14-17,90-95] provide standard chiral/quark-model interactions and harmonic-oscillator parameters, which are technical inputs rather than load-bearing self-citations that forbid alternatives. The paper does contain an explicit caveat in Sec. IV ('it is still early to draw the final conclusion'), and the robustness claim in Sec. III.C is stronger than the three-point parameter scan fully supports, but missing quantitative sensitivity limits are a correctness/robustness concern, not circularity. I therefore find no step in the derivation chain that reduces, by construction or by fitting, to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central outputs are pole positions of a coupled-channel amplitude. These depend on a cutoff and on bare three-quark mass inputs that are chosen, not derived. The j=2 assignments are especially weak because the states are placed at their experimental masses without dynamics. The framework is a standard phenomenological one, but the predictive content is concentrated in parameter choices and the assumptions listed above.

free parameters (8)
  • Cutoff Lambda = 1000 MeV (varied 800-1200)
    Used to regularize loop functions; pole positions shift with Lambda in Figs. 3 and 4.
  • Bare mass M[Omega_c0(1/2-)] = 3020 MeV
    Chosen so the coupled-channel bound state lands near 2954 MeV; Fig. 3(b) shows the result changes with this input.
  • Bare mass M[Omega_c1(1/2-)] = 3040 MeV
    Chosen so the lower j=1 pole matches Omega_c(3000); Fig. 4(b) shows the dependence.
  • Bare mass M[Omega_c1(3/2-)] = 3060 MeV
    Chosen so the lower j=1 pole matches Omega_c(3050); Fig. 4(d) shows the dependence.
  • Bare masses M[Omega_c2(3/2-)] and M[Omega_c2(5/2-)] = 3065 and 3090 MeV
    Identified directly with the observed Omega_c(3065) and Omega_c(3090); no mass calculation is performed for the j=2 states.
  • Quark axial-vector coupling g_q^A = 1
    Adopted from the linear realization of chiral symmetry; the paper notes it may be overestimated and can be partly absorbed by Lambda.
  • Pseudoscalar decay constant f_p = 111 MeV
    Sets the overall strength of both the Weinberg-Tomozawa and bare-state coupling terms.
  • Quark model parameters m, m_c, alpha_rho, alpha_lambda = 450, 1500, 331, 387 MeV
    Harmonic oscillator parameters for the wave functions and vertex form factors, taken from earlier quark model calculations.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Only S-wave meson-baryon channels are considered, and only the time/zero components of the Weinberg-Tomozawa interaction are kept (Sec. II.A).
    Justified for near-threshold dynamics, but higher partial waves and momentum-dependent corrections are neglected.
  • domain assumption The heavy quark in the Omega_c acts as a spectator; only the two light quarks couple to the pseudoscalar meson (Sec. II.B).
    Standard heavy quark spin symmetry assumption that determines the coupling scheme in Table III.
  • domain assumption Baryon spatial wave functions are harmonic oscillator states with SU(3) symmetry for light quarks, using the stated alpha parameters (Sec. II.B).
    Underlies all Vbare transition amplitudes; the explicit matrix elements are not shown in the paper.
  • domain assumption Sharp cutoff regularization with Lambda replaces the Gaussian form factors generated by the wave functions (Sec. II.C).
    Models finite hadron size and introduces model dependence in the pole positions.
  • ad hoc to paper The j=2 physical states Omega_c(3065) and Omega_c(3090) are the undressed three-quark bare states with no S-wave meson-baryon dressing (Sec. III.C).
    The paper assigns two observed states to input bare masses rather than deriving them from the coupled-channel dynamics.
invented entities (2)
  • Omega_c(2954) bound state independent evidence
    purpose: Explains the near-Xi_c Kbar threshold enhancement and provides a new narrow state to search for.
    The paper gives a mass, quantum numbers (1/2-, j=0), and candidate decay channels Omega_c(*) pi and Omega_c(*) gamma, so the prediction is falsifiable. However, its mass is sensitive to the chosen bare core mass.
  • Higher j=1 poles near 3066 and 3113 MeV independent evidence
    purpose: Fill out the coupled-channel spectrum; 3066 is an unobserved state candidate and 3113 is assigned to Omega_c(3119).
    The paper lists masses and couplings for these poles, but does not compute widths, and the 3066 state is currently unobserved, so the evidence is weaker than for the lower poles.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Understanding the low-lying $\Omega_c$ structures from a coupled-channel perspective." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L3DEV67H

@misc{pith2026250706611,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Understanding the low-lying $\Omega_c$ structures from a coupled-channel perspective},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L3DEV67H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.06611}
}
abstract

We perform a systematic analysis of the low-lying $\Omega_c$ structures in a coupled-channel approach. The couplings between meson-baryon channels, $\Xi_c \bar K$, $\Xi_c^{\prime} \bar K$, $\Xi_c^{*} \bar K$, $\Omega_c\eta$ and $\Omega_c^{*}\eta$, and three-quark bare states $\Omega_c(1P_\lambda)$ are considered. We predict a bound state $\Omega_c(2954)$ below the $\Xi_c \bar K$ threshold with $(J^P,j)=(1/2^-,0)$, which can be studied in the final states of $\Omega_c^{(*)} \pi$ and $\Omega_c^{(*)} \gamma$. Also, the resonances $\Omega_c(3000)$ and $\Omega_c(3050)$ can be classified as the lower $(J^P,j)=(1/2^-,1)$ and $(J^P,j)=(3/2^-,1)$ states, respectively. Our present assignments based on this coupled-channel perspective are significantly different from those of traditional three-quark picture and of molecular scenario. The future BelleII and LHCb experiments can search for the bound state $\Omega_c(2954)$ and measure the spin-parities of particles $\Omega_c(3000)$ and $\Omega_c(3050)$ to test our predictions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.06611 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The Feynman diagram for contact interactions for mes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: (a) Trajectory of the pole of a pure meson-baryon mole [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4: (a) The mass of a pure meson-baryon molecular state wi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The whole picture for the low-lying [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    is uniquely determined. In the present study we employ gq A = 1 which is the value when the quark belongs to the lowest-dimensional representatio n (1/2, 0) + (0, 1/2) of the linear realization of chiral symme- try [96]. To match the nonrelativistic wave functions of heavy baryons, the interacting operator can be expanded in powers of 1/m, which is sufficie...

  2. [2]

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

    2022

  3. [3]

    Also, when the Λincreases from 800 to 1200 MeV , the energies decrease with more binding energy as the attractions increase

    It can be seen that the two-pole struc- tures emerge in both channels, where the lower poles corre- spond to bound states, and the higher poles manifest as bound states in the first Riemann sheet or resonances in the second Riemann sheet. Also, when the Λincreases from 800 to 1200 MeV , the energies decrease with more binding energy as the attractions incr...

  4. [4]

    Also, the JP = 3/2− bound state has a binding energy of 8–93 MeV

    When the Λvaries from 800 to 1200 MeV , the pole of JP = 1/2− bound state locates in the mass region of 3066–2984 MeV corresponding to the binding energy of 8–90 MeV. Also, the JP = 3/2− bound state has a binding energy of 8–93 MeV. Obviously, the binding energies of these two states are quit e similar. The reason is that the Ξ′ c ¯K − Ωcη and Ξ∗ c ¯K − Ω...

  5. [5]

    3: (a) Trajectory of the pole of a pure meson-baryon mole cular state with ( JP, j) = (1/2−, 0) in the second Riemann sheet as a function of cutoffparameter Λ

    In this scheme, the enhancement near Ξc ¯K threshold arising from the undis- 6 ΞcKa) 2881-124i MeV with Λ=800 MeV 2934 MeV with Λ=1200 MeV ΞcK Threshold 2800 2850 2900 2950 3000 -150 -100 -50 0 50 Re[ s ](MeV) Im[ s ](MeV) ΞcK -Ωc0(1/2-)(b) 800 900 1000 1100 1200 2930 2940 2950 2960 2970 2980 Λ(MeV) Mass(MeV) FIG. 3: (a) Trajectory of the pole of a pure m...

  6. [6]

    H. X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, Y . R. Liu and S. L. Zhu, A review of the open charm and open bottom systems, Rept. Prog. Phys. 80, 076201 (2017)

    2017

  7. [7]

    Silvestre- Brac and C

    B. Silvestre- Brac and C. Gignoux, Unitary e ffects in spin or- bit splitting of P wave baryons, Phys. Rev. D 43, 3699-3708 (1991)

    1991

  8. [8]

    H. X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, Y . R. Liu and S. L. Zhu, An 9 updated review of the new hadron states, Rept. Prog. Phys. 86, 026201 (2023)

    2023

Show all 104 references
  1. [9]

    Nieves, A

    J. Nieves, A. Feijoo, M. Albaladejo and M. L. Du, Lowest-l ying 1 2 − and 3 2 − ΛQ resonances: From the strange to the bottom sec- tors, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 137, 104118 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    Crede and J

    V . Crede and J. Yelton, 70 years of hyperon spectroscopy: a review of strange Ξ, Ωbaryons, and the spectrum of charmed and bottom baryons, Rept. Prog. Phys. 87, 106301 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    N. A. Tornqvist and P . Zenczykowski, Ground-state baryo n mass splittings from unitarity, Phys. Rev. D 29, 2139 (1984)

    1984

  4. [12]

    Z. Y . Zhou and Z. Xiao, Hadron loops e ffect on mass shifts of the charmed and charmed-strange spectra, Phys. Rev. D 84, 034023 (2011)

    2011

  5. [13]

    D. S. Hwang and D. W. Kim, Mass of D∗ sJ (2317) and coupled- channel effect, Phys. Lett. B 601, 137-143 (2004)

    2004

  6. [14]

    M. R. Pennington and D. J. Wilson, Decay channels and char - monium mass shifts, Phys. Rev. D 76, 077502 (2007)

    2007

  7. [15]

    Barnes and E

    T. Barnes and E. S. Swanson, Hadron loops: General theo- rems and application to charmonium, Phys. Rev. C 77, 055206 (2008)

    2008

  8. [16]

    TABLE IV: The relevant couplings gi × g j between the full coupled- channel states and meson-baryon channels

    and listed in Table IV for reference. TABLE IV: The relevant couplings gi × g j between the full coupled- channel states and meson-baryon channels. It should be ment ioned that the two j = 2 states have no coupling to the meson-baryon chan- nels of an S −wave. Pole (MeV) ( JP,...

  9. [17]

    B. Q. Li, C. Meng and K. T. Chao, Coupled-channel and scre en- ing effects in charmonium spectrum, Phys. Rev. D 80, 014012 (2009)

    2009

  10. [18]

    J. F. Liu and G. J. Ding, Bottomonium Spectrum with Coupl ed- Channel Effects, Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 1981 (2012)

    2012

  11. [19]

    Nagahiro, K

    H. Nagahiro, K. Nawa, S. Ozaki, D. Jido and A. Hosaka, Com - posite and elementary natures of a1(1260) meson, Phys. Rev. D 83, 111504 (2011)

    2011

  12. [20]

    Nagahiro and A

    H. Nagahiro and A. Hosaka, Composite and elementary nat ure of a resonance in the σ model, Phys. Rev. C 88, 055203 (2013)

    2013

  13. [21]

    Nagahiro and A

    H. Nagahiro and A. Hosaka, Elementarity of composite sy s- tems, Phys. Rev. C 90, 065201 (2014)

    2014

  14. [22]

    Q. F. L¨ u, H. Nagahiro and A. Hosaka, Understanding the nature of Ω(2012) in a coupled-channel approach, Phys. Rev. D 107, 014025 (2023)

    2012

  15. [23]

    Ferretti, G

    J. Ferretti, G. Galat` a and E. Santopinto, Quark struct ure of the X(3872) and χb(3P) resonances, Phys. Rev. D 90, 054010 (2014)

    2014

  16. [24]

    Z. W. Liu, J. M. M. Hall, D. B. Leinweber, A. W. Thomas and J. J. Wu, Structure of the Λ(1405) from Hamiltonian e ffective field theory, Phys. Rev. D 95, 014506 (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    Y . Lu, M. N. Anwar and B. S. Zou, How Large is the Contri- bution of Excited Mesons in Coupled-Channel E ffects?, Phys. Rev. D 95, 034018 (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

    S. Q. Luo, B. Chen, Z. W. Liu and X. Liu, Resolving the low mass puzzle of Λc(2940)+, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 301 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    S. Q. Luo, B. Chen, X. Liu and T. Matsuki, Predicting a new resonance as charmed-strange baryonic analog of D∗ s0(2317), Phys. Rev. D 103, 074027 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    J. M. Xie, M. Z. Liu and L. S. Geng, Ds0(2590) as a dominant c ¯s state with a small D∗K component, Phys. Rev. D 104, 094051 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    R. H. Ni, Q. Li and X. H. Zhong, Mass spectra and strong de- cays of charmed and charmed-strange mesons, Phys. Rev. D 105, 056006 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    P . G. Ortega, J. Segovia, D. R. Entem and F. Fernandez, Co u- pled channel approach to the structure of the X(3872), Phys. Rev. D 81, 054023 (2010)

    2010

  23. [31]

    Z. Yang, G. J. Wang, J. J. Wu, M. Oka and S. L. Zhu, Novel Coupled Channel Framework Connecting the Quark Model and Lattice QCD for the Near-threshold Ds States, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 11 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    Z. L. Zhang, Z. W. Liu, S. Q. Luo, F. L. Wang, B. Wang and H. Xu, Λc(2910) and Λc(2940) as conventional baryons dressed with the D∗N channel, Phys. Rev. D 107, 034036 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    Yamaguchi, A

    Y . Yamaguchi, A. Hosaka, S. Takeuchi and M. Takizawa, Heavy hadronic molecules with pion exchange and quark core cou- plings: a guide for practitioners, J. Phys. G 47, 053001 (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Observation of five new narrow Ω0 c states decaying to Ξ+ c K−, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 182001 (2017)

    2017

  27. [35]

    Yelton et al

    J. Yelton et al. (Belle Collaboration), Observation of Excited Ωc Charmed Baryons in e+e− Collisions, Phys. Rev. D 97, 051102 (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Observation of excited Ω0 c baryons in Ω− b → Ξ+ c K−π−decays, Phys. Rev. D 104, L091102 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Observation of New Ω0 c States Decaying to the Ξ+ c K− Final State, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 131902 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    H. X. Chen, Q. Mao, W. Chen, A. Hosaka, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, Decay properties of P-wave charmed baryons from light-cone QCD sum rules, Phys. Rev. D 95, 094008 (2017)

    2017

  31. [39]

    Karliner and J

    M. Karliner and J. L. Rosner, V ery narrow excited Ωc baryons, Phys. Rev. D 95, 114012 (2017)

    2017

  32. [40]

    K. L. Wang, L. Y . Xiao, X. H. Zhong and Q. Zhao, Understand - ing the newly observed Ωc states through their decays, Phys. Rev. D 95, 116010 (2017)

    2017

  33. [41]

    Wang and R

    W. Wang and R. L. Zhu, Interpretation of the newly observ ed Ω0 c resonances, Phys. Rev. D 96, 014024 (2017)

    2017

  34. [42]

    Padmanath and N

    M. Padmanath and N. Mathur, Quantum Numbers of Recently Discovered Ω0 c Baryons from Lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 042001 (2017)

    2017

  35. [43]

    H. Y . Cheng and C. W. Chiang, Quantum numbers of Ωc states and other charmed baryons, Phys. Rev. D 95, 094018 (2017)

    2017

  36. [44]

    Z. G. Wang, Analysis of Ωc(3000) , Ωc(3050) , Ωc(3066) , Ωc(3090) and Ωc(3119) with QCD sum rules, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 325 (2017)

    2017

  37. [45]

    Z. Zhao, D. D. Ye and A. Zhang, Hadronic decay properties of newly observed Ωc baryons, Phys. Rev. D 95, 114024 (2017)

    2017

  38. [46]

    Chen and X

    B. Chen and X. Liu, New Ω0 c baryons discovered by LHCb as the members of 1 P and 2 S states, Phys. Rev. D 96, 094015 (2017)

    2017

  39. [47]

    G. L. Y u, Z. Y . Li, Z. G. Wang, J. Lu and M. Yan, Systematic analysis of single heavy baryons ΛQ, ΣQ and ΩQ, Nucl. Phys. B 990, 116183 (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    S. Q. Luo and X. Liu, Newly observed Ωc(3327): A good candi- date for a D−wave charmed baryon, Phys. Rev. D 107, 074041 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    Y . X. Peng, S. Q. Luo and X. Liu, Refining radiative decay s tud- ies in singly heavy baryons, Phys. Rev. D 110, 074034 (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi and H. Sundu, Interpretation of the new Ω0 c states via their mass and width, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 395 (2017)

    2017

  43. [51]

    K. L. Wang, Y . X. Yao, X. H. Zhong and Q. Zhao, Strong and radiative decays of the low-lying S - and P-wave singly heavy baryons, Phys. Rev. D 96, 116016 (2017)

    2017

  44. [52]

    K. Chen, Y . Dong, X. Liu, Q. F. L¨ u and T. Matsuki, Regge-like relation and a universal description of heavy–light system s, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 20 (2018)

    2018

  45. [53]

    Santopinto, A

    E. Santopinto, A. Giachino, J. Ferretti, H. Garc´ ıa-Te cocoatzi, M. A. Bedolla, R. Bijker and E. Ortiz-Pacheco, The Ωc-puzzle solved by means of quark model predictions, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 1012 (2019)

    2019

  46. [54]

    Gandhi and A

    K. Gandhi and A. K. Rai, Spectrum of strange singly charm ed 10 baryons in the constituent quark model, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 135, (2020)

    2020

  47. [55]

    Garcilazo, J

    H. Garcilazo, J. Vijande and A. V alcarce, Faddeev study of heavy baryon spectroscopy, J. Phys. G 34, 961-976 (2007)

    2007

  48. [56]

    Ebert, R

    D. Ebert, R. N. Faustov and V . O. Galkin, Spectroscopy an d Regge trajectories of heavy baryons in the relativistic qua rk- diquark picture, Phys. Rev. D 84, 014025 (2011)

    2011

  49. [57]

    R. N. Faustov and V . O. Galkin, Heavy Baryon Spectroscopy in the Relativistic Quark Model, Particles 3, 234-244 (2020)

    2020

  50. [58]

    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, 054513 (2020)

    2020

  51. [59]

    D. J. Jia, J. H. Pan and C. Q. Pang, A Mixing Coupling Schem e for Spectra of Singly Heavy baryons with spin-1 diquarks in P-waves, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 434 (2021)

    2021

  52. [60]

    B. Chen, S. Q. Luo and X. Liu, Universal behavior of mass g aps existing in the single heavy baryon family, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 474 (2021)

    2021

  53. [61]

    M. V . Polyakov and M. Praszalowicz, Landscape of heavy baryons from the perspective of the chiral quark-soliton mo del, Phys. Rev. D 105, 094004 (2022)

    2022

  54. [62]

    Garcia-Tecocoatzi, A

    H. Garcia-Tecocoatzi, A. Giachino, J. Li, A. Ramirez-M orales and E. Santopinto, Strong decay widths and mass spectra of charmed baryons, Phys. Rev. D 107, 034031 (2023)

    2023

  55. [63]

    G. L. Y u, Y . Meng, Z. Y . Li, Z. G. Wang and L. Jie, Strong decay properties of single heavy baryons ΛQ, ΣQ and ΩQ, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 38, 2350082 (2023)

    2023

  56. [64]

    Z. G. Wang, F. Lu and Y . Liu, Analysis of the D−wave Σ-type charmed baryon states with the QCD sum rules, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 689 (2023)

    2023

  57. [65]

    Oudichhya and A

    J. Oudichhya and A. K. Rai, Spin-parity identification o f newly observed singly charmed baryons in Regge phenomenology, Eur. Phys. J. A 59, 123 (2023)

    2023

  58. [66]

    Ortiz-Pacheco and R

    E. Ortiz-Pacheco and R. Bijker, Masses and radiative de cay widths of S- and P-wave singly, doubly, and triply heavy char m and bottom baryons, Phys. Rev. D 108, 054014 (2023)

    2023

  59. [67]

    J. H. Pan and J. Pan, Investigation of the mass spectra of singly heavy baryons ΣQ, Ξ′ Q, and ΩQ(Q = c, b) in the Regge trajectory model, Phys. Rev. D 109, 076010 (2024)

    2024

  60. [68]

    Z. Y . Li, G. L. Y u, Z. G. Wang and J. Z. Gu, Heavy-quark dom- inance and fine structure of excited heavy baryons ΣQ, Ξ′ Q and ΩQ, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 1310 (2024)

    2024

  61. [69]

    X. Z. Weng, W. Z. Deng and S. L. Zhu, Heavy baryons in the relativized quark model with chromodynamics, Phys. Rev. D 110, 056052 (2024)

    2024

  62. [70]

    Ortiz-Pacheco and R

    E. Ortiz-Pacheco and R. Bijker, Strong decay widths of S - and P-wave singly-, doubly- and triply-heavy charm and bottom baryons, arXiv:2410.09622

    arXiv

  63. [71]

    H. H. Zhong, M. S. Liu, L. Y . Xiao, K. L. Wang, Qi-Li and X. H. Zhong, Ωc baryon spectrum and strong decays in a con- stituent quark model, arXiv:2502.13741

    arXiv

  64. [72]

    Yang and J

    G. Yang and J. Ping, Dynamical study of Ω0 c in the chiral quark model, Phys. Rev. D 97, 034023 (2018)

    2018

  65. [73]

    Huang, J

    H. Huang, J. Ping and F. Wang, Investigating the excited Ω0 c states through ΞcK and Ξ ′ cK decay channels, Phys. Rev. D 97, 034027 (2018)

    2018

  66. [74]

    H. C. Kim, M. V . Polyakov and M. Praszałowicz, Possibili ty of the existence of charmed exotica, Phys. Rev. D 96, 014009 (2017)

    2017

  67. [75]

    Liu and I

    Y . Liu and I. Zahed, Heavy and Strange Holographic Baryo ns, Phys. Rev. D 96, 056027 (2017)

    2017

  68. [76]

    C. S. An and H. Chen, Observed Ω0 c resonances as pentaquark states, Phys. Rev. D 96, 034012 (2017)

    2017

  69. [77]

    H. C. Kim, M. V . Polyakov, M. Praszalowicz and G. S. Yang, Strong decays of exotic and nonexotic heavy baryons in the chi- ral quark-soliton model, Phys. Rev. D 96, 094021 (2017); [er- ratum: Phys. Rev. D 97, 039901 (2018)]

    2017

  70. [78]

    Monta˜ na, A

    G. Monta˜ na, A. Feijoo and `A. Ramos, A meson-baryon molec- ular interpretation for some Ωc excited states, Eur. Phys. J. A 54, 64 (2018)

    2018

  71. [79]

    V . R. Debastiani, J. M. Dias, W. H. Liang and E. Oset, Mole c- ular Ωc states generated from coupled meson-baryon channels, Phys. Rev. D 97, 094035 (2018)

    2018

  72. [80]

    C. Wang, L. L. Liu, X. W. Kang, X. H. Guo and R. W. Wang, Possible open-charmed pentaquark molecule Ωc(3188) - the DΞ bound state - in the Bethe-Salpeter formalism, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 407 (2018)

    2018

  73. [81]

    R. Chen, A. Hosaka and X. Liu, Searching for possible Ωc-like molecular states from meson-baryon interaction, Phys. Rev . D 97, 036016 (2018)

    2018

  74. [82]

    Nieves, R

    J. Nieves, R. Pavao and L. Tolos, Ωc excited states within a SU(6)lsf× HQSS model, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 114 (2018)

    2018

  75. [83]

    Huang, C

    Y . Huang, C. J. Xiao, Q. F. L¨ u, R. Wang, J. He and L. S. Geng, Strong and radiative decays of DΞmolecular state and newly observed Ωc states, Phys. Rev. D 97, 094013 (2018)

    2018

  76. [84]

    V . R. Debastiani, J. M. Dias, W. H. Liang and E. Oset, Ω− b → (Ξ+ c K−) π− and the Ωc states, Phys. Rev. D 98, 094022 (2018)

    2018

  77. [85]

    Z. G. Wang and J. X. Zhang, Possible pentaquark candidat es: new excited Ωc states, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 503 (2018)

    2018

  78. [86]

    H. G. Xu, G. Chen, Y . L. Yan, D. M. Zhou, L. Zheng, Y . L. Xie, Z. L. She and B. H. Sa, Study on the Ω0 c States Decaying to Ξ+ c K− in pp collisions at √ s = 7, 13 TeV , Phys. Rev. C 102, 054319 (2020)

    2020

  79. [87]

    J. T. Zhu, S. Y . Kong, L. Q. Song and J. He, Systematical study of Ωc−like molecular states from interactions Ξ(′,∗) c ¯K(∗) and Ξ(∗)D(∗), Phys. Rev. D 105, 094036 (2022)

    2022

  80. [88]

    Q. Xin, X. S. Yang and Z. G. Wang, The singly charmed pen- taquark molecular states via the QCD sum rules, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 38, 2350123 (2023)

    2023

  81. [89]

    Y . Yan, X. Hu, H. Huang and J. Ping, Investigating excite d Ωc states from pentaquark perspective, Phys. Rev. D 108, 094045 (2023)

    2023

  82. [90]

    ¨Ozdem, Magnetic dipole moments of the Ωc(3185)0 and Ωc(3327)0 states from molecular perspective, Phys

    U. ¨Ozdem, Magnetic dipole moments of the Ωc(3185)0 and Ωc(3327)0 states from molecular perspective, Phys. Lett. B 849, 138432 (2024)

    2024

  83. [91]

    B. Wang, K. Chen, L. Meng and S. L. Zhu, Spectrum of the molecular pentaquarks, Phys. Rev. D 109, 074035 (2024)

    2024

  84. [92]

    Ikeno, W

    N. Ikeno, W. H. Liang and E. Oset, Molecular nature of the Ωc(3120) and its analogy with the Ω(2012), Phys. Rev. D 109, 054023 (2024)

    2012

  85. [93]

    Roberts and M

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

    2008

  86. [94]

    Y oshida, E

    T. Y oshida, E. Hiyama, A. Hosaka, M. Oka and K. Sadato, Spectrum of heavy baryons in the quark model, Phys. Rev. D 92, 114029 (2015)

    2015

  87. [95]

    Q. F. Song, Q. F. L¨ u and A. Hosaka, Bottom-charmed baryo ns in a nonrelativistic quark model, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 89 (2024)

    2024

  88. [96]

    M. S. Liu, K. L. Wang, Q. F. L¨ u and X. H. Zhong, Ωbaryon spectrum and their decays in a constituent quark model, Phys . Rev. D 101, 016002 (2020)

    2020

  89. [97]

    A. J. Arifi, D. Suenaga, A. Hosaka and Y . Oh, Strong decays of multistrangeness baryon resonances in the quark model, Phy s. Rev. D 105, 094006 (2022)

    2022

  90. [98]

    A. J. Arifi, H. Nagahiro and A. Hosaka, Three-Body Decay o f Λ∗ c(2595) and Λ∗ c(2625) with consideration of Σc(2455)π and Σ∗ c(2520)π in intermediate States, Phys. Rev. D 95, 114018 (2017)

    2017

  91. [99]

    Nagahiro, S

    H. Nagahiro, S. Yasui, A. Hosaka, M. Oka and H. Noumi, 11 Structure of charmed baryons studied by pionic decays, Phys . Rev. D 95, 014023 (2017)

    2017

  92. [100]

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

    arXiv

  93. [101]

    Weinberg, Algebraic realizations of chiral symmetr y, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Algebraic realizations of chiral symmetr y, Phys. Rev. 177, 2604-2620 (1969)

    1969

  94. [102]

    X. H. Zhong and Q. Zhao, Charmed baryon strong decays in a chiral quark model, Phys. Rev. D 77, 074008 (2008)

    2008

  95. [103]

    Liang, Q

    W. Liang, Q. F. L¨ u and X. H. Zhong, Canonical interpretation of the newly observed Λb(6146)0 and Λb(6152)0 via strong decay behaviors, Phys. Rev. D 100, 054013 (2019)

    2019

  96. [104]

    Liang and Q

    W. Liang and Q. F. L¨ u, Strong decays of the newly observe d narrow Ωb structures, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 198 (2020)

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.