Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 70 references

Three-point QCD sum rules predict the weak-decay widths of the Omega_b and Omega_b^* bottom baryons, with the Omega_b -> Omega_c^* electron channel at about 10.7% branching fraction.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 12:53 UTC pith:DEWVBJZS

load-bearing objection Solid, workmanlike QCD sum-rule calculation for Omega_b^* -> Omega_c and Omega_b -> Omega_c^*; the semileptonic half is publishable, the nonleptonic half needs an honest caveat about naive factorization before the branching fractions are used as precision predictions. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2510.01429 v3 pith:DEWVBJZS submitted 2025-10-01 hep-ph hep-exhep-lat

Semileptonic and nonleptonic weak decays of bottom baryons Ω^((*))_(b)

L. Khajouei , K. Azizi This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-exhep-lat
keywords bottom baryonsOmega_bQCD sum rulessemileptonic decaysnonleptonic decaysform factorsbranching ratiosoperator product expansion
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper aims to establish that three-point QCD sum rules, with the operator product expansion carried through dimension six, can predict the weak form factors of two unmeasured bottom-baryon transitions: the spin-3/2 Omega_b^* to spin-1/2 Omega_c transition, and the spin-1/2 Omega_b to spin-3/2 Omega_c^* transition. From these form factors the authors derive semileptonic decay widths in the electron, muon, and tau channels, and then feed the same form factors into two-body nonleptonic widths with a pseudoscalar or vector meson emitted. The central numerical claims are a branching fraction of about 10.7% for Omega_b -> Omega_c^* e nu_e, a tau-to-electron ratio of 0.14 for that transition (0.21 for Omega_b^* -> Omega_c), and a hierarchy of nonleptonic rates in which the D_s and D_s^* modes are largest. If correct, these are concrete Standard Model predictions that future experiments can use to look for new physics in heavy-baryon decays.

Core claim

The central claim is that the eight form factors (four vector, four axial-vector) governing Omega_b^* -> Omega_c and Omega_b -> Omega_c^* can be extracted from QCD sum rules and reliably fitted over the full physical q^2 range. Using helicity amplitudes, these form factors give Gamma[Omega_b^* -> Omega_c e nu_e] = (1.54 +0.29/-0.27) x 10^-14 GeV, Gamma[Omega_b -> Omega_c^* e nu_e] = (4.30 +1.18/-1.29) x 10^-14 GeV, and Br(Omega_b -> Omega_c^* e nu_e) = 10.7%. The same form factors, evaluated at the meson mass squared and combined with naive factorization, yield the nonleptonic widths; for example, Omega_b -> Omega_c^* rho^- is predicted at (2.89) x 10^-14 GeV with branching ratio 7.2%, and O

What carries the argument

Three-point QCD sum rules: a correlation function with interpolating currents for the initial and final baryons and the weak transition current in between is computed on the hadronic side and, via the operator product expansion (dimension <= 6), on the quark-gluon side; double Borel transformation and continuum subtraction isolate the ground-state contribution. The Rarita-Schwinger formalism handles the spin-3/2 baryon. After extracting the form factors, helicity amplitudes convert them into decay widths; for the nonleptonic modes the hadronic matrix element is approximated by naive factorization, factorizing into a baryonic weak current matrix element and a meson decay constant with C_eff =

Load-bearing premise

The semileptonic predictions collapse if quark-hadron duality is poor enough that cutting the spectral integrals at the continuum thresholds discards real hadronic strength; the nonleptonic predictions additionally collapse if naive factorization—which keeps only the W-emission tree amplitude with C_eff = 1.02 and no final-state interactions—is not a good approximation.

What would settle it

Measure Gamma(Omega_b -> Omega_c^* e nu_e) or its branching fraction (expected 10.7%) in a high-statistics bottom-baryon experiment; a value outside roughly (4.3 +1.2/-1.3) x 10^-14 GeV, or a tau ratio R_Omega_b differing from 0.14 by more than the quoted 0.01, would show the form factors or the factorization input are wrong. A direct lattice-QCD computation of these form factors at q^2 = 0 would also settle the matter.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The 10.7% branching fraction predicted for Omega_b -> Omega_c^* e nu_e is large enough for a first measurement at current or near-future bottom-baryon facilities; a measured value far outside the quoted uncertainty would signal that the sum-rule form factors are off.
  • Within the paper's assumptions, Omega_b -> Omega_c^* rho^- should be the most prominent nonleptonic channel at 7.2 x 10^-2, followed by D_s^{*-} at 4.4 x 10^-2; the hierarchy among pseudoscalar and vector modes is a testable pattern.
  • The tau ratios R = 0.21 (Omega_b^* -> Omega_c) and 0.14 (Omega_b -> Omega_c^*) are insensitive to the overall normalization error; they should hold even if individual widths shift.
  • The predicted Omega_b -> Omega_c^* electron width of 4.30 x 10^-14 GeV sits above several existing quark-model estimates (which range roughly 1.3-3.5 x 10^-14), so a precise measurement can discriminate between the approaches.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: the authors leave implicit that the tau ratios R are the cleanest new-physics probes because hadronic uncertainties largely cancel; an experimental value for R_Omega_b differing from 0.14 would point to lepton-flavor non-universality rather than to QCD-sum-rule error.
  • Inference: the naive-factorization input could be tested by comparing the D_s/D and vector/pseudoscalar rate ratios in Tables VII and X; any systematic deviation in pattern would indicate nonfactorizable gluon exchange or final-state rescattering, which the paper's quoted error bars do not include.
  • Inference: the same three-point sum-rule construction should transfer directly to other 1/2 -> 3/2 and 3/2 -> 1/2 bottom-baryon transitions, giving a complete set of Standard Model predictions for unmeasured heavy-baryon channels before data arrive.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper computes the transition form factors for the semileptonic weak decays Ω_b^* → Ω_c ℓ ν̄_ℓ and Ω_b → Ω_c^* ℓ ν̄_ℓ using three-point QCD sum rules with the operator product expansion up to dimension six. The form factors are fitted to a polynomial in q^2 and then used to compute semileptonic decay widths in the e, μ, and τ channels, including branching fractions for the Ω_b modes. The same form factors are subsequently used, under a naive factorization assumption with a single effective Wilson coefficient C_eff = 1.02, to estimate two-body nonleptonic decay widths to pseudoscalar and vector mesons. The paper presents numerical tables of form factors, widths, and branching ratios, and compares the Ω_b → Ω_c^* semileptonic width with earlier model predictions.

Significance. If the semileptonic results are correct, they provide a useful QCD-sum-rule baseline for the as-yet-unmeasured Ω_b^* and Ω_c^* transitions, with the Ω_b → Ω_c^* ℓ ν̄_ℓ width lying within the spread (though on the high end) of previous model estimates. The paper's advertised nonleptonic predictions, however, rest on a much less robust factorization assumption, and the quoted uncertainties do not include the dominant model error. The semileptonic part is a standard application of the three-point sum-rule machinery and is valuable as a cross-check; the nonleptonic part needs to be either substantially caveated or supplied with a realistic systematic uncertainty.

major comments (3)
  1. [§IV.A, Eq. (40); Tables VII and X] The nonleptonic widths are computed in naive factorization with C_eff = 1.02 and no uncertainty assigned to this approximation. The text explicitly calls it 'approximate factorization' and retains only the W-emission tree contribution, yet the quoted branching fractions are presented as SM predictions with error bars that propagate only form-factor, CKM, and decay-constant uncertainties. Since Γ ∝ C_eff^2 and nonfactorizable corrections (gluon exchange, W exchange, final-state interactions) are known to be non-negligible in heavy-baryon decays, the quoted precision is not supported. The authors should either quantify this model uncertainty or clearly label the nonleptonic results as factorization-model estimates.
  2. [§III, Tables III and IV; §IV] The q^2 shape of every form factor is fixed by the fit parameters a1–a4 in Eq. (32), but these are quoted without uncertainties and no statement explains how their variation enters the width error bars. If the errors in Tables V, VII, VIII, and X are obtained by propagating only the q^2 = 0 normalization F(0), the uncertainty is underestimated because the integrand also depends on the shape. Please specify the error propagation procedure and provide uncertainties on the a_i or an equivalent error band.
  3. [Appendix C] Only the spectral density for the g_μν /p′ γ5 structure is given explicitly, while the sum-rule expressions in Eqs. (B2)–(B8) for F2, F3, F4, G2, G3, and G4 require spectral densities and Γ functions for several other Lorentz structures. Without these, the central sum-rule results are not independently checkable. Please include all used spectral densities or provide them as ancillary material.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (53)] The prefactor 'G2_F' appears to be a typo for 'G_F^2'. Please also check the overall normalization against Eq. (44) for consistency between the pseudoscalar and vector meson formulas.
  2. [Table XI] The comparison with other approaches is given only for Ω_b → Ω_c^* ℓ ν̄_ℓ. The Ω_b^* → Ω_c transition has no comparison table; a brief comment on the absence of prior predictions would be useful.
  3. [Introduction] There is a typo: 'semileptonin weak processes' should be 'semileptonic weak processes'.
  4. [Summary and Conclusion] The conclusion says 'an extensive investigation into all possible decay channels,' but only W-emission tree-level nonleptonic modes are considered. Please adjust the wording to reflect the actual scope.
  5. [§II.A] The removal of spin-1/2 contaminations by dropping structures proportional to γ_ν and p_ν is stated briefly. A short demonstration that the selected Lorentz structures are indeed free of these contaminations would improve the presentation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: form factors are computed from three-point QCD sum rules without assuming the target widths; the nonleptonic factorization is an acknowledged external model assumption, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is internally consistent and not circular: the correlation function (Eq. 4) is evaluated on the QCD side via the OPE (Eqs. 16-27) and matched to the phenomenological side (Eq. 12), giving sum rules for the transition form factors (Appendix B). The form factors are then interpolated with Eq. (32) and used in helicity amplitudes to compute semileptonic widths (Eqs. 37, 47) and, after evaluation at q^2 = m_M^2, nonleptonic widths within naive factorization (Eqs. 40, 44, 53). No target width or branching ratio is inserted as an input; the only fitted objects are the shape parameters of the form factors, which are fitted to the QCD-sum-rule predictions, not to the decay observables. The residues and masses in Table II are taken from earlier two-point QCD sum-rule analyses, including same-author ref. [31], but these are auxiliary hadronic inputs that do not presuppose the transition form factors or the final widths, so they are not load-bearing circularity. The interpolating-current conventions from ref. [42] are also auxiliary. The central caveat is the nonleptonic sector: Eq. (40) is explicitly called an "approximate factorization" retaining only the W-emission/tree contribution, with C_eff = 1.02 and no uncertainty assigned to C_eff or to omitted nonfactorizable, W-exchange, and FSI contributions. This is a real model-dependence and error-accounting concern, but it is an external approximation, not a circular derivation of the output from the input. External comparison in Table XI further anchors the semileptonic results.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central numbers rest on standard QCD sum-rule assumptions (duality, OPE truncation, current overlap and residue inputs) plus, for the nonleptonic half, an explicit factorization approximation. Five groups of free parameters or auxiliary choices enter: Borel windows, continuum thresholds, the mixing parameter x, the q^2 fit coefficients a_i, and C_eff. The fit coefficients and C_eff are particularly important because they directly propagate into the final width tables without quoted uncertainties.

free parameters (5)
  • Borel parameters M^2, M'^2 = 9–12 GeV^2 and 6–9 GeV^2 (working intervals)
    Chosen by pole-dominance (PC≥1/2) and OPE-convergence (R≤0.05) conditions, Eqs. (28)–(30); uncertainties are folded into form-factor errors.
  • Continuum thresholds s0, s0' = (m_Ω_b*+0.1)^2 to (m_Ω_b*+0.5)^2 and (m_Ω_c+0.1)^2 to (m_Ω_c+0.5)^2 GeV^2
    Quark-hadron duality cutoffs selected for stability in Eq. (31); no independent determination is provided.
  • Mixing parameter x=cos(tan^{-1}β) = -1.0 to -0.5; central Ioffe point x=-0.71
    Free parameter in the spin-1/2 interpolating current introduced in Sec. III and chosen for stability.
  • Fit coefficients a1–a4 per form factor = Tables III and IV, e.g. F2: a1=1.75, a2=0.61, a3=0.13, a4=-0.02
    Polynomial interpolation of computed form-factor points, Eq. (32); quoted without uncertainties and then integrated to produce decay widths.
  • Effective Wilson coefficient C_eff = 1.02
    C1(μ_b)+C2(μ_b)/N_c at μ_b=4.2 GeV; multiplies all nonleptonic widths and is assigned no error.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Quark-hadron duality: after Borel transformation, higher states and continuum are cancelled by cutting the spectral integrals at s0 and s0'.
    Core of the sum-rule extraction; introduced in Sec. II B around Eqs. (25)–(27). If duality is poor, all form factors inherit uncontrolled error.
  • ad hoc to paper Naive factorization of nonleptonic amplitudes, Eq. (40), with C_eff=C1+C2/N_c.
    Used for all nonleptonic widths in Secs. IV A and IV B; nonfactorizable, W-exchange, and final-state-interaction contributions are neglected without an estimate.
  • domain assumption Spin-1/2 contamination from the spin-3/2 interpolating current is fully removed by dropping the γ_ν and p_ν structures.
    Stated after Eq. (10); if residual spin-1/2 pollution survives in the chosen Lorentz structures, the extracted form factors are biased.
  • domain assumption The OPE up to dimension six is convergent inside the chosen Borel windows.
    Eq. (29) bounds the dimension-six contribution to ≤5%; higher-dimension operators and α_s corrections are omitted.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 36200 in / 13956 out tokens · 105493 ms · 2026-08-04T12:53:46.881668+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present an investigation into the semileptonic and nonleptonic weak decays of bottom baryons $\Omega^{*}_{b}$ and $\Omega_{b}$ within the framework of three-point QCD sum rules. In the semileptonic sector, the $\Omega^{*}_b\rightarrow\Omega_c\ell\bar{\nu}_{\ell}$ and $\Omega_b\rightarrow\Omega^*_c\ell\bar{\nu}_{\ell}$ transitions are specifically considered. Utilizing the operator product expansion up to dimension six, the responsible form factors of these decays are obtained. The acquired form factors enable us to determine the decay widths in three leptonic channels. Branching ratios related to the $\Omega_{b}$ baryon semileptonic decays are also presented. These invariant form factors are subsequently employed as inputs to determine the nonleptonic weak decay widths in various modes with emitting a pseudoscalar or vector meson. An extensive investigation into all possible decay channels of bottom baryons provides valuable information for future experiments to examine the SM predictions, explores the new physics effects in heavy baryonic decays, and advances the understanding of the internal structure of heavy baryons.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.01429 by K. Azizi, L. Khajouei.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Behavior of the form factors in relation to the Borel p [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Behavior of the form factors in relation to the Borel p [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Behavior of the form factors in relation to the Borel p [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Behavior of the form factors in relation to the Borel p [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Behavior of the form factors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 54 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    The Upgraded D0 Detector,

    V. M. Abazov et al. [D0], “The Upgraded D0 Detector,” Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 565, 463-537 (2006) , [arXiv:physics/0507191 [physics.ins-det]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  2. [2]

    Observation of the doubly strange b baryon Ω − b ,

    V. M. Abazov et al. [D0], “Observation of the doubly strange b baryon Ω − b ,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 232002 (2008) , [arXiv:0808.4142 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  3. [3]

    This heavy baryon was also reconstructed from the Ω − b → J/ΨΩ− decay, using 1.0 fb −1 of data recorded in 2011 with the LHCb detector [ 5]

    Collaboration [ 4]. This heavy baryon was also reconstructed from the Ω − b → J/ΨΩ− decay, using 1.0 fb −1 of data recorded in 2011 with the LHCb detector [ 5]. Moreover, the Ω b baryon was established in another decay mode, Ω− b → Ω0 c π−, Ω 0 c → pK−K−π+ at √ s=7 and 8 TeV by the LHCb experiment [ 6]. Ω b(6316), Ω b(6330), Ω b(6340), and Ω b(6350), as e...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  4. [4]

    and employing the Fourier transformation and integrating over x and y in four-dim ension, as, ΠP hys. µν (p, p′, q2) = ⟨0 | J Ωc(0) | Ωc(p′)⟩⟨Ωc(p′) | J tr µ (0) | Ω∗ b (p)⟩⟨Ω∗ b (p) | ¯J Ω∗ b ν (0) | 0⟩ (p′2 − m2 Ωc)(p2 − m2 Ω∗ b ) + · · · , (6) where ellipsis indicates the contributions of the higher states and co ntinuum. After introducing the residue ...

  5. [5]

    ≤ 0.05. (29) Taking these conditions into account, the proper intervals of the B orel parameters for the initial and final states are respectively achieved as, 9GeV2 ≤ M 2 ≤ 12GeV2, 6GeV2 ≤ M ′2 ≤ 9GeV2. (30) 8 s0=38.24 GeV 2 s0=40.75 GeV 2 s0=43.34 GeV 2 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.5 12.0 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 M2(GeV2) F1 s0=38.24 GeV 2 s0=40.75 GeV 2 s0=...

  6. [6]

    In a similar way to the Borel parameters, the ultimate results of the sum rules are considered t o be stable within the practical intervals of the continuum threshold parameters

    These parameters arise from the quark-hadron duality assumpt ion that is employed to eliminate any contribution to the excited modes and continuum in the initial and final states. In a similar way to the Borel parameters, the ultimate results of the sum rules are considered t o be stable within the practical intervals of the continuum threshold parameters....

  7. [7]

    We proceed by utilizing these form factors and fit functions to determine the decay rates in all leptonic channe ls

    The increasing form factors, by rising q2, depict the consistency with the weak transition’s expectation. We proceed by utilizing these form factors and fit functions to determine the decay rates in all leptonic channe ls. 13 TABLE IV: Fit function parameters for the form factors of the Ωb → Ω∗ cℓ¯νℓ semileptonic weak transition. F1(q2) F2(q2) F3(q2) F4(q2...

  8. [8]

    Observation of an excited charm baryon Ω ∗ c decaying to Ω 0 cγ,

    B. Aubert et al. [BaBar], “Observation of an excited charm baryon Ω ∗ c decaying to Ω 0 cγ,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 232001 (2006) , [arXiv:hep-ex/0608055 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  9. [9]

    Measurement of the J/ψ meson and b−hadron production cross sections in p¯p collisions at√s = 1960 GeV,

    D. Acosta et al. [CDF], “Measurement of the J/ψ meson and b−hadron production cross sections in p¯p collisions at√s = 1960 GeV,” Phys. Rev. D 71, 032001 (2005) , [arXiv:hep-ex/0412071 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1960

  10. [10]

    Observation of the Ω − b and Measurement of the Properties of the Ξ − b and Ω − b ,

    T. Aaltonen et al. [CDF], “Observation of the Ω − b and Measurement of the Properties of the Ξ − b and Ω − b ,” Phys. Rev. D 80, 072003 (2009) , [arXiv:0905.3123 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  11. [11]

    Measurement of the Λ 0 b , Ξ − b and Ω − b baryon masses,

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], “Measurement of the Λ 0 b , Ξ − b and Ω − b baryon masses,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, no.18, 182001 (2013) , [arXiv:1302.1072 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  12. [12]

    Measurement of the mass and lifetime of the Ω − b baryon,

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], “Measurement of the mass and lifetime of the Ω − b baryon,” Phys. Rev. D 93, no.9, 092007 (2016) , [arXiv:1604.01412 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  13. [13]

    First observation of excited Ω − b states,

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], “First observation of excited Ω − b states,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, no.8, 082002 (2020) , [arXiv:2001.00851 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2020

  14. [14]

    Λ b → pℓ−¯νℓ and Λ b → Λcℓ− ¯νℓ form factors from lattice QCD with relativistic heavy quarks,

    W. Detmold, C. Lehner and S. Meinel, “Λ b → pℓ−¯νℓ and Λ b → Λcℓ− ¯νℓ form factors from lattice QCD with relativistic heavy quarks,” Phys. Rev. D 92, no.3, 034503 (2015) , [arXiv:1503.01421 [hep-lat]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  15. [15]

    First Evidence of Ω 0 c → Ω−π+,

    P. L. Frabetti et al. [E687], “First Evidence of Ω 0 c → Ω−π+,” Phys. Lett. B 300, 190-194 (1993)

    1993

  16. [16]

    Production and decay of Ω 0 c,

    B. Aubert et al. [BaBar], “Production and decay of Ω 0 c,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 062001 (2007) , [arXiv:hep-ex/0703030 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  17. [17]

    Λ c → Λ Form Factors in Lattice QCD,

    H. Bahtiyar, “Λ c → Λ Form Factors in Lattice QCD,” Turk. J. Phys. 45, 4 (2021) , [arXiv:2107.13909 [hep-lat]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  18. [18]

    Λ c → Λl+νl form factors and decay rates from lattice QCD with physical q uark masses,

    S. Meinel, “Λ c → Λl+νl form factors and decay rates from lattice QCD with physical q uark masses,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, no.8, 082001 (2017) , [arXiv:1611.09696 [hep-lat]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  19. [19]

    Λ b → Λ∗ c (2595, 2625)ℓ− ¯νform factors from lattice QCD,

    S. Meinel and G. Rendon, “Λ b → Λ∗ c (2595, 2625)ℓ− ¯νform factors from lattice QCD,” Phys. Rev. D 103, no.9, 094516 (2021) , [arXiv:2103.08775 [hep-lat]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  20. [20]

    Restudy of the color-allowed two-bo dy nonleptonic decays of bottom baryons Ξ b and Ω b supported by hadron spectroscopy,

    Y. S. Li and X. Liu, “Restudy of the color-allowed two-bo dy nonleptonic decays of bottom baryons Ξ b and Ω b supported by hadron spectroscopy,” Phys. Rev. D 105, no.1, 013003 (2022) , [arXiv:2112.02481 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  21. [21]

    Weak decays of triply heavy baryons,

    Z. X. Zhao, F. W. Zhang and Q. Yang, “Weak decays of triply heavy baryons,” Eur. Phys. J. C 85, no.1, 106 (2025) , [arXiv:2204.00759 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Semileptonic weak de cays of antitriplet charmed baryons in the light-front formalism,

    C. Q. Geng, C. W. Liu and T. H. Tsai, “Semileptonic weak de cays of antitriplet charmed baryons in the light-front formalism,” Phys. Rev. D 103, no.5, 054018 (2021) , [arXiv:2012.04147 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  23. [23]

    Revisiting Λ b → Λc and Σ b → Σc weak decays in the light-front quark model,

    H. W. Ke, N. Hao and X. Q. Li, “Revisiting Λ b → Λc and Σ b → Σc weak decays in the light-front quark model,” Eur. Phys. J. C 79, no.6, 540 (2019) , [arXiv:1904.05705 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  24. [24]

    Study on the mixing of Ξ c and Ξ ′ c by the transition Ξ c → Ξ′ c ,

    H. W. Ke, G. Y. Fang and Y. L. Shi, “Study on the mixing of Ξ c and Ξ ′ c by the transition Ξ c → Ξ′ c ,” Phys. Rev. D 109, no.7, 073006 (2024) , [arXiv:2401.11106 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    change to s0 and s′ 0 as continuum thresholds of the initial and final baryonic states, resp ectively. In order to suppress the contributions of higher states and continuum on the QCD side, in a similar way to the phy sical side of the correlation function, it is required to employ the double Borel transformation, Eq. ( 11), and continuum subtraction, orig...

  26. [27]

    Light-cone sum rules analysis of Ξ QQ′ → ΣQ′ weak decays,

    X. H. Hu and Y. J. Shi, “Light-cone sum rules analysis of Ξ QQ′ → ΣQ′ weak decays,” Eur. Phys. J. C 80, no.1, 56 (2020) , [arXiv:1910.07909 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  27. [28]

    Semileptonic Ξ c baryon decays in the light cone QCD sum rules,

    T. M. Aliev, S. Bilmis and M. Savci, “Semileptonic Ξ c baryon decays in the light cone QCD sum rules,” Phys. Rev. D 104, no.5, 054030 (2021) , [arXiv:2108.01378 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  28. [29]

    The study of weak dec ays induced by 1 2 + → 3 2 − transition in light-cone sum rules,

    T. M. Aliev, S. Bilmis and M. Savci, “The study of weak dec ays induced by 1 2 + → 3 2 − transition in light-cone sum rules,” Phys. Lett. B 847, 138287 (2023) , [arXiv:2303.07505 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  29. [30]

    Relativistic descripti on of the Ξ b baryon semileptonic decays,

    R. N. Faustov and V. O. Galkin, “Relativistic descripti on of the Ξ b baryon semileptonic decays,” Phys. Rev. D 98, no.9, 093006 (2018) , [arXiv:1810.03388 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  30. [31]

    Toward dis covering the excited Ω baryons through nonleptonic weak decays of Ωc,

    K. L. Wang, Q. F. L¨ u, J. J. Xie and X. H. Zhong, “Toward dis covering the excited Ω baryons through nonleptonic weak decays of Ωc,” Phys. Rev. D 107, no.3, 034015 (2023) , [arXiv:2203.04458 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  31. [32]

    Excited Ω hyperon in charmful Ω b weak decays,

    K. L. Wang, J. Wang, Y. K. Hsiao and X. H. Zhong, “Excited Ω hyperon in charmful Ω b weak decays,” Phys. Rev. D 111, no.11, 114028 (2025) , [arXiv:2412.02464 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  32. [33]

    Study of vector a nd axial-vector form factors and the decay parameters for the semileptonic hyperon decays,

    H. Dahiya, A. Girdhar and M. Randhawa, “Study of vector a nd axial-vector form factors and the decay parameters for the semileptonic hyperon decays,” Indian J. Phys. 98, no.14, 4961-4971 (2024) , [arXiv:2405.00444 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  33. [34]

    Charm changing weak hadronic decays of triplet (C=1) baryons emitting axial-vector meso ns including factorizable and pole contributions,

    A. Sharma and R. C. Verma, “Charm changing weak hadronic decays of triplet (C=1) baryons emitting axial-vector meso ns including factorizable and pole contributions,” Phys. Rev. D 80, 094001 (2009) ,

    2009

  34. [35]

    The nonleptonic decays Ξ ++ cc → Ξ(′)+ c π+ within the nonrelativistic quark model,

    Y. S. Li, “The nonleptonic decays Ξ ++ cc → Ξ(′)+ c π+ within the nonrelativistic quark model,” Eur. Phys. J. C 85, no.9, 938 (2025) , [arXiv:2505.19758 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  35. [36]

    Semileptonic decay Λ b → Λc +τ − + ¯ντ in the covariant confined quark model,

    T. Gutsche, M. A. Ivanov, J. G. K¨ orner, V. E. Lyubovitsk ij, P. Santorelli and N. Habyl, “Semileptonic decay Λ b → Λc +τ − + ¯ντ in the covariant confined quark model,” Phys. Rev. D 91, no.7, 074001 (2015) , [arXiv:1502.04864 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  36. [37]

    On the nature of the ne wly discovered Ω states,

    S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi and H. Sundu, “On the nature of the ne wly discovered Ω states,” EPL 118, no.6, 61001 (2017) , [arXiv:1703.07091 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  37. [38]

    Analysis of the Λ b → Λℓ+ℓ− decay in QCD,

    T. M. Aliev, K. Azizi and M. Savci, “Analysis of the Λ b → Λℓ+ℓ− decay in QCD,” Phys. Rev. D 81, 056006 (2010) , [arXiv:1001.0227 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  38. [39]

    Strong Z+ c (3900) → J/ψπ +;ηcρ+ decays in QCD,

    S. S. Agaev, K. Azizi and H. Sundu, “Strong Z+ c (3900) → J/ψπ +;ηcρ+ decays in QCD,” Phys. Rev. D 93, no.7, 074002 (2016) , [arXiv:1601.03847 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  39. [40]

    For m Factors and Strong Couplings of Heavy Baryons from QCD Light-Cone Sum Rules,

    A. Khodjamirian, C. Klein, T. Mannel and Y. M. Wang, “For m Factors and Strong Couplings of Heavy Baryons from QCD Light-Cone Sum Rules,” JHEP 09, 106 (2011) , [arXiv:1108.2971 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  40. [41]

    Analysis of P + c (4380) and P + c (4450) as pentaquark states in the molecular picture with QCD sum rules,

    K. Azizi, Y. Sarac and H. Sundu, “Analysis of P + c (4380) and P + c (4450) as pentaquark states in the molecular picture with QCD sum rules,” Phys. Rev. D 95, no.9, 094016 (2017) , [arXiv:1612.07479 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  41. [42]

    Vacuum structure and QCD sum rules: Introd uction,

    M. Shifman, “Vacuum structure and QCD sum rules: Introd uction,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 25, 226-235 (2010)

    2010

  42. [43]

    QCD a nd Resonance Physics: Applications,

    M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein and V. I. Zakharov, “QCD a nd Resonance Physics: Applications,” Nucl. Phys. B 147, 448-518 (1979)

    1979

  43. [44]

    QCD a nd Resonance Physics. Theoretical Foundations,

    M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein and V. I. Zakharov, “QCD a nd Resonance Physics. Theoretical Foundations,” Nucl. Phys. B 147, 385-447 (1979)

    1979

  44. [45]

    50 Years of Quantum Chromodynamics,

    F. Gross, E. Klempt, S. J. Brodsky, A. J. Buras, V. D. Burk ert, G. Heinrich, K. Jakobs, C. A. Meyer, K. Orginos and M. Strickland, et al. “50 Years of Quantum Chromodynamics,” Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 1125 (2023) , [arXiv:2212.11107 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  45. [46]

    Hadron Form Factors,

    A. Khodjamirian, “Hadron Form Factors,” CRC Press, 2020, ISBN 978-1-138-30675-2, 978-1-315-14200 -5

    2020

  46. [47]

    QCD sum rules, a mode rn perspective,

    P. Colangelo and A. Khodjamirian, “QCD sum rules, a mode rn perspective,” doi:10.1142/9789812810458 0033, [arXiv:hep-ph/0010175 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  47. [48]

    Phenomenology of the semilep tonic Σ ∗0 b → Σ+ cℓ¯νℓ transition within QCD sum rules,

    L. Khajouei and K. Azizi, “Phenomenology of the semilep tonic Σ ∗0 b → Σ+ cℓ¯νℓ transition within QCD sum rules,” Phys. Rev. D 111, no.7, 074018 (2025) , [arXiv:2410.11074 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  48. [49]

    Four-quark exotic meso ns,

    S. Agaev, K. Azizi and H. Sundu, “Four-quark exotic meso ns,” Turk. J. Phys. 44, no.2, 95-173 (2020) , [arXiv:2004.12079 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  49. [50]

    Review of particle physics,

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

    2024

  50. [51]

    Determination of the baryo n mass and baryon resonances from the quantum- chromodynamics sum rule. Strange baryons,

    V. M. Belyaev and B. L. Ioffe, “Determination of the baryo n mass and baryon resonances from the quantum- chromodynamics sum rule. Strange baryons,” Sov. Phys. JETP 57, 716-721 (1983) ITEP-132-1982

    1983

  51. [52]

    Determination of Baryon an d Baryonic Resonance Masses from QCD Sum Rules. 1. Nonstrange Baryons,

    V. M. Belyaev and B. L. Ioffe, “Determination of Baryon an d Baryonic Resonance Masses from QCD Sum Rules. 1. Nonstrange Baryons,” Sov. Phys. JETP 56, 493-501 (1982) ITEP-59-1982

    1982

  52. [53]

    QCD at low energies,

    B. L. Ioffe, “QCD at low energies,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 56, 232-277 (2006) , [arXiv:hep-ph/0502148 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  53. [54]

    Reanalysis of the heavy baryon states Ω b, Ωc, Ξ′ b, Ξ′ c, Σb and Σ c with QCD sum rules,

    Z. G. Wang, “Reanalysis of the heavy baryon states Ω b, Ωc, Ξ′ b, Ξ′ c, Σb and Σ c with QCD sum rules,” Phys. Lett. B 685, 59-66 (2010) , [arXiv:0912.1648 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  54. [55]

    Semileptonic decays of double heavy bary ons in a relativistic constituent three-quark model,

    A. Faessler, T. Gutsche, M. A. Ivanov, J. G. Korner and V. E. Lyubovitskij, “Semileptonic decays of double heavy bary ons in a relativistic constituent three-quark model,” Phys. Rev. D 80, 034025 (2009) , [arXiv:0907.0563 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  55. [56]

    Analyzing lepton flavor universality in the decays Λ b → Λ(∗) c ( 1 2 ± , 3 2 − ) +ℓ ¯νℓ,

    T. Gutsche, M. A. Ivanov, J. G. K¨ orner, V. E. Lyubovitsk ij, P. Santorelli and C. T. Tran, “Analyzing lepton flavor universality in the decays Λ b → Λ(∗) c ( 1 2 ± , 3 2 − ) +ℓ ¯νℓ,” Phys. Rev. D 98, no.5, 053003 (2018) , [arXiv:1807.11300 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  56. [57]

    Color-allowed bottom baryon to charmed bar yon nonleptonic decays,

    C. K. Chua, “Color-allowed bottom baryon to charmed bar yon nonleptonic decays,” Phys. Rev. D 99, no.1, 014023 (2019) , [arXiv:1811.09265 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  57. [58]

    Towards a global anal ysis of the b →cuq puzzle,

    S. Meiser, D. van Dyk and J. Virto, “Towards a global anal ysis of the b →cuq puzzle,” JHEP 06, 019 (2025) , [arXiv:2411.09458 [hep-ph]]. 24

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  58. [59]

    Nonleptonic two-body weak decays of charmed baryons,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  59. [60]

    Topological SU(3) f approach for two-body Ωc weak decays,

    Y. L. Wang, H. J. Zhao and Y. K. Hsiao, “Topological SU(3) f approach for two-body Ωc weak decays,” Phys. Rev. D 111, no.1, 016022 (2025) , [arXiv:2310.18896 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  60. [61]

    Axial-vector meson emitting weak nonleptonic decays of bottom baryons,

    A. Sharma and R. C. Verma, “Axial-vector meson emitting weak nonleptonic decays of bottom baryons,” Phys. Rev. D 79, 094023 (2009)

    2009

  61. [62]

    Final-stat e rescattering mechanism of charmed baryon decays,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  62. [63]

    Analysis of the nonleptonic two-body decays of t he Λ hyperon,

    M. A. Ivanov, J. G. K¨ orner, V. E. Lyubovitskij and Z. Tyu lemissov, “Analysis of the nonleptonic two-body decays of t he Λ hyperon,” Phys. Rev. D 104, no.7, 074004 (2021) , [arXiv:2107.08831 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  63. [64]

    A fresh look into mc,b and precise fD(s),B(s) from heavy-light QCD spectral sum rules,

    S. Narison, “A fresh look into mc,b and precise fD(s),B(s) from heavy-light QCD spectral sum rules,” Phys. Lett. B 718, 1321-1333 (2013) , [arXiv:1209.2023 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  64. [65]

    Nonleptonic two-body decays of single heavy baryons Λ Q, Ξ Q, and Ω Q (Q = b,c ) induced by W emission in the covariant confined quark model,

    T. Gutsche, M. A. Ivanov, J. G. K¨ orner and V. E. Lyubovit skij, “Nonleptonic two-body decays of single heavy baryons Λ Q, Ξ Q, and Ω Q (Q = b,c ) induced by W emission in the covariant confined quark model,” Phys. Rev. D 98, no.7, 074011 (2018) , [arXiv:1806.11549 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  65. [66]

    Nonperturbatively impro ved heavy - light mesons: Masses and decay constants,

    D. Becirevic, P. Boucaud, J. P. Leroy, V. Lubicz, G. Mart inelli, F. Mescia and F. Rapuano, “Nonperturbatively impro ved heavy - light mesons: Masses and decay constants,” Phys. Rev. D 60, 074501 (1999) , [arXiv:hep-lat/9811003 [hep-lat]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  66. [67]

    Ω b semi-leptonic weak decays,

    M. k. Du and C. Liu, “Ω b semi-leptonic weak decays,” Phys. Rev. D 84, 056007 (2011) , [arXiv:1107.2535 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  67. [68]

    Semileptonic d ecays of heavy baryons in the relativistic quark model,

    D. Ebert, R. N. Faustov and V. O. Galkin, “Semileptonic d ecays of heavy baryons in the relativistic quark model,” Phys. Rev. D 73, 094002 (2006) , [arXiv:hep-ph/0604017 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  68. [69]

    Charm and bottom baryon de- cays in the Bethe-Salpeter approach: Heavy to heavy semilep tonic transitions,

    M. A. Ivanov, J. G. Korner, V. E. Lyubovitskij and A. G. Ru setsky, “Charm and bottom baryon de- cays in the Bethe-Salpeter approach: Heavy to heavy semilep tonic transitions,” Phys. Rev. D 59, 074016 (1999) , [arXiv:hep-ph/9809254 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  69. [70]

    Study on the weak de cay between two heavy baryons Bi( 1 2 + ) → B f ( 3 2 + ) in the light-front quark model,

    F. Lu, H. W. Ke, X. H. Liu and Y. L. Shi, “Study on the weak de cay between two heavy baryons Bi( 1 2 + ) → B f ( 3 2 + ) in the light-front quark model,” Eur. Phys. J. C 83, no.5, 412 (2023) , [arXiv:2303.02946 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  70. [71]

    Weak decays of singly heavy ba ryons: the 1 /2 → 3/2 case,

    F. W. Zhang and Z. X. Zhao, “Weak decays of singly heavy ba ryons: the 1 /2 → 3/2 case,” [arXiv:2508.13648 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv