Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 62 references

Impact of $N^*$ and $\Lambda^*$ resonances on $CP$ violation in $\Lambda_b^0$ decays

T0 review · 2 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-06-27 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Resonant contributions from N* and Λ* states explain the observed CP asymmetry in Lambda_b four-body decay.

desk verdict The quark model gives a CP asymmetry close to the measured value by summing specific N* and Lambda* resonances, but the result hinges on unverified dominance and phase assumptions. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.08248 v1 pith:Z753MS3L submitted 2026-06-06 hep-ph hep-ex

Yu-Kuo Hsiao , Kai-Lei Wang , Juan Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords CPviolationLambda_bdecaysbaryonresonancesfour-bodydecayconstituentquarkmodelN*statesLambda*baryonicasymmetry
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 calculates how excited nucleon and hyperon resonances affect the decay Lambda_b^0 to p K- pi+ pi-. It applies the constituent quark model to identify states such as N(1535), N(1520), Lambda(1670) and Lambda(1690) and computes their role in the underlying two-body transitions. The resulting branching fraction is about 30 times 10 to the minus 6 and the CP asymmetry reaches 3.18 percent, matching the first measured baryonic CP violation. This supplies a framework for including resonance effects in similar multi-body beauty-baryon decays.

What carries the argument

The constituent quark model for the two-body transitions Lambda_b^0 to N* M and Lambda_b^0 to Lambda* M that feed the four-body final state.

What would settle it

A precision measurement isolating the resonant fraction in the Dalitz plot that yields a branching fraction or CP asymmetry lying well outside the quoted ranges would falsify the resonant interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within the constituent quark model the resonant subprocesses Lambda_b^0 to N* M and Lambda_b^0 to Lambda* M, including N(1535), N(1520), Lambda(1670), Lambda(1690) and the remaining 1P-wave baryons, produce a resonant branching fraction of (30.0^{+2.8+4.0}_{-1.3-3.4} ± 1.8) times 10^{-6} and A_CP of (3.18 ± 0.11 ± 0.13 ± 0.11) percent that accounts for the first observed baryonic CP asymmetry.

Load-bearing premise

The constituent quark model correctly selects the dominant resonant states and computes their decay contributions without large non-resonant or extra resonance backgrounds that would change the branching fraction and asymmetry.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The computed CP asymmetry of 3.18 percent reproduces the first observed baryonic CP violation.
  • Resonant contributions from the listed N* and Lambda* states dominate the asymmetry.
  • The same resonance mechanism applies to other multi-body beauty-baryon decays.
  • The framework quantifies excited-baryon effects across beauty-baryon CP asymmetries.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Dalitz-plot analyses of the same decay could test whether the predicted resonance fractions match data.
  • The approach may extend to CP asymmetries in other unobserved beauty-baryon final states.
  • If non-resonant amplitudes turn out larger than assumed, the extracted asymmetry would be diluted.
  • Similar calculations for different final-state particles could reveal whether the asymmetry pattern is resonance-driven in general.
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, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper uses the constituent quark model to identify contributions from N(1535), N(1520), Λ(1670), Λ(1690) and other 1P-wave baryon resonances to the underlying two-body transitions in the four-body decay Λ_b^0 → p K^- π^+ π^-. It computes a resonant branching fraction of (30.0^{+2.8+4.0}_{-1.3-3.4} ± 1.8) × 10^{-6} and a CP asymmetry A_CP = (3.18 ± 0.11 ± 0.13 ± 0.11)%, claiming this provides a natural interpretation of the first observed baryonic CP violation and establishes a framework for quantifying excited baryon resonance effects in multi-body beauty-baryon decays.

Significance. If the model's identification of resonant states and their amplitude contributions (including relative strong phases) is reliable and non-resonant backgrounds are negligible, the work supplies the first quantitative resonant interpretation of the observed baryonic CP asymmetry and a general mechanism applicable to other baryonic CP-violating processes.

major comments (2)
  1. [Results section (branching fraction and A_CP paragraphs)] The central claim that the calculated A_CP provides a natural interpretation of the observed asymmetry requires that the listed resonances dominate the amplitude. However, the manuscript provides no quantitative bound on the non-resonant fraction nor a direct comparison of the predicted resonant branching fraction to the experimental total branching fraction of Λ_b^0 → p K^- π^+ π^-.
  2. [Discussion and conclusions] No cross-checks against data (e.g., resonant substructure in invariant-mass distributions) or alternative frameworks (different quark-model variants or effective Lagrangians) are presented to test the stability of the extracted magnitudes and relative phases that determine A_CP.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Results] The error budget on the branching fraction and A_CP is presented with three separate uncertainties; it would be helpful to clarify in the text which sources (model parameters, phase-space integration, etc.) contribute to each.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Results section (branching fraction and A_CP paragraphs)] The central claim that the calculated A_CP provides a natural interpretation of the observed asymmetry requires that the listed resonances dominate the amplitude. However, the manuscript provides no quantitative bound on the non-resonant fraction nor a direct comparison of the predicted resonant branching fraction to the experimental total branching fraction of Λ_b^0 → p K^- π^+ π^-.

    Authors: Our calculation is performed strictly within the constituent quark model and reports only the resonant branching fraction arising from the identified N* and Λ* states. The CP asymmetry is obtained from the interference among these resonant amplitudes. We agree that the interpretation would be strengthened by an explicit comparison to the experimental total branching fraction and by a statement on the non-resonant fraction. We will add both in the revised manuscript: the resonant fraction relative to the measured total rate, together with a clear statement that non-resonant contributions are not included and that their possible effect on A_CP remains unquantified within the present framework. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Discussion and conclusions] No cross-checks against data (e.g., resonant substructure in invariant-mass distributions) or alternative frameworks (different quark-model variants or effective Lagrangians) are presented to test the stability of the extracted magnitudes and relative phases that determine A_CP.

    Authors: The work is a theoretical calculation that employs one specific realization of the constituent quark model. Direct comparison with experimental invariant-mass distributions would require a dedicated experimental amplitude analysis, which is outside the scope of this paper. Exploration of alternative quark-model variants or effective-Lagrangian approaches would constitute a separate study. We will revise the discussion and conclusions sections to state these limitations explicitly and to note that the extracted magnitudes and relative phases are specific to the model employed. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: model outputs are independent calculations

full rationale

The paper applies the constituent quark model to enumerate specific N* and Lambda* resonances (N(1535), N(1520), Lambda(1670), Lambda(1690) and remaining 1P-wave states) and computes their summed contributions to the four-body amplitude, producing numerical values for the resonant branching fraction and A_CP as direct outputs. No equations or text in the abstract or description indicate that any parameter is fitted to the target CP asymmetry or branching fraction and then relabeled as a prediction; the listed states are selected by the model rather than defined in terms of the final observables. The derivation therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks and does not reduce to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available, so the ledger is inferred from the stated method. The constituent quark model is treated as a domain assumption whose accuracy for these transitions is not independently verified here.

assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption The constituent quark model correctly identifies the dominant resonant states N(1535), N(1520), Lambda(1670), Lambda(1690) and remaining 1P-wave baryons and computes their contributions to Lambda_b^0 -> p K- pi+ pi-.
    Invoked in the abstract to obtain the quoted branching fraction and CP asymmetry.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Impact of $N^*$ and $\Lambda^*$ resonances on $CP$ violation in $\Lambda_b^0$ decays." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z753MS3L

@misc{pith2026260608248,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Impact of $N^*$ and $\Lambda^*$ resonances on $CP$ violation in $\Lambda_b^0$ decays},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z753MS3L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.08248}
}
abstract

The four-body decay $\Lambda_b^0\to pK^-\pi^+\pi^-$ has led to the first observation of baryonic $CP$ violation. However, the underlying subprocesses $\Lambda_b^0\to N^* M$ and $\Lambda_b^0\to \Lambda^* M$, as well as the roles of excited nucleon ($N^*$) and hyperon ($\Lambda^*$) resonances, remain largely unexplored. Within the constituent quark model, we identify the relevant resonant states contributing to these underlying two-body transitions, including $N(1535)$, $N(1520)$, $\Lambda(1670)$, $\Lambda(1690)$, together with the remaining $1P$-wave baryon states. We obtain the resonant branching fraction ${\cal B}(\Lambda_b^0\to pK^-\pi^+\pi^-) =(30.0^{+2.8+4.0}_{-1.3-3.4}\pm1.8)\times10^{-6}$, while the resulting ${\cal A}_{CP}(\Lambda_b^0\to pK^-\pi^+\pi^-)=(3.18\pm0.11\pm0.13\pm0.11)\%$ provides a natural interpretation of the first observed baryonic $CP$ asymmetry. Our analysis establishes the first comprehensive framework for quantifying the impact of excited baryon resonances in multi-body beauty-baryon decays, with the associated mechanism generally applicable to baryonic $CP$ asymmetries.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.08248 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Feynman diagrams for ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The Λ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    8) × 10− 6, while the resulting ACP (Λ 0 b → pK − π +π − ) = (3 . 18 ± 0. 11 ± 0. 13 ± 0. 11)% provides a natural interpretation of the first observed baryonic CP asymmetry. Our analysis establishes the first comprehensive framework for quantifying the impact of excited baryon resonances in multi- body beauty-baryon decays, with the associated mechanism g e...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    We define (¯ q1q2)V ± A ≡ ¯q1γµ (1 ± γ5)q2 and (¯q1q2)S± P ≡ ¯q1(1 ± γ5)q2

    ˆM, where GF is the Fermi constant. We define (¯ q1q2)V ± A ≡ ¯q1γµ (1 ± γ5)q2 and (¯q1q2)S± P ≡ ¯q1(1 ± γ5)q2. The coefficients α q i are given by α q 1, 2 = VubV ∗ uqa1, 2, (α q 3, 4, 5,α q

  3. [3]

    Within the generalized factorization framework [38], we take N eff c = 3 as the central value and vary it over 2 ≤ N eff c ≤ ∞ to estimate nonfactorizable effects

    = −VtbV ∗ tq(a3, 4, 5,a 9/ 2), and α q 6 =VtbV ∗ tq2a6, where ai =ceff i +ceff i± 1/N eff c fori = odd (even),ceff i are the effective Wilson coefficients [5, 38], N eff c is the effective color number, and Vij are the Cabibbo–Kobayashi–Maskawa (CKM) matrix elements. Within the generalized factorization framework [38], we take N eff c = 3 as the central value and v...

  4. [4]

    The N 0 1535 baryon is assigned as a 1 P -wave excited nucleon with J P = 1/ 2−

    Thus, Ψ Λ 0 b (pρ, pλ ) = ζΛ 0 b φ Λ 0 b χ S=1/ 2 Sz=± 1/ 2,s ρ =0ψ ρ 000(pρ)ψ λ 000(pλ ) [36], where ζΛ 0 b = (RGB − RBG +GBR − GRB + BRG − BGR)/ √ 6 and φ Λ 0 b = (udb − dub)/ √ 2. The N 0 1535 baryon is assigned as a 1 P -wave excited nucleon with J P = 1/ 2− . The or- bital excitation with L = 1 may arise either from the ρ-mode or the λ-mode oscillato...

  5. [5]

    Thus, we write Ψ N 0 1535 (pρ, pλ ) = ∑ ML,S z CL=1,S =1/ 2,J =1/ 2 ML,S z,J z ζN 0 1535 [(φ ρχ 1/ 2 Sz, 1 +φ λχ 1/ 2 Sz, 0)ψ ρ 01ML(pρ)ψ λ 000(pλ ) +(φ ρχ 1/ 2 Sz, 0 − φ λχ 1/ 2 Sz, 1)ψ ρ 000(pρ)ψ λ 01ML(pλ )]/ √ 2 [24, 33], where φ ρ = 1 / √ 2(udd − dud) and φ λ = 1/ √ 6(dud +udd − 2ddu) denote the mixed-antisymmetric and mixed-symmetric fla- vor wave fu...

  6. [6]

    We predict B(Λ 0 b → K − (N ∗+ sum → )pπ +π − ) = (10 . 6+1. 8+2. 1 − 0. 8− 1. 8 ± 1. 2) × 10− 6, dominated by the N + 1520 contribution. Within the CQM framework, the spin structure of the Λ 0 b baryon has no overlap with that of N1675. As a result, the Λ 0 b → N1675 transition vanishes, yielding B(Λ 0 b → N1675M) = 0. Since the branching fractions B(Λ 0...

  7. [7]

    Branching fractions and CP asymmetries of resonant Λ 0 b → pK − π +π − channels

    We obtain B(Λ 0 b → (N ∗0 sum → )pπ − [( ¯K ∗0, ¯K ∗0 0 ) → ]K −π +) = TABLE II. Branching fractions and CP asymmetries of resonant Λ 0 b → pK − π +π − channels. Here, N ∗ sum (Λ ∗ sum) denotes the sum over the four excited nucleon (hyperon) sta tes in Table I, while ¯K 0 sum and M 0 sum denote the sums over ( ¯K ∗0, ¯K ∗0 0 ) and ( ρ0, ω, f 0), respectiv...

  8. [8]

    02) × 10− 6

    03 ± 0. 02) × 10− 6. Moreover, since α s 9 acquires only a negligible strong phase from ( ceff 9 ,c eff 10 ) [see Eq. (8)], its interference with the weak phase in α s 2 is weak, resulting in the small asymmetry ACP (ρ0) = (1. 37 ± 0. 00 ± 0. 08+0. 14 − 0. 06)%. Unlike the ρ0 channel, the amplitude M(Λ 0 b → Λ ∗ω ) ∝ α s 2 + (2α s 3 + 2α s 5 +α s 9), with ω...

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    11)%, which differs from the current measurement, (5 . 3 ± 1. 3 ± 0. 2)%, by 2. 6σ. Combining the contributions from N ∗, Λ ∗, and the relevant meson resonances, we obtain B(Λ 0 b → pK −π +π − ) = (30. 0+2. 8+4. 0 − 1. 3− 3. 4 ± 1. 8)× 10− 6 and ACP (Λ 0 b → pK −π +π − ) = (3. ...

  2. [10]

    11)%, consistent with the measured value (2

    13± 0. 11)%, consistent with the measured value (2. 45± 0. 46± 0. 10)% [14]. In contrast to the 10 penguin-dominated modes studied here, the corresponding tree- dominated channels are also of considerable interest. Focusing on the dominant subprocess Λ 0 b → π − (N ∗+ sum → )p...

  3. [11]

    C. D. Lu, Y. M. Wang, H. Zou, A. Ali and G. Kramer, Phys. Rev. D 80, 034011 (2009)

    2009

  4. [12]

    Y. K. Hsiao and C. Q. Geng, Phys. Rev. D 91, 116007 (2015)

    2015

  5. [13]

    X. G. He and G. N. Li, Phys. Lett. B 750, 82 (2015)

    2015

  6. [14]

    J. Zhu, H. W. Ke and Z. T. Wei, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 284 (2016)

    2016

  7. [15]

    Y. K. Hsiao, Y. Yao and C. Q. Geng, Phys. Rev. D 95, 093001 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    S. Roy, R. Sinha and N. G. Deshpande, Phys. Rev. D 102, 053007 (2020). 11

    2020

  9. [17]

    A. Dery, M. Ghosh, Y. Grossman and S. Schacht, JHEP 03, 165 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    C. Q. Geng, C. W. Liu and T. H. Tsai, Phys. Lett. B 815, 136125 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    Sinha, S

    R. Sinha, S. Roy and N. G. Deshpande, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 081803 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    J. J. Han et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 221801 (2025)

    2025

  13. [21]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. D 111, 092004 (2025)

    2025

  14. [22]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], JHEP 10, 169 (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Nature 643, 1223 (2025)

    2025

  17. [25]

    J. P. Wang and F. S. Yu, Chin. Phys. C 48, 101002 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    Z. H. Zhang, J. Y. Yang and X. H. Guo, arXiv:2504.19228 [h ep-ph]

  19. [27]

    B. n. Zhang and D. Wang, Phys. Lett. B 868, 139674 (2025)

    2025

  20. [28]

    X. G. He, C. W. Liu and J. Tandean, Phys. Rev. D 112, L111302 (2025)

    2025

  21. [29]

    Q. Chen, X. Wu, Z. P. Xing and R. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 112, 3 (2025)

    2025

  22. [30]

    W. Wang, Z. P. Xing and Z. X. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 111, 053006 (2025)

    2025

  23. [31]

    C. Q. Geng, Y. K. Hsiao, Y. H. Lin and Y. Yu, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 399 (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    Y. K. Hsiao, Y. H. Lin, Y. Yu and C. Q. Geng, Phys. Rev. D 93, 114008 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    H. Q. Shang, T. L. Feng, J. Gao, Q. Qin and F. S. Yu, arXiv:2 601.02887 [hep-ph]

  26. [34]

    Koniuk and N

    R. Koniuk and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. D 21, 1868 (1980); 23, 818(E) (1981)

    1980

  27. [35]

    Capstick and N

    S. Capstick and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. D 34, 2809 (1986)

    1986

  28. [36]

    L. Y. Glozman, Z. Papp and W. Plessas, Phys. Lett. B 381, 311 (1996)

    1996

  29. [37]

    Capstick and W

    S. Capstick and W. Roberts, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 45, S241 (2000)

    2000

  30. [38]

    H. M. Zhao, P. N. Shen, Y. B. Ding, X. Q. Li and B. S. Zou, arX iv:hep-ph/0703139 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  31. [39]

    Melde, W

    T. Melde, W. Plessas and B. Sengl, Phys. Rev. D 77, 114002 (2008)

    2008

  32. [40]

    Ferretti, A

    J. Ferretti, A. Vassallo and E. Santopinto, Phys. Rev. C 83, 065204 (2011)

    2011

  33. [41]

    X. H. Zhong and Q. Zhao, Phys. Rev. C 88, 015208 (2013)

    2013

  34. [42]

    Bijker et al

    R. Bijker et al. , Phys. Rev. D 94, 074040 (2016)

    2016

  35. [43]

    H. H. Zhong et al. , Phys. Rev. D 110, 116034 (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    K. L. Wang, Q. F. L¨ u, J. J. Xie and X. H. Zhong, Phys. Rev. D 107, 034015 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    K. L. Wang, J. Wang, Y. K. Hsiao and X. H. Zhong, Phys. Rev. D 111, 114028 (2025)

    2025

  38. [46]

    K. L. Wang, Y. M. Cao, H. X. Duan and X. H. Zhong, arXiv:251 1.21483 [hep-ph]

  39. [47]

    J. Wang, K. L. Wang and Y. K. Hsiao, arXiv:2603.13721 [he p-ph]. 12

  40. [48]

    A. Ali, G. Kramer and C. D. Lu, Phys. Rev. D 58, 094009 (1998)

    1998

  41. [49]

    Buchalla, A

    G. Buchalla, A. J. Buras and M. E. Lautenbacher, Rev. Mod . Phys. 68, 1125 (1996)

    1996

  42. [50]

    Ebert, R

    D. Ebert, R. N. Faustov and V. O. Galkin, Phys. Rev. D 79, 114029 (2009)

    2009

  43. [51]

    C. Q. Pang, J. Z. Wang, X. Liu and T. Matsuki, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 861 (2017)

    2017

  44. [52]

    Hayne and N

    C. Hayne and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. D 25, 1944 (1982)

    1944

  45. [53]

    Barnes, N

    T. Barnes, N. Black and P. R. Page, Phys. Rev. D 68, 054014 (2003)

    2003

  46. [54]

    S. S. Afonin, Phys. Rev. C 76, 015202 (2007)

    2007

  47. [55]

    K. L. Wang, Y. X. Yao, X. H. Zhong and Q. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 96, 116016 (2017)

    2017

  48. [56]

    Y. X. Yao, K. L. Wang and X. H. Zhong, Phys. Rev. D 98, 076015 (2018)

    2018

  49. [57]

    X. H. Zhong and Q. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 78, 014029 (2008)

    2008

  50. [58]

    Kokoski and N

    R. Kokoski and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. D 35, 907 (1987)

    1987

  51. [59]

    R. H. Ni, J. J. Wu and X. H. Zhong, Phys. Rev. D 109, 116006 (2024)

    2024

  52. [60]

    Y. K. Hsiao, P. Y. Lin, L. W. Luo and C. Q. Geng, Phys. Lett. B 751, 127 (2015)

    2015

  53. [61]

    Y. K. Hsiao, P. Y. Lin, C. C. Lih and C. Q. Geng, Phys. Rev. D 92, 114013 (2015)

    2015

  54. [62]

    Y. K. Hsiao, S. Q. Yang, W. J. Wei and B. C. Ke, JHEP 12, 226 (2025). 13

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed June 27, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.