Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

70 Years of Hyperon Spectroscopy: A review of strange $\Xi$, $\Omega$ baryons, and the spectrum of charmed and bottom baryons

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that strange, charmed, and bottom baryon spectra are coherent under one heavy-quark, light-diquark machinery, with multistrange hyperons bridging the light and heavy flavour sectors.

desk verdict A candid, useful map of hyperon and heavy-baryon spectroscopy, though the abstract oversells the heavy-quark symmetry comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.08815 v1 pith:OS2C5TWA submitted 2025-02-12 hep-ex nucl-ex

Volker Crede , John Yelton This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-exnucl-ex PACS 14.20.Jn14.20.Lq14.20.Mr
keywords hyperonspectroscopyXibaryonsOmegacharmedbottomheavy-quarksymmetrydiquarkmodelbaryonresonances
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

Seventy years after the first hyperon, the paper claims that the scattered observations of doubly and triply strange Ξ and Ω baryons, charmed baryons, and bottom baryons add up to a single coherent spectrum. The organizing idea is that a baryon with one heavy quark consists of a nearly static heavy quark plus a light quark–quark (diquark) system, so that excitation energies and hyperfine splittings scale with the reduced masses of the constituents; heavy-quark symmetry then forces the charm and bottom sectors to mirror each other. In this reading, the multistrange hyperons are not a separate curiosity but the bridge between the light-flavour sector and the heavy-flavour sectors, where the 'heavy' object is a strange-quark pair. The paper also supplies a working map: which states have four-star status and which are merely 'seen', and where planned K-beam experiments and collider data can turn candidate states into established ones.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the heavy-quark, light-diquark decomposition of a baryon, expressed through the Jacobi coordinates ρ and λ: ρ measures the separation inside the light quark–quark pair and λ measures the separation between that pair and the third quark. In a doubly strange Ξ, the ρ mode excites the |ss⟩ pair and the λ mode excites the light quark against the |ss⟩ system, and because the two reduced masses differ, the degeneracy between the two modes is lifted. This machinery explains why the lightest excited Ξ states are narrow (the ρ-mode excitations decouple from Ξπ decay), why the charm and bottom spectra should look alike (heavy-quark symmetry), and why the observable mass splittings scale as they do. The paper uses the supermultiplet classification of SU(6) ⊗ O(3) to place each state and the standard resonance listings' star ratings to separate established states from candidates.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be a direct measurement of the spin-parity of the Ξ(1320) ground state, for example from the angular distribution in K−p → ΞK or in photoproduction, returning something other than 1/2+. A second decisive check: if high-statistics data show the five excited Ωc states with production cross-sections that do not follow the multiplet pattern, with the supposedly small highest-mass state becoming the largest, the heavy-quark, light-diquark assignment of that quintuplet would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that the spectra of the doubly strange Ξ baryons, the triply strange Ω baryons, and the charmed and bottom baryons are all described by the same heavy-quark, light-diquark picture. In that picture the light quark–quark pair can be in a spin-0 or spin-1 configuration, the orbital excitations separate into ρ modes (excitation within the light pair) and λ modes (excitation between the heavy object and the light pair), and the excitation energies and splittings follow from the reduced masses. The comparison between the charmed and bottom sectors shows the pattern predicted by heavy-quark symmetry—the same multiplets appear with hyperfine splittings that shrink as the heavy-quark mass grows—together with mass differences that potential models explain. The multistrange hyperons occupy the gap between these heavy sectors and the light nucleon and Δ resonances, and the paper argues that they are the under-explored territory where the transition from a heavy-quark-plus-diquark system to a strange-pair-plus-light-quark system can be tested.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that quark-model spin-parity assignments—not direct measurements—are correct for most excited Ξ and Ω states, including the ground-state Ξ(1320); if one of those assignments is wrong, the multiplet comparisons must be re-drawn.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the map is right, the next round of K-beam and high-luminosity collider data should confirm the one- and two-star Ξ and Ω states or reassign them, while the four-star ground states Ξ(1320), Ξ(1530), and Ω(1672) anchor the whole system.
  • The measured Λc(2595)/Λc(2625) doublet splitting, scaled inversely with heavy-quark mass, implies the corresponding Λb doublet should appear with a smaller splitting—a direct prediction the paper draws from heavy-quark symmetry.
  • The five narrow excited Ωc states near 3.0–3.2 GeV are interpreted as the lλ = 1 quintuplet; the paper notes that the smallest signal (the highest-mass state) and the missing fifth member are questions that new data on ΞcK and ΞcKπ final states are expected to resolve.
  • For the Ξ sector, the selection rule that ρ-mode excitations decouple from Ξπ and decay instead to KΛ or KΣ predicts where new narrow states should appear in photoproduction and K-beam data.
  • A correct taxonomy implies that some apparent 'states' in crowded mass spectra are kinematic feed-down from higher resonances, so future analyses must treat reflected peaks before claiming new particles.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension the authors leave implicit: if the diquark picture is correct, the mass splitting between the spin-0 and spin-1 light-diquark configurations should track the diquark's internal reduced mass across Ξ, Ξc, and Ξb, so a precise measurement of the strange-sector analogue could be used to predict the still-unmeasured Ξb counterpart.
  • The review's coherence argument also predicts that any genuinely exotic state—for example a molecular interpretation of the highest Ωc state—should break the multiplet cross-section pattern; measuring the production rates of the five Ωc states relative to each other in a single experiment would distinguish the quark-model assignment from the molecular one.
  • One could extrapolate the λ-excitation energy curve from charm and bottom down to the strange sector; the paper's figure of λ excitation versus heavy-quark mass implies a quantitative prediction for the first λ-mode Ξ excitation that the planned K-beam experiments can check.
  • If the J^P of the Ξ(1320) ground state turns out not to be 1/2+, the comparisons in this review would need to be re-drawn, but the data on the heavier sectors would still stand on their own—so the review's map is a hypothesis about classification, not about the existence of the states.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This review article compiles the current experimental knowledge of doubly strange Ξ and triply strange Ω baryons together with charmed and bottom baryons, and places them in the context of quark-model and heavy-quark-symmetry classifications. It traces the historical discovery of hyperons, surveys the experimental methods (K− beams, hyperon beams, photoproduction, colliders) and planned facilities, and evaluates the PDG evidence ratings of each state. The central interpretive claim is that the spectra of the strange and heavy baryon sectors exhibit coherent multiplet structure consistent with heavy-quark symmetries, with mass splittings accounted for by potential models. The paper is explicit that most J^P assignments for Ξ and many for beauty baryons are quark-model expectations rather than measurements.

Significance. The review is valuable as an up-to-date, critical map of a fragmented literature. Its strongest feature is its systematic use of PDG star ratings and its explicit separation of measured quantum numbers from model-based assignments, most clearly in Sections 4.1 and 5. The compilation of production mechanisms and decay modes, the historical record, and the survey of future experiments (JLab KL, J-PARC, PANDA) make it a useful reference. If the interpretive comparisons are read as a classification-level consistency check rather than as an independent test of heavy-quark symmetry, the paper is sound. The main significance of the review is therefore taxonomic and programmatic rather than as new evidence.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; Sections 4.1 and 5] The abstract's conclusion that the comparison of the heavy sectors 'reveals many similarities as predicted by heavy-quark symmetries' is stronger than the evidence compiled in the body. Section 4.1 states that, apart from the Ξ(1530) 3/2+ and Ξ(1820) 3/2−, all Ξ J^P assignments 'are based on quark-model predictions,' and Section 5 states that for beauty baryons 'many of the I, J, or P quantum numbers have not been measured, particularly parities, but are merely based on quark model expectations.' The multiplet comparison therefore uses the quark model to supply the very quantum numbers that are then compared with quark-model predictions; the result is a consistency check under a common classification, not an independent confirmation of heavy-quark symmetry. I recommend that the Abstract and the closing synthesis explicitly frame the similarities as a classification-level consistency check and state which measurements (for example, a measured bottom doublet J^P and a measured Ξ(1320) parity) would turn the comparison into an experimental test.
  2. [Section 5.4.2 and Figure 20] The discussion of the Ξ_c^* → Λ_c^+ K^- and Ω_c^* → Ξ_c^+ K^- spectra says that the mirrored mass splittings 'clearly indicate the likelihood that the spin-parity of the states are similarly aligned.' This overstates the evidential weight, since the text immediately notes that the spin-parity determination in the second LHCb analysis 'is not sufficient to produce unambiguous results' for the quantum numbers of several states. Please soften this sentence and mark the spin-parity labels in Figure 20 as tentative rather than established.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2.1] The text contains a typo: 'various production mchanisms' should read 'various production mechanisms.'
  2. [Section 5.5] The quoted doubly charmed baryon mass is written as '(3621±0.23±0.30) MeV/c^2'; this should be given at consistent precision, e.g. '(3621.55 ± 0.23 ± 0.30) MeV/c^2' or '3621.6 ± 0.4 MeV/c^2' if the last digit is not significant.
  3. [Section 2.1] The statement that the (70,1^-_1) multiplet contains 'a total of seven Ξ states' is ambiguous: it appears to count spin-orbit J values per isospin doublet rather than the number of physical charge states. Please clarify the counting convention.
  4. [Section 4.3.2] The word 'permissable' should be spelled 'permissible' in the sentence discussing the Ω(2012) decay into Ξ(1530)^0 K^-.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Review is a compilation with no circular derivation; the only self-citation is minor and not load-bearing.

full rationale

This is a review/compilation, not a derivation: no parameters are fitted and no quantity is derived from an input to be "predicted" later. The only self-citation is to the authors' earlier review [41] (Crede & Roberts 2013), used for Figures 1-2 and as one of several literature guides; it is not load-bearing. The closest thing to a circularity concern is the abstract's claim that the two heavy sectors show "many similarities as predicted by heavy-quark symmetries"; the paper itself discloses (Sec. 4.1: "All other J^P assignments, including the J^P for the Xi(1320) ground state, are based on quark-model predictions"; Sec. 5: "Many of the I, J, or P quantum numbers have not been measured, particularly parities, but are merely based on quark model expectations") that the multiplet labels used to organize the comparison are largely model-assigned rather than measured. This makes the claimed similarity a consistency check under the model's own assignments, and a real weakness in the abstract's strength, but it is not circular in the technical sense: the masses, widths, decay modes, and state counts are external data compiled from many independent experiments, and no equation in the review reduces to its own input. The review is therefore self-contained as a survey; the classification caveat is a correctness risk, not a circularity. Score 2 for the minor non-load-bearing self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This review introduces no free parameters and no new entities. Its interpretation rests on standard but unproved-in-this-paper assumptions: approximate SU(3) flavor symmetry, the constituent quark model and its SU(6) x O(3) band structure, the reliability of PDG listings, the validity of heavy-quark symmetry and potential model splittings, and the harmonic-oscillator reduced-mass ordering used to argue that rho-mode excitations are lightest in Xi baryons.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption SU(3) flavor symmetry is an approximate symmetry of the strong interaction, broken by the heavier strange quark.
    Used in Section 2.1 to classify baryon multiplets and derive mass relations like the Gell-Mann-Okubo formula.
  • domain assumption The quark model with three constituent quarks and SU(6) x O(3) supermultiplets organizes the baryon spectrum.
    Section 2.1 introduces harmonic-oscillator bands and assigns states; the review relies on this to discuss missing resonances.
  • domain assumption PDG listings and star ratings are reliable summaries of the experimental evidence.
    The review's status statements (e.g., '4-star status', 'currently listed in the RPP') treat the PDG as authoritative.
  • domain assumption Heavy-quark symmetry and potential models give valid mass-splitting relations for charmed and bottom baryons.
    Used in Section 2.2 and Section 5 to interpret spectra and predict splittings.
  • domain assumption The reduced-mass ordering mu_rho < mu_lambda for Xi baryons implies the lightest excitations are rho-mode.
    Section 2.1 uses the harmonic oscillator model with two quark masses to argue that rho-mode excitations are lighter and decay differently.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of 70 Years of Hyperon Spectroscopy: A review of strange $\Xi$, $\Omega$ baryons, and the spectrum of charmed and bottom baryons." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OS2C5TWA

@misc{pith2026250208815,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: 70 Years of Hyperon Spectroscopy: A review of strange $\Xi$, $\Omega$ baryons, and the spectrum of charmed and bottom baryons},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OS2C5TWA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.08815}
}
abstract

The first hyperon was discovered about 70 years ago, but the nature of these particles, particularly with regard to multistrange hyperons, and many of their properties can still be considered to be literally strange. A dedicated and successful global spectroscopy program in the 1960s and 1970s using $K^-$ beams revealed many multistrange candidates, but the available evidence of their existence is statistically limited. For this reason, there is still much to learn about the systematics of the spectrum of excited hyperon states and what they have in common with their non-strange companions, or how they differ from the nucleon and $\Delta$ resonances. Recent years have also seen a great deal of progress in the field of charmed and bottom baryon spectroscopy. Unprecedented data from the Large Hadron Collider in particular indicate continued rapid progress in the field of bottom baryons. On the theoretical side, baryons with one heavy quark $Q$ and a light $qq$ system serve as an ideal laboratory for studying light $qq$ (diquark) correlations and the dynamics of the light quarks in the colour environment of a heavy quark. In this review, we discuss the status of doubly and triply strange $\Xi$ as well as $\Omega$ baryons, and the properties of all the known charmed and bottom states. The comparison of the two heavy sectors reveals many similarities as predicted by heavy-quark symmetries, together with differences in mass splittings easily understood by potential models. The multi-strange hyperons bridge the under-explored gap between the light- and the heavy-flavour baryons. How do the properties of a singly charmed $Q$-$qq$ system change with decreasing mass of the heavy quark in the transition to a doubly strange $q$-$QQ$ system with a heavier quark-quark system relative to one light quark?

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.08815 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The symmetric 10 (left) and mixed symmetric 8 (right) of SU(3)f . Reproduced from [41]. © IOP Publishing Ltd. All rights reserved. positively charged and an electrically neutral state. The most prominent examples are the proton and the neutron. The ∆ resonances have I = 3 2 , and the Λ and Σ baryons have I = 0 and I = 1, respectively. More relevant for this review are the Ξ states with I = 1 2 and the Ω baryon with … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (Colour online) Simple quark model depiction of a baryon. Reproduced from [41]. © IOP Publishing Ltd. All rights reserved. 3 r r 1 2 r ρ λ whereas the second-excitation band contains already five supermultiplets corresponding to states with positive parity and either two individual units of angular momentum that can couple to L = 0, 1, 2, giving the supermultiplets (70, 0 + 2 ), (20, 1 + 2 ), (70, 2 + 2 ), respectiv… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The spectrum of excited Ξ and Ω states from the Hadron Spectrum Collaboration using mπ = 391 MeV/c 2 [33]. The colours denote the flavour symmetry of dominant operators as follows: blue for 8f (flavour octet) and yellow for 10f (flavour decuplet). Symbols with thick border lines indicate states with strong hybrid content. The lowest bands of positive- and negative-parity states are highlighted within slanted boxes. … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (27 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (Colour online) (a) The symmetric 20 of flavour SU(4), showing the SU(3) decuplet on the lowest layer. (b) The mixed-symmetric 20s and (c) the antisymmetric 4 of SU(4). The mixed-symmetric 20s have the SU(3) octet on the lowest layer, while the 4 has the SU(3) singlet …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The excitation energy associated with a ρ excitation (straight line) and a λ excitation (curved line) as a function of heavy quark mass. Reprinted figure with permission from [51], Copyright (2015) by the American Physical Society [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p01…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The discovery of the Ω− hyperon in a bubble chamber picture. The Ω− leaves the short, thick track in the lower left corner. An incoming K− meson interacts with the proton in the liquid hydrogen of the bubble chamber and produces an Ω−, a K0 , and a K+ meson which all d…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Observation of the Ξ(1530)0 in the decay Λ+ c → Ξ −π +K+ reported by the BaBar Collaboration [115]. Left: The uncorrected Λ+ c -mass-sideband￾subtracted Ξ−π + invariant mass distribution for Ξ−π +K+ candidates. Right: The cos θ Ξ− distribution (helicity frame) for Λ+ c…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (Colour online) Evidence for the Ξ(1620) and Ξ(1690) from the Belle Collaboration. Left: Invariant mass spectrum of Σ+K− combinations from the Λ + c → Σ +K+K− signal area (data points) and from the Λ+ c sidebands [114]. The ϕ → K+K− signal region was excluded for this …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Fitting for the !+ c → "+φ component: the invariant mass spectra of K+K− combinations from the !+ c → "+K+K− signal area (points with error bars) and !+ c sidebands (shaded histogram) are shown. Wigner function is fixed to its nominal value [2], and the width of the Ga…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Clearest (published) evidence for the Ξ(1820) from the Amsterdam￾CERN-Nijmegen-Oxford Collaboration at CERN [113]. Shown are invariant squared￾mass distributions. The cut in parentheses, u ′ = u − umin, refers to the squared four-momentum transfer from the incident K− …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Strongest evidence for the Ξ(1950) to date. Left: The Ξ−π +π − effective mass distribution in different xF regions from the WA89 Collaboration based on Σ−-induced reactions. The open circles denote an estimate of the background shape from event mixing (see Ref. [91] f…
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Effective mass distribution of Ξ−π+ combinations 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Ξo π￾Ξo π- (mix) Ξo π+ combinations/(20MeV/c2 ) 0 100 200 300 400 Ξo π￾Ξo π- (mix) Ξo π+ 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 xF=0.1-1.0 R 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 xF=0.5-1.0 m(Ξo 1.53…
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The Ξ−π+π− effective mass distribution in different xF regions. The open circles show fake events generated by event mixing, the stars represent the background shape from “wrong sign” combinations. The lower parts display the ratio of the observed spectra and the backg…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Left: Strongest evidence for the Ξ(2030) to date from the Amsterdam￾CERN-Nijmegen-Oxford Collaboration [155] in the Σ K spectrum. a) Σ− K 0 mass spectrum for the reaction K−p → (Σ− K 0 ) K+, (b) same Σ− K 0 mass spectrum with different restrictions on the forward-goin…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Most significant evidence for the Ξ(2250) ∗ ∗ and Ξ(2370) ∗ ∗. Left: Invariant mass distribution for Ξ−π +π − combinations in four- and five-body final states from Argonne [103]. The singly hatched distribution is for those combinations which do not have conflicting K…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Spin measurement of the Ω baryon. Shown are the efficiency-corrected cos θh(Λ) distribution for Ξ0 c → Ω −K+ from BaBar [116]. Left: The dashed curve shows the J = 3 2 fit, in which the fit function allows for a possible non-zero asymmetry as a consequence of parity v…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: (Colour online) Left: Best (and sole) evidence to date for the Ω(2012) from the Belle Collaboration. The (a) Ξ0K− and (b) Ξ−K0 S invariant mass distributions are shown in data taken at the Υ(1S), Υ(2S), and Υ(3S) resonance energies [163]. The curves show a simultaneou…
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: The (a) p program at 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_2.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Best evidence for the Ω(2380) and Ω(2470). Left: Invariant Ξ−π +K− mass distribution from an experiment at the CERN SPS charged hyperon beam using incident Ξ− hyperons [87]. The fit on the left describes the mass spectrum with a third-order polynomial and a single Bre…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Evidence for the Λc(2595)+ and Λc(2625)+ resonances. Left: The Dalitz plot, M2 (π +π −) versus M2 (Λ+ c π +), for Λc(2625) → Λ + c π +π − decays from Belle [177] showing clear bands from the Σ++ c and the reflection of the Σ0 c . Reprinted figure with permission from …
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Evidence for the Λc(2765)+ and Λc(2880)+ resonances. Left: The M(Λcπ +π −) mass distributions from Belle [185] (a) without, and (b) with a cut on an intermediate Σc(2455) resonance. Right: The M(Σcπ) mass distributions from Belle [185] for (a) doubly charged, and (b) …
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p048_1.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Evidence for the Λc(2910)+ and Λc(2860)+ resonances. Left: The M(Σ++/0 c π ±) mass distribution from B meson decays based on data from Belle [192]. Reprinted figure with permission from [192], Copyright (2023) by the American Physical Society. Right: The M(D0p) mass d…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Ξ 0 c π +π − mass distribution from Belle [216] showing the Ξc(2970) peak (left), and the decay angle distribution (right) showing that J = 1 2 (black line) fits the data well. Reprinted figure with permission from [216], Copyright (2021) by the American Physical Soci…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: (Colour online) A comparison of charmed-baryon spectra. Left: The mass spectra for resonances thought to be Σ-like states. The masses are plotted with respect to the spin-weighted average of the lowest two states – the lowest state in the Ξc column is the Ξ′ c . Right…
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: (Colour online) The mass spectra and decays of all the known excited charmed baryons. Mass (MeV) 3250 3000 2750 2500 2250 + Λc 0/+/++ Σc 0/+ Ξc 0 Ωc 2595 2625 2765 2880 2860 2940 2910 2455 2520 2800 3055 3080 2770 3000 3050 3066 3090 3119 3185 3327 ππ π γ K π K pD ΛD …
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: (Colour online) Data of the coupling constant g2 which characterizes the L = 1 strong decays of Σ-like baryons. ++ (2455) Σc + (2455) Σc 0 (2455) Σc ++ (2520) Σc + (2520) Σc 0 (2520) Σc + (2645) Ξc 0 (2645) Ξc + (5810) b Σ - (5810) b Σ + (5830) b Σ - (5830) b Σ → 2 g …
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: (Colour online) Left: Preliminary invariant Λπ − mass from GlueX showing the doubly strange octet ground-state Ξ(1320) resonance in the reaction γp → K+ ((Λπ −)Ξ(1320) K+). A signature for the Σ(1385)− is also visible due to some background originating from a π + in t…
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: (Colour online) Radial excitations (Roper-like states) for the octet members with J P = 1 2 + . Reprinted figure with permission from [280], Copyright (2022) by the American Physical Society. (udu) (uds) (uds) (uss) (udc) (usc) (udb) Quark content 0 250 500 M [M e V] …
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: Comparison of the charmed baryons and bottom baryons spectra. Note that isospin splitting is ignored, and the base line is given as the weakly decaying ground state for the Λ and Ξ, and the spin-weighted average of the lowest two states for the Ξ′ c and Ω. The positio…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Quantum numbers of excited $\Xi_c^\prime$ and $\Omega_c$ baryons and the $P$-wave $\Sigma_c$ spectrum

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The excited Ξ_c and Ω_c baryons share successive J^P = 1/2^-, 3/2^-, 3/2^-, 5/2^- λ-mode assignments, with Ω_c(3119) as a ρ-mode 3/2^- state and four P-wave Σ_c states predicted inside existing structures.

  2. Hadron Spectroscopy: Experimental Overview

    nucl-ex 2026-07 unverdicted

    Hadron spectroscopy's experimental status is reviewed from PDG listings: the conventional and exotic meson and baryon spectrum through 2025-2026, with no new results reported.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

291 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Rutherford E 1911 Phil. Mag. Ser. 6 21 669

    1911

  2. [2]

    (CDF Collaboration) 1995 Phys

    Abe F et al. (CDF Collaboration) 1995 Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 2626

    1995

  3. [3]

    (D0 Collaboration) 1995 Phys

    Abachi S et al. (D0 Collaboration) 1995 Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 2632

    1995

  4. [4]

    https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1990/

    1990

  5. [5]

    2023 Eur

    Gross F et al. 2023 Eur. Phys. J. C 83 1125

    2023

  6. [6]

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

    1986

  7. [7]

    Loring U, Kretzschmar K, Metsch B C and Petry H R 2001 Eur. Phys. J. A 10 309

    2001

  8. [8]

    Loring U, Metsch B C and Petry H R 2001 Eur. Phys. J. A 10 395

    2001

Show all 291 references
  1. [9]

    Loring U, Metsch B C and Petry H R 2001 Eur. Phys. J. A 10 447

    2001

  2. [10]

    Shimizu K 1984 Phys. Lett. B 148 418

    1984

  3. [11]

    Fernandez F, Valcarce A, Straub U and Faessler A 1993 J. Phys. G 19 2013

    1993

  4. [12]

    Valcarce A, Fernandez F, Gonzalez P and Vento V 1996 Phys. Lett. B 367 35

    1996

  5. [13]

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

    1996

  6. [14]

    Dziembowski Z, Fabre de la Ripelle M and Miller G A 1996 Phys. Rev. C 53 R2038

    1996

  7. [15]

    Valcarce A, Garcilazo H and Vijande J 2005 Phys. Rev. C 72 025206

    2005

  8. [16]

    (European Muon Collaboration) 1988 Phys

    Ashman J et al. (European Muon Collaboration) 1988 Phys. Lett. B 206 364

    1988

  9. [17]

    Deur A, Brodsky S J and De T´ eramond G F 2019 Rep. Prog. Phys. 82 076201

    2019

  10. [18]

    Diehl S 2023 Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. In press, available online

    2023

  11. [19]

    (CLAS Collaboration) 2003 Nucl

    Mecking B A et al. (CLAS Collaboration) 2003 Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 503 513

    2003

  12. [20]

    Hillert W 2006 Eur. Phys. J. A 28S1 139

    2006

  13. [21]

    Mecking B A 2006 Eur. Phys. J. A 28S1 209

    2006

  14. [22]

    (GRAAL Collaboration) 2005 Eur

    Bartalini O et al. (GRAAL Collaboration) 2005 Eur. Phys. J. A 26 399 A Review of Hyperon Spectroscopy 82

    2005

  15. [23]

    (LEPS Collaboration) 2014 Nucl

    Muramatsu N et al. (LEPS Collaboration) 2014 Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 737 184

    2014

  16. [24]

    (Particle Data Group) 2022 PTEP 2022 083C01

    Workman R L et al. (Particle Data Group) 2022 PTEP 2022 083C01

    2022

  17. [25]

    Anisovich A V, Klempt E, Nikonov V A, Sarantsev A V and Thoma U 2012 Phys. Lett. B 711 167

    2012

  18. [26]

    (CBELSA/TAPS Collaboration) 2015 Eur

    Sokhoyan V et al. (CBELSA/TAPS Collaboration) 2015 Eur. Phys. J. A 51 95 [Erratum: 2015 Eur. Phys. J. A51 187]

    2015

  19. [27]

    (CBELSA/TAPS Collaboration) 2015 Phys

    Thiel A et al. (CBELSA/TAPS Collaboration) 2015 Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 091803

    2015

  20. [28]

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

    2011

  21. [29]

    Ireland D G, Pasyuk E and Strakovsky I 2020 Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 111 103752

    2020

  22. [30]

    Evans L and Bryant P 2008 JINST 3 S08001

    2008

  23. [31]

    Kurokawa S and Kikutani E 2003 Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 499 1

    2003

  24. [32]

    (LHCb Collaboration) 2017 Phys

    Aaij R et al. (LHCb Collaboration) 2017 Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 112001

    2017

  25. [33]

    Edwards R G, Mathur N, Richards D G and Wallace S J (Hadron Spectrum Collaboration) 2013 Phys. Rev. D 87 054506

    2013

  26. [34]

    Hey A J G and Kelly R L 1983 Phys. Rept. 96 71

    1983

  27. [35]

    Klempt E and Richard J M 2010 Rev. Mod. Phys. 82 1095

    2010

  28. [36]

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

    2000

  29. [37]

    Krusche B and Schadmand S 2003 Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 51 399

    2003

  30. [38]

    Drechsel D and Walcher T 2008 Rev. Mod. Phys. 80 731

    2008

  31. [39]

    Tiator L, Drechsel D, Kamalov S S and Vanderhaeghen M 2011 Eur. Phys. J. ST 198 141

    2011

  32. [40]

    Aznauryan I G and Burkert V D 2012 Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 67 1

    2012

  33. [41]

    Crede V and Roberts W 2013 Rep. Prog. Phys. 76 076301

    2013

  34. [42]

    Thiel A, Afzal F and Wunderlich Y 2022 Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 125 103949

    2022

  35. [43]

    Copley L A, Isgur N and Karl G 1979 Phys. Rev. D 20 768 [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 23, 817 (1981)]

    1981

  36. [44]

    Silvestre-Brac B 1996 Few Body Syst. 20 1

    1996

  37. [45]

    Garcia-Recio C, Nieves J, Romanets O, Salcedo L L and Tolos L 2013 Phys. Rev. D 87 034032

    2013

  38. [46]

    Cheng H Y 2009 Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 24S1 593

    2009

  39. [47]

    Cheng H Y 2015 Front. Phys. (Beijing) 10 101406

    2015

  40. [48]

    Cheng H Y 2022 Chin. J. Phys. 78 324

    2022

  41. [49]

    Chen H X, Chen W, Liu X, Liu Y R and Zhu S L 2017 Rept. Prog. Phys. 80 076201

    2017

  42. [50]

    Chen H X, Chen W, Liu X, Liu Y R and Zhu S L 2023 Rept. Prog. Phys. 86 026201

    2023

  43. [51]

    Yoshida T, Hiyama E, Hosaka A, Oka M and Sadato K 2015 Phys. Rev. D 92 114029

    2015

  44. [52]

    (LHCb Collaboration) 2015 Phys

    Aaij R et al. (LHCb Collaboration) 2015 Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 072001

    2015

  45. [53]

    (LHCb Collaboration) 2019 Phys

    Aaij R et al. (LHCb Collaboration) 2019 Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 222001

    2019

  46. [54]

    Gell-Mann M 1961 CTSL-20, TID-12608

    1961

  47. [55]

    Okubo S 1962 Prog. Theor. Phys. 27 949

    1962

  48. [56]

    Okubo S 1962 Prog. Theor. Phys. 28 24

    1962

  49. [57]

    Richard J M 2012 Ferrara International School Niccol` o Cabeo 2012: Hadronic spectroscopy (Preprint 1205.4326)

    2012 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Chao K T, Isgur N and Karl G 1981 Phys. Rev. D 23 155

    1981

  51. [59]

    Zenczykowski P 1986 Annals Phys. 169 453

    1986

  52. [60]

    Eichmann G, Sanchis-Alepuz H, Williams R, Alkofer R and Fischer C S 2016 Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 91 1

    2016

  53. [61]

    Eichmann G and Fischer C S 2019 Few Body Syst. 60 2

    2019

  54. [62]

    Bashir A, Chang L, Cloet I C, El-Bennich B, Liu Y X, Roberts C D and Tandy P C 2012Commun. Theor. Phys. 58 79

  55. [63]

    Roberts C D 2015 IRMA Lect. Math. Theor. Phys. 21 355

    2015

  56. [64]

    Eichmann G, Fischer C S and Sanchis-Alepuz H 2016 Phys. Rev. D 94 094033

    2016

  57. [65]

    Fischer C S and Eichmann G 201817th International Conference on Hadron Spectroscopy and Structure p 007

  58. [66]

    Dudek J J, Edwards R G, Peardon M J, Richards D G and Thomas C E 2009 Phys. Rev. Lett. A Review of Hyperon Spectroscopy 83 103 262001

    2009

  59. [67]

    Dudek J J, Edwards R G, Peardon M J, Richards D G and Thomas C E 2010 Phys. Rev. D 82 034508

    2010

  60. [68]

    Edwards R G, Dudek J J, Richards D G and Wallace S J 2011 Phys. Rev. D 84 074508

    2011

  61. [69]

    Engel G P, Lang C B, Mohler D and Sch¨ afer A (BGR Collaboration) 2013 Phys. Rev. D 87 074504

    2013

  62. [70]

    Karliner M and Rosner J L 2018 Phys. Rev. D 98 074026

    2018

  63. [71]

    (Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG)) 2022 Eur

    Aoki Y et al. (Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG)) 2022 Eur. Phys. J. C 82 869

    2022

  64. [72]

    Padmanath M 2019 Heavy baryon spectroscopy from lattice QCD ( Preprint 1905.10168)

    2019 arXiv

  65. [73]

    (SELEX Collaboration) 2002 Phys

    Mattson M et al. (SELEX Collaboration) 2002 Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 112001

    2002

  66. [74]

    (SELEX Collaboration) 2005 Phys

    Ocherashvili A et al. (SELEX Collaboration) 2005 Phys. Lett. B 628 18

    2005

  67. [75]

    1996 Particle physics: One hundred years of discoveries

    Ezhela V V et al. 1996 Particle physics: One hundred years of discoveries

    1996

  68. [76]

    Bonetti A, Levi Setti R, Panetti M and Tomasini G 1953 Nuovo Cim. A 10 1

    1953

  69. [77]

    York C M, Leighton R B and Bjornerud E K 1953 Phys. Rev. 90 167

    1953

  70. [78]

    Cowan E W 1954 Phys. Rev. 94 161

    1954

  71. [79]

    Alvarez L W, Eberhard P, Good M L, Graziano W, Ticho H K and Wojcicki S G 1959 Phys. Rev. Lett. 2 215

    1959

  72. [80]

    Pjerrou G M, Prowse D J, Schlein P, Slater W E, Stork D H and Ticho H K 1962 Phys. Rev. Lett. 9 114

    1962

  73. [81]

    1962 Phys

    Bertanza L et al. 1962 Phys. Rev. Lett. 9 180

    1962

  74. [82]

    1964 Phys

    Barnes V E et al. 1964 Phys. Rev. Lett. 12 204

    1964

  75. [83]

    Aleksandrov Y A, Clement M, Dropmann F, Fournier A, Grafstrom P, Hubbard E, Paul S, Siebert H W, Trombini A and Zavertyaev M 1998 Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 408 359

    1998

  76. [84]

    Bourquin M and Repellin J P 1984 Phys. Rept. 114 99

    1984

  77. [85]

    (Bristol-Geneva-Heidelberg-Orsay-Rutherford-Strasbourg Collaboration) 1979 Nucl

    Bourquin M et al. (Bristol-Geneva-Heidelberg-Orsay-Rutherford-Strasbourg Collaboration) 1979 Nucl. Phys. B 153 13 [Erratum: 1979 Nucl. Phys. B161 548]

    1979

  78. [86]

    Biagi S F et al. 1981 Z. Phys. C 9 305

    1981

  79. [87]

    Biagi S F et al. 1986 Z. Phys. C 31 33

    1986

  80. [88]

    Biagi S F et al. 1987 Z. Phys. C 34 15

    1987

  81. [89]

    Biagi S F et al. 1987 Z. Phys. C 34 175

    1987

  82. [90]

    (W A89 Collaboration) 1998 Eur

    Adamovich M I et al. (W A89 Collaboration) 1998 Eur. Phys. J. C 5 621

    1998

  83. [91]

    (W A89 Collaboration) 1999 Eur

    Adamovich M I et al. (W A89 Collaboration) 1999 Eur. Phys. J. C 11 271

    1999

  84. [92]

    (SELEX Collaboration) 1987 FERMILAB-PROPOSAL-0781

    Russ J et al. (SELEX Collaboration) 1987 FERMILAB-PROPOSAL-0781

    1987

  85. [93]

    (HyperCP Collaboration) 2004 Phys

    Holmstrom T et al. (HyperCP Collaboration) 2004 Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 262001

    2004

  86. [94]

    (HyperCP Collaboration) 2004 Phys

    Huang M et al. (HyperCP Collaboration) 2004 Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 011802

    2004

  87. [95]

    (HyperCP Collaboration) 2005 Phys

    Rajaram D et al. (HyperCP Collaboration) 2005 Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 181801

    2005

  88. [96]

    (E761 Collaboration) 1994 Phys

    Dubbs T et al. (E761 Collaboration) 1994 Phys. Rev. Lett. 72 808

    1994

  89. [97]

    (E756 Collaboration) 2003 Phys

    Chakravorty A et al. (E756 Collaboration) 2003 Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 031601

    2003

  90. [98]

    (E756 Collaboration) 2000 Phys

    Luk K B et al. (E756 Collaboration) 2000 Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 4860

    2000

  91. [99]

    Wallace N B, Border P M, Ciampa D P, Guglielmo G, Heller K J, Woods D M, Johns K A, Gao Y T, Longo M J and Rameika R 1995 Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 3732

    1995

  92. [100]

    1988 Phys

    Aston D et al. 1988 Phys. Lett. B 215 799

    1988

  93. [101]

    Smith G A, Lindsey J S, Button-Shafer J and Murray J J 1965 Phys. Rev. Lett. 14 25

    1965

  94. [102]

    Berge J P, Eberhard P, Hubbard J R, Merrill D W, Button-Shafer J, Solmitz F T and Stevenson M L 1966 Phys. Rev. 147 945

    1966

  95. [103]

    Goldwasser E L and Schultz P F 1970 Phys. Rev. D 1 1960

    1970

  96. [104]

    1968 Phys

    Alitti J et al. 1968 Phys. Rev. Lett. 21 1119

    1968

  97. [105]

    1969 Phys

    Alitti J et al. 1969 Phys. Rev. Lett. 22 79

    1969

  98. [106]

    1970 Phys

    Apsell S et al. 1970 Phys. Rev. Lett. 24 777

    1970

  99. [107]

    Borenstein S R, Danburg J S, Kalbfleisch G R, Strand R C, Vanderburg V, Chapman J W, Kiang R K and Lys J 1972 Phys. Rev. D 5 1559 A Review of Hyperon Spectroscopy 84

    1972

  100. [108]

    1983 Phys

    Jenkins C M et al. 1983 Phys. Rev. Lett. 51 951

    1983

  101. [109]

    1985 Phys

    Aston D et al. 1985 Phys. Rev. D 32 2270

    1985

  102. [110]

    1973 Phys

    Brandenburg G W et al. 1973 Phys. Rev. D 7 708

    1973

  103. [111]

    1974 Nuovo Cim

    Berthon A et al. 1974 Nuovo Cim. A 21 146

    1974

  104. [112]

    A 28 289

    Bellefon A d, Berthon A and Billoir P 1975 Nuovo Cim. A 28 289

    1975

  105. [113]

    (Amsterdam-CERN-Nijmegen-Oxford Collaboration) 1976 Phys

    Gay J B et al. (Amsterdam-CERN-Nijmegen-Oxford Collaboration) 1976 Phys. Lett. B 62 477

    1976

  106. [114]

    (Belle Collaboration) 2002 Phys

    Abe K et al. (Belle Collaboration) 2002 Phys. Lett. B 524 33

    2002

  107. [115]

    (BaBar Collaboration) 2008 Phys

    Aubert B et al. (BaBar Collaboration) 2008 Phys. Rev. D 78 034008

    2008

  108. [116]

    (BaBar Collaboration) 2006 Phys

    Aubert B et al. (BaBar Collaboration) 2006 Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 112001

    2006

  109. [117]

    1967 Nucl

    Tripp R D et al. 1967 Nucl. Phys. B 3 10

    1967

  110. [118]

    1968 Nucl

    Burgun G et al. 1968 Nucl. Phys. B 8 447

    1968

  111. [119]

    1971 Nucl

    Litchfield P J et al. 1971 Nucl. Phys. B 30 125

    1971

  112. [120]

    (CLAS Collaboration) 2007 Phys

    Guo L et al. (CLAS Collaboration) 2007 Phys. Rev. C 76 025208

    2007

  113. [121]

    (CLAS Collaboration) 2018 Phys

    Goetz J T et al. (CLAS Collaboration) 2018 Phys. Rev. C 98 062201

    2018

  114. [122]

    (GlueX Collaboration) 2021 Nucl

    Adhikari S et al. (GlueX Collaboration) 2021 Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 987 164807

    2021

  115. [123]

    (GlueX Collaboration) 2012 ( Preprint arXiv:1210.4508[hep-ex])

    Dugger M et al. (GlueX Collaboration) 2012 ( Preprint arXiv:1210.4508[hep-ex])

    2012 arXiv

  116. [124]

    (GlueX Collaboration) 2013 ( Preprint arXiv:1305.1523[nucl-ex])

    AlekSejevs A et al. (GlueX Collaboration) 2013 ( Preprint arXiv:1305.1523[nucl-ex])

    2013 arXiv

  117. [125]

    2012 https://www.jlab.org/exp_prog/proposals/12/PR12-12-008.pdf

    Afanasev A et al. 2012 https://www.jlab.org/exp_prog/proposals/12/PR12-12-008.pdf

    2012

  118. [126]

    2020 Nucl

    Burkert V D et al. 2020 Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 959 163419

    2020

  119. [127]

    Yamartino R, Brandenburg G W, Johnson W B, Leith D W G S, Loos J S, Luste G, Matthews J A J, Moriyasu K, Smart W M and Winkelmann F C 1974 Phys. Rev. D 10 9

    1974

  120. [128]

    2020 Nucl

    Day D et al. 2020 Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 957 163429

    2020

  121. [129]

    (KLF Collaboration) 2020 ( Preprint 2008.08215)

    Amaryan M et al. (KLF Collaboration) 2020 ( Preprint 2008.08215)

    2020 arXiv

  122. [130]

    Nagae T 2008 Nucl. Phys. A 805 486

    2008

  123. [131]

    http://j-parc.jp/researcher/Hadron/en/pac_2301/pdf/P97_2023-4.pdf

  124. [132]

    http://j-parc.jp/researcher/Hadron/en/pac_2107/pdf/P85_2021-10.pdf

  125. [133]

    http://j-parc.jp/researcher/Hadron/en/pac_1301/pdf/P50_2012-19.pdf

  126. [134]

    2007 Conf

    Toelle R et al. 2007 Conf. Proc. C 070625 1442

    2007

  127. [135]

    Musgrave B and Petmezas G 1965 Nuovo Cim. 35 735

    1965

  128. [136]

    (PANDA Collaboration) 2009 ( Preprint 0903.3905)

    Lutz M F M et al. (PANDA Collaboration) 2009 ( Preprint 0903.3905)

    2009

  129. [137]

    Crede V (GlueX Collaboration) 2023 Few Body Syst. 64 32

    2023

  130. [138]

    (NA48 Collaboration) 2000 Eur

    Fanti V et al. (NA48 Collaboration) 2000 Eur. Phys. J. C 12 69

    2000

  131. [139]

    Kalbfleisch G R, Strand R C and Chapman J W 1975 Phys. Rev. D 11 987

    1975

  132. [140]

    (CLAS Collaboration) 2005 Phys

    Price J W et al. (CLAS Collaboration) 2005 Phys. Rev. C 71 058201

    2005

  133. [141]

    Schlein P E, Carmony D D, Pjerrou G M, Slater W E, Stork D H and Ticho H K 1963 Phys. Rev. Lett. 11 167

    1963

  134. [142]

    Button-Shafer J, Lindsey J S, Murray J J and Smith G A 1966 Phys. Rev. 142 883

    1966

  135. [143]

    (Particle Data Group) 1988 Phys

    Yost G P et al. (Particle Data Group) 1988 Phys. Lett. B 204 1

    1988

  136. [144]

    (Amsterdam-CERN-Nijmegen-Oxford Collaboration) 1978 Phys

    Dionisi C et al. (Amsterdam-CERN-Nijmegen-Oxford Collaboration) 1978 Phys. Lett. B 80 145

    1978

  137. [145]

    (CLEO Collaboration) 1993 Phys

    Avery P et al. (CLEO Collaboration) 1993 Phys. Rev. Lett. 71 2391

    1993

  138. [146]

    (Belle Collaboration) 2019 Phys

    Sumihama M et al. (Belle Collaboration) 2019 Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 072501

    2019

  139. [147]

    (BESIII Collaboration) 2024 Phys

    Ablikim M et al. (BESIII Collaboration) 2024 Phys. Rev. D 109 072008 (Preprint 2308.15206)

    2024

  140. [148]

    Ross R T, Buran T, Lloyd J L, Mulvey J H and Radojicic D 1972 Phys. Lett. B 38 177

    1972

  141. [149]

    1977 Phys

    Briefel E et al. 1977 Phys. Rev. D 16 2706

    1977

  142. [150]

    Hassall J K, Ansorge R E, Carter J R, Neale W W, Rushbrooke J G, Ward D R, Oh B Y, Pratap M, Smith G A and Whitmore J 1981 Nucl. Phys. B 189 397

    1981

  143. [151]

    Badier J, Barrelet E, Charlton G R and Videau I 1972 Nucl. Phys. B 37 429

    1972

  144. [152]

    Crennell D J, Karshon U, Lai K W, O’ Neall J S, Scarr J M and Schumann T G 1970 Phys. Rev. D 1 847

    1970

  145. [153]

    DiBianca F A and Endorf R J 1975 Nucl. Phys. B 98 137

    1975

  146. [154]

    1978 Phys

    Teodoro D et al. 1978 Phys. Lett. B 77 451 A Review of Hyperon Spectroscopy 85

    1978

  147. [155]

    (Amsterdam-CERN-Nijmegen-Oxford Collaboration) 1977 Phys

    Hemingway R J et al. (Amsterdam-CERN-Nijmegen-Oxford Collaboration) 1977 Phys. Lett. B 68 197

    1977

  148. [156]

    (Aachen-Berlin-CERN-London-Vienna Collaboration) 1969 Phys

    Bartsch J et al. (Aachen-Berlin-CERN-London-Vienna Collaboration) 1969 Phys. Lett. B 28 439

    1969

  149. [157]

    (Birmingham-CERN-Glasgow-Michigan State-Paris Collaboration) 1980Phys

    Amirzadeh J et al. (Birmingham-CERN-Glasgow-Michigan State-Paris Collaboration) 1980Phys. Lett. B 90 324

  150. [158]

    Ne’eman Y 1961 Nucl. Phys. 26 222

    1961

  151. [159]

    1991 Phys

    Diehl H T et al. 1991 Phys. Rev. Lett. 67 804

    1991

  152. [160]

    (Aachen-Berlin-CERN-Innsbruck-London-Vienna Collaboration) 1978 Phys

    Deutschmann M et al. (Aachen-Berlin-CERN-Innsbruck-London-Vienna Collaboration) 1978 Phys. Lett. B 73 96

    1978

  153. [161]

    (Birmingham-CERN-Glasgow-Michigan State-Paris Collaboration) 1978 Phys

    Baubillier M et al. (Birmingham-CERN-Glasgow-Michigan State-Paris Collaboration) 1978 Phys. Lett. B 78 342

    1978

  154. [162]

    (Particle Data Group) 2018 Phys

    Tanabashi M et al. (Particle Data Group) 2018 Phys. Rev. D 98 030001

    2018

  155. [163]

    (Belle Collaboration) 2018 Phys

    Yelton J et al. (Belle Collaboration) 2018 Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 052003

    2018

  156. [164]

    Faustov R N and Galkin V O 2015 Phys. Rev. D 92 054005

    2015

  157. [165]

    Belle Collaboration 2022 ( Preprint arXiv:2207.03090[hep-ex])

    2022 arXiv

  158. [166]

    (Belle Collaboration) 2019 Phys

    Jia S et al. (Belle Collaboration) 2019 Phys. Rev. D 100 032006

    2019

  159. [167]

    Ikeno N, Toledo G, Liang W H and Oset E 2023 Few Body Syst. 64 55

    2023

  160. [168]

    1987 Phys

    Aston D et al. 1987 Phys. Lett. B 194 579

    1987

  161. [169]

    (BESIII Collaboration) 2021 Phys

    Ablikim M et al. (BESIII Collaboration) 2021 Phys. Rev. D 103 L091101

    2021

  162. [170]

    1976 Phys

    Knapp B et al. 1976 Phys. Rev. Lett. 37 882

    1976

  163. [171]

    (LHCb Collaboration) 2023 Phys

    Aaij R et al. (LHCb Collaboration) 2023 Phys. Rev. D 108 012023

    2023

  164. [172]

    (Belle Collaboration) 2014 Phys

    Zupanc A et al. (Belle Collaboration) 2014 Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 042002

    2014

  165. [173]

    (BESIII Collaboration) 2016 Phys

    Ablikim M et al. (BESIII Collaboration) 2016 Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 052001

    2016

  166. [174]

    (BaBar Collaboration) 2005 Phys

    Aubert B et al. (BaBar Collaboration) 2005 Phys. Rev. D 72 052006

    2005

  167. [175]

    (ARGUS Collaboration) 1993 Phys

    Albrecht H et al. (ARGUS Collaboration) 1993 Phys. Lett. B 317 227

    1993

  168. [176]

    (CLEO Collaboration) 1995 Phys

    Edwards K W et al. (CLEO Collaboration) 1995 Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 3331

    1995

  169. [177]

    (Belle Collaboration) 2023 Phys

    Wang D et al. (Belle Collaboration) 2023 Phys. Rev. D 107 032008

    2023

  170. [178]

    (LHCb Collaboration) 2017 Phys

    Aaij R et al. (LHCb Collaboration) 2017 Phys. Rev. D 96 112005

    2017

  171. [179]

    Blechman A E, Falk A F, Pirjol D and Yelton J M 2003 Phys. Rev. D 67 074033

    2003

  172. [180]

    (CDF Collaboration) 2011 Phys

    Aaltonen T et al. (CDF Collaboration) 2011 Phys. Rev. D 84 012003

    2011

  173. [181]

    Rosner J L 1995 Comments Nucl. Part. Phys. 21 369 (Preprint hep-ph/9501291)

    1995 arXiv

  174. [182]

    (Particle Data Group) 2010 J

    Nakamura K et al. (Particle Data Group) 2010 J. Phys. G 37 075021

    2010

  175. [183]

    Nieves J and Pavao R 2020 Phys. Rev. D 101 014018

    2020

  176. [184]

    (CLEO Collaboration) 2001 Phys

    Artuso M et al. (CLEO Collaboration) 2001 Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 4479

    2001

  177. [185]

    Tanida K et al. (Belle Collaboration) 2020 Experimental determination of the isospin of Λc(2765)+/Σc(2765)+ 18th International Conference on Hadron Spectroscopy and Structure p 183 ( Preprint 1908.06235)

    2020

  178. [186]

    (Belle Collaboration) 2007 Phys

    Abe K et al. (Belle Collaboration) 2007 Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 262001

    2007

  179. [187]

    thesis Seoul Natl

    Joo C 2015 The spin-parity study of the Λ c(2765)+ in Belle Ph.D. thesis Seoul Natl. U., Dept. Phys. Astron

    2015

  180. [188]

    (LHCb Collaboration) 2017 JHEP 05 030

    Aaij R et al. (LHCb Collaboration) 2017 JHEP 05 030

    2017

  181. [189]

    (BaBar Collaboration) 2007 Phys

    Aubert B et al. (BaBar Collaboration) 2007 Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 012001

    2007

  182. [190]

    Wang B, Meng L and Zhu S L 2020 Phys. Rev. D 101 094035

    2020

  183. [191]

    Luo S Q, Chen B, Liu Z W and Liu X 2020 Eur. Phys. J. C 80 301

    2020

  184. [192]

    (Belle Collaboration) 2023 Phys

    Li Y B et al. (Belle Collaboration) 2023 Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 031901

    2023

  185. [193]

    (Belle Collaboration) 2014 Phys

    Lee S H et al. (Belle Collaboration) 2014 Phys. Rev. D 89 091102

    2014

  186. [194]

    (Belle Collaboration) 2021 Phys

    Yelton J et al. (Belle Collaboration) 2021 Phys. Rev. D 104 052003

    2021

  187. [195]

    Franklin J 1975 Phys. Rev. D 12 2077

    1975

  188. [196]

    (Belle Collaboration) 2005 Phys

    Mizuk R et al. (Belle Collaboration) 2005 Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 122002

    2005

  189. [197]

    Wang K L and Zhong X H 2022 Chin. Phys. C 46 023103

    2022

  190. [198]

    (BaBar Collaboration) 2008 Phys

    Aubert B et al. (BaBar Collaboration) 2008 Phys. Rev. D 78 112003 A Review of Hyperon Spectroscopy 86

    2008

  191. [199]

    1983 Phys

    Biagi S F et al. 1983 Phys. Lett. B 122 455

    1983

  192. [200]

    (CLEO Collaboration) 1989 Phys

    Alam M S et al. (CLEO Collaboration) 1989 Phys. Lett. B 226 401

    1989

  193. [201]

    (ACCMOR Collaboration) 1989 Phys

    Barlag S et al. (ACCMOR Collaboration) 1989 Phys. Lett. B 233 522

    1989

  194. [202]

    (CLEO Collaboration) 1995 Phys

    Avery P et al. (CLEO Collaboration) 1995 Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 4364

    1995

  195. [203]

    (CLEO Collaboration) 1996 Phys

    Gibbons L et al. (CLEO Collaboration) 1996 Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 810

    1996

  196. [204]

    (CLEO Collaboration) 1999 Phys

    Jessop C P et al. (CLEO Collaboration) 1999 Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 492

    1999

  197. [205]

    Maltman K and Isgur N 1980 Phys. Rev. D 22 1701

    1980

  198. [206]

    (Belle Collaboration) 2016 Phys

    Yelton J et al. (Belle Collaboration) 2016 Phys. Rev. D 94 052011

    2016

  199. [207]

    (CLEO Collaboration) 2001 Phys

    Csorna S E et al. (CLEO Collaboration) 2001 Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 4243

    2001

  200. [208]

    (CLEO Collaboration) 1999 Phys

    Alexander J P et al. (CLEO Collaboration) 1999 Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 3390

    1999

  201. [209]

    (Belle Collaboration) 2020 Phys

    Yelton J et al. (Belle Collaboration) 2020 Phys. Rev. D 102 071103

    2020

  202. [210]

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

    2017

  203. [211]

    (Belle Collaboration) 2006 Phys

    Chistov R et al. (Belle Collaboration) 2006 Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 162001

    2006

  204. [212]

    (BaBar Collaboration) 2008 Phys

    Aubert B et al. (BaBar Collaboration) 2008 Phys. Rev. D 77 012002

    2008

  205. [213]

    (Belle Collaboration) 2008 Phys

    Lesiak T et al. (Belle Collaboration) 2008 Phys. Lett. B 665 9

    2008

  206. [214]

    (Belle Collaboration) 2014 Phys

    Kato Y et al. (Belle Collaboration) 2014 Phys. Rev. D 89 052003

    2014

  207. [215]

    (LHCb Collaboration) 2020 Phys

    Aaij R et al. (LHCb Collaboration) 2020 Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 222001

    2020

  208. [216]

    (Belle Collaboration) 2021 Phys

    Moon T J et al. (Belle Collaboration) 2021 Phys. Rev. D 103 L111101

    2021

  209. [217]

    (BaBar Collaboration) 2007 Phys

    Aubert B et al. (BaBar Collaboration) 2007 Phys. Rev. D 76 031101

    2007

  210. [218]

    (Belle Collaboration) 2018 Eur

    Li Y B et al. (Belle Collaboration) 2018 Eur. Phys. J. C 78 252

    2018

  211. [219]

    (Belle Collaboration) 2018 Eur

    Li Y B et al. (Belle Collaboration) 2018 Eur. Phys. J. C 78 928

    2018

  212. [220]

    (LHCb Collaboration) 2023 Phys

    Aaij R et al. (LHCb Collaboration) 2023 Phys. Rev. D 108 012020

    2023

  213. [221]

    Biagi S F et al. 1985 Z. Phys. C 28 175

    1985

  214. [222]

    (ARGUS Collaboration) 1992 Phys

    Albrecht H et al. (ARGUS Collaboration) 1992 Phys. Lett. B 288 367

    1992

  215. [223]

    (W A89 Collaboration) 1995 Phys

    Adamovich M I et al. (W A89 Collaboration) 1995 Phys. Lett. B 358 151

    1995

  216. [224]

    (E687 Collaboration) 1995 Phys

    Frabetti P L et al. (E687 Collaboration) 1995 Phys. Lett. B 357 678

    1995

  217. [225]

    (CLEO Collaboration) 2001 Phys

    Cronin-Hennessy D et al. (CLEO Collaboration) 2001 Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 3730

    2001

  218. [226]

    (BaBar Collaboration) 2007 Phys

    Aubert B et al. (BaBar Collaboration) 2007 Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 062001

    2007

  219. [227]

    (Belle Collaboration) 2009 Phys

    Solovieva E et al. (Belle Collaboration) 2009 Phys. Lett. B 672 1

    2009

  220. [228]

    (BaBar Collaboration) 2006 Phys

    Aubert B et al. (BaBar Collaboration) 2006 Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 232001

    2006

  221. [229]

    (LHCb Collaboration) 2017 Phys

    Aaij R et al. (LHCb Collaboration) 2017 Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 182001

    2017

  222. [230]

    (Belle Collaboration) 2018 Phys

    Yelton J et al. (Belle Collaboration) 2018 Phys. Rev. D 97 051102

    2018

  223. [231]

    (Belle Collaboration) 2018 Phys

    Niiyama M et al. (Belle Collaboration) 2018 Phys. Rev. D 97 072005

    2018

  224. [232]

    Ikeno N, Liang W H and Oset E 2024 Phys. Rev. D 109 054023

    2024

  225. [233]

    (LHCb Collaboration) 2023 Phys

    Aaij R et al. (LHCb Collaboration) 2023 Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 131902

    2023

  226. [234]

    An C S and Chen H 2017 Phys. Rev. D 96 034012

    2017

  227. [235]

    Wang K L, Xiao L Y and Zhong X H 2020 Phys. Rev. D 102 034029

    2020

  228. [236]

    (LHCb Collaboration) 2020 JHEP 02 049 (Preprint 1911.08594)

    Aaij R et al. (LHCb Collaboration) 2020 JHEP 02 049 (Preprint 1911.08594)

    2020

  229. [237]

    Ebert D, Faustov R N, Galkin V O and Martynenko A P 2002 Phys. Rev. D 66 014008

    2002

  230. [238]

    Karliner M and Rosner J L 2014 Phys. Rev. D 90 094007

    2014

  231. [239]

    P´ erez-Rubio P, Collins S and Bali G S 2015 Phys. Rev. D 92 034504

    2015

  232. [240]

    Hwang C W and Chung C H 2008 Phys. Rev. D 78 073013

    2008

  233. [241]

    Brodsky S J, Guo F K, Hanhart C and Meissner U G 2011 Phys. Lett. B 698 251

    2011

  234. [242]

    Karliner M and Rosner J L 2017 Phys. Rev. D 96 033004

    2017

  235. [243]

    (LHCb Collaboration) 2021 JHEP 12 107 (Preprint 2109.07292)

    Aaij R et al. (LHCb Collaboration) 2021 JHEP 12 107 (Preprint 2109.07292)

    2021

  236. [244]

    (CDF Collaboration) 1997 Phys

    Abe F et al. (CDF Collaboration) 1997 Phys. Rev. D 55 1142

    1997

  237. [245]

    (CDF Collaboration) 2006 Phys

    Acosta D et al. (CDF Collaboration) 2006 Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 202001

    2006

  238. [246]

    (D0 Collaboration) 2008 Phys

    Abazov V M et al. (D0 Collaboration) 2008 Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 232002

    2008

  239. [247]

    Karliner M, Keren-Zur B, Lipkin H J and Rosner J L 2009 Annals Phys. 324 2

    2009

  240. [248]

    (CDF Collaboration) 2009 Phys

    Aaltonen T et al. (CDF Collaboration) 2009 Phys. Rev. D 80 072003

    2009

  241. [249]

    (LHCb Collaboration) 2013 Phys

    Aaij R et al. (LHCb Collaboration) 2013 Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 182001 A Review of Hyperon Spectroscopy 87

    2013

  242. [250]

    (CDF Collaboration) 2007 Phys

    Aaltonen T et al. (CDF Collaboration) 2007 Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 202001

    2007

  243. [251]

    (LHCb Collaboration) 2019 Phys

    Aaij R et al. (LHCb Collaboration) 2019 Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 012001

    2019

  244. [252]

    Pirjol D and Yan T M 1997 Phys. Rev. D 56 5483

    1997

  245. [253]

    (LHCb Collaboration) 2020 JHEP 06 136

    Aaij R et al. (LHCb Collaboration) 2020 JHEP 06 136

    2020

  246. [254]

    (CMS Collaboration) 2020 Phys

    Sirunyan A M et al. (CMS Collaboration) 2020 Phys. Lett. B 803 135345

    2020

  247. [255]

    (LHCb Collaboration) 2019 Phys

    Aaij R et al. (LHCb Collaboration) 2019 Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 152001

    2019

  248. [256]

    (LHCb Collaboration) 2015 Phys

    Aaij R et al. (LHCb Collaboration) 2015 Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 062004

    2015

  249. [257]

    (CMS Collaboration) 2012 Phys

    Chatrchyan S et al. (CMS Collaboration) 2012 Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 252002

    2012

  250. [258]

    (LHCb Collaboration) 2016 JHEP 05 161

    Aaij R et al. (LHCb Collaboration) 2016 JHEP 05 161

    2016

  251. [259]

    (CMS Collaboration) 2021 Phys

    Sirunyan A M et al. (CMS Collaboration) 2021 Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 252003

    2021

  252. [260]

    (LHCb Collaboration) 2023 Phys

    Aaij R et al. (LHCb Collaboration) 2023 Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 171901

    2023

  253. [261]

    (LHCb Collaboration) 2018 Phys

    Aaij R et al. (LHCb Collaboration) 2018 Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 072002

    2018

  254. [262]

    (LHCb Collaboration) 2021 Phys

    Aaij R et al. (LHCb Collaboration) 2021 Phys. Rev. D 103 012004

    2021

  255. [263]

    (LHCb Collaboration) 2020 Phys

    Aaij R et al. (LHCb Collaboration) 2020 Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 082002

    2020

  256. [264]

    Aidala C A, Bass S D, Hasch D and Mallot G K 2013 Rev. Mod. Phys. 85 655

    2013

  257. [265]

    Granados C, Leupold S and Perotti E 2017 Eur. Phys. J. A 53 117

    2017

  258. [266]

    (NA48 Collaboration) 2007 Phys

    Batley J R et al. (NA48 Collaboration) 2007 Phys. Lett. B 650 1

    2007

  259. [267]

    Ramos A, Oset E and Bennhold C 2002 Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 252001

    2002

  260. [268]

    Miyahara K, Hyodo T, Oka M, Nieves J and Oset E 2017 Phys. Rev. C 95 035212

    2017

  261. [269]

    Xiao L Y and Zhong X H 2013 Phys. Rev. D 87 094002

    2013

  262. [270]

    Pervin M and Roberts W 2008 Phys. Rev. C 77 025202

    2008

  263. [271]

    Aliev T M, Azizi K and Sundu H 2018 Eur. Phys. J. C 78 396

    2018

  264. [272]

    Oh Y 2007 Phys. Rev. D 75 074002

    2007

  265. [273]

    Kolomeitsev E E and Lutz M F M 2004 Phys. Lett. B 585 243

    2004

  266. [274]

    Garcia-Recio C, Lutz M F M and Nieves J 2004 Phys. Lett. B 582 49

    2004

  267. [275]

    Sarkar S, Oset E and Vicente Vacas M J 2005 Nucl. Phys. A 750 294 [Erratum: 2006 Nucl. Phys. A 780 90]

    2005

  268. [276]

    Lee F X and Liu X 2002 Phys. Rev. D 66 014014

    2002

  269. [277]

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

    2008

  270. [278]

    Samios N P, Goldberg M and Meadows B T 1974 Rev. Mod. Phys. 46 49

    1974

  271. [279]

    Pavon Valderrama M, Xie J J and Nieves J 2012 Phys. Rev. D 85 017502

    2012

  272. [280]

    Arifi A J, Suenaga D, Hosaka A and Oh Y 2022 Phys. Rev. D 105 094006

    2022

  273. [281]

    Thiel A and Klempt E 2020 ( Preprint arXiv:2005.06971[nucl-ex])

    2020 arXiv

  274. [282]

    Lonardoni D, Lovato A, Gandolfi S and Pederiva F 2015 Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 092301

    2015

  275. [283]

    Minnaert P 1977 Phys. Lett. B 66 157

    1977

  276. [284]

    Nakayama K, Oh Y and Haberzettl H 2012 Phys. Rev. C 85 042201

    2012

  277. [285]

    Nakayama K, Oh Y and Haberzettl H 2006 Phys. Rev. C 74 035205

    2006

  278. [286]

    Man J K S, Oh Y and Nakayama K 2011 Phys. Rev. C 83 055201

    2011

  279. [287]

    Sharov D A, Korotkikh V L and Lanskoy D E 2011 Eur. Phys. J. A 47 109

    2011

  280. [288]

    Shyam R, Scholten O and Thomas A W 2011 Phys. Rev. C 84 042201

    2011

  281. [289]

    Duncan A, Eichten E and Thacker H 1997 Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 53 299

    1997

  282. [290]

    Delbourgo R, Liu D and Scadron M D 1999 Phys. Rev. D 59 113006

    1999

  283. [291]

    Jaffe R L 2005 Phys. Rept. 409 1

    2005

Pith tools

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