REVIEW 1 cited by
Observations of the singly Cabibbo-suppressed decays Xi_c⁺ to pK_(S)⁰, Xi_c^+ to Λ π^+, and Xi_c^+ to Sigma⁰ π^+ at Belle and Belle II
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
arxiv 2412.10677 v1 pith:UJU6HW6X submitted 2024-12-14 hep-ex hep-ph
Observations of the singly Cabibbo-suppressed decays Xi_c⁺ to pK_(S)⁰, Xi_c^+ to Λ π^+, and Xi_c^+ to Sigma⁰ π^+ at Belle and Belle II
show 338 more authors
read the original abstract
Using data samples of 983.0~$\rm fb^{-1}$ and 427.9~$\rm fb^{-1}$ accumulated with the Belle and Belle~II detectors operating at the KEKB and SuperKEKB asymmetric-energy $e^+e^-$ colliders, singly Cabibbo-suppressed decays $\Xi_c^{+} \to pK_{S}^{0}$, $\Xi_c^+ \to \Lambda \pi^+$, and $\Xi_c^+ \to \Sigma^{0} \pi^+$ are observed for the first time. The ratios of branching fractions of $\Xi_{c}^{+}\to p K_{S}^{0}$, $\Xi_{c}^{+}\to \Lambda \pi^{+}$, and $\Xi_{c}^{+}\to \Sigma^{0} \pi^{+}$ relative to that of $\Xi_c^+ \to \Xi^- \pi^{+} \pi^{+}$ are measured to be \begin{equation} \frac{{\cal B}(\Xi_c^+ \to pK_S^0)}{{\cal B}(\Xi_c^{+} \to \Xi^{-} \pi^+ \pi^+)} = (2.47 \pm 0.16 \pm 0.07)\% \notag, \end{equation} \begin{equation} \frac{{\cal B}(\Xi_c^+ \to \Lambda \pi^+)}{{\cal B}(\Xi_c^{+} \to \Xi^{-} \pi^+ \pi^+)} = (1.56 \pm 0.14 \pm 0.09)\% \notag, \end{equation} \begin{equation} \frac{{\cal B}(\Xi_c^+ \to \Sigma^0 \pi^+)}{{\cal B}(\Xi_c^{+} \to \Xi^{-} \pi^+ \pi^+)} = (4.13 \pm 0.26 \pm 0.22)\% \notag. \end{equation} Multiplying these values by the branching fraction of the normalization channel, ${\cal B}(\Xi_c^{+} \to \Xi^{-} \pi^+\pi^+) = (2.9 \pm 1.3)\%$, the absolute branching fractions are determined to be \begin{equation} {\cal B}(\Xi_c^{+} \to p K_{S}^{0}) = (7.16 \pm 0.46 \pm 0.20 \pm 3.21) \times 10^{-4} \notag, \end{equation} \begin{equation} {\cal B}(\Xi_c^{+} \to \Lambda \pi^+) = (4.52 \pm 0.41 \pm 0.26 \pm 2.03) \times 10^{-4} \notag, \end{equation} \begin{equation} {\cal B}(\Xi_c^{+} \to \Sigma^0 \pi^+) = (1.20 \pm 0.08 \pm 0.07 \pm 0.54) \times 10^{-3} \notag. \end{equation} The first and second uncertainties above are statistical and systematic, respectively, while the third ones arise from the uncertainty in ${\cal B}(\Xi_c^{+} \to \Xi^{-} \pi^{+} \pi^{+})$.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.
-
First evidence of $X(3872)\to\pi^0\chi_{c0}(1P)$ and search for $X(3915)\to\pi^0\chi_{c1}(1P)$
hep-ex 2026-06 conditional novelty 7.0
First evidence reported for X(3872)→π⁰χ_c0 decay at 3.4σ, with branching fraction ratio 2.3 relative to π⁺π⁻J/ψ, upper limits on other modes, and no signal for X(3915)→π⁰χ_c1.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.