pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.17877 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-20 · ✦ hep-ph · hep-ex

Recognition: unknown

Large CP violation in Λ_brightarrow Λ D decays and extraction of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa angle γ

Zhou Rui , Zhi-Tian Zou , Ya Li , Ying Li
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 04:42 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph hep-ex
keywords CP violationLambda_b decaysCKM angle gammabaryon decaysangular distributionsLHCbD meson eigenstates
0
0 comments X

The pith

Lambda_b to Lambda D decays can produce CP asymmetries as large as 50 percent and supply a route to extract the CKM angle gamma.

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

The paper proposes that the baryonic decay Lambda_b to Lambda D, with the D meson taken as a CP eigenstate, generates sizable CP-violating effects. These asymmetries reach magnitudes around 50 percent in both CP-even and CP-odd channels, making the modes attractive for study at the LHCb experiment. In addition, the authors identify several nonzero CP-violating observables tied to the angular distribution parameters. They further outline a strategy that combines measurements of those angular parameters with decay rates to determine the CKM angle gamma. The work positions these decays as leading candidates for gamma measurements in the baryon sector.

Core claim

The central claim is that Lambda_b → Lambda D decays with D a CP eigenstate of the neutral D system exhibit large CP violation, with asymmetries reaching 50 percent, and that data on angular distribution parameters together with branching fractions permit extraction of the CKM angle gamma.

What carries the argument

Interference between contributing decay amplitudes when the final-state D is a CP eigenstate, which produces observable CP asymmetries and angular observables that are sensitive to the weak phase gamma.

If this is right

  • CP asymmetries of order 50 percent are expected in the CP-even and CP-odd modes.
  • Several CP-violating observables linked to angular distribution parameters are predicted to be nonzero.
  • Combining angular data with rate measurements yields a strategy for determining the CKM angle gamma.
  • These channels rank among the most promising baryonic modes for gamma extraction.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Confirmation would add an independent baryonic probe that could cross-check gamma values obtained from B-meson decays.
  • Larger data samples could allow tests of the underlying amplitude assumptions through precision measurements of the angular parameters.
  • The same framework might extend to related baryon decays involving other neutral meson systems.

Load-bearing premise

The size of the CP asymmetries and the viability of the gamma extraction method rest on specific assumptions about the relative magnitudes and strong phases of the decay amplitudes.

What would settle it

An experimental measurement at LHCb that finds all CP asymmetries below roughly 10 percent or finds angular observables inconsistent with the predicted interference pattern would undermine the claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.17877 by Ya Li, Ying Li, Zhi-Tian Zou, Zhou Rui.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Decay topologies referred to as color-suppressed ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Motivated by the first observation of CP violation in $b$-baryon decays, the search for baryonic decays exhibiting large CP violation will be a primary focus in the coming years. We propose that significant CP-violating effects exist in the decay $\Lambda_b \to \Lambda D$, where $D$ denotes a CP eigenstate of the $D^0 - \bar{D}^0$ system. The predicted CP asymmetries for both the CP-even and CP-odd modes can reach magnitudes as large as $50\%$, making these decays promising targets for measurement at the LHCb experiment. Additionally, we predict for the first time several nonzero CP-violating observables associated with angular distribution parameters, providing valuable complementary information in the search for CP violation in baryon decays. Furthermore, we propose a novel strategy to extract the CKM angle $\gamma$ by combining data on angular distribution parameters and decay rates from the relevant channels. We emphasize that $\Lambda_b \rightarrow \Lambda D$ decays are among the most promising candidates for determining $\gamma$ in the baryon sector. Our findings may offer new insights for future theoretical and experimental investigations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that in Λ_b → Λ D decays (D a CP eigenstate of the D^0-¯D^0 system), CP asymmetries for both CP-even and CP-odd modes can reach magnitudes as large as 50%. It further predicts several nonzero CP-violating observables in the angular distributions and proposes a strategy to extract the CKM angle γ by combining angular distribution parameters with decay rates. These modes are presented as promising targets for LHCb and among the best candidates for γ determination in the baryon sector.

Significance. If the central results hold after the amplitude assumptions are properly constrained, the work would identify a new class of baryonic decays exhibiting large CP violation and supply an independent route to γ in the baryon sector, complementing meson-based methods. The angular observables add useful handles on CP violation beyond rate asymmetries. The proposal builds directly on the recent observation of CP violation in b-baryon decays and could usefully inform upcoming LHCb analyses.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2] §2 (Decay amplitudes): The 50% CP-asymmetry prediction is obtained only for specific choices of relative magnitudes and strong phases between the tree and penguin (or equivalent) amplitudes in the various helicity configurations. No lattice-QCD inputs, SU(3) relations, or external branching-fraction constraints are imposed to restrict the allowed parameter region, so the quoted magnitude is an existence result inside a particular slice of parameter space rather than a robust prediction.
  2. [§4] §4 (γ-extraction strategy): The proposed extraction of γ relies on the same free complex amplitude parameters that generate the large CP asymmetries. Potential discrete ambiguities or dilution effects arising from this parameter freedom are not quantified, weakening the claim that the method provides a clean determination.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that several angular CP-violating observables are predicted 'for the first time'; a brief comparison with existing literature on angular observables in baryon decays would clarify the novelty.
  2. [Throughout] Notation for helicity amplitudes and partial-wave decompositions should be defined once and used consistently in all equations and figures.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and the constructive comments, which have helped us identify areas for clarification. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§2] §2 (Decay amplitudes): The 50% CP-asymmetry prediction is obtained only for specific choices of relative magnitudes and strong phases between the tree and penguin (or equivalent) amplitudes in the various helicity configurations. No lattice-QCD inputs, SU(3) relations, or external branching-fraction constraints are imposed to restrict the allowed parameter region, so the quoted magnitude is an existence result inside a particular slice of parameter space rather than a robust prediction.

    Authors: We agree that the quoted maximum of 50% is obtained by scanning the allowed ranges of the complex amplitude parameters (magnitudes and strong phases) for the various helicity amplitudes without imposing external constraints such as lattice QCD matrix elements or SU(3) relations. Our intent was to demonstrate the potential size of CP violation that can be realized in this decay channel under the current theoretical description. In the revised manuscript we will explicitly state that the 50% figure represents the largest value attainable within the present parameter space and add a short discussion of how future lattice-QCD or phenomenological constraints could narrow the allowed region. This change clarifies the nature of the result without altering the central claim. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [§4] §4 (γ-extraction strategy): The proposed extraction of γ relies on the same free complex amplitude parameters that generate the large CP asymmetries. Potential discrete ambiguities or dilution effects arising from this parameter freedom are not quantified, weakening the claim that the method provides a clean determination.

    Authors: The angular-distribution parameters supply additional observables that are sensitive to the interference terms and therefore help to constrain the relative magnitudes and phases of the tree and penguin amplitudes. Once these parameters are measured, the remaining freedom is reduced and γ can be extracted from the rates. We acknowledge, however, that a quantitative study of possible discrete ambiguities and dilution effects is not provided. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated paragraph that estimates the size of such ambiguities using the set of angular observables and outlines how they can be resolved or mitigated with the expected LHCb statistics. This addition will make the strategy more robust. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; amplitude parametrization and observable calculations remain independent of inputs

full rationale

The paper decomposes the decay amplitudes for Λ_b → Λ D into contributions with explicit free parameters for magnitudes and strong phases, then computes CP asymmetries and angular observables directly from those expressions. The statement that asymmetries 'can reach magnitudes as large as 50%' is an existence result within the allowed parameter space rather than a fitted or self-defined output. The proposed γ-extraction method combines measured rates and angular parameters without reducing to any prior self-citation, uniqueness theorem, or ansatz smuggled from the authors' own work. No equation equates a derived quantity to its own input by construction, and all assumptions are stated as such. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review provides no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; typical quark-model or effective-theory assumptions for baryon decays are expected but unstated here.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5520 in / 1152 out tokens · 39777 ms · 2026-05-10T04:42:58.830107+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Spin-flavor entanglement in $\Lambda_b \to \Lambda D$ and weak phase extraction

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Spin-flavor entanglement in Lambda_b to Lambda D decays supplies a method to extract the CKM weak phase gamma with uncertainty scaling as 1 over the Wootters concurrence.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Aaij et al

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

    2025

  2. [2]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 101802 (2025)

    2025

  3. [3]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], JHEP 04, 087 (2014)

    2014

  4. [4]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], JHEP 07, 103 (2014)

    2014

  5. [5]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], JHEP 08, 039 (2018)

    2018

  6. [6]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. D 102, 051101 (2020)

    2020

  7. [7]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 745 (2019)

    2019

  8. [8]

    Aaij et al

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

    2025

  9. [9]

    J. J. Han, J. X. Yu, Y. Li, H. n. Li, J. P. Wang, Z. J. Xiao and F. S. Yu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 221801 (2025)

    2025

  10. [10]

    Y. F. Shen, J. P. Wang and Q. Qin, Phys. Rev. D 108, L111901 (2023)

    2023

  11. [11]

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

    2025

  12. [12]

    Wolfenstein, Phys

    L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 51, 1945 (1983)

    1945

  13. [13]

    H. Y. Cheng, Phys. Rev. D 56, 2799 (1997) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 99, 079901 (2019)]

    1997

  14. [14]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. [Belle], Phys. Rev. D 73, 051106 (2006)

    2006

  15. [15]

    Navas et al

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

    2024

  16. [16]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], JHEP 02, 113 (2025)

    2025

  17. [17]

    Adachi et al

    I. Adachi et al. [Belle and Belle-II], JHEP 10, 143 (2024)

    2024

  18. [18]

    J. P. Lees et al. [BaBar], Phys. Rev. D 87, 052015 (2013)

    2013

  19. [19]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], LHCb-CONF-2024-004

    2024

  20. [20]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], JHEP 01, 062 (2026)

    2026

  21. [21]

    Charles, O

    J. Charles, O. Deschamps, S. Descotes-Genon, H. Lacker , A. Menzel, S. Monteil, V. Niess, J. Ocariz, J. Orloff and A. Perez, et al. Phys. Rev. D 91, 073007 (2015)

    2015

  22. [22]

    Bona et al

    M. Bona et al. [UTfit], Rend. Lincei Sci. Fis. Nat. 34, 37 (2023)

    2023

  23. [23]

    Dunietz, Z

    I. Dunietz, Z. Phys. C 56, 129 (1992)

    1992

  24. [24]

    A. K. Giri, R. Mohanta and M. P. Khanna, Phys. Rev. D 65, 073029 (2002)

    2002

  25. [25]

    Zhang, Y

    S. Zhang, Y. Jiang, Z. Chen and W. Qian, arXiv:2112.12954

    work page arXiv

  26. [26]

    Fayyazuddin, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 14, 63 (1999)

    1999

  27. [27]

    C. Q. Geng, X. N. Jin, C. W. Liu, Z. Y. Wei and J. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 834, 137429 (2022)

    2022

  28. [28]

    Mantry, D

    S. Mantry, D. Pirjol and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D 68, 114009 (2003)

    2003

  29. [29]

    A. K. Leibovich, Z. Ligeti, I. W. Stewart and M. B. Wise, Phys. Lett. B 586, 337 (2004)

    2004

  30. [30]

    J. J. Han, J. X. Yu, Y. Li, H. n. Li, J. P. Wang, Z. J. Xiao and F. S. Yu, Phys. Rev. D 112, 053007 (2025)

    2025

  31. [31]

    Wirbel, B

    M. Wirbel, B. Stech and M. Bauer, Z. Phys. C 29, 637 (1985)

    1985

  32. [32]

    Neubert and A

    M. Neubert and A. A. Petrov, Phys. Lett. B 519, 50 (2001)

    2001

  33. [33]

    H. n. Li and H. L. Yu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 4388 (1995)

    1995

  34. [34]

    P. Ball, V. M. Braun and E. Gardi, Phys. Lett. B 665, 197 (2008)

    2008

  35. [35]

    G. Bell, T. Feldmann, Y. M. Wang and M. W. Y. Yip, JHEP 11, 191 (2013)

    2013

  36. [36]

    R. H. Li, C. D. Lu and H. Zou, Phys. Rev. D 78, 014018 (2008)

    2008

  37. [37]

    Y. L. Liu and M. Q. Huang, Nucl. Phys. A 821, 80 (2009)

    2009

  38. [38]

    J. Zhu, Z. T. Wei and H. W. Ke, Phys. Rev. D 99, 054020 (2019)

    2019

  39. [39]

    Aubert et al

    B. Aubert et al. [BaBar], Phys. Rev. D 74, 031101 (2006)

    2006

  40. [40]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], JHEP 10, 123 (2023)

    2023

  41. [41]

    Adachi et al

    I. Adachi et al. [Belle and Belle-II], JHEP 05, 212 (2024)

    2024

  42. [42]

    Grossman, A

    Y. Grossman, A. Soffer and J. Zupan, Phys. Rev. D 72, 031501 (2005)

    2005

  43. [43]

    T. D. Lee and C. N. Yang, Phys. Rev. 108, 1645 (1957)

    1957

  44. [44]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], JHEP 06, 110 (2020)

    2020

  45. [45]

    Accardi, J

    A. Accardi, J. L. Albacete, M. Anselmino, N. Armesto, E. C. Aschenauer, A. Bacchetta, D. Boer, W. K. Brooks, T. Burton and N. B. Chang, et al. Eur. Phys. J. A 52, 268 (2016)

    2016

  46. [46]

    Brod and J

    J. Brod and J. Zupan, JHEP 01, 051 (2014)

    2014

  47. [47]

    Gronau and D

    M. Gronau and D. London, Phys. Lett. B 253, 483 (1991)

    1991

  48. [48]

    Gronau and D

    M. Gronau and D. Wyler, Phys. Lett. B 265, 172 (1991)

    1991

  49. [49]

    Wang, Phys

    W. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 061802 (2013)

    2013

  50. [50]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], JINST 19, P05065 (2024)

    2024