Radiative decays of the second shell $\Lambda_b$ and $\Xi_b$ bottom baryons

Ailier Rivero-Acosta; A. Ramirez-Morales; Carlos Alberto Vaquera-Araujo; E. Santopinto; H. Garc\'ia-Tecocoatzi

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 37 references

Radiative decays of the second shell $\Lambda_b$ and $\Xi_b$ bottom baryons

T0 review · 2 major / 6 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 first predictions of radiative decay widths for second-shell $\Lambda_b$ and $\Xi_b$ bottom baryons cover $D_\rho$-wave, $\rho$–$\lambda$ mixed, and $\rho$-mode radially excited states, and can separate states with equal mass and width.

desk verdict A competent quark-model calculation that extends radiative widths to new second-shell bottom baryon channels; the results are useful for LHCb, but the quoted uncertainties overstate precision because they ignore the model's mass offsets. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.15680 v2 pith:WDBGQFJC submitted 2025-05-21 hep-ph

Ailier Rivero-Acosta , H. García-Tecocoatzi , A. Ramirez-Morales , E. Santopinto , Carlos Alberto Vaquera-Araujo This is my paper

classification hep-ph

keywords radiativedecaysbottombaryonssecond-shellexcitedstatesconstituentquarkmodelelectromagneticdecaywidthsflavoranti-tripletD-rhowaverho-lambdamixed

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 predicts, for the first time, the electromagnetic decay widths of second-shell $\Lambda_b$ and $\Xi_b$ bottom baryons in a constituent quark model. These radiative channels matter because some excited bottom baryons have nearly the same mass and strong decay width, and photon branching ratios can tell them apart. The calculation covers $D_\rho$-wave states, $\rho$–$\lambda$ mixed states, and $\rho$-mode radial excitations that earlier work did not include, and it evaluates the convective term of the electromagnetic Hamiltonian exactly rather than using the standard replacement that approximates quark momenta by $ikr_j$. For example, it predicts $\Gamma_{\rm em}[\Lambda_b(6225)\,3/2^+ \to \Lambda_b(2P_\lambda,3/2)\,\gamma]\approx 92$ keV, and radiative channels of the near-degenerate $\Xi_b(6523)$ and $\Xi'_b(6520)$ states that differ by orders of magnitude, giving a concrete way to assign such states.

What carries the argument

The central object is the two-oscillator harmonic-oscillator wave function of the constituent quark model, with Jacobi coordinates $\rho$ (relative motion within the light-quark pair) and $\lambda$ (motion of the light pair against the bottom quark). The key identity is the expansion of the convective operator $\hat T_{j,-}$ into a sum of matrix elements of the photon-translation operator $\hat U_j$ with coefficients $C_\alpha$ and $C_\beta$, obtained by acting with $p_{\rho,\pm}$ and $p_{\lambda,\pm}$ as rank-1 irreducible tensor operators in momentum space. This makes the convective term analytically exact, eliminates the need for the replacement $p_j/m_j \to ikr_j$, and extends the calculation to $D_\rho$-wave, $\rho$–$\lambda$ mixed, and $\rho$-mode radially excited states.

What would settle it

Measure the radiative decay $\Lambda_b(6225)\,3/2^+ \to \Lambda_b(2P_\lambda,3/2)\,\gamma$: if its width is not close to $92$ keV, or if the $\Xi_b(6523)^0 \to \Xi'^0_b \gamma$ and $\Xi'_b(6520)^0 \to \Xi'^0_b \gamma$ widths do not show the predicted hierarchy of roughly $132$ keV versus $2.6$ keV, the paper's central predictions are contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the electromagnetic Hamiltonian of Eq. (7), built from the spin-flip term $k s_{j,-}\hat U_j$ and the convective term $\hat T_{j,-}$, determines the radiative widths of all $N=2$ second-shell $\Lambda_b$ and $\Xi_b$ states once the masses and wave functions of Ref. [37] are used. By writing $\hat T_{j,-}$ as a weighted sum of $\hat U_j$ matrix elements with coefficients obtained from the action of the momentum-space ladder operators $p_{\rho,\pm}$ and $p_{\lambda,\pm}$, the paper avoids the earlier approximation in which $p_j/m_j$ is replaced by $ikr_j$. The resulting widths appear in Tables VI–VIII; they include $\Gamma_{\rm em}[\Lambda_b(6225)\,3/2^+ \to \Lambda_b(2P_\lambda,3/2)\,\gamma] = 92^{+1}_{-1}$ keV and the asymmetric pair $\Gamma_{\rm em}[\Xi_b(6523)^0 \to \Xi'^0_b \gamma] = 132^{+7}_{-9}$ keV versus $\Gamma_{\rm em}[\Xi'_b(6520)^0 \to \Xi'^0_b \gamma] = 2.6^{+0.7}_{-0.6}$ keV, which the paper argues can resolve states with the same mass and total width.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation takes the masses and quantum-number assignments of the second-shell $\Lambda_b$ and $\Xi_b$ states from Ref. [37]; if those assignments are wrong, the photon energies and phase-space factors change, and the predicted widths apply to the wrong states.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the predicted widths are right, future measurements of these photon channels can identify second-shell $\Lambda_b$ and $\Xi_b$ states, especially those with the same mass and total width.
The radiative branching ratios of $\Xi_b(6523)$ and $\Xi'_b(6520)$ differ by at least four orders of magnitude for the same final states, giving a practical assignment tool.
The comparison with earlier calculations quantifies how much the replacement $p_j/m_j \to ikr_j$ changes the widths; for some $D_{\lambda\lambda}$ channels the effect is hundreds of percent.
The same formalism, applied to flavor-sextet partners $\Sigma_b$, $\Xi'_b$, and $\Omega_b$, is announced as a separate study, so the present method is not limited to the anti-triplet.

Reading between the lines

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

If the predicted radiative hierarchy survives measurement, electromagnetic branching ratios could become a standard tool for assigning excited bottom baryons, not just a fallback when strong decays are forbidden.
Because the widths scale roughly as the cube of the photon energy through phase space, the values in Tables VI–VIII are sensitive to the adopted mass assignments; measuring one channel would simultaneously test that assignment.
The exact treatment of the convective term could also shift predicted widths for charmed baryons and heavy mesons, where the same replacement has been widely used, so the spread among existing quark-model predictions deserves re-examination.
The first measurement of any of these channels, even with large uncertainty, would discriminate among the different spatial wave functions used in the earlier calculations and the exact treatment used here.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The genuinely new thing here is the set of channels: D_rho, rho-lambda mixed, and rho-mode radially excited Lambda_b and Xi_b states, none of which were covered in the earlier quark-model papers [22,23]. The analytical treatment of the convective term, without the Close-Copley replacement, is a real improvement in internal consistency, and the comparisons with [22,23] make the source of the factor-of-several differences transparent. The tables are clear, the 6523/6520 example is a good illustration of how radiative branching ratios could help LHCb disentangle near-degenerate states, and the widths are genuine predictions rather than fitted values. No circularity problem; the heavy reliance on the authors' own spectrum [37] is natural for a model paper.

The soft spot is the uncertainty budget. The Monte Carlo bootstrap only samples the mass uncertainties quoted in [37]; it does not vary the Hamiltonian parameters that fix the oscillator scales, and more importantly it does not account for the systematic offset between the model masses and the PDG masses of the observed states. For the Lambda_b 2D_λλ states the model sits about 79 MeV above the PDG values. That shifts the photon energy by roughly 30% and the width by about a factor of two, so the sub-keV errors quoted for those rows are not an honest statement of the uncertainty for the physical resonances. The same issue, milder, affects the Xi_b D_λλ rows. For the unobserved states, using model masses is understandable; the missing piece is a robustness check at PDG masses for the observed ones and a softened claim about model-dependent errors. The abstract says such errors are accounted for, which is overstated. The 'more precise' conclusion should also be recast as 'more exact within the model' until there is an external benchmark.

These are real issues but not fatal. The paper is a useful reference for the bottom-baryon spectroscopy community, and the first predictions for these channels are worth having on record. I would send it to a serious referee and support publication after a moderate revision that addresses the mass-offset sensitivity and recalibrates the uncertainty language.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript computes radiative decay widths of second-shell Lambda_b and Xi_b bottom baryons (flavor anti-triplet) to ground- and P-wave final states within a non-relativistic constituent quark model. The calculation extends the authors' earlier formalism [37] by evaluating the convective term of the electromagnetic Hamiltonian analytically rather than using the Close-Copley replacement, and it presents widths for D_rho-wave states, rho-lambda mixed states, and rho-mode radially excited states for what appears to be the first time. Results are given in Tables VI-VIII, with uncertainties propagated from mass errors via a Monte Carlo bootstrap. The paper also highlights branching ratios that could distinguish Xi_b and Xi'_b states with similar masses and strong widths. The central technical novelty is the exact treatment of the convective term; the uncertainties and the choice of mass inputs are the main points of concern.

Significance. If the predictions are reliable, they are useful and falsifiable input for the LHCb program: electromagnetic transitions of singly bottom baryons have not been observed, and the branching ratios discussed in Section III (e.g., Eqs. (29)-(30)) offer a concrete way to tell Xi_b from Xi'_b assignments for states with overlapping mass and strong width. The exact analytic treatment of the convective term, avoiding the Close-Copley replacement, is a genuine improvement over Refs. [22,23]. However, the paper's precision claims are undercut by the fact that the numerical widths are evaluated at model masses that deviate substantially from the PDG masses of the corresponding observed states, and by an uncertainty budget that does not vary the wave-function parameters. These issues are correctable, and the core calculation is standard.

major comments (2)

[II.E, Tables VI-VIII] The uncertainty propagation does not do what the abstract claims. Section II.E samples only the mass uncertainties quoted in Ref. [37], centered on the model's predicted masses; it does not vary the Hamiltonian parameters (light/strange/bottom quark masses, K_b, a_S, a_SL, a_I, a_F) that set the oscillator scales alpha_rho and alpha_lambda and hence the wave functions. For observed second-shell states the widths are evaluated at model masses that are far from the PDG values: Table I lists Lambda_b(6225) and Lambda_b(6235), while the corresponding observed states have masses 6146.2 and 6152.5 MeV, a 79 MeV offset; similarly Xi_b(6354/6364) versus 6327.3/6332.7 MeV. For the channel Lambda_b(6225) 3/2+ -> Lambda_b(2P_lambda,1/2) gamma, Table VI quotes 92+1-1 keV at the predicted masses. Using the PDG masses in Eq. (17) changes the photon energy from about 299 MeV to about 229 MeV, and because both the phase-space factor in Eq. (16) and the transition amplitude in Eq. (20) depend on k, the width changes by roughly a factor of two. The quoted sub-keV uncertainties are therefore not an honest statement of the accuracy of the prediction for the observed resonances; the widths should be recomputed at the experimental masses for these states, or the sensitivity to the mass offset should at least be reported.
[II.C, Eq. (11)] The central derivation of the convective-term coefficients is not present in the manuscript. After stating that the coefficients C_alpha and C_beta can be determined from Eq. (14), the paper moves directly to the decay-width formula without giving explicit expressions for C_alpha and C_beta or worked examples for the second-shell states. The procedure is deferred to Ref. [37] (for P-waves) and to Ref. [40]. Since the exact evaluation of the convective term is the paper's main methodological selling point over Refs. [22,23], a reader cannot verify the numerical content of Tables VI-VIII from this paper alone. Explicit formulas, an appendix, or a detailed mapping to the published derivation in Ref. [40] is needed.

minor comments (6)

[Tables I, III, VI] The state labels in Tables VI-VIII do not always match the predicted masses in Tables I-II: for example, Table VI uses Lambda_b(6234), Lambda_b(6623), and Lambda_b(6617), while Table I gives 6235, 6624, and 6618; similarly, Table VII/VIII use Xi_b(6523) where Table II gives 6524. These rounding inconsistencies should be harmonized.
[Section II.E] The sentence describing the input uncertainties is vague: 'the squared sum of their uncertainties above mentioned' does not specify how the model-approximation uncertainty is estimated or why it is represented solely by the mass errors from Ref. [37]. The procedure should be stated precisely, including the actual values used.
[Tables VI-VIII] The note that zero entries mean either 'too small to be shown on this scale' or 'not permitted by phase space' is ambiguous. The tables would be much more informative if kinematically forbidden channels were marked with a dash and very small widths were shown explicitly (e.g., as <0.05 keV).
[Section II.D, Eq. (17)] The photon energy k is written as a function of initial and final baryon masses only. For states with measured masses, the paper should state clearly that it uses the predicted masses from Ref. [37] and, where possible, provide results at the PDG masses to facilitate comparison with future data.
[Tables III-V] The table captions contain typos, e.g., 'strong decay widts' in Tables IV and V, and the columns comparing strong and electromagnetic widths would benefit from an explicit statement that the electromagnetic widths have units of keV while the strong widths are in MeV.
[Section IV] The conclusion repeats the claim that parameter uncertainties were propagated, but Section II.E propagates only mass uncertainties. The wording should be aligned with what was actually computed, so that the abstract and conclusions do not overstate the model-error budget.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the radiative widths are computed from model inputs, not fitted to the predicted channels.

full rationale

The decay widths in Tables VI–VIII are genuine model outputs: after fixing the mass spectrum and wave functions from Ref. [37], the paper evaluates the matrix elements of the Hamiltonian (7) and substitutes them into Eq. (15), with phase space fixed by Eq. (17). No parameter of the electromagnetic Hamiltonian is fitted to any radiative decay width, and no measured electromagnetic width is used as input, so the predictions do not reduce to fitted values. The self-citations to Refs. [37] and [40] are load-bearing in the sense that the calculation inherits its mass spectrum, state assignments, and convective-term coefficients from them, but they are not circular: Ref. [37] is a published quark-model spectroscopy paper tested against PDG masses and strong decay widths, and Ref. [40] is a published technical derivation; neither assumes the bottom-baryon electromagnetic widths that this paper claims to predict. The statement that the Xi'_b widths in Eqs. (21)–(28) are preliminary results from the in-preparation Ref. [42] is an explicit limitation, and those entries are illustrative side results rather than the paper's central first-calculation claim. The reader's concern that the model masses deviate from the PDG masses of the D_lambda-lambda candidates is a serious accuracy or systematic issue, but it concerns whether the kinematic point k in Eq. (17) is the right one, not whether the calculation is circular; the uncertainty bootstrap in Sec. II E propagates mass errors, not Hamiltonian-parameter errors, which likewise weakens the quoted error bars but does not make any width equivalent to an input by construction. No circular step satisfying the evidentiary standard can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All free parameters come from the authors' own quark model [37]; the present paper does not refit them. The decay widths are new predictions that depend on those fitted inputs, so the predictive power is inherited from the quality of the prior mass model.

free parameters (5)

light (u/d) quark mass = from Ref [37] Table I
Fitted to experimental baryon masses in the authors' previous work; sets alpha_rho via m_rho.
strange quark mass = from Ref [37] Table I
Fitted in [37]; enters the Xi_b (snb) wave functions and phase space.
bottom quark mass = from Ref [37] Table I
Fitted in [37]; sets m_lambda and the reduced masses for the harmonic oscillator.
harmonic oscillator constant K_b = from Ref [37] Table I
Determines omega_rho and omega_lambda, and therefore the spatial wave-function scales alpha_rho and alpha_lambda used in the matrix elements.
interaction strengths a_S, a_SL, a_I, a_F = from Ref [37]
Fitted to mass spectra; they fix the mass splittings of the second-shell states.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Constituent quark model with non-relativistic Hamiltonian (Eq. 1)
The model is assumed to describe singly bottom baryons; this is the framework of the calculation.
domain assumption Harmonic-oscillator spatial wave functions with fixed alpha_rho, alpha_lambda
The transition matrix elements use HO wave functions; any anharmonicity is neglected.
domain assumption Non-relativistic electromagnetic Hamiltonian to order m^-1 (Eq. 6)
Relativistic corrections are neglected; this is the standard approximation.
domain assumption The mass spectra and assignments of second-shell states from Ref [37] are correct
The initial-state masses and quantum numbers come from the authors' own model; if assignments are wrong, the widths apply to different states.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Radiative decays of the second shell $\Lambda_b$ and $\Xi_b$ bottom baryons." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WDBGQFJC

@misc{pith2026250515680,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Radiative decays of the second shell $\Lambda_b$ and $\Xi_b$ bottom baryons},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WDBGQFJC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.15680}
}

abstract

In this work, we investigate the radiative decays of the $\Lambda_b$ and $\Xi_b$ bottom baryons, which belong to the flavor anti-triplet ($\mathbf{\bar{3}}_{\rm F}$), within the constituent quark model formalism. The electromagnetic transitions are calculated from the second-shell states to both the ground and $P$-wave final states. These decays play a crucial role in confirming the existence of certain resonances. When strong decays are not allowed, the reconstruction of states relies on their electromagnetic decay channels. Moreover, electromagnetic decay widths are particularly useful for the identification of resonances when states have the same mass and total decay width. This study presents, for the first time, the calculation of electromagnetic decays for $D_\rho$-wave states, $\rho-\lambda$ mixed states, and $\rho$-mode radially excited states. Throughout our calculations, we account for uncertainties arising from both experimental and model-dependent errors.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

[37]

Here the ρ coordi- nate describes the excitations within the light quark pair while the λ coordinate describes the excitations between the light quark pair and the bottom quark b

for the values used in this work). Here the ρ coordi- nate describes the excitations within the light quark pair while the λ coordinate describes the excitations between the light quark pair and the bottom quark b. The eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian 1, proposed in Ref. [38], are given by the expression E3q = 3X i=1 mi + ωρnρ + ωλnλ + aS [Stot(Stot + 1)] +...

work page
[40]

Garc ´ ıa-Tecocoatzi, A

H. Garc ´ ıa-Tecocoatzi, A. Ramirez-Morales, A. Rivero- Acosta, E. Santopinto, and C. A. Vaquera-Araujo. Ξc(2790)+/0 and Ξ c(2815)+/0 radiative decays. Phys. Lett. B, 868:139666, 2025. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2025. 139666

doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025 2025
[2]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb Collaboration]. Observation of New Baryons in the Ξ − b π+π− and Ξ 0 bπ+π− Systems. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 131(17):171901, 2023. doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevLett.131.171901

work page 2023
[3]

C. P. Jessop et al. Observation of two narrow states decaying into Ξ + c γ and Ξ 0 cγ . Phys. Rev. Lett. , 82:492– 496, 1999. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.492

doi:10.1103/physrevlett.82.492 1999
[4]

Observation of an excited charm baryon Ω∗ c decaying to Ω0 cγ

Bernard Aubert et al. Observation of an excited charm baryon Ω∗ c decaying to Ω0 cγ. Phys. Rev. Lett., 97:232001,

work page
[5]

Solovieva et al

E. Solovieva et al. Study of Ω 0 c and Ω∗0 c Baryons at Belle. Phys. Lett. B , 672:1–5, 2009. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb. 2008.12.062

doi:10.1016/j.physletb 2009
[6]

Yelton et al

J. Yelton et al. Study of electromagnetic decays of or- bitally excited Ξ c baryons. Phys. Rev. D , 102(7):071103,

work page
[7]

Radiative decays of heavy hadrons from light-cone qcd sum rules in the leading order of hqet

Shi-Lin Zhu and Yuan-Ben Dai. Radiative decays of heavy hadrons from light-cone qcd sum rules in the leading order of hqet. Phys. Rev. D , 59:114015, May

work page

Show all 37 references

[8]

Analysis of the vertexes Ξ ∗ QΞ ′ QV , Σ ∗ Q Σ ′ QV and radiative decays Ξ ∗ Q → Ξ ′ Qγ, Σ ∗ Q → ΣQ γ

Zhi-Gang Wang. Analysis of the vertexes Ξ ∗ QΞ ′ QV , Σ ∗ Q Σ ′ QV and radiative decays Ξ ∗ Q → Ξ ′ Qγ, Σ ∗ Q → ΣQ γ. The European Physical Journal A , 44(1):105–117, 2010. ISSN 1434-601X. doi: 10.1140/epja/i2010-10952-8. URL https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2010-10952-8

2010 doi
[10]

T. M. Aliev, K. Azizi, and A. Ozpineci. Radiative de- cays of the heavy flavored baryons in light cone qcd sum rules. Phys. Rev. D , 79:056005, Mar 2009. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.79.056005. URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.79.056005

2009 doi
[11]

T. M. Aliev, M. Savcı and V. S. Zamiralov. Vec- tor meson dominance and radiative decays of heavy spin-3/2 baryons to heavy spin-1/2 baryons. Modern Physics Letters A , 27(11):1250054, 2012. doi: 10.1142/ S021773231250054X. URL https://doi.org/10.1142/ S021773231250054X

2012
[12]

T. M. Aliev, K. Azizi, and H. Sundu. Radiative Ω ∗ Q → ΩQγ and Ξ ∗ Q → Ξ′ Qγ transitions in light cone QCD. Eur. Phys. J. C , 75(1):14, 2015. doi: 10.1140/epjc/ s10052-014-3229-0

2015 doi
[13]

T. M. Aliev, T. Barakat, and M. Savc ı. Analysis of the radiative decays Σ Q → ΛQγ and Ξ ′ Q → ΞQγ in light cone sum rules. Phys. Rev. D , 93:056007, Mar 2016. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.056007. URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.93.056007

2016 doi
[16]

Electro- magnetic decays of the charmed and bottom baryons in chiral perturbation theory

Nan Jiang, Xiao-Lin Chen, and Shi-Lin Zhu. Electro- magnetic decays of the charmed and bottom baryons in chiral perturbation theory. Phys. Rev. D, 92:054017, Sep
[19]

Ivanov, J.G

M.A. Ivanov, J.G. K¨ orner, and V.E. Lyubovitskij. One-photon transitions between heavy baryons in 13 a relativistic three-quark model. Physics Letters B, 448(1):143–151, 1999. ISSN 0370-2693. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(99)00029-5. URL https://www.sciencedirect.co...

1999 doi
[20]

Salam Tawfiq, J. G. K¨ orner, and Patrick J. O’Donnell. Electromagnetic transitions of heavy baryons in the SU (2N f ) N o(3) symmetry. Phys. Rev. D , 63: 034005, Jan 2001. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.63. 034005. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevD.63.034005

2001 doi
[21]

Strong and radiative decays of the low-lying S- and P -wave singly heavy baryons

Kai-Lei Wang, Ya-Xiong Yao, Xian-Hui Zhong, and Qiang Zhao. Strong and radiative decays of the low-lying S- and P -wave singly heavy baryons. Phys. Rev. D , 96 (11):116016, 2017. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.116016

2017 doi
[22]

Strong and radiative decays of the low-lying D-wave singly heavy baryons

Ya-Xiong Yao, Kai-Lei Wang, and Xian-Hui Zhong. Strong and radiative decays of the low-lying D-wave singly heavy baryons. Phys. Rev. D , 98(7):076015, 2018. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.076015

2018 doi
[24]

F. E. Close and L. A. Copley. Electromagnetic interac- tions of weakly bound composite systems. Nucl. Phys. B, 19:477–500, 1970. doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(70)90362-7

1970 doi
[25]

Patrignani et al

C. Patrignani et al. Review of Particle Physics. Chin. Phys. C , 40(10):100001, 2016. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ 40/10/100001

2016 doi
[26]

Hiyama, Y

E. Hiyama, Y. Kino, and M. Kamimura. Gaussian ex- pansion method for few-body systems. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 51:223–307, 2003. doi: 10.1016/S0146-6410(03) 90015-9

2003 doi
[27]

Investigating the spec- troscopy behavior of undetected 1 F -wave charmed baryons

Si-Qiang Luo and Xiang Liu. Investigating the spec- troscopy behavior of undetected 1 F -wave charmed baryons. Phys. Rev. D , 108(3):034002, 2023. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.034002

2023 doi
[28]

Newly observed Ωc(3327): A good candidate for a D-wave charmed baryon

Si-Qiang Luo and Xiang Liu. Newly observed Ωc(3327): A good candidate for a D-wave charmed baryon. Phys. Rev. D , 107(7):074041, 2023. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD. 107.074041

2023 doi
[29]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb Collaboration]. Observation of a new Ξ− b resonance. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 121:072002, Aug 2018. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.072002. URL https:// link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.072002

2018 doi
[32]

A. M. Sirunyan et al [CMS Collaboration] . Study of excited Λ 0 b states decaying to Λ 0 bπ+π− in proton-proton collisions at s=13TeV. Physics Let- ters B , 803:135345, 2020. ISSN 0370-2693. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135345. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com...

2020
[33]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb Collaboration]. Observation of a new baryon state in the Λ 0 bπ+π− mass spectrum. JHEP, 06:136, 2020. doi: 10.1007/JHEP06(2020)136

2020 doi
[34]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb Collaboration]. First observa- tion of excited Ω − b states. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 124: 082002, Feb 2020. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124. 082002. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.124.082002

2020 doi
[36]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb Collaboration]. Observation of two new excited Ξ 0 b states decaying to Λ 0 bK −π+. Phys. Rev. Lett., 128:162001, Apr 2022. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett. 128.162001. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.128.162001

2022 doi
[38]

Santopinto, A

E. Santopinto, A. Giachino, J. Ferretti, H. Garc ´ ıa- Tecocoatzi, M. A. Bedolla, R. Bijker, and E. Ortiz- Pacheco. The Ωc-puzzle solved by means of quark model predictions. Eur. Phys. J. C , 79(12):1012, 2019. doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7527-4

2019 doi
[39]

Garcia-Tecocoatzi, A

H. Garcia-Tecocoatzi, A. Giachino, J. Li, A. Ramirez- Morales, and E. Santopinto. Strong decay widths and mass spectra of charmed baryons. Phys. Rev. D , 107(3): 034031, 2023. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.034031

2023 doi
[41]

Relativistic Effects in Heavy Quarkonium Spectroscopy

Richard McClary and Nina Byers. Relativistic Effects in Heavy Quarkonium Spectroscopy. Phys. Rev. D , 28: 1692, 1983. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.28.1692

1983 doi
[42]

Garc ´ ıa-Tecocoatzi, A

H. Garc ´ ıa-Tecocoatzi, A. Giachino, A. Ramirez-Morales, Ailier Rivero-Acosta, E. Santopinto, and Carlos Alberto Vaquera-Araujo. Strong decay widths and mass spectra of the 1D, 2P and 2S singly bottom baryons. Phys. Rev. D, 110(11):114005, 2024. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110. 114005

2024 doi
[47]

Garc ´ ıa-Tecocoatzi, A

Ailier Rivero-Acosta, H. Garc ´ ıa-Tecocoatzi, A. Ramirez- Morales, E. Santopinto, and Carlos Alberto Vaquera- Araujo. Radiative decays of the second shell Σ b, Ξ′ b and Ωb bottom baryons. (In preparation)
[1999]

URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.59.114015

doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.59.114015. URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.59.114015

doi
[2006]

doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.232001

doi
[2015]

URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.054017

doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.054017. URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.054017

doi
[2020]

doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.071103

doi

Pith tools

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

[1] [37]

Here the ρ coordi- nate describes the excitations within the light quark pair while the λ coordinate describes the excitations between the light quark pair and the bottom quark b

for the values used in this work). Here the ρ coordi- nate describes the excitations within the light quark pair while the λ coordinate describes the excitations between the light quark pair and the bottom quark b. The eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian 1, proposed in Ref. [38], are given by the expression E3q = 3X i=1 mi + ωρnρ + ωλnλ + aS [Stot(Stot + 1)] +...

work page

[2] [40]

Garc ´ ıa-Tecocoatzi, A

H. Garc ´ ıa-Tecocoatzi, A. Ramirez-Morales, A. Rivero- Acosta, E. Santopinto, and C. A. Vaquera-Araujo. Ξc(2790)+/0 and Ξ c(2815)+/0 radiative decays. Phys. Lett. B, 868:139666, 2025. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2025. 139666

doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025 2025

[3] [2]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb Collaboration]. Observation of New Baryons in the Ξ − b π+π− and Ξ 0 bπ+π− Systems. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 131(17):171901, 2023. doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevLett.131.171901

work page 2023

[4] [3]

C. P. Jessop et al. Observation of two narrow states decaying into Ξ + c γ and Ξ 0 cγ . Phys. Rev. Lett. , 82:492– 496, 1999. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.492

doi:10.1103/physrevlett.82.492 1999

[5] [4]

Observation of an excited charm baryon Ω∗ c decaying to Ω0 cγ

Bernard Aubert et al. Observation of an excited charm baryon Ω∗ c decaying to Ω0 cγ. Phys. Rev. Lett., 97:232001,

work page

[6] [5]

Solovieva et al

E. Solovieva et al. Study of Ω 0 c and Ω∗0 c Baryons at Belle. Phys. Lett. B , 672:1–5, 2009. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb. 2008.12.062

doi:10.1016/j.physletb 2009

[7] [6]

Yelton et al

J. Yelton et al. Study of electromagnetic decays of or- bitally excited Ξ c baryons. Phys. Rev. D , 102(7):071103,

work page

[8] [7]

Radiative decays of heavy hadrons from light-cone qcd sum rules in the leading order of hqet

Shi-Lin Zhu and Yuan-Ben Dai. Radiative decays of heavy hadrons from light-cone qcd sum rules in the leading order of hqet. Phys. Rev. D , 59:114015, May

work page