Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 87 references

This paper claims that the triply heavy baryons Omega_ccc and Omega_bbb can be described as two-body quark–diquark systems under a relativistic screened potential, yielding ground-state masses of 4.660 GeV and 14.200 GeV and a full set of E

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review

2026-08-04 11:35 UTC pith:YNNGWGR5

load-bearing objection A workmanlike quark-diquark mass and width calculation for Ω_ccc/Ω_bbb whose mass part is plausible but whose radiative-width derivation is missing the diquark coordinate reduction. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2510.03703 v3 pith:YNNGWGR5 submitted 2025-10-04 hep-ph

Spectroscopy and Radiative Decays of Ω_(ccc) and Ω_(bbb) Baryons in a Quark-Diquark Model

Chaitanya Anil Bokade , Bhaghyesh This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords triply heavy baryonsOmega_cccOmega_bbbquark-diquark modelscreened potentialrelativized Hamiltonianradiative decaysbaryon spectroscopy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper tries to establish that the two never-seen triply heavy baryons Omega_ccc and Omega_bbb are well described as a diquark bound to a third quark through a relativistic screened potential. If the model is right, their ground states sit at 4.660 GeV and 14.200 GeV, the lowest excited states are internal diquark excitations rather than quark–diquark excitations, and the dominant photon transitions are bright enough to guide experimental searches at hadron colliders. The authors also argue that direct E1/M1 decays to the ground state are suppressed, so probing the internal charge distribution of these baryons will require higher electromagnetic multipoles.

Core claim

The central claim is that solving a relativized Hamiltonian with a screened potential—color Coulomb plus a color-screened linear confining term plus a smeared spin–spin interaction—for the diquark first and then for the diquark–third-quark pair reproduces the known trend of triply heavy baryon masses and predicts full S-, P-, and D-wave spectra. The paper reports M(Omega_ccc) = 4.660 GeV and M(Omega_bbb) = 14.200 GeV for the ground states, values at the lower end of, but consistent with, other approaches. It finds that states with excited diquarks systematically lie below corresponding quark–diquark excitations, and it lists E1/M1 radiative widths for dozens of transitions. The authors concl

What carries the argument

The machinery is a quark–diquark reduction: two identical heavy quarks form a diquark (spin 1 for symmetric S/D spatial states, spin 0 for antisymmetric P states, imposed by the Pauli principle), and the baryon is a two-body bound state of that diquark plus the third quark. Both steps use the same relativized Hamiltonian H = sqrt(p^2 + m1^2) + sqrt(p^2 + m2^2) + V(r) with the screened potential, solved by expanding the radial wavefunction in spherical Bessel functions and diagonalizing a matrix eigenvalue problem. A spin-dependent term is added perturbatively to split degenerate states, and the L–S to j–j coupling transformation is applied because the heavy-quark limit favors j–j coupling.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the screened-potential parameters fitted to quark–antiquark bound states describe a quark–diquark pair with a color-antitriplet diquark unchanged, with no baryon observable in the paper to fix them.

What would settle it

A precise measurement of the Omega_ccc ground-state mass from a future experiment, or a definitive first-principles calculation with uncertainty below about 20 MeV, settling above 4.75 GeV would contradict the 4.660 GeV prediction; the same logic applies to Omega_bbb above 14.3 GeV.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • If the model is correct, the ground states lie at 4.660 GeV (Omega_ccc) and 14.200 GeV (Omega_bbb), roughly 70–150 MeV below the central values of other current calculations.
  • The predicted excitation hierarchy means a search ladder for Omega_ccc excited states should start near 4.9–5.0 GeV and for Omega_bbb near 14.4–14.6 GeV, with internal diquark excitations appearing first.
  • The brightest radiative channels are Sp→Ps and Sd→Ds transitions, with widths up to about 10^3 keV for Omega_ccc and 10^3 eV for Omega_bbb; Omega_bbb widths are suppressed by roughly three orders of magnitude because of the smaller b-quark magnetic moment.
  • E1/M1 decays to the 1S1s(3/2+) ground state are suppressed in this model, so observing them would require higher-multipole sensitivity and would probe the charge distribution of these baryons.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The sharpest discriminator is the ground-state mass: a future measurement or a definitive first-principles calculation placing Omega_ccc above about 4.75 GeV would indicate that the color-antitriplet diquark interaction needs stronger binding or different screening than quark–antiquark systems.
  • Because the paper only computes E1/M1, the suppressed ground-state transitions suggest the natural next step is computing E2/M2 rates; those would distinguish prolate versus oblate charge distributions and complement the paper's connection to a negative electric quadrupole moment for Omega_ccc.
  • The width tables could be tested indirectly through ratios of branching fractions, which are less sensitive to overall normalization; for example, the predicted ratio of Sp→Ps to Sd→Ds widths is a stable target for experimental comparison.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript computes the mass spectra and E1/M1 radiative decay widths of the triply heavy baryons Omega_ccc and Omega_bbb in a two-step quark–diquark model. The diquark (cc or bb) is first treated as a two-body bound state with a relativistic screened potential, and the baryon is then treated as a quark–diquark bound state using the same Hamiltonian. The authors report ground-state masses of 4.660 GeV and 14.200 GeV, a spectrum of radial and orbital excitations, and extensive tables of electromagnetic widths in keV (Omega_ccc) and eV (Omega_bbb), comparing with lattice QCD, constituent quark models, QCD sum rules, Faddeev approaches, and other frameworks.

Significance. If the model is valid, the paper provides a useful set of predictions for a still-unobserved sector of baryon spectroscopy, including a distinctive hierarchy in which internal diquark excitations lie below quark–diquark excitations. The explicit comparison with many existing calculations is valuable, and the radiative-width tables are falsifiable predictions that could guide future searches. The main strengths are the clear formulation of the Hamiltonian and numerical method, and the breadth of the phenomenological comparison. However, two load-bearing issues currently prevent the paper from being accepted: the electromagnetic transition operator is not consistently reduced to the quark–diquark coordinates actually used for the wavefunctions, and a parameter needed to fix the absolute mass scale is not tabulated.

major comments (2)
  1. [III, Eq. (18)–(20) and Tables VI–X] The electromagnetic Hamiltonian (18) is written as a sum over individual quark coordinates r_j and quark masses m_j. But the wavefunctions used in Eqs. (19)–(20) are eigenstates of the two-body quark–diquark Hamiltonian (1), so the diquark internal coordinate is not an independent dynamical variable in the calculation. The paper never exhibits the reduction of h_e to the quark–diquark coordinates: no effective diquark charge, mass, spin current, or internal electric dipole operator is derived. This is not merely cosmetic: the many transitions that change the diquark spin or internal orbital state (e.g. 1S1d(3/2+) -> 1S1d(1/2+) or 1S1d -> 1D1s in Table VIII) require the internal diquark current to evaluate the helicity amplitude. As written, the width predictions in Tables VI–X do not follow from the formalism; the author must show the operator reduction or state explicitly which approxim
  2. [II, Eq. (11) and Table I] The confinement potential VS(r) in Eq. (11) contains a constant term V0, but Table I lists only mq, sigma, lambda, and mu; no numerical value for V0 is given, and no precise table/equation in Refs. [69–71] is cited for it. Since V0 shifts the absolute masses of all states, the central mass predictions in Tables III–V cannot be reproduced or independently checked without this value. The running-coupling parameters alpha_i and gamma_i are quoted in the text, so the gap is specifically V0. Please provide the value and its provenance.
minor comments (5)
  1. [IV, ground-state discussion] The text says 'Our model predicts the Omega_ccc and Omega_bbb ground state masses to be 4660 MeV and 1200 MeV, respectively.' The '1200 MeV' is inconsistent with Table III and the abstract, which give 14200 MeV. The conclusion also mistakenly labels the 14.200 GeV mass as Omega_ccc; it should be Omega_bbb.
  2. [Abstract] The phrase 'completeN dLdnqlq spectra' is garbled; it should be 'complete N_d L_d n_q l_q spectra' or similar notation matching Section IV.
  3. [Tables VI–X] The table formatting makes it hard to identify the initial and final states in several rows, because state labels run together and some entries use '–' without explanation (e.g. Tables VIII and X). Please reformat each transition clearly as 'initial -> final' and explain the meaning of the dash entries.
  4. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors, including 'silmilar', 'comapred', 'Gev', and inconsistent spelling of 'diquark'. A careful proofread is needed.
  5. [General] No uncertainty or sensitivity estimate is provided for the predicted masses and widths. Given that the parameters are transferred from quarkonium fits, a table showing the effect of reasonable parameter variations on the ground-state masses would substantially strengthen the comparison with lattice QCD and other models.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular predictions: masses and widths are genuine model outputs; the self-citational parameter provenance and the unshown EM operator reduction are not circular reductions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: solve Eq. (8) for diquark masses (Table II), insert them as m_d in the same two-body equation to obtain baryon masses, then use the resulting wavefunctions with the EM operator (Eq. 18) in Eqs. (19)-(20) to obtain radiative widths. At no point is a target Omega_ccc/Omega_bbb mass or width used to adjust a parameter; the ground-state masses (4.660 and 14.200 GeV) are outputs of the Hamiltonian, not fitted inputs. The only external input is Table I, quoted as "adopted from our earlier work [69-71]"; those prior papers fit the same screened-potential model to charmonium, B_c, and bottomonium, i.e., independent external systems, so this is a transferability assumption and a self-citation, but not a circular reuse of the target quantities. Likewise, the diquark-excitation-below-quark-diquark-excitation hierarchy is a consequence of the two-step calculation and could change with different parameters; it is not imposed by construction. The radiative-width derivation does contain a real gap: Eq. (18) is written in individual-quark coordinates while the wavefunctions are two-body quark-diquark states, and the paper never exhibits the reduction to effective diquark charges, masses, spins, and internal currents. That is an omitted derivation step and a correctness risk, but under the hard rules for this pass it is not circularity because no equation in the paper makes a predicted width equal to an input by construction. Thus the appropriate circularity score is low.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central predictions rest on a small set of externally calibrated parameters and on the quark-diquark reduction. The full parameter set is not re-derived here; V0 is not even tabulated. No new particles, forces, or symmetries are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Constituent quark mass m_q = ccc: 1.319 GeV; bbb: 4.744 GeV
    Controls the kinetic term and magnetic transitions; adopted from prior quarkonium fits [69-71], not re-fit.
  • Spin-spin smearing sigma = ccc: 1.281 GeV^2; bbb: 4.967 GeV^2
    Appears in V_SS (Eq. 11) and in the spin-orbit coefficient d (Eq. 15); sets hyperfine and tensor splittings.
  • String tension lambda = ccc: 0.297 GeV; bbb: 0.240 GeV
    Sets the linear/confinement slope in the screened potential; directly shifts orbital excitation energies.
  • Screening scale mu = ccc: 0.141 GeV; bbb: 0.039 GeV
    Controls saturation of confinement; strongly affects higher excitations and the diquark vs quark-diquark excitation hierarchy.
  • V0 constant in VS
    Appears in Eq. (11) as an additive offset in the confining potential; shifts absolute masses but is not reported in Table I.
  • Running-coupling parameters alpha_i, gamma_i = 0.15, 0.15, 0.20; 1/2, sqrt(10)/2, sqrt(1000)/2
    Fitted to QCD alpha_s in Ref. [73]; used in Eq. (12) for alpha_s(r).
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption The baryon is a two-body system of a quark and a diquark; the diquark is a pointlike color-antitriplet bound state.
    Introduced in Sections I-II; the spectra and decay widths are computed in this reduced Hilbert space, so significant three-body or diquark-size effects would invalidate the central numbers.
  • domain assumption The relativized Hamiltonian Eq. (1) with square-root kinetic terms and a static screened potential V(r) is an adequate QCD reduction.
    Section II; this is a phenomenological model, not derived from QCD.
  • ad hoc to paper Quarkonium-fitted parameters (Table I) transfer unchanged to quark-diquark systems.
    No baryon observable is used to re-fit; if screening or string tension differs inside a baryon, masses and widths shift. This is the main load-bearing external input.
  • domain assumption Pauli principle fixes diquark spin: S/D-wave diquarks are spin-1 and P-wave diquarks spin-0.
    Section II; used to build the baryon spin multiplets.
  • domain assumption The spin-dependent potential Eq. (14) with coefficients from [79] can be treated perturbatively and the L-S to j-j transformation Eq. (16) produces physical states.
    Section II; controls the fine-structure splittings of the reported J^P states.
  • domain assumption The non-relativistic E1/M1 expansion Eq. (18) gives accurate widths and higher multipoles are negligible.
    Section III; the paper explicitly neglects higher multipoles and interprets their absence as support for an oblate charge distribution.
  • standard math The Bessel spectral expansion with finite L and N converges for the low-lying states (Eqs. 6-9).
    Numerical method from Refs [72,73]; no convergence tests or L,N values are shown.

reviewed 2026-08-04 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spectroscopy and Radiative Decays of $\Omega_{ccc}$ and $\Omega_{bbb}$ Baryons in a Quark-Diquark Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YNNGWGR5

@misc{pith2026251003703,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spectroscopy and Radiative Decays of $\Omega_ccc$ and $\Omega_bbb$ Baryons in a Quark-Diquark Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YNNGWGR5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.03703}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We present a comprehensive study of the spectra and radiative decays of the triply heavy baryons $\Omega_{ccc}$ and $\Omega_{bbb}$ within a quark-diquark framework using a screened potential model. The analysis is carried out by solving a relativized Hamiltonian for a two-body bound system: the diquark masses are first determined, after which each baryon is treated as a composite of the diquark and the third quark. Employing the obtained wave functions, we calculate electromagnetic transitions using the $E1$ and $M1$ operators. We report mass spectra together with $E1/M1$ decay widths for radially and orbitally excited states, and systematically compare our results with those from other theoretical approaches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.03703 by Bhaghyesh, Chaitanya Anil Bokade.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (7) can be truncated without significant loss of accuracy

    For sufficiently largeN, the expansion in Eq. (7) can be truncated without significant loss of accuracy. The confinement of the wave function leads to a discretization of momentum, allowing the replacementa n/L↔k. Consequently, the integral in Eq. (6) can be approximated by a discrete sum: Z dk→ X n ∆an L ,where ∆a n =a n −a n−1. Within the confined regio...

  2. [2]

    LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij, B. Adeva, M. Adinolfi, Z. Ajaltouni,et al., Observation of the Doubly Charmed Baryon Ξ++ cc , Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 112001 (2017)

    2017

  3. [3]

    Mattson, G

    SELEX Collaboration, M. Mattson, G. Alkhazov, A. G. Atamantchouk, M. Y. Balatz,et al., First Observation of the Doubly Charmed Baryon Ξ + cc, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 112001 (2002)

    2002

  4. [4]

    Ocherashvili, M

    A. Ocherashvili, M. A. Moinester, J. Russ, J. Engelfried, I. Torres,et al., Confirmation of the doubly charmed baryon Ξ+ cc(3520) via its decay topD +K −, Phys. Lett. B628, 18 (2005)

    2005

  5. [5]

    Navas, C

    S. Navas, C. Amsler, T. Gutsche, C. Hanhart, J. J. Hern´ andez-Rey,et al., Review of Particle Physics, Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  6. [6]

    LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij, B. Adeva, M. Adinolfi, C. A. Aidala,et al., First Observation of the Doubly Charmed Baryon Decay Ξ++ cc →Ξ + c π+, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 162002 (2018)

    2018

  7. [7]

    R. Aaij, A. S. W. Abdelmotteleb, C. Abell´ an Beteta, F. Abudin´ en, T. Ackernley,et al., Observation of the doubly charmed baryon decay Ξ++ cc →Ξ ′+ c π+, J. High Energy Phys.2022(5), 1

    2022

  8. [8]

    S. P. Baranov and V. L. Slad, Production of triply charmed Ω ccc baryons ine +e− annihilation, Phys. At. Nucl.67, 808 (2004)

    2004

  9. [9]

    LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij, B. Adeva, M. Adinolfi, C. A. Aidala,et al., Measurement of the Lifetime of the Doubly Charmed Baryon Ξ ++ cc , Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 052002 (2018)

    2018

  10. [10]

    S.-Z. Wu, P. Wu, and Y.-W. Li, Production of the triply heavy Ω ccc and Ω bbb baryons ate +e− colliders, Phys. Rev. D 107, 116022 (2023)

    2023

  11. [11]

    V. A. Saleev, Ω ccc PRODUCTION VIA FRAGMENTATION AT LHC, Mod. Phys. Lett. A14, 10.1142/S0217732399002741 (2011)

    work page doi:10.1142/s0217732399002741 2011

  12. [12]

    M. A. Gomshi Nobary, Fragmentation production of Ω ccc and Ωbbb baryons, Phys. Lett. B559, 239 (2003)

    2003

  13. [13]

    Chang and Y.-Q

    C.-H. Chang and Y.-Q. Chen, Production ofB c or Bc mesons associated with two heavy-quark jets inZ 0 decay, Phys. Rev. D46, 3845 (1992). 20 TABLE X:P s, P p, P d, DsandDpradiative decays. Initial Final Ω ccc Ωbbb State StateE γ (MeV) Γ(KeV)E γ (MeV) Γ(eV) 1P1s 3/2− 1P1s 1/2− 43.4 0.125 18.1 0.216 1P1p 3/2+ 1P1p 5/2+ 6.3 3.124×10 −4 5.1 0.002 1S1p 1/2− 258...

    1992

  14. [14]

    M. A. Gomshi Nobary and R. Sepahvand, An investigation of triply heavy baryon production at hadron colliders, Nucl. Phys. B741, 34 (2006)

    2006

  15. [15]

    Chen and S.-Z

    Y.-Q. Chen and S.-Z. Wu, Production of triply heavy baryons at LHC, J. High Energy Phys.2011(8), 1

    2011

  16. [17]

    M. A. G. Nobary and R. Sepahvand, Fragmentation production of triply heavy baryons at the CERN LHC, Phys. Rev. D 71, 034024 (2005)

    2005

  17. [18]

    Lu, H.-W

    F. Lu, H.-W. Ke, and X.-H. Liu, Weak decays of the triply heavy baryons in the three-quark picture with the light-front quark model, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 1 (2024)

    2024

  18. [19]

    H. He, Y. Liu, and P. Zhuang, Ω ccc production in high energy nuclear collisions, Phys. Lett. B746, 59 (2015)

    2015

  19. [20]

    Zhao and P

    J. Zhao and P. Zhuang, Multicharmed Baryon Production in High Energy Nuclear Collisions, Few-Body Syst.58, 1 (2017)

    2017

  20. [21]

    Wang and J

    W. Wang and J. Xu, Weak decays of triply heavy baryons, Phys. Rev. D97, 093007 (2018)

    2018

  21. [22]

    J. Zhao, H. He, and P. Zhuang, Searching for Ξ + cc in relativistic heavy ion collisions, Phys. Lett. B771, 349 (2017)

    2017

  22. [23]

    Cho and S

    S. Cho and S. H. Lee, Production of multicharmed hadrons by recombination in heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C101, 024902 (2020). 21

    2020

  23. [24]

    Andronic, P

    A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, M. K. K¨ ohler, A. Mazeliauskas, K. Redlich,et al., The multiple-charm hierarchy in the statistical hadronization model, J. High Energy Phys.2021(7), 1

    2021

  24. [25]

    S. Cho, T. Hyodo, D. Jido, C. M. Ko, S. H. Lee,et al., Exotic hadrons from heavy ion collisions, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 95, 279 (2017)

    2017

  25. [26]

    Meinel, Excited-state spectroscopy of triply bottom baryons from lattice QCD, Phys

    S. Meinel, Excited-state spectroscopy of triply bottom baryons from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D85, 114510 (2012)

    2012

  26. [27]

    R. A. Brice˜ no, H.-W. Lin, and D. R. Bolton, Charmed-baryon spectroscopy from lattice QCD withN f =2+1+1 flavors, Phys. Rev. D86, 094504 (2012)

    2012

  27. [28]

    Namekawa, S

    PACS-CS Collaboration, Y. Namekawa, S. Aoki, K.-I. Ishikawa, N. Ishizuka,et al., Charmed baryons at the physical point in 2+1 flavor lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D87, 094512 (2013)

    2013

  28. [29]

    Adamov´ a, G

    D. Adamov´ a, G. A. Rinella, M. Agnello, Z. Ahammed, D. Aleksandrov,et al., A next-generation LHC heavy-ion experiment, arXiv 10.48550/arXiv.1902.01211 (2019), 1902.01211

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1902.01211 1902

  29. [30]

    Padmanath, R

    Hadron Spectrum Collaboration, M. Padmanath, R. G. Edwards, N. Mathur, and M. Peardon, Spectroscopy of triply charmed baryons from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D90, 074504 (2014)

    2014

  30. [31]

    Z. S. Brown, W. Detmold, S. Meinel, and K. Orginos, Charmed bottom baryon spectroscopy from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D90, 094507 (2014)

    2014

  31. [32]

    K. U. Can, G. Erkol, M. Oka, and T. T. Takahashi, Look inside charmed-strange baryons from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D92, 114515 (2015)

    2015

  32. [33]

    Alexandrou, V

    C. Alexandrou, V. Drach, K. Jansen, C. Kallidonis, and G. Koutsou, Baryon spectrum withN f = 2 + 1 + 1 twisted mass fermions, Phys. Rev. D90, 074501 (2014)

    2014

  33. [34]

    Silvestre-Brac, Spectrum and Static Properties of Heavy Baryons, Few-Body Syst.20, 1 (1996)

    B. Silvestre-Brac, Spectrum and Static Properties of Heavy Baryons, Few-Body Syst.20, 1 (1996)

    1996

  34. [35]

    Roberts and M

    W. Roberts and M. Pervin, HEA VY BARYONS IN A QUARK MODEL, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A23, 2817 (2008)

    2008

  35. [36]

    Vijande, A

    J. Vijande, A. Valcarce, and H. Garcilazo, Constituent-quark model description of triply heavy baryon nonperturbative lattice QCD data, Phys. Rev. D91, 054011 (2015)

    2015

  36. [37]

    Alexandrou and C

    C. Alexandrou and C. Kallidonis, Low-lying baryon masses usingN f = 2 twisted mass clover-improved fermions directly at the physical pion mass, Phys. Rev. D96, 034511 (2017)

    2017

  37. [38]

    Liu, Q.-F

    M.-S. Liu, Q.-F. L¨ u, and X.-H. Zhong, Triply charmed and bottom baryons in a constituent quark model, Phys. Rev. D 101, 074031 (2020)

    2020

  38. [39]

    Thakkar, A

    K. Thakkar, A. Majethiya, and P. C. Vinodkumar, Magnetic moments of baryons containing all heavy quarks in the quark-diquark model, Eur. Phys. J. Plus131, 1 (2016)

    2016

  39. [40]

    R. N. Faustov and V. O. Galkin, Triply heavy baryon spectroscopy in the relativistic quark model, Phys. Rev. D105, 014013 (2022)

    2022

  40. [41]

    G. Yang, J. Ping, P. G. Ortega, and J. Segovia, Triply heavy baryons in the constituent quark model, Chin. Phys. C44, 023102 (2020)

    2020

  41. [42]

    T. M. Aliev, K. Azizi, and M. Savcı, Properties of triply heavy spin-3/2 baryons, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys.41, 065003 (2014)

    2014

  42. [43]

    Zhi-Gang, Analysis of the Triply Heavy Baryon States with QCD Sum Rules, Commun

    W. Zhi-Gang, Analysis of the Triply Heavy Baryon States with QCD Sum Rules, Commun. Theor. Phys.58, 723 (2012)

    2012

  43. [44]

    Wang, Analysis of the triply heavy baryon states with the QCD sum rules, AAPPS Bull.31, 1 (2021)

    Z.-G. Wang, Analysis of the triply heavy baryon states with the QCD sum rules, AAPPS Bull.31, 1 (2021)

    2021

  44. [45]

    Zhang and M.-Q

    J.-R. Zhang and M.-Q. Huang, Deciphering triply heavy baryons in terms of QCD sum rules, Phys. Lett. B674, 28 (2009)

    2009

  45. [46]

    Sanchis Alepuz, R

    H. Sanchis Alepuz, R. Alkofer, G. Eichmann, and R. Williams, Properties of Delta and Omega baryons in a covariant Faddeev approach,Proceedings of International Workshop on QCD Green ’s Functions, Confinement and Phenomenology — PoS(QCD-TNT-II),136, 041 (2012)

    2012

  46. [47]

    Radin, Sh

    M. Radin, Sh. Babaghodrat, and M. Monemzadeh, Estimation of heavy baryon masses Ω ++ ccc and Ω − bbb by solving the Faddeev equation in a three-dimensional approach, Phys. Rev. D90, 047701 (2014)

    2014

  47. [48]

    S.-X. Qin, C. D. Roberts, and S. M. Schmidt, Spectrum of Light- and Heavy-Baryons, Few-Body Syst.60, 1 (2019)

    2019

  48. [49]

    Wu, Y.-S

    R.-H. Wu, Y.-S. Zuo, C. Meng, Y.-Q. Ma, and K.-T. Chao, NLO effects for Ω QQQ baryons in QCD Sum Rules, Chin. Phys. C45, 093103 (2021)

    2021

  49. [50]

    However, for Ω bbb, the estimates from Regge theory [51] and HCQM [55] are higher than our predictions

    and RQM [60] estimates for Ω ccc are consistent with our 1S1pexcitation. However, for Ω bbb, the estimates from Regge theory [51] and HCQM [55] are higher than our predictions. Similarly, while the Bag model [52] and RGPEP

  50. [51]

    K.-W. Wei, B. Chen, N. Liu, Q.-Q. Wang, and X.-H. Guo, Spectroscopy of singly, doubly, and triply bottom baryons, Phys. Rev. D95, 116005 (2017)

    2017

  51. [52]

    Hasenfratz, R

    P. Hasenfratz, R. R. Horgan, J. Kuti, and J. M. Richard, Heavy baryon spectroscopy in the QCD bag model, Phys. Lett. B94, 401 (1980)

    1980

  52. [53]

    P.-L. Yin, C. Chen, G. Krein, C. D. Roberts, J. Segovia,et al., Masses of ground-state mesons and baryons, including those with heavy quarks, Phys. Rev. D100, 034008 (2019)

    2019

  53. [54]

    K.-W. Wei, B. Chen, and X.-H. Guo, Masses of doubly and triply charmed baryons, Phys. Rev. D92, 076008 (2015)

    2015

  54. [55]

    Shah and A

    Z. Shah and A. K. Rai, Masses and Regge trajectories of triply heavy Ω ccc and Ωbbb baryons, Eur. Phys. J. A53, 1 (2017)

    2017

  55. [56]

    Zhao and S

    J. Zhao and S. Shi, Triply heavy baryonsQQQin vacuum and in a hot QCD medium, Phys. Rev. C109, 024901 (2024)

    2024

  56. [57]

    Bernotas and V

    A. Bernotas and V. ˇSimonis, Heavy hadron spectroscopy and the bag model, arXiv 10.3952/lithjphys.49110 (2008), 0808.1220

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  57. [58]

    Patel, A

    B. Patel, A. Majethiya, and P. C. Vinodkumar, Masses and magnetic moments of triple heavy flavour baryons in hyper- central model, Pramana72, 679 (2009)

    2009

  58. [59]

    A. P. Martynenko, Ground-state triply and doubly heavy baryons in a relativistic three-quark model, Phys. Lett. B663, 317 (2008)

    2008

  59. [60]

    Yu, Z.-Y

    G.-L. Yu, Z.-Y. Li, Z.-G. Wang, and Z. Zhou, Systematic analysis of the mass spectra of triply heavy baryons, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1 (2025). 22

    2025

  60. [61]

    Jia, Variational study of weakly coupled triply heavy baryons, J

    Y. Jia, Variational study of weakly coupled triply heavy baryons, J. High Energy Phys.2006(10), 073

    2006

  61. [62]

    Overall, much like in theSwave states, our model estimates masses on on the lower side of the spectrum for both 1S1pand 1P1s excitation

    predict higher masses for Ω ccc, their estimates for Ω bbb remain consistent with our 1S1pvalues. Overall, much like in theSwave states, our model estimates masses on on the lower side of the spectrum for both 1S1pand 1P1s excitation. 14 TABLE V:D−wave mass spectrum (in MeV). States Ours (1S1d) Ours (1D1s) Lattice QCD [26] Lattice QCD [30] NRCQM [35] NRCQ...

  62. [63]

    J. M. Flynn, E. Hern´ andez, and J. Nieves, Triply heavy baryons and heavy quark spin symmetry, Phys. Rev. D85, 014012 (2012)

    2012

  63. [64]

    Capstick and W

    S. Capstick and W. Roberts, Quark models of baryon masses and decays, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.45, S241 (2000)

    2000

  64. [65]

    F. J. Llanes-Estrada, O. I. Pavlova, and R. Williams, A first estimate of triply heavy baryon masses from the pNRQCD perturbative static potential, Eur. Phys. J. C72, 1 (2012)

    2012

  65. [66]

    Serafin, M

    K. Serafin, M. G´ omez-Rocha, J. More, and S. D. G lazek, Approximate Hamiltonian for baryons in heavy-flavor QCD, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 1 (2018)

    2018

  66. [67]

    The numerical values for the parameters areα 1 = 0.15,α 2 = 0.15,α 3 = 0.20, andγ 1 = 1/2,γ 2 = √ 10/2,γ 3 = √ 1000/2 [73]

    and is expressed as αs(r) = X i αi 2√π Z γir 0 e−x2 dx ,(12) whereα ′ isare the free parameters fitted to replicate the short distance behavior ofα s Q2 predicted by QCD. The numerical values for the parameters areα 1 = 0.15,α 2 = 0.15,α 3 = 0.20, andγ 1 = 1/2,γ 2 = √ 10/2,γ 3 = √ 1000/2 [73]. Since the baryon and diquark consists of identical heavy quark...

  67. [68]

    Klempt and J.-M

    E. Klempt and J.-M. Richard, Baryon spectroscopy, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 1095 (2010)

    2010

  68. [69]

    Brambilla, A

    N. Brambilla, A. Pineda, J. Soto, and A. Vairo, Potential NRQCD: an effective theory for heavy quarkonium, Nucl. Phys. B566, 275 (2000)

    2000

  69. [70]

    Ebert, R

    D. Ebert, R. N. Faustov, and V. O. Galkin, Properties of heavy quarkonia andB c mesons in the relativistic quark model, Phys. Rev. D67, 014027 (2003)

    2003

  70. [71]

    Godfrey and N

    S. Godfrey and N. Isgur, Mesons in a relativized quark model with chromodynamics, Phys. Rev. D32, 189 (1985)

    1985

  71. [72]

    Capstick and N

    S. Capstick and N. Isgur, Baryons in a relativized quark model with chromodynamics, Phys. Rev. D34, 2809 (1986)

    1986

  72. [73]

    C. A. Bokade and Bhaghyesh, Conventional andXY Zcharmonium states in a relativistic screened potential model, Phys. Rev. D111, 014030 (2025)

    2025

  73. [74]

    C. A. Bokade and Bhaghyesh, Bc meson masses and decays: Insights from a relativistic screened potential model, Nucl. Phys. A1060, 123109 (2025)

    2025

  74. [75]

    C. A. Bokade and B. Azhothkaran, Predictions for Bottomonium from a Relativistic Screened Potential Model, Chin. Phys. C 10.1088/1674-1137/adc084 (2025)

    doi:10.1088/1674-1137/adc084 2025

  75. [76]

    Yang, Wave functions and decay constants of B and D mesons in the relativistic potential model, Eur

    M.-Z. Yang, Wave functions and decay constants of B and D mesons in the relativistic potential model, Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 1 (2012)

    2012

  76. [77]

    Liu and M.-Z

    J.-B. Liu and M.-Z. Yang, Spectrum of the charmed and b-flavored mesons in the relativistic potential model, J. High Energy Phys.2014(7), 1

    2014

  77. [78]

    Yibing, C

    D. Yibing, C. Kuangta, and Q. Danhua, ScreenedQ− ¯QPotential and Spectrum of Heavy Quarkonium, Chin. Phys. Lett. 10, 460 (1993)

    1993

  78. [79]

    M. B. Voloshin, Charmonium, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.61, 455 (2008)

    2008

  79. [80]

    Barnes, S

    T. Barnes, S. Godfrey, and E. S. Swanson, Higher charmonia, Phys. Rev. D72, 054026 (2005)

    2005

  80. [81]

    Eakins and W

    B. Eakins and W. Roberts, SYMMETRIES AND SYSTEMATICS OF DOUBLY HEA VY HADRONS, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A27, 10.1142/S0217751X1250039X (2012)

    work page doi:10.1142/s0217751x1250039x 2012

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 4, 2026.