Evidence for the semileptonic decays Λ_c⁺ to Sigma^(pm) π^(mp) e^+ ν_e
Pith reviewed 2026-05-17 00:46 UTC · model grok-4.3
The pith
Evidence is reported for the semileptonic decays of the Lambda_c+ baryon to a Sigma, pion, electron, and neutrino.
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
Core claim
The analysis finds evidence at 3.6 sigma for Lambda_c+ to Sigma^pm pi^mp e+ nu_e and measures the combined branching fraction to be (7.7 +2.5 -2.3 stat +/- 1.3 syst) times 10^-4, which lies within two standard deviations of quark model predictions.
What carries the argument
Combined branching fraction extracted from a fit to the two charge modes under isospin symmetry, using 4.5 fb^-1 of data at center-of-mass energies 4.600 to 4.699 GeV.
If this is right
- The measured rate supplies a new experimental anchor for calculations of form factors in charmed-baryon transitions.
- It contributes to the total semileptonic width of the Lambda_c+ and helps normalize other decay channels.
- Consistency with theory supports the use of the same quark-model framework for predicting rarer modes.
- The result can be compared with future lattice-QCD calculations of the same matrix elements.
Where Pith is reading between the lines
- Higher-statistics runs could test whether isospin symmetry holds exactly or whether small breaking effects appear.
- The decay may affect precision measurements of the Lambda_c lifetime when all semileptonic channels are summed.
- Observation of this mode opens the door to angular-distribution studies that could reveal more about the underlying weak current.
Load-bearing premise
The two charge modes are assumed to have identical branching fractions so they can be added together.
What would settle it
Additional data showing the branching fraction more than two standard deviations away from the quark-model range or a clear difference in rate between the two charge modes.
Figures
read the original abstract
Using $4.5\, fb^{-1}$ of $e^+e^-$ collision data collected by the BESIII detector at center-of-mass energies between $4.600$ and $4.699\,GeV$, we search for the semileptonic decays $\Lambda_c^{+} \to \Sigma^{+} \pi^{-} e^+ \nu_e$ and $\Lambda_c^{+} \to \Sigma^{-} \pi^{+} e^+ \nu_e$ for the first time. Assuming their branching fractions are equal under isospin symmetry, evidence for $\Lambda_c^{+} \to \Sigma^{\pm} \pi^{\mp} e^+ \nu_e$ is reported with a significance of $3.6\sigma$. The corresponding branching fraction is measured to be $\mathcal{B}(\Lambda_c^{+} \to \Sigma^\pm\pi^\mp e^+\nu_e) = (7.7^{+2.5}_{-2.3_{\rm stat.}}\pm1.3_{\rm syst.})\times 10^{-4}$, which is consistent with quark model predictions within two standard deviations.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The manuscript reports the first search for the semileptonic decays Λ_c⁺ → Σ⁺ π⁻ e⁺ ν_e and Λ_c⁺ → Σ⁻ π⁺ e⁺ ν_e using 4.5 fb⁻¹ of e⁺e⁻ collision data collected by BESIII at center-of-mass energies 4.600–4.699 GeV. Assuming equal branching fractions for the two charge modes under isospin symmetry, the authors report evidence for the combined process Λ_c⁺ → Σ^± π^∓ e⁺ ν_e at 3.6σ significance and measure the branching fraction B(Λ_c⁺ → Σ^± π^∓ e⁺ ν_e) = (7.7^{+2.5}_{-2.3 stat} ± 1.3 syst) × 10^{-4}, which lies within two standard deviations of quark-model predictions.
Significance. If the result holds, it supplies the first experimental evidence for these rare charmed-baryon semileptonic decays, providing a valuable benchmark for quark-model and lattice calculations of form factors and decay rates. The measured central value being consistent with theory within 2σ strengthens in the theoretical framework, while the data sample size and energy range are well matched to Λ_c pair production near threshold.
minor comments (2)
- The abstract and title appropriately describe the result as 'evidence' at 3.6σ rather than an observation; the body should maintain this terminology consistently when discussing the significance.
- The isospin-symmetry assumption used to combine the two charge modes is stated clearly, but a brief quantitative estimate of possible isospin-breaking corrections (e.g., from electromagnetic or mass-difference effects) would strengthen the justification for the combined branching fraction.
Simulated Author's Rebuttal
We thank the referee for the positive and constructive report. We are pleased that the referee finds the result valuable and recommends acceptance of the manuscript.
Circularity Check
No significant circularity; result is direct experimental measurement
full rationale
The paper reports a data-driven search and branching-fraction measurement for the decays Λ_c⁺ → Σ^± π^∓ e⁺ ν_e using 4.5 fb⁻¹ of e⁺e⁻ collision data. The 3.6σ significance and central value (7.7^{+2.5}_{-2.3} ± 1.3) × 10^{-4} are obtained from signal-event counting after standard background subtraction, efficiency correction, and kinematic fitting; the two charge modes are combined under an external isospin assumption that is not derived inside the paper. No equation or step reduces by construction to a fitted parameter, self-citation, or ansatz that defines the reported quantity; the result is compared to independent quark-model predictions rather than derived from them. The analysis is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks and exhibits no circularity.
Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger
axioms (1)
- domain assumption Isospin symmetry implies equal branching fractions for the charge-conjugate modes Lambda_c+ to Sigma+ pi- e+ nu_e and Lambda_c+ to Sigma- pi+ e+ nu_e.
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
4/c2Events / (0.01 GeV eν+e−π+Σ →+ cΛ 0π p→+Σ Data Total fit Signal Peaking background Other background (a) 0.2− 0 0.2 (GeV)missU 2 4 6 8 10Events / (24.0 MeV) eν+e−π+Σ →+ cΛ +π n→+Σ Data Total fit Signal eν+e+π−Σ Peaking background Other background (b) 0.2− 0 0.2 (GeV)missU 2 4 6 8 10Events / (24.0 MeV) eν+e+π−Σ →+ cΛ −π n→−Σ Data Total fit Signal eν+e−π...
-
[2]
H. B. Li and X. R. Lyu, Natl. Sci. Rev. 8, nwab181 (2021)
work page 2021
-
[3]
H. Y. Cheng, Sci. Bull. 67, 445 (2022)
work page 2022
-
[4]
H. Y. Cheng, Chin. J. Phys. 78, 324 (2022)
work page 2022
-
[5]
C. Q. Geng, X. N. Jin, and C. W. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 107, 033008 (2023)
work page 2023
-
[6]
B. C. Ke, J. Koponen, H. B. Li, and Y. H. Zheng, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 73, 285 (2023)
work page 2023
- [7]
-
[8]
M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 231803 (2022)
work page 2022
-
[9]
M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 221805 (2015)
work page 2015
-
[10]
M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 108, L031105 (2023)
work page 2023
- [11]
-
[12]
M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 106, 112010 (2022)
work page 2022
-
[13]
M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 107, 052005 (2023)
work page 2023
-
[14]
M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 251801 (2018)
work page 2018
-
[15]
M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 843, 137993 (2023)
work page 2023
- [16]
-
[17]
M. M. Hussain and W. Roberts, Phys. Rev. D 95, 053005 (2017), [Addendum: Phys.Rev.D 95, 099901 (2017)]
work page 2017
- [18]
- [19]
-
[20]
M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), Chin. Phys. C 46, 113003 (2022) . 12
work page 2022
-
[21]
M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), Chin. Phys. C 40, 063001 (2016)
work page 2016
-
[22]
M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), Chin. Phys. C 46, 113002 (2022)
work page 2022
- [23]
-
[24]
M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 614, 345 (2010)
work page 2010
-
[25]
M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), Chin. Phys. C 44, 040001 (2020)
work page 2020
-
[26]
S. Agostinelli et al. (GEANT4 Collaboration), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506, 250 (2003)
work page 2003
-
[27]
K. X. Huang, Z. J. Li, Z. Qian, J. Zhu, H. Y. Li, Y. M. Zhang, S. S. Sun, and Z. Y. You, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 33, 142 (2022)
work page 2022
- [28]
- [29]
-
[30]
D. J. Lange, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 462, 152 (2001)
work page 2001
-
[31]
R. G. Ping, Chin. Phys. C 32, 599 (2008)
work page 2008
- [32]
-
[33]
R. M. Baltrusaitis et al. (MARK-III Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 2140 (1986)
work page 1986
-
[34]
M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), Chin. Phys. C 47, 023001 (2023)
work page 2023
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.