Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 50 references

The paper argues that the parallel mass splittings of the four narrow Xi_c and four narrow Omega_c states reveal one underlying heavy-quark multiplet, assigning quantum numbers 1/2-, 3/2-, 3/2-, 5/2- in succession, and reads Omega_c(3119) a

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 16:36 UTC pith:TJCFTU3R

load-bearing objection A plausible HQET interpretation of the excited Ξ_c and Ω_c spectra, but the assignments lean on a mixing angle fit to the very states being classified and on sum-rule splittings that do not actually match the pattern they claim to anchor. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.17923 v2 pith:TJCFTU3R submitted 2026-07-20 hep-ph

Quantum numbers of excited Xi_c^prime and Ω_c baryons and the P-wave Sigma_c spectrum

Xuan Luo , Shu-Wei Zhang , Hua-Xing Chen , Hui-Min Yang This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords charmed baryonsP-wave baryonsheavy quark effective theoryQCD sum ruleslight-cone sum rulesXi_c resonancesOmega_c resonancesquantum numbers
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.

Precision spectra of excited charmed baryons have reached the point where fine structure can be resolved, and the paper exploits that to read the underlying multiplet organization. It shows that the four observed Xi_c resonances and the first four Omega_c resonances have nearly parallel mass gaps (around 41/50, 16/16, 26/24 MeV), and argues these gaps are the signature of a common lambda-mode heavy-quark multiplet ordering. Using QCD sum rules for masses and light-cone sum rules for strong-decay widths within heavy quark effective theory, it assigns the eight states successive quantum numbers 1/2-, 3/2-, 3/2-, 5/2- and interprets Omega_c(3119) as a predominantly rho-mode 3/2- state. It then predicts that the wide Sigma_c(2800) and Sigma_c(2900) structures each contain overlapping P-wave states, four resolvable Sigma_c states in total, with specified masses, widths, and dominant decay modes. If correct, this turns the narrow Xi_c and Omega_c states into anchors for reconstructing broad and overlapping baryon resonances that are otherwise hard to see.

Core claim

The central claim is that the visible spectrum of excited charmed baryons is not a one-to-one image of the seven-state HQET level scheme in each flavor sector; strong decays, kinematic thresholds, and finite-charm-quark mixing act as a filter. For the flavor sextet, HQET allows seven P-wave states per sector, organized into four multiplets: [6F(0,1,lambda)] with J^P=1/2-, [6F(1,1,lambda)] with (1/2-,3/2-), [6F(2,1,lambda)] with (3/2-,5/2-), and [6F(1,0,rho)] with (1/2-,3/2-). The paper's key result is that the parallel splittings of Xi_c(2882,2923,2939,2965) and Omega_c(3000,3050,3066,3090) select the level ordering 1/2-, 3/2-_L, 3/2-_H, 5/2- within the lambda-mode multiplets, with the two 3

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the HQET classification of P-wave charmed baryons in the flavor sextet, which reduces every state to a multiplet label [6F(J^P), j_l, s_l, rho/lambda], where lambda means orbital excitation between the charm quark and the light-quark pair and rho means orbital excitation between the two light quarks. The calculations use the mass formula m_{B,J}=m_c+barLambda_B-(1/(2m_c))(K_B+d_{J,j_l} C_mag Sigma_B) from QCD sum rules, together with the observation that splittings within a multiplet are far more stable than absolute masses because common uncertainties cancel. The 3/2- mixing angle theta=(37 +/- 5) degrees between the two lambda-mode doublets, fixed from the Xi_c a

Load-bearing premise

The whole assignment rests on the assumption that mass splittings within a heavy-quark multiplet are much more stable than absolute masses because theoretical uncertainties cancel; if that cancellation is weaker than assumed, the level ordering that fixes the quantum numbers could change.

What would settle it

A lattice QCD calculation of the negative-parity Xi_c and Omega_c spectrum, with explicit spin-parity identification, would falsify the ladder if any of the four-plus-four states emerges with different J^P or a different level ordering.

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

If this is right

  • The observed states Xi_c(2882), Xi_c(2923), Xi_c(2939), Xi_c(2965) and Omega_c(3000), Omega_c(3050), Omega_c(3066), Omega_c(3090) are lambda-mode excitations with J^P = 1/2-, 3/2-, 3/2-, 5/2- respectively.
  • Omega_c(3119) is predominantly a rho-mode 3/2- state; its narrow width is explained by a closed S-wave Xi*_c Kbar channel, with a small mixing admixture opening the Xi_c Kbar decay.
  • Of the seven allowed P-wave states in each flavor sector, only four Sigma_c, four Xi'_c, and five Omega_c states are expected to be experimentally resolvable; the rest are broad enough to escape detection as peaks.
  • The observed Sigma_c(2800) and Sigma_c(2900) structures are not single resonances but overlapping P-wave components; future amplitude analyses of the Lambda_c pi spectrum can resolve their spin-parity and partial-wave content.
  • The same 3/2- mixing angle of about 37 degrees applies to the Sigma_c sector, so the predicted four Sigma_c states have fixed relative masses and widths within the framework.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the mass-splitting cancellation is as good as assumed, the same multiplet ordering should reappear in bottom baryons with splittings reduced by roughly m_c/m_b; measuring excited Xi_b or Omega_b states would test this directly.
  • The paper's filter picture implies that counting observed states gives a biased census of underlying multiplets; future searches should expect broad companions near narrow states rather than assuming each peak is a single state.
  • The predicted broad Omega_c states, such as a 1/2- rho-mode near 3.11 GeV with a width around 260 MeV decaying to Xi'_c Kbar, are directly searchable in existing collider data and would check the assignment without new experiments.
  • If the four Sigma_c states overlap as claimed, re-fitting the Lambda_c pi invariant-mass spectrum with interfering resonances of the predicted masses and widths should improve the description of current data; this is a testable re-analysis.

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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the P-wave charmed baryons in the SU(3) flavor-sextet representation using QCD sum rules and light-cone sum rules within heavy quark effective theory (HQET). It assigns the observed narrow states Ξc(2882), Ξc(2923), Ξc(2939), Ξc(2965) and Ωc(3000), Ωc(3050), Ωc(3066), Ωc(3090) to the successive λ-mode HQET multiplets with J^P = 1/2^-, 3/2^-, 3/2^-, 5/2^-, and tentatively identifies Ωc(3119) as a predominantly ρ-mode 3/2^- excitation. It further predicts four resolvable P-wave Σc states that may overlap inside the Σc(2800) and Σc(2900) structures.

Significance. If the assigned quantum numbers are correct, the paper would provide a coherent multiplet organization for several recently observed narrow charmed baryons and concrete predictions for future amplitude analyses of the Σc sector. The parallel mass-splitting pattern in Eq. (4) is a real empirical observation, and applying the same framework consistently to three flavor sectors is a useful strategy. The paper also gives explicit width predictions and decay modes. However, the central claim that the assignments are 'determined' by the theoretical results is not supported as presented, because the mixing angle is fitted to the very states being assigned and the mass-splitting stability is asserted rather than demonstrated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Mass spectra, decay properties, and mixing; Eq. (10)] The quantum-number assignments are not an independent prediction. The mixing angle θ = 37° ± 5° is determined from the masses and decay properties of Ξc(2923), Ξc(2939), Ωc(3050), and Ωc(3066) — precisely the states that Eq. (10) then assigns to |3/2^-⟩_L and |3/2^-⟩_H. The subsequent width agreement for these states is therefore partly constructed, not a test. An independent determination of θ (e.g., from a QCD sum-rule calculation of the off-diagonal correlator) or an explicit reframing of the assignments as consistency checks rather than determinations is needed.
  2. [Table I and Eq. (4)] The assertion that mass splittings within a multiplet are significantly more stable because common uncertainties cancel is not demonstrated. The central consecutive Ωc splittings from Table I are 31, 14, and 55 MeV, compared with the observed 50, 16, and 24 MeV; the final predicted splitting is more than twice the observed value. Since the absolute masses carry 100–230 MeV uncertainties, the sum-rule masses do not independently reproduce the parallel pattern that anchors Eq. (10). The pattern is used as an input, not derived.
  3. [Mass spectra, decay properties, and mixing; Table I] The small mixing angles θ′ and θ″ are introduced ad hoc to open otherwise forbidden decay channels (entries marked ≠0). These angles are not constrained by any calculation or independent data, yet they are load-bearing for the viability of some assignments; for example, the Ωc(3119) → Ξc Kbar amplitude appears only through such mixing. The paper should either quantify these angles or demonstrate that the assignments are insensitive to their values.
  4. [Table I] Most predicted widths are consistent with zero at the 1σ level (e.g., Ωc(3050): 1.3^{+2.6}_{-1.0} MeV; Ωc(3066): 3.7^{+7.3}_{-2.9} MeV; Ξc(2923): 9^{+16}_{-7} MeV). The statement that the decay properties 'support' the assignments is therefore too strong; at this precision the widths do not discriminate among alternative J^P assignments. The paper should quantify the discriminating power of the width predictions, or temper the claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction, p. 2] Typo: 'difficult' should be 'difficult'.
  2. [References, [34]] Reference [34] has 'QCD rum rule approach' in the title; it should be 'QCD sum rule approach'.
  3. [Eq. (5)] The notation jl = lρ ⊗ lλ ⊗ sl denotes angular-momentum addition, not a direct product of operators; consider using ⊕ or clarifying the standard addition rule.
  4. [Fig. 1] The figure caption mentions solid and dashed boxes for narrow and broad states, but the text does not describe the figure contents in sufficient detail for the reader to follow the classification without the figure. A brief description in the text would improve readability.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Mixing-angle fit to the very states being classified and unconstrained small admixtures make part of the J^P-assignment support circular.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 'Mass spectra, decay properties, and mixing', Eqs. (8)-(10)]
    "We determine a common mixing angle from the masses and decay properties of Ξc(2923), Ξc(2939), Ωc(3050), and Ωc(3066), and obtain θ = 37 ◦ ± 5◦. ... The same mixing pattern is then applied to the corresponding J P = 3/2− Σc states."

    Equation (10) then identifies Ξc(2923)/Ωc(3050) with |3/2−⟩_L and Ξc(2939)/Ωc(3066) with |3/2−⟩_H, the very states used to fix θ. The same section cites the resulting 'predicted total widths are consistent with experiment' as support for these assignments, but θ was adjusted to the masses and decay properties of these four resonances. The 3/2− pair assignment and its width agreement are therefore consequences of the fit rather than independent checks.

  2. other [Section 'Mass spectra, decay properties, and mixing', Table I footnote and Eq. (11)]
    "Small admixtures among other configurations with the same flavor and J P , parameterized by the small mixing angles θ′ and θ′′ in Table I, are also allowed at finite charm-quark mass. Although they have little influence on the mass spectra and total widths, they can generate otherwise vanishing or strongly suppressed decay amplitudes, thereby reconciling the dominant configuration assignments with the experimentally observed channels."

    The table marks channels 'opened by such mixing' (≠0), and these nonzero amplitudes are used to explain why Ωc(3119) is narrow while observable, and why other states are broad. Because θ′ and θ′′ are unconstrained and chosen to open exactly the needed channels, the claimed agreement with observed channels is built into the model rather than supplying independent confirmation of the assignments.

full rationale

The empirical parallel mass-splitting pattern in Eq. (4) is real input, not a derived prediction, and the Σc predictions genuinely transfer a mixing angle to a sector not used in the fit. The self-citations to the authors' previous QCD sum-rule papers are standard method citations, not a load-bearing uniqueness chain. However, the central 3/2− pair assignment is circular in an important part: θ is fixed from the masses and decay properties of Ξc(2923), Ξc(2939), Ωc(3050), and Ωc(3066), and then the same states are assigned to the mixed 3/2− levels, with their width agreement cited as support. That support is not independent. The small angles θ′ and θ″ are similarly introduced ad hoc to open otherwise vanishing decay channels and are then used to explain observed widths and narrowness, so those agreements are also by construction. Additionally, the central masses in Table I do not reproduce the anchor pattern well (e.g., Ωc consecutive splittings 31, 14, 55 MeV versus observed 50, 16, 24 MeV); this is a correctness concern rather than circularity, but it means the assignments rely heavily on the empirical pattern plus fitted θ. Overall, there is partial circularity in the validation chain, warranting a score of 6.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper adds one explicitly fitted parameter (θ) plus two tuning angles (θ′,θ″); the remaining inputs come from standard HQET and from the authors' earlier sum-rule analyses. The key structural assumption is the stability of mass splittings under cancellation of sum-rule uncertainties.

free parameters (3)
  • Mixing angle θ = 37° ± 5°
    Fit to masses and decay properties of Ξ_c(2923), Ξ_c(2939), Ω_c(3050), Ω_c(3066); quoted uncertainty is hand-assigned.
  • Mixing angles θ′, θ″ = ≈ 0°
    Ad hoc small angles introduced to open otherwise forbidden decay channels and reconcile assignments with observed modes.
  • Sum-rule parameters (Borel mass, continuum threshold, m_c, condensates) = not quoted (from [9,10,32,34])
    These control the absolute masses and splittings; they are inherited from the authors' previous papers and not documented here.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Heavy-quark effective theory: the charm quark's spin decouples and Eq. (7) (m_{B,J} = m_c + Λ̄_B − (1/2m_c)(K_B + d_{J,j_l} C_mag Σ_B)) gives the mass including 1/m_c kinetic and chromomagnetic corrections.
    The central mass and splitting predictions rest on this expansion; full 1/m_c corrections for excited baryons are not derived here.
  • domain assumption QCD sum-rule quark-hadron duality: two-point correlation functions, after Borel transformation and continuum subtraction, determine masses and decay couplings.
    Standard but approximate; correlators, Borel windows, thresholds, and condensate values are not shown in this Letter.
  • ad hoc to paper Only the two λ-mode J^P=3/2^- states [6F,1,1,λ] and [6F,2,1,λ] mix significantly; other mixings θ′,θ″ are small.
    The mixing matrix in Eq. (8) is restricted to this pair, and θ′,θ″ are introduced to open otherwise forbidden decay channels (Table I entries marked ≠ 0).
  • domain assumption SU(3) flavor symmetry: the same mixing angle θ applies to Σ_c, Ξ_c′, and Ω_c sectors.
    θ is extracted from Ξ_c and Ω_c spectra and then applied to Σ_c; flavor-symmetry breaking is not quantified.
  • domain assumption Mass splittings within an HQET multiplet are significantly more stable than absolute masses because common theoretical uncertainties cancel.
    If this cancellation is weaker than assumed, the level ordering that underpins the quantum-number assignments could change.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 11025 in / 17167 out tokens · 145731 ms · 2026-08-01T16:36:40.210130+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Recent precision measurements of excited heavy baryons, combined with systematic theoretical studies, make it possible to resolve the fine structure of their spectra. We calculate the masses and strong-decay properties of the $P$-wave charmed baryons using QCD sum rules and light-cone sum rules within heavy quark effective theory (HQET). Although seven states are allowed in each flavor sector, we find that only four $\Sigma_c$, four $\Xi_c^\prime$, and five $\Omega_c$ states are expected to be experimentally resolvable. The similar mass-splitting patterns of $\Xi_c(2882)$, $\Xi_c(2923)$, $\Xi_c(2939)$, and $\Xi_c(2965)$ and of $\Omega_c(3000)$, $\Omega_c(3050)$, $\Omega_c(3066)$, and $\Omega_c(3090)$, together with our theoretical results, lead to the successive quantum-number assignments $J^P=1/2^-,3/2^-,3/2^-$, and $5/2^-$. We tentatively interpret $\Omega_c(3119)$ as a predominantly $\rho$-mode excitation with $J^P=3/2^-$. We also predict the masses, widths, and dominant decay modes of four resolvable $P$-wave $\Sigma_c$ states, which may overlap within the observed $\Sigma_c(2800)$ and $\Sigma_c(2900)$ structures. Precision spectroscopy of the narrow $\Xi_c$ and $\Omega_c$ states thus provides a route to resolving the $P$-wave $\Sigma_c$ spectrum.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.17923 by Hua-Xing Chen, Hui-Min Yang, Shu-Wei Zhang, Xuan Luo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.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

50 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. G. Korner, M. Kramer, D. Pirjol, Heavy baryons, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 33 (1994) 787–868. arXiv:hep-ph/ 9406359, doi:10.1016/0146-6410(94)90053-1

    work page doi:10.1016/0146-6410(94)90053-1 1994

  2. [2]

    A. V. Manohar, M. B. Wise, Heavy quark physics, Cam- bridge University Press, 2007

    2007

  3. [3]

    Neubert, Heavy quark symmetry, Phys

    M. Neubert, Heavy quark symmetry, Phys. Rept. 245 (1994) 259–396. arXiv:hep-ph/9306320, doi:10.1016/ 0370-1573(94)90091-4

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  4. [4]

    Cheng, Charmed baryons circa 2015, Front

    H.-Y. Cheng, Charmed baryons circa 2015, Front. Phys. (Beijing) 10 (6) (2015) 101406. doi:10.1007/ s11467-015-0483-z

    2015

  5. [5]

    H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, Y.-R. Liu, S.-L. Zhu, A re- view of the open charm and open bottom systems, Rept. Prog. Phys. 80 (7) (2017) 076201. arXiv:1609.08928, doi:10.1088/1361-6633/aa6420

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, Y.-R. Liu, S.-L. Zhu, An updated review of the new hadron states, Rept. Prog. Phys. 86 (2) (2023) 026201. arXiv:2204.02649, doi: 10.1088/1361-6633/aca3b6

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Cheng, Charmed baryon physics circa 2021, Chin

    H.-Y. Cheng, Charmed baryon physics circa 2021, Chin. J. Phys. 78 (2022) 324–362. arXiv:2109.01216, doi: 10.1016/j.cjph.2022.06.021

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Crede, J

    V. Crede, J. Yelton, 70 years of hyperon spectroscopy: a review of strange Ξ, Ω baryons, and the spectrum of charmed and bottom baryons, Rept. Prog. Phys. 87 (10) (2024) 106301. arXiv:2502.08815, doi:10.1088/ 1361-6633/ad7610

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, Q. Mao, A. Hosaka, X. Liu, S.- L. Zhu, P-wave charmed baryons from QCD sum rules, Phys. Rev. D 91 (5) (2015) 054034. arXiv:1502.01103, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.054034

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  10. [10]

    Yang, H.-X

    H.-M. Yang, H.-X. Chen, P -wave charmed baryons of the SU (3) flavor 6F , Phys. Rev. D 104 (3) (2021) 034037. arXiv:2106.15488, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 104.034037

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  11. [11]

    Mizuk, et al., Observation of an Isotriplet of Excited Charmed Baryons Decaying to Λ+ c π, Phys

    R. Mizuk, et al., Observation of an Isotriplet of Excited Charmed Baryons Decaying to Λ+ c π, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 (2005) 122002. arXiv:hep-ex/0412069, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.94.122002

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  12. [12]

    Aaij, et al., Observation of new excited Σ0 c states in the B− → Λ+ c ¯pπ− decay (7 2026)

    R. Aaij, et al., Observation of new excited Σ0 c states in the B− → Λ+ c ¯pπ− decay (7 2026). arXiv:2607.10595

    arXiv 2026

  13. [13]

    Aaij, et al., Observation of New Ξ0 c Baryons De- caying to Λ+ c K −, Phys

    R. Aaij, et al., Observation of New Ξ0 c Baryons De- caying to Λ+ c K −, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 (22) (2020) 222001. arXiv:2003.13649, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett. 124.222001

    arXiv 2020

  14. [14]

    Aaij, et al., Study of the B− → Λ+ c ¯Λ− c K − decay, Phys

    R. Aaij, et al., Study of the B− → Λ+ c ¯Λ− c K − decay, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 012020. arXiv:2211.00812, doi:10. 1103/PhysRevD.108.012020

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

    Aaij, et al., Observation of five new narrow Ω0 c states decaying to Ξ+ c K −, Phys

    R. Aaij, et al., Observation of five new narrow Ω0 c states decaying to Ξ+ c K −, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (18) (2017) 182001. arXiv:1703.04639, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett. 118.182001

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  16. [16]

    Aaij, et al., Observation of excited Ω0 c baryons in Ω− b → Ξ+ c K −π−decays, Phys

    R. Aaij, et al., Observation of excited Ω0 c baryons in Ω− b → Ξ+ c K −π−decays, Phys. Rev. D 104 (9) (2021) L091102. arXiv:2107.03419, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 104.L091102

    arXiv 2021

  17. [17]

    Aaij, et al., Observation of New Ω0 c States Decaying to the Ξ+ c K − Final State, Phys

    R. Aaij, et al., Observation of New Ω0 c States Decaying to the Ξ+ c K − Final State, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (13) (2023) 131902. arXiv:2302.04733, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett. 131.131902

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  18. [18]

    Navas, et al., Review of particle physics, Phys

    S. Navas, et al., Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D 110 (3) (2024) 030001. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110. 030001

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.110 2024

  19. [19]

    L. A. Copley, N. Isgur, G. Karl, Charmed baryons in a quark model with hyperfine interactions, Phys. Rev. D 20 (1979) 768, [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 23, 817 (1981)]. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.20.768

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.20.768 1979

  20. [20]

    Ebert, R

    D. Ebert, R. N. Faustov, V. O. Galkin, Spectroscopy and Regge trajectories of heavy baryons in the relativistic quark-diquark picture, Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 014025. arXiv:1105.0583, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.84.014025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  21. [21]

    Yoshida, E

    T. Yoshida, E. Hiyama, A. Hosaka, M. Oka, K. Sadato, Spectrum of heavy baryons in the quark model, Phys. Rev. D 92 (11) (2015) 114029. arXiv:1510.01067, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.114029

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  22. [22]

    Wang, Y.-X

    K.-L. Wang, Y.-X. Yao, X.-H. Zhong, Q. Zhao, Strong and radiative decays of the low-lying S- and P -wave singly heavy baryons, Phys. Rev. D 96 (11) (2017) 116016. arXiv:1709.04268, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96. 116016

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  23. [23]

    Lü, Canonical interpretations of the newly ob- served Ξc(2923)0, Ξc(2939)0, and Ξc(2965)0 resonances, 6 Eur

    Q.-F. Lü, Canonical interpretations of the newly ob- served Ξc(2923)0, Ξc(2939)0, and Ξc(2965)0 resonances, 6 Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (10) (2020) 921. arXiv:2004.02374, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08488-5

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  24. [24]

    Weng, W.-Z

    X.-Z. Weng, W.-Z. Deng, S.-L. Zhu, Heavy baryons in the relativized quark model with chromodynamics, Phys. Rev. D 110 (5) (2024) 056052. arXiv:2405.19039, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.056052

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    Padmanath, R

    M. Padmanath, R. G. Edwards, N. Mathur, M. Peardon, Excited-state spectroscopy of singly, doubly and triply- charmed baryons from lattice QCD (11 2013). arXiv: 1311.4806

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  26. [26]

    Padmanath, N

    M. Padmanath, N. Mathur, Quantum Numbers of Re- cently Discovered Ω0 c Baryons from Lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (4) (2017) 042001. arXiv:1704.00259, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.042001

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  27. [27]

    Bahtiyar, K

    H. Bahtiyar, K. U. Can, G. Erkol, P. Gubler, M. Oka, T. T. Takahashi, Charmed baryon spectrum from lattice QCD near the physical point, Phys. Rev. D 102 (5) (2020) 054513. arXiv:2004.08999, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 102.054513

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  28. [28]

    Cheng, C.-K

    H.-Y. Cheng, C.-K. Chua, Strong Decays of Charmed Baryons in Heavy Hadron Chiral Perturbation Theory: An Update, Phys. Rev. D 92 (7) (2015) 074014. arXiv: 1508.05653, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.074014

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  29. [29]

    B. Chen, X. Liu, New Ω0 c baryons discovered by LHCb as the members of 1P and 2S states, Phys. Rev. D 96 (9) (2017) 094015. arXiv:1704.02583, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.96.094015

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  30. [30]

    Zhao, D.-D

    Z. Zhao, D.-D. Ye, A. Zhang, Hadronic decay prop- erties of newly observed Ωc baryons, Phys. Rev. D 95 (11) (2017) 114024. arXiv:1704.02688, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.95.114024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  31. [31]

    D.-D. Ye, Z. Zhao, A. Zhang, Study of P -wave ex- citations of observed charmed strange baryons, Phys. Rev. D 96 (11) (2017) 114009. arXiv:1709.00689, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.114009

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  32. [32]

    H.-X. Chen, Q. Mao, W. Chen, A. Hosaka, X. Liu, S.-L. Zhu, Decay properties of P -wave charmed baryons from light-cone QCD sum rules, Phys. Rev. D 95 (9) (2017) 094008. arXiv:1703.07703, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95. 094008

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  33. [33]

    Wang, Analysis of Ωc(3000) , Ωc(3050) , Ωc(3066) , Ωc(3090) and Ωc(3119) with QCD sum rules, Eur

    Z.-G. Wang, Analysis of Ωc(3000) , Ωc(3050) , Ωc(3066) , Ωc(3090) and Ωc(3119) with QCD sum rules, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (5) (2017) 325. arXiv:1704.01854, doi:10.1140/ epjc/s10052-017-4895-5

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  34. [34]

    Yang, H.-X

    H.-M. Yang, H.-X. Chen, Q. Mao, Excited Ξ0 c baryons within the QCD rum rule approach, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 114009. arXiv:2004.00531, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.102.114009

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  35. [35]

    J.-H. Pan, J. Pan, Investigation of the mass spectra of singly heavy baryons ΣQ, Ξ′ Q, and ΩQ(Q = c, b) in the Regge trajectory model, Phys. Rev. D 109 (7) (2024) 076010. arXiv:2308.11769, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 109.076010

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  36. [36]

    Jakhad, J

    P. Jakhad, J. Oudichhya, K. Gandhi, A. K. Rai, Iden- tification of newly observed singly charmed baryons using the relativistic flux tube model, Phys. Rev. D 108 (1) (2023) 014011. arXiv:2306.06349, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.108.014011

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  37. [37]

    Li, G.-L

    Z.-Y. Li, G.-L. Yu, Z.-G. Wang, J.-Z. Gu, Heavy- quark dominance and fine structure of excited heavy baryons ΣQ, Ξ′ Q and ΩQ, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (12) (2024) 1310. arXiv:2405.16162, doi:10.1140/epjc/ s10052-024-13706-5

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  38. [38]

    Eichten, B

    E. Eichten, B. R. Hill, An effective field theory for the calculation of matrix elements involving heavy quarks, Phys. Lett. B 234 (1990) 511–516. doi:10.1016/ 0370-2693(90)92049-O

    1990

  39. [39]

    Grinstein, The static quark effective theory, Nucl

    B. Grinstein, The static quark effective theory, Nucl. Phys. B 339 (1990) 253–268. doi:10.1016/ 0550-3213(90)90349-I

    1990

  40. [40]

    A. F. Falk, H. Georgi, B. Grinstein, M. B. Wise, Heavy meson form factors from QCD, Nucl. Phys. B 343 (1990) 1–13. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(90)90591-Z

    work page doi:10.1016/0550-3213(90)90591-z 1990

  41. [41]

    M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, V. I. Zakharov, QCD and resonance physics. theoretical foundations, Nucl. Phys. B 147 (1979) 385–447. doi:10.1016/ 0550-3213(79)90022-1

    1979

  42. [42]

    M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, V. I. Zakharov, QCD and Resonance Physics: Applications, Nucl. Phys. B 147 (1979) 448–518. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(79)90023-3

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(79)90023-3 1979

  43. [43]

    L. J. Reinders, H. Rubinstein, S. Yazaki, Hadron Prop- erties from QCD Sum Rules, Phys. Rept. 127 (1985) 1. doi:10.1016/0370-1573(85)90065-1

    doi:10.1016/0370-1573(85)90065-1 1985

  44. [44]

    Colangelo, A

    P. Colangelo, A. Khodjamirian, QCD sum rules, a modern perspective (2000) 1495–1576 arXiv:hep-ph/ 0010175, doi:10.1142/9789812810458_0033

    doi:10.1142/9789812810458_0033 2000

  45. [45]

    Gubler, D

    P. Gubler, D. Satow, Recent Progress in QCD Conden- sate Evaluations and Sum Rules, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 106 (2019) 1–67. arXiv:1812.00385, doi:10.1016/j. ppnp.2019.02.005

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  46. [46]

    V. M. Braun, I. E. Filyanov, QCD sum rules in exclusive kinematics and pion wave function, Z. Phys. C 44 (1989)

    1989

  47. [47]

    I. I. Balitsky, V. M. Braun, A. V. Kolesnichenko, Ra- diative Decay Σ+ → pγ in Quantum Chromodynam- ics, Nucl. Phys. B 312 (1989) 509–550. doi:10.1016/ 0550-3213(89)90570-1

    1989

  48. [48]

    V. L. Chernyak, I. R. Zhitnitsky, B-meson exclusive de- cays into baryons, Nucl. Phys. B 345 (1990) 137–172. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(90)90612-H

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(90)90612-h 1990

  49. [49]

    Ball, Theoretical update of pseudoscalar meson dis- tribution amplitudes of higher twist: The Nonsinglet case, JHEP 01 (1999) 010

    P. Ball, Theoretical update of pseudoscalar meson dis- tribution amplitudes of higher twist: The Nonsinglet case, JHEP 01 (1999) 010. arXiv:hep-ph/9812375, doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/1999/01/010

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  50. [157]

    doi:10.1007/BF01548594

    doi:10.1007/bf01548594