Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 107 references

A relativized quark model with heavy-quark dominance and two-step Gaussian expansion reproduces the measured masses of 74 singly heavy baryons with an average deviation of 6.96 MeV.

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

2026-08-04 01:09 UTC pith:IZX4O26L

load-bearing objection Useful systematic quark-model calculation, but the 6.96 MeV precision claim is weaker than it looks because assignments and exclusions do much of the work. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2608.00142 v1 pith:IZX4O26L submitted 2026-07-31 hep-ph

Low-lying singly heavy baryon states based on the rigorous calculation with the relativized quark model

Zhen-Yu Li , Guo-Liang Yu , Zhi-Gang Wang , Jian-Zhong Gu This is my paper
classification hep-ph PACS 12.39.Ki14.20.Lq14.20.Mr
keywords singly heavy baryonsrelativized quark modelheavy-quark dominanceGaussian expansion methodtwo-step GEMmixing effectbaryon mass spectraquantum number assignment
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 claims that an improved calculation scheme built on the relativized quark model now predicts the masses of low-lying singly heavy baryons so precisely that 74 measured states are reproduced with an average deviation of only 6.96 MeV. The scheme combines heavy-quark dominance (only selected orbital excitation modes matter), a Gaussian expansion method, a two-step variant that makes previously intractable three-body spin-orbit and tensor matrix elements computable, and explicit diagonalization in each spin-parity subspace to account for state mixing. The authors present complete mass spectra for all singly heavy baryon families, assign quantum numbers to many measured states, and report that mixing is small for positive-parity flavor-sextet states, which they argue explains why simpler diquark approximations work for low-lying states but fail for negative-parity fine structure. If correct, this would make the relativized quark model the most precise theoretical tool for these spectra and provide a benchmark reference for future experiments.

Core claim

The central claim is that the improved calculation scheme — relativized quark model plus heavy-quark dominance, Gaussian expansion with infinitesimally-shifted Gaussians, two-step Gaussian expansion for hard matrix elements, and diagonalization in each JP subspace — yields complete mass spectra of low-lying singly heavy baryons, including the positive-parity 6F (flavor-sextet) states, that match 74 measured masses with an average absolute deviation of 6.96 MeV. The paper further claims that the mixing effect in positive-parity 6F baryons is small, so the total orbital angular momentum L is approximately a good quantum number there, unlike the negative-parity case; and that the three-body spi

What carries the argument

The load-bearing method is the improved calculation scheme: the relativized quark model Hamiltonian (confinement, hyperfine, spin-orbit including three-body terms) is evaluated in a Gaussian expansion basis selected by heavy-quark dominance (the λ-mode excitation dominates), and the two-step Gaussian expansion method makes the previously intractable three-body spin-orbit and tensor matrix elements computable. Physical states are obtained by diagonalizing the Hamiltonian in each JP subspace, which yields the observed (mass)JP assignments and the mixing effect. The two-step GEM is the technical enabler; the central object is the JP-subspace Hamiltonian matrix whose off-diagonal elements quanti

Load-bearing premise

The weakest premise is that each of the 74 measured baryon peaks corresponds to one of the calculated eigenstates, with assignments made mainly by matching mass values and with three poorly fitting states excluded from the statistics; if any of these assignments is wrong, the 6.96 MeV agreement does not actually test the model.

What would settle it

Measure the spin-parity of a baryon currently listed with unknown quantum numbers, such as Ξc(2923) or Σb(6097); if the measured JP differs from the paper's assignment, the proposed identification and the 6.96 MeV claim are undermined. Alternatively, show that including Λc(2940)+, Λb(6070)0, and Ξc(3123)+ in the statistics raises the average deviation beyond what would be considered agreement.

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

If this is right

  • The calculated spectra give a mass-and-JP reference for identifying future singly heavy baryon states, including the newly reported Σc(3200) excitations that lie beyond this paper's scope.
  • The finding that mixing is small for positive-parity 6F states explains the historical success of diquark approximations and justifies using L as an approximate quantum number for these states.
  • Specific quantum-number assignments are proposed for measured baryons with currently unknown JP, such as Ξc(2923) as 1/2- and Σb(6097) as 1/2- (with 3/2- as an alternative if the systematic deviation is corrected).
  • The systematic deviations in the Σ and Ξ' families point to needed refinements in the model's parameters, size parameters, or relativistic corrections.
  • The two-step Gaussian expansion is a transferable technique for computing three-body interaction matrix elements in other few-body hadron systems.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the 6.96 MeV average deviation is computed after excluding three states that could not be assigned to any calculated eigenstate; including them would likely raise the deviation, so the accuracy statistic partly reflects the assignment criteria rather than pure predictive power.
  • Editorial inference: because many assigned states have unknown or ambiguous quantum numbers and the assignments are made mainly by mass proximity, the strongest test of the model would be a nontrivial prediction — a not-yet-observed state with a specified JP that is later confirmed.
  • Editorial inference: the small-mixing result for positive-parity sextet baryons suggests the diquark picture is a reasonable approximation only in that sector; for negative-parity states it should not be trusted, which could guide when to use diquark models elsewhere.
  • Editorial inference: the paper's claim that 'soft QCD is very similar to the relativized quark model' could be tested directly by using the fixed, unchanged parameter set to predict the masses and quantum numbers of newly observed Σc(3200) states and other forthcoming data.

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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a calculation of the low-lying positive-parity sextet (6_F) singly heavy baryon spectra in the relativized quark model, using an 'improved calculation scheme' that combines the RQM with heavy-quark dominance, Gaussian expansion with infinitesimally-shifted Gaussian basis functions, a two-step GEM, and rigorous treatment of mixing between orbital states with the same J^P. Full Hamiltonian matrices, eigenvalues, and eigenvectors are tabulated for the 1S, 2S, 3S and 1D basis states in each J^P subspace. The authors assign 74 measured singly heavy baryons to calculated eigenstates and report an arithmetic average deviation of 6.96 MeV. They conclude that the improved scheme is reliable, that the mixing effect is small for positive-parity 6_F states, and that the 'soft QCD' in low-lying singly heavy baryons is well described by the RQM. Three measured states (Λ_c(2940)^+, Λ_b(6070)^0, Ξ_c(3123)^+) are excluded as unassignable.

Significance. If the central quantitative claim were robust, this would be a valuable technical contribution: the two-step GEM appears to solve a long-standing three-body matrix-element bottleneck for the three-body spin-orbit and tensor interactions, and the paper provides an unusually complete set of Hamiltonian matrices, eigenvalues, and eigenvectors. The calculation uses no newly fitted parameters, and the mixing analysis for positive-parity 6_F states is a concrete, falsifiable prediction that can be checked against future determinations of J^P. However, the headline 6.96 MeV figure is not a statistical error, and its meaning depends heavily on the state-assignment protocol and the post-hoc exclusion of three states. The paper's own sections III.8 and III.9 acknowledge systematic deviations in the Ξ'_b(c) and Σ_b(c) families and three unassignable states. Therefore the significance is real but conditional: the manuscript establishes a detailed, internally consistent model calculation, but it does not yet establish the strong 'confirms the reliability' and 'highest precision' claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III.9, Table VII] The central number quoted as 'statistical error' and later as 'uncertainty' is actually the arithmetic mean absolute deviation, (Σ|M_cal-M_exp|)/n. This is a descriptive accuracy measure, not a statistical uncertainty. There is no error propagation, no parameter covariance, and no statement of the distribution of deviations. Moreover, the mean is computed after excluding Λ_c(2940)^+, Λ_b(6070)^0 and Ξ_c(3123)^+ solely because they 'cannot be reasonably assigned'. The sensitivity of 6.96 MeV to these exclusions and to alternative assignments should be quantified; without that, the reliability claim is not supported by the reported statistic.
  2. [Section III.5, Table VII] The assignment of measured resonances to calculated eigenstates is the load-bearing step for the 6.96 MeV claim, but the rule is only described qualitatively as 'close mass values' and 'can be reasonably assigned'. Many entries in Table VII have unknown J^P, marked '??', and assignments are made by mass proximity. For example, Λ_c(2910)^+ is assigned to Σ_c(2913) 1/2^+ solely because the masses are close, with a note that it may belong to the Σ_c family; Ξ_b(6227)^- is assigned to a positive-parity state under an explicitly stated assumption, with a negative-parity alternative mentioned. A predetermined, reproducible matching criterion (e.g., maximal overlap or a chi-square threshold with a stated penalty for unassigned states) is needed. Otherwise the average deviation partly reflects the freedom in choosing the mapping.
  3. [Section III.8, Section III.9, Table VII] The paper acknowledges 'systematic deviation' in the Ξ'_b(c) and Σ_b(c) families, yet the average 6.96 MeV is presented as demonstrating high precision. Individual deviations in Table VII exceed 15 MeV for several states (e.g., Σ_c(2520)^+ 16.6 MeV, Σ_b(5850) 19.68 MeV, Ξ_b(5971) 18.7 MeV, Ξ_c(2970)^0 -16.9 MeV). The paper should report the mean absolute deviation per family and the number of states with |Δ|>15 MeV, and discuss whether these outliers are consistent with the claimed 'perfect match'. A single global average hides exactly the state-dependent failures that the paper itself identifies.
  4. [Section II.4, Section III.11] The RQM parameters were fixed in earlier works (Refs. [90,91]) using the same class of heavy-baryon data and applied here without change. The agreement with 74 measured masses is therefore in part inherited from previous fits rather than an independent prediction of the improved scheme. To support 'confirms the reliability', the paper should separate genuinely new predictions (mixing shifts, positive-parity 6_F states, previously unassigned states) from states already used in parameter determination, and compare the present deviations with those of Refs. [90,91] on the same set. At minimum, the abstract and conclusions should not present the 6.96 MeV as an independent confirmation without this caveat.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract, Section III.9] The text uses 'statistical error' and 'uncertainty' interchangeably with 'arithmetic average deviation'. Please replace these terms throughout by 'mean absolute deviation' or 'average deviation', and avoid implying a statistical confidence interval.
  2. [Section II.1] The phrase 'fist time' appears in the Introduction ('broken for the fist time'); typo should be corrected. Several reference titles also contain duplicated words, e.g., 'Observation of Observation of a new Ξ_b resonance'.
  3. [Fig. 2] The figure caption and in-text discussion refer to panels and boxes, but the figure quality in the manuscript is poor and the level labels are not legible. A high-resolution version is needed for the reader to check the claimed 'perfect match' visually.
  4. [Table VII] The table is dense and the column headings are ambiguous: it is not always clear whether M_cal refers to the value in the '(mass)J^P' column or to the theoretical mass after mixing. Please add explicit column headers and separate the charm and bottom families into distinct tables or panels.
  5. [Section III.10] The statement that the 'soft QCD' in low-lying singly heavy baryons 'is very similar to the RQM' is a broad interpretive remark. As written, it is not a quantitative result and should be clearly separated from the quantitative findings.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

The 6.96 MeV precision claim partly inherits parameters fitted to the same heavy-baryon data in earlier same-group papers, and the scheme's credibility leans on the authors' own previous work; the new mixing/GEM calculation retains some independent content, so this is partial, not total, circularity.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III.11 ('Existing problems and possible improvements'); also Section III.9 ('Accuracy and reliability of the improved calculation scheme')]
    "The calculation in this work uses a set of fixed input parameters (see the Table 2 in Ref. [85]), which has been actually used without any changes after it was determined in Refs. [90, 91]."

    The central validation is the 6.96 MeV average deviation over 74 measured singly heavy baryons, presented as confirming the improved calculation scheme. But the RQM parameters were determined in Refs. [90,91] by the same authors using the same single-heavy-baryon families (ΛQ, ΣQ, ΩQ and Ξc, Ξb). Using those fixed inputs and then reporting agreement with the same class of masses is partly a return of the earlier fit, not an independent out-of-sample prediction. The paper explicitly labels the parameters as 'fixed input', so the headline precision is not a parameter-free test; it tests only the new matrix-element/mixing machinery, which gives the calculation some independent content but does not remove the inherited component.

  2. self citation load bearing [Section III.9 ('Accuracy and reliability of the improved calculation scheme')]
    "In fact, without the improved calculation scheme, the fine structure of the negative-parity 6F singly heavy baryons can not be explained reasonably at all [89]."

    The reliability and apparent necessity of the improved scheme is asserted by citing Ref. [89], the authors' own previous paper that introduced the scheme. This self-citation is load-bearing for the claim that the scheme is uniquely capable of explaining the fine structure ('cannot be explained reasonably at all'), and it is not backed in the present text by an independent, machine-checked, or externally falsifiable result. It does not by itself reproduce the mass predictions, so it is a moderate circularity rather than a full reduction of the derivation to the citation.

full rationale

The paper is not wholly circular. The main technical content — the two-step GEM evaluation of three-body spin-orbit and tensor matrix elements, the JP-subspace diagonalization, and the resulting positive-parity 6F spectra — is a new calculation performed with fixed parameters, so the 6.96 MeV number is not identical to the input by construction. The comparison includes states and mixing effects not present in the earlier fits, and the parameters were originally determined in a diquark-approximation context, so applying them unchanged in the full three-quark calculation is a non-trivial forward step. However, the headline validation is weakened because those same parameters were fitted to the same heavy-baryon families in Refs. [90,91] and because the scheme's reliability is partly grounded in the same authors' previous Ref. [89]. The post-hoc exclusion of Λc(2940)+, Λb(6070)0 and Ξc(3123)+, and the mass-proximity assignment of states with unknown JP (marked '??' in Table VII), are evidentiary concerns about the 6.96 MeV statistic, but they are selection-bias issues rather than circularity by construction. Weighing the inherited parameter fit and the load-bearing self-citation against the genuinely new mixing/GEM calculation, the central claim retains independent content; a score near the midpoint of the partial-circularity range is appropriate.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The calculation rests on the RQM Hamiltonian with parameters fitted in prior work, on the HQD truncation of the orbital basis, and on a state-assignment procedure that maps observed resonances to calculated eigenstates. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • RQM Hamiltonian parameters (constituent quark masses, confinement strength, one-gluon-exchange parameters) = Not given here; from Table 2 of Ref [85]
    The paper uses a fixed set of parameters determined in earlier work by the same authors, likely including fits to heavy-baryon data. The mass predictions depend on these values, so the agreement with experiment is partly inherited.
  • GEM basis parameters (nmax and Gaussian size parameters) = Not specified here; from Refs [90, 91]
    The Gaussian expansion method requires choices of basis size parameters and truncation; these were modified in earlier papers to improve convergence. They affect the final masses and are not independently justified in this paper.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Flavor SU(3) symmetry for the two light quarks, with antisymmetry conditions (−1)^{lρ+s12} = −1 for 6F and +1 for 3F.
    Sec. II.1: The wave function is built assuming the two light quarks satisfy flavor SU(3) and the stated symmetry constraints. This determines which orbital-spin configurations enter the 6F sector.
  • domain assumption Heavy-quark dominance (HQD): the orbital excitation mode with the lowest energy dominates; for low-lying singly heavy baryons only λ-mode (and ρ-mode for charm P-wave) are retained.
    Sec. II.3: The HQD mechanism is assumed to select the physical orbital modes, restricting the basis for the mixing calculation. If HQD fails, the calculated spectra would differ.
  • domain assumption The RQM Hamiltonian (confinement + hyperfine + spin-orbit including three-body spin-orbit) is an adequate effective description of soft QCD for these baryons.
    Sec. II.2: The Hamiltonian (Eq. 2) is taken as the model of the strong interaction. The entire calculation is a test of this model, so its validity is a load-bearing premise.
  • ad hoc to paper Physical observed states are identified with the calculated eigenstates closest in mass; states that cannot be assigned reasonably are excluded from the statistics.
    Sec. III.5 and III.8: The mapping between measured resonances and calculated states is done by mass closeness, with three states excluded. This assignment procedure is an input that determines the reported 6.96 MeV average deviation.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 41242 in / 10704 out tokens · 122196 ms · 2026-08-04T01:09:49.390809+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In this work, the low-lying $\mathbf{6}_{F}$ singly heavy baryon states with positive-parity are studied in detail in the framework of the relativized quark model by using the improved calculation scheme which has successfully explained the fine structure of the low-lying negative-parity singly heavy baryons. The complete mass spectra of all the singly heavy baryon families obtained in the same framework and calculation scheme are systematically analyzed. The baryon states marked with (mass)$J^{P}$ are obtained by considering the mixing effect rigorously. It is found that the mixing effect in the singly heavy baryons depends on the flavor symmetry of the two light quarks and the baryon parity. The results show that the high-precision calculation can reproduce most of the data perfectly, and the statistical error between the calculated masses and the experimental data is only 6.96 MeV. This confirms the reliability of the improved calculation scheme. The rigorous calculation achieved by the two-step GEM enables us to analyze the detailed behavior of the various strong interaction components within the baryons with a high-precision and discover the truth of the ``soft QCD''. The large amount of data obtained in this work serves as the reliable references for related experimental and theoretical researches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.00142 by Guo-Liang Yu, Jian-Zhong Gu, Zhen-Yu Li, Zhi-Gang Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: There are 3 channels of the Jacobi coordinates for a th [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Calculated spectra of the singly heavy baryons and th [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.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

107 extracted references · 57 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Wave function In a singly heavy baryon, the two light quarks are assumed to satisfy the flavor S U(3) symmetry. So, the singly heavy baryon families can be divided into two sectors, i.e., the se xtet (6F) of the flavor symmetric states ( Σc, Ξ′ c, Ωc, Σb, Ξ′ b and Ωb) and the anti-triplet ( ¯3F) of the flavor antisymmetric states ( Λc, Ξc, Λb and Ξb). For ma...

  2. [2]

    RQM The used quark potential model in this work is the rela- tivized quark model (RQM) proposed in the 1980s [ 63, 64]. The RQM can be recognized as a precise potential model since it takes into account more physical factors concernin g QCD and the relativistic correction than other quark models and has been confirmed to be reliable in describing low-lying...

  3. [3]

    All the quarks are numbered for e ase of calculation, and the 3rd quark refers specifically to the hea vy quark

    is selected for defining the spin and orbital wave function s in the singly heavy baryon system. All the quarks are numbered for e ase of calculation, and the 3rd quark refers specifically to the hea vy quark

  4. [4]

    For the L-wave excitation with L=lρ+lλ, there are an infinite number of orbital excitation modes

    HQD The mechanism of the heavy-quark dominance (HQD) can be used to determine the practical orbital excited state s of singly heavy baryons. For the L-wave excitation with L=lρ+lλ, there are an infinite number of orbital excitation modes. Taking L = 1 as an example, the excitation modes (lρ, lλ)L are (1, 0)P, (0, 1)P, (1, 1)P, (2, 1)P, (1, 2)P, (2, 2)P and...

  5. [5]

    We introduce the generalized Gaussian basis functio ns |(˜n,α )G⟩, in which |α⟩denotes the spin and orbital quantum state |(lρ, lλ)L(JP) j⟩

    GEM The Gaussian basis functions |(nlm)G⟩form a finite- dimensional Hilbert space with n= 1− nmax and any or- bital quantum state with {l, m} can be expanded in such a space. We introduce the generalized Gaussian basis functio ns |(˜n,α )G⟩, in which |α⟩denotes the spin and orbital quantum state |(lρ, lλ)L(JP) j⟩. In the generalized Gaussian basis func- ti...

  6. [6]

    The physical observed states (or the baryon states) can be obtained by diagonalizing the Hamiltonian ma - trix in this JP subspace

    Mixing effect The above orbital excited states with the same JP values form a subspace. The physical observed states (or the baryon states) can be obtained by diagonalizing the Hamiltonian ma - trix in this JP subspace. The baryon states are the eigenstates which result from the superposition (mixing) of the orbital ex- cited states (the basis states). The...

  7. [7]

    These tables also show that, for the 1 S -wave states, the contribution to the en- ergy level shift and splitting comes solely from the contact terms Hcont

    The 1 S -wave states In general, Hmode determines the energy levels of the exci- tation modes as shown in Tables I and II. These tables also show that, for the 1 S -wave states, the contribution to the en- ergy level shift and splitting comes solely from the contact terms Hcont. Hcont 12 causes a large energy level shift. While, Hcont 23 and Hcont 31 join...

  8. [8]

    However, Hcont 23 and Hcont 31 jointly lead to a small energy level splitting

    The 1 D-wave states For the 1D-wave states, Hcont 12 still causes a big energy level shift. However, Hcont 23 and Hcont 31 jointly lead to a small energy level splitting. In this case, the contribution to the energ y level splitting mainly comes from the spin-orbital interactions, even though H so(v) and H so(s) partially cancel each other out. In ad- dit...

  9. [9]

    The mixing e ffect In Tables III and IV, the most obvious feature is that those matrix elements of ˆOi j with {i, j} = {1, 2} in (or between) the S - and D-wave states vanish, which is the result of the co- ordinate transformation and the properties of the λ-mode. In Ref. [89], the situation is di fferent from the above mentioned since the ρ-mode is also in...

  10. [10]

    2, where for a comparison, the spectra of the ¯3F baryons from Ref

    The spectral structure The mass spectra of the low-lying singly heavy baryons are presented in Fig. 2, where for a comparison, the spectra of the ¯3F baryons from Ref. [85] and those of the negative-parity 6F baryons from Ref. [ 89] are also presented. In Fig. 2, the energy levels are the baryon states and marked with (mass) JP instead of the orbital exci...

  11. [11]

    The analysis of the experimental data The available experimental data of the singly heavy baryons, along with their measured errors, are all plotted i n Fig

  12. [12]

    Most of these baryons have been analyzed in many theoretical works

    Their assignment can be seen in Table VII. Most of these baryons have been analyzed in many theoretical works. We have compared our results with those from other relevant theoretical works in Refs. [ 85, 87, 90, 91]. In this work, we focus on the precision comparison between the experi- mental data and theoretical results. As is shown in Fig. 2 and Table ...

  13. [13]

    Now, we can accurately calculate their matrix elements with the help of the two-step GEM

    Three-body spin-orbital force and tensor force These two interactions are commonly ignored in the baryon system calculations, because they are too tough to calculat e. Now, we can accurately calculate their matrix elements with the help of the two-step GEM. The results show clearly how they contribute to the energy level of each orbital excited state, com...

  14. [14]

    This completely removes the reliance on all kinds of approxima- tions in the calculation of complicated matrix elements, su ch as the reliance on the diquark approximation

    Two-step GEM The main advantage of the two-step GEM is that it helps us achieve the rigorous calculation for all the H23 and H31 terms in the JC-3 Jacobi coordinates ( ρ3, λ3), which was once an impossible task, especially for H so−3B 23(31) and Htens 23(31) terms. This completely removes the reliance on all kinds of approxima- tions in the calculation of...

  15. [15]

    2, one can find the sys- tematic deviation between the data and the calculated resul ts in the Ξ′ b(c) and Σb(c) families

    Systematic deviation From the spectral structure in Fig. 2, one can find the sys- tematic deviation between the data and the calculated resul ts in the Ξ′ b(c) and Σb(c) families. While in the Ωb(c) families, the deviation is not so obvious. This might be related to the fact that the Ωb(c) baryons contain s quarks instead of u and d quarks, and s quark is ...

  16. [16]

    − Mexp.|i)/n being 6.96 MeV as shown in Table VII

    Accuracy and reliability of the improved calculation scheme We collect 74 singly heavy baryon data and obtain the arithmetic average deviation ( ∑n i=1 |Mcal. − Mexp.|i)/n being 6.96 MeV as shown in Table VII. The baryons Λc(2940)+, Λb(6070)0 and Ξc(3123)+ are not included in this statistics, because they can not be reasonably assigned to the predicted st...

  17. [17]

    soft QCD

    What does the “soft QCD” look like? The RQM was developed in the 1980s to describe the non- perturbative QCD in the hadron system, which was named as the “soft QCD” being a mixture of the “true” QCD and the QCD-inspired phenomenological treatment of the confine- ment and relativistic correction [ 63]. From then on, the the- ory has been constantly attempti...

  18. [18]

    soft QCD

    Existing problems and possible improvements The calculation in this work uses a set of fixed input pa- 7 rameters (see the Table 2 in Ref. [ 85]), which has been ac- tually used without any changes after it was determined in Refs. [ 90, 91]. In recent years, we have been continuously improving the calculation scheme. Now, it seems that the improved calcula...

    2024

  19. [19]

    Gross, E

    F. Gross, E. Klempt, S. J. Brodsky, A. J. Buras, V . D. Burkert et al., 50 Years of Quantum Chromodynamics, Eur.Phys.J.C 83, 1125 (2023) , arXiv:2212.11107 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  20. [20]

    Navas et al., (Particle Data Group), Review of particl e physics, Phys

    S. Navas et al., (Particle Data Group), Review of particl e physics, Phys. Rev. D 110 3, 030001,(2024)

    2024

  21. [21]

    Mizuk et al., (Belle Collaboration), Observation of a n isotriplet of excited charmed baryons decaying to Λ+ cπ, Phys

    R. Mizuk et al., (Belle Collaboration), Observation of a n isotriplet of excited charmed baryons decaying to Λ+ cπ, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 122002 (2005) , arXiv:hep-ex /0412069 [hep-ex]

    2005

  22. [22]

    B. Aubert et al., (BABAR Collaboration), Observation 8 TABLE I: Hamiltonian expectation value ⟨H⟩and Contribution of each Hamiltonian term to the energy leve ls (in MeV) for the 1 S - and 1 D- wave states with ⟨Hmode⟩ ≡ ⟨H0 + Hcon f ⟩and ⟨Hi j⟩ ≡ ⟨H⟩ − ⟨(H − Hi j)⟩. (lρ, lλ)nL(JP) j ⟨Hmode⟩ {⟨Htens 12 ⟩ ⟨Htens 23 ⟩ ⟨Htens 31 ⟩} {⟨Hcont 12 ⟩ ⟨Hcont 23 ⟩ ⟨H...

    arXiv 2007

  23. [23]

    Aubert et al., (BABAR Collaboration), A study of Ex- cited Charm-Strange Baryons with Evidence for new Baryons Ξc(3055)+ and Ξc(3123)+, Phys

    B. Aubert et al., (BABAR Collaboration), A study of Ex- cited Charm-Strange Baryons with Evidence for new Baryons Ξc(3055)+ and Ξc(3123)+, Phys. Rev. D 77, 012002 (2008) , arXiv:0710.5763 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  24. [24]

    Aubert et al., (BABAR Collaboration), Measurements of B( ¯B0 → Λ+ c ¯p) and B( ¯B− → Λ+ c ¯pπ−) and Stud- ies of Λ+ cπ− Resonances, Phys

    B. Aubert et al., (BABAR Collaboration), Measurements of B( ¯B0 → Λ+ c ¯p) and B( ¯B− → Λ+ c ¯pπ−) and Stud- ies of Λ+ cπ− Resonances, Phys. Rev. D 78, 112003 (2008) , arXiv:0807.4974 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  25. [25]

    Aaij et al.,(LHCb Collaboration), Study of the D0 p am- plitude in Λ0 b → D0 pπ− decay, JHEP 05, 030 (2017) , arXiv:1701.07873 [hep-ex]

    R. Aaij et al.,(LHCb Collaboration), Study of the D0 p am- plitude in Λ0 b → D0 pπ− decay, JHEP 05, 030 (2017) , arXiv:1701.07873 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  26. [26]

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

    R. Aaij et al.,(LHCb Collaboration), Observation of five new narrow Ω0 c states decaying to Ξ+ c K−, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 18 , 182001 (2017) , arXiv:1703.04639 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  27. [27]

    Yelton et al.,(Belle Collaboration), Observation of Excited Ω0 c Charmed Baryons in e+e− Collisions, Phys

    J. Yelton et al.,(Belle Collaboration), Observation of Excited Ω0 c Charmed Baryons in e+e− Collisions, Phys. Rev. D 97 5 , 051102 (2018) , arXiv:1711.07927 [hep- ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  28. [28]

    Y . B. Li et al., (Belle Collaboration), Observation of Ξc(2930)0 and updated measurement of B− → K−Λ+ c ¯Λ− c at Belle, Eur. Phys. J. C 78 3, 252 (2018) , arXiv:1712.03612 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  29. [29]

    Aaij et al.,(LHCb Collaboration), Observa- tion of Observation of a new Ξ− b resonance, Phys

    R. Aaij et al.,(LHCb Collaboration), Observa- tion of Observation of a new Ξ− b resonance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 7, 072002 (2018) , arXiv:1805.09418 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  30. [30]

    Y . B. Li et al., (Belle Collaboration), Evidence of a structure in ¯K0Λ+ c consistant with a charged Ξc(2930)+, and updated measurement of ¯B0 → ¯K0Λ+ c ¯Λ− c at Belle, 13 TABLE VI: Same as Table V, but for the charm baryon states. (JP) ( lρ, lλ)nL(JP) j H Eigenvalue Eigenvector Σc( 1 2 + ) (0, 0)1S ( 1 2 + )1               2456.24 0 0 9 .0...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  31. [31]

    Aaij et al.,(LHCb Collaboration), Observation of tw o res- onances in the Λ0 bπ± systems and precise measurement of Σ± b and Σ∗± b properties, Phys

    R. Aaij et al.,(LHCb Collaboration), Observation of tw o res- onances in the Λ0 bπ± systems and precise measurement of Σ± b and Σ∗± b properties, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 1, 012001 (2019) , arXiv:1809.07752 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  32. [32]

    Aaij et al.,(LHCb Collaboration), First observatio n of excited Ω− b states, Phys

    R. Aaij et al.,(LHCb Collaboration), First observatio n of excited Ω− b states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 8 , 082002 (2020) , arXiv:2001.00851 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2020

  33. [33]

    Aaij et al.,(LHCb Collaboration), Observation of a new baryon state in the Λ0 bπ+π− mass spectrum, JHEP 06, 136 (2020) , arXiv:2002.05112 [hep-ex]

    R. Aaij et al.,(LHCb Collaboration), Observation of a new baryon state in the Λ0 bπ+π− mass spectrum, JHEP 06, 136 (2020) , arXiv:2002.05112 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2020

  34. [34]

    Aaij et al., (LHCb Collaboration), Obser- vation of New Ξ0 c baryons Decaying to Λ+ c K−, Phys

    R. Aaij et al., (LHCb Collaboration), Obser- vation of New Ξ0 c baryons Decaying to Λ+ c K−, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 222001 (2020) , arXiv:2003.13649 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2020

  35. [35]

    Aaij et al.,(LHCb Collaboration), Observa- tion of Observation of a new Ξ0 b resonance, Phys

    R. Aaij et al.,(LHCb Collaboration), Observa- tion of Observation of a new Ξ0 b resonance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 1, 012004 (2021) , arXiv:2010.14485 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2021

  36. [36]

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

    R. Aaij et al., (LHCb Collaboration), Observation of excited Ω0 c baryons in Ω− b → Ξ+ c K−π− decays, Phys. Rev. D 104 9 , L091102 (2021) , arXiv:2107.03419 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2021

  37. [37]

    Y . B. Li et al., (Belle Collaboration), Evidence of a New Excited Charmed Baryon Decaying to Σc(2455)0,++π±, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 3, 031901 (2023) , arXiv:2206.08822 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  38. [38]

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

    R. Aaij et al., (LHCb Collaboration), Study of the B− → Λ+ c ¯Λ− c K− decay, Phys. Rev. D 108, 012020 (2023) , arXiv:2211.00812 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  39. [39]

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

    R. Aaij et al., (LHCb Collaboration), Observation of New Ω0 c States Decaying to the Ξ+ c K− Final State, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 13, 131902 (2023), arXiv:2302.04733 [hep-ex]. 14 TABLE VII: The deviations of the calculated masses of the 74 b aryons from the measured ones [ 2, 6, 24, 25]. Most of the deviations are less than 16 MeV . The arithmetic average de...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  40. [40]

    Aaij et al., (LHCb Collaboration), Observation of New Baryons in the Ξ− bπ+π− and Ξ0 bπ+π− Systems, Phys

    R. Aaij et al., (LHCb Collaboration), Observation of New Baryons in the Ξ− bπ+π− and Ξ0 bπ+π− Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 17, 171901 (2023), arXiv:2307.13399 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2023

  41. [41]

    Aaij et al., (LHCb Collaboration), First deter- mination of the spin-parity of Ξc(3055)+,0 baryons, Phys

    R. Aaij et al., (LHCb Collaboration), First deter- mination of the spin-parity of Ξc(3055)+,0 baryons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134 8, 081901 (2025), arXiv:2409.05440 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Aaij et al., (LHCb Collaboration), Observa- tion of a new charmed baryon decaying to Ξ+ cπ+π−, Phys

    R. Aaij et al., (LHCb Collaboration), Observa- tion of a new charmed baryon decaying to Ξ+ cπ+π−, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135 16, 161901 (2025), arXiv:2502.18987 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Aaij et al., (LHCb Collaboration), Study of the B0 → Λ+ c ¯Λ− c K0 S decay, arXiv:2604.15040 [hep-ex]

    R. Aaij et al., (LHCb Collaboration), Study of the B0 → Λ+ c ¯Λ− c K0 S decay, arXiv:2604.15040 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  44. [44]

    Aaij et al., (LHCb Collaboration), Observation of new excited Σ0 c states in the B− → Λ+ c ¯pπ− decay, arXiv:2607.10595 [hep-ex]

    R. Aaij et al., (LHCb Collaboration), Observation of new excited Σ0 c states in the B− → Λ+ c ¯pπ− decay, arXiv:2607.10595 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  45. [45]

    H. Y . Cheng, Charmed Baryons Circa 2015, arXiv:1508.07233 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  46. [46]

    H. X. Chen, W. Chen, and X. Liu, et al., A review of the open charm and open bottom systems, Rept. Prog. Phys. 80 7, 076201 (2017), arXiv:1609.08928[hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  47. [47]

    H. Y . Cheng, Charmed baryon physics circa 2021, Chin. J. Phys. 78, 324-362 (2022) , arXiv:2109.01216 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  48. [48]

    H. X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, Y . R. Liu, and S. L. Zhu, An updated review of the new hadron states, Rept. Prog. Phys. 86 2, 026201 (2023) , arXiv:2204.02649 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  49. [49]

    Crede and J

    V . Crede and J. Yelton, 70 years of hyperon spectroscopy : a 15 review of strange Ξ, Ω baryons, and the spectrum of charmed and bottom baryons, Rept. Prog. Phys. 87 10, 106301 (2024)

    2024

  50. [51]

    Padmanath and Mathur Nilmani, Quantum Numbers of Recently Discovered Ω0 c Baryons from Lattice QCD, Phys

    M. Padmanath and Mathur Nilmani, Quantum Numbers of Recently Discovered Ω0 c Baryons from Lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 4, 042001 (2017), arXiv:1704.00259 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  51. [52]

    Bahtiyar, K

    H. Bahtiyar, K. U. Can, and G. Erkol et al., Charmed baryon spectrum from lattice QCD near the physical point, Phys. Rev. D 102 5, 054513 (2020) , arXiv:2004.08999[hep- lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  52. [53]

    X. Y . Jiang, F. Y . Chen,and Y . Chen et al., Radiative De- cay Width of J/ψ → γη2 from N f = 2 Lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 6, 061901 (2023), arXiv:2206.02724[hep- lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  53. [54]

    Z. G. Wang, Review of the QCD sum rules for ex- otic states, Front. Phys. (Beijing) 21 1, 016300 (2026) , arXiv:2502.11351[hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  54. [55]

    X. Luo, S. W. Zhang, and H. X. Chen, et al., A short review on QCD sum rule studies of P-wave single heavy baryons, AAPPS Bull. 36 1, 9 (2026) , arXiv:2510.13013[hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  55. [56]

    J. R. Zhang, S -wave D(∗)N molecular states: Σc(2800) and Λc(2940)+ ?, Phys. Rev. D 89 9, 096006 (2014) , arXiv:1212.5325 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  56. [57]

    Z. G. Wang, The Λc(2860), Λc(2880), Ξc(3055) and Ξc(3088) as D-wave baryon states in QCD, Nucl. Phys. B 926, 467-490 (2018) , arXiv: 1705.07745 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  57. [58]

    Z. G. Wang and H. J. Wang, Analysis of the 1 S and 2 s states of ΛQ and ΞQ with QCD sum rules Chin. Phys. C 45 1, 013109 (2021), arXiv: 2006.16776 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  58. [59]

    Q. Xin, Z. G. Wang, F. L¨ u, The Λ-type P-wave bottom baryon states via the QCD sum rules, Chin. Phys. C 47, 093106 (2023) , arXiv: 2306.05626 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  59. [60]

    T. M. Aliev, K. Azizi, Y . Sarac, and H. Sundu, Determinat ion of the quantum numbers of Σb(6097)± via their strong decays, Phys. Rev. D 99 9, 094003 (2019) , arXiv:1811.05686[hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  60. [63]

    H. Y . Cheng, and C. K. Chua, Strong Decays of Charmed Baryons in Heavy Hadron Chiral Perturbation Theory: An Update, Phys. Rev. D 92 7, 074014 (2015) , arXiv:1508.05653[hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  61. [64]

    J. X. Lu, Y . Zhou, and H. X. Chen, et al., Dynam- ically generated JP = 1/2− (3/2−)singly charmed and bottom heavy baryons, Phys. Rev. D 92 1, 014036 (2015) , arXiv:1409.3133[hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  62. [65]

    D. J. Jia, W. N. Liu, and A. Hosaka, Regge behaviors in orbitally excited spectroscopy of charmed and bottom baryo ns, Phys. Rev. D 101 3, 034016 (2020) , arXiv:1907.04958[hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  63. [66]

    J. Q. Xie, H. Song, and J. K. Chen, Regge trajectories for the triply heavy bottom-charm baryons in the diquark pictur e, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 10, 1048 (2024) , arXiv:2407.18280[hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  64. [67]

    B. Chen, K. W. Wei, and A. Zhang, Assignments of ΛQ and ΞQ baryons in the heavy quark-light diquark picture, Eur. Phys. J. A 51, 82 (2015) , arXiv:1406.6561[hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  65. [68]

    Roberts and M

    W. Roberts and M. Pervin, Heavy baryons in a quark model, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 23, 2817 (2008) , arXiv:0711.2492 [nucl- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  66. [69]

    Ebert, R

    D. Ebert, R. N. Faustov, and V . O. Galkin, Spectroscopy and Regge trajectories of heavy baryons in the relativis- tic quark-diquark picture, Phys. Rev. D 84, 014025 (2011) , arXiv:1105.0583 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  67. [70]

    R. N. Faustov and V . O. Galkin, Triply heavy baryon spectroscopy in the relativistic quark model, Phys. Rev. D 105 1, 014013 (2022) , arXiv:2111.07702 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  68. [71]

    G. Yang, J. L. Ping, and J. Segovia, The S- and P- Wave Low-Lying Baryons in the Chiral Quark Model, Few Body Syst. 59 6, 113 (2018) , arXiv: 1709.09315 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  69. [72]

    K. L. Wang, Q. F. L¨ u,and X. H. Zhong, Interpretation of the newly observed Σb(6097)± and Ξb(6227)− states as the P-wave bottom baryons, Phys. Rev. D 99 1, 014011 (2019), arXiv: 1810.02205 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  70. [73]

    H. X. Huang, J. L. Ping, F. Wang, Investigating the excited Ω0 c states through Ξ′ cK decay channels, Phys. Rev. D 97 3, 034027 (2018) , arXiv:1704.01421 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  71. [74]

    Q. F. L¨ u and X. H. Zhong, Strong decays of the higher exci ted ΛQ and ΣQ baryons, Phys. Rev. D 101 7, 014017 (2020) , arXiv: 1910.06126 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  72. [75]

    Q. F. L¨ u, D. Y . Chen, and Y . B. Dong, Masses of dou- bly heavy tetraquarks TQQ′ in a relativized quark model, Phys. Rev. D 102, 034012 (2020) , arXiv: 2006.08087 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  73. [76]

    H. H. Zhong, M. S. Liu, R. H. Ni, M. Y . Chen, X. H. Zhong, and Q. Zhao, Unified study of nucleon and ∆ baryon spectra and their strong decays with chiral dynamics , Phys. Rev. D 110 11, 116034 (2024), arXiv: 2409.07998 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  74. [77]

    Z. L. Zhang, Z. W. Liu, S. Q. Luo, F. L. Wang, B. Wang, and H. Xu, Λc(2910) and Λc(2940) as conventional baryons dressed with the D ∗ N channel, Phys. Rev. D 107 3, 034036 (2023), arXiv: 2210.17188 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  75. [78]

    B. Chen, S. Q. Luo, and X. Liu, Universal behavior of mass gaps existing in the single heavy baryon family, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 5, 474 (2021) , arXiv: 2101.10806 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  76. [79]

    Kakadiya, Z

    A. Kakadiya, Z. Shah, A. K. Rai, Mass spectra and decay properties of singly heavy bottom-strange baryons, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 37 11n12, 2250053 (2022), arXiv:2202.12048 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  77. [80]

    Ortiz-Pacheco and R

    E. Ortiz-Pacheco and R. Bijker, Masses and radiative de cay widths of S - and P-wave singly, doubly, and triply heavy charm and bottom baryons, Phys. Rev. D 108 5, 054014 (2023), arXiv: 2307.04939 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  78. [81]

    Godfrey and N

    S. Godfrey and N. Isgur, Mesons in a Relativized Quark Mo del with Chromodynamics, Phys. Rev. D 32, 189-231 (1985)

    1985

  79. [82]

    Capstick and N

    S. Capstick and N. Isgur, Baryons in a relativized quark model with chromodynamics, Phys. Rev. D 34, 2809-2835 (1986)

    1986

  80. [83]

    Eichten, K

    E. Eichten, K. Gottfried, T. Kinoshita et al., The Spect rum of Charmonium, Phys. Rev. Lett. 34, 369-372 (1975)

    1975

Showing first 80 references.