Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 89 references

For triply heavy baryons, this paper predicts that the first excitation is inside the diquark, not between the quark and diquark, overturning the standard 'rigid diquark' assumption.

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 03:40 UTC pith:ETWCQLCB

load-bearing objection A competent extension of the authors' screened-potential model to the two mixed triply-heavy baryons; useful mass and width predictions, but the central ordering claim rests on diquark parameters that need better benchmarking. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.23072 v1 pith:ETWCQLCB submitted 2026-07-25 hep-ph

Properties of Ω_(ccb) and Ω_(bbc) baryons in a quark-diquark model

Chaitanya Anil Bokade , Bhaghyesh This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords triply heavy baryonsquark-diquark modelrelativistic screened potentialmass spectraradiative decaysΩ_ccbΩ_bbcheavy diquark excitation
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.

This paper applies a relativistic screened potential model to predict the mass spectra and radiative decays of the triply heavy baryons Ω_ccb and Ω_bbc, treating each as a two-body system of a quark bound to a diquark. Its central result is that the lowest negative-parity excited state in both baryons is a P-wave excitation of the diquark itself (1P1s), not an orbital excitation of the quark relative to the diquark (1S1p). The predicted diquark-excitation masses are 8035/8055 MeV for Ω_ccb and 11316/11347 MeV for Ω_bbc, roughly 150–200 MeV below the corresponding quark–diquark orbital excitations. If correct, this overturns the conventional picture of heavy diquarks as rigid, hard-to-excite objects, and gives sharp experimental targets: the 1P1s states should be narrow and decay radiatively via cascades through the 1S1p multiplets. The paper also predicts that spin-flip transitions within the same orbital multiplet are strongly suppressed, while transitions that change radial or orbital quantum numbers dominate.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that, in both Ω_ccb (cc-diquark plus b) and Ω_bbc (bb-diquark plus c), the internal excitation of the heavy diquark is cheaper than the relative excitation of the quark and diquark. In the model, the diquark mass is computed first by solving the relativistic Schrödinger equation with a screened Cornell potential, respecting the Pauli principle (S- and D-wave diquarks have spin 1; P-wave diquarks have spin 0), and then the baryon is treated as a bound state of that diquark and the remaining quark. The resulting 1P1s states—diquark P-wave excitations—are predicted at 8035/8055 MeV (Ω_ccb) and 11316/11347 MeV (Ω_bbc), consistently lower than the 1S1p states at 8207/

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the two-body quark–diquark reduction of the three-quark baryon: first solve for the diquark mass with a relativistic screened potential (a Cornell-like combination of vector one-gluon exchange and a color-screened scalar confining term), then solve for the quark–diquark bound state using that diquark mass as input. Spin-dependent corrections are added perturbatively and physical states are re-expressed in the heavy-quark j–j coupling basis by diagonalizing the mass matrix. The wave equation is solved by expanding the reduced radial wavefunction in spherical Bessel functions on a finite interval, converting the equation into a matrix eigenvalue problem. This two-step 'diq

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the screened potential parameters tuned on heavy meson spectra transfer unchanged to a two-quark diquark, with three diquark-specific parameters chosen separately for cc and bb diquarks; if those parameters are mistuned, the diquark masses and hence the ordering of 1P1s below 1S1p would change.

What would settle it

Measure the first negative-parity excited states of Ω_ccb and Ω_bbc: if the lowest such state lies above the predicted 1S1p mass (~8.2 GeV for Ω_ccb, ~11.5 GeV for Ω_bbc), or if the order is reversed so the quark–diquark excitation is below the diquark excitation, the central qualitative claim is wrong. A direct independent calculation of the cc and bb diquark masses would also settle whether the unbenchmarked diquark sector is the source of the effect.

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

If this is right

  • The 1P1s and 1S1p multiplets become distinguishable experimental targets: the lowest negative-parity states of Ω_ccb and Ω_bbc should appear near 8.0/8.2 GeV and 11.3/11.5 GeV respectively, with the diquark-excited ones lower.
  • Pionic decays of diquark-excited states are forbidden by wavefunction orthogonality, so these states are expected to be narrow with radiative transitions as the dominant decay mode; the predicted widths (e.g., ~1–5 keV for 1P1s→1S1s and ~90–115 keV for 1P1p→1P1s) give a concrete signature.
  • The ordering of excitation modes distinguishes this model from frameworks in which Ω_ccb and Ω_bbc have different lowest excitation modes; observing which multiplet lies lower can discriminate between quark–diquark and full three-body pictures.
  • The radiative cascade pattern—diquark-excited states acting as intermediate states before decaying to the ground state—means searches for these baryons should look for photon cascades through the 1P1s/2P1s/1D1s multiplets.
  • The quark-diquark approximation inherently reduces the number of allowed excited states, offering a natural explanation for the missing resonance problem.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the ordering 1P1s < 1S1p holds for both baryons, it suggests a general 'diquark softness' in the heavy-quark sector that would also affect interpretations of doubly heavy baryons and tetraquarks, many of which are modeled with assumed rigid diquarks; the same screened-potential treatment could be applied to those systems.
  • The diquark parameters (σ_D, λ_D, µ_D) are not derived from a fit to diquark data but carried over from meson/baryon calibrations, so an independent first-principles calculation of the cc and bb diquark masses would provide a direct benchmark; if those masses come out higher, the absolute spectrum shifts upward, but the relative ordering of 1P1s vs 1S1p might still survive.
  • The claim that diquark excitation is cheaper than quark–diquark relative motion could be tested with an independent three-body or Faddeev calculation: if the three-body wavefunction has significant diquark correlations, the same energy ordering should appear; if not, the ordering may be an artifact of the two-body reduction.
  • Because the radiative widths for Ω_bbc are predicted to be much larger for several orbital transitions than the corresponding Ω_ccb ones, a future measurement of the ratio of widths in the two baryon systems would be a sensitive probe of the compactness of the bb vs cc diquark.

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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper computes mass spectra and radiative transition widths for the triply heavy baryons Ω_ccb and Ω_bbc in a relativistic screened potential model with a quark–diquark structure. The diquark mass is obtained first from a two-body relativistic Schrödinger equation, and this mass is then used as one constituent in the quark–diquark system. The model is solved by a basis expansion in spherical Bessel functions. Results are given for S-, P-, and D-wave excitations, including both quark–diquark orbital excitations (e.g., 1S1p) and internal diquark excitations (e.g., 1P1s). The central qualitative claim is that internal diquark excitations lie lower than quark–diquark relative-motion excitations, and that radiative transitions favor orbital/radial changes while spin-flip transitions are suppressed. The predictions are compared with a broad set of other models, and radiative widths are tabulated for many channels.

Significance. If the central ordering claim is correct, the paper provides concrete, testable predictions for future LHC searches: the 1P1s states at about 8035/8055 MeV (Ω_ccb) and 11316/11347 MeV (Ω_bbc) lie below the 1S1p states at about 8207/8249 and 11509/11547 MeV. The radiative width tables also give a distinctive decay pattern that could help discriminate excitation modes. The method is standard and the comparison with many other approaches is useful. However, the significance is conditional because the headline ordering is controlled by diquark-sector parameters that are not benchmarked against independent determinations, and no uncertainty estimates are supplied. The paper does not ship code or machine-checkable auxiliary material, but the numerical method is described in enough detail to be reproduced.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II, Table I] The central ordering claim (1P1s below 1S1p) is governed by the diquark-sector potential parameters σ_D, λ_D, µ_D. These values differ substantially between the cc and bb diquarks (σ_D = 1.281 vs 4.967 GeV², λ_D = 0.297 vs 0.240 GeV, µ_D = 0.141 vs 0.039 GeV) with no stated fitting procedure or justification for the system dependence. The diquark masses in Table II are not compared with any lattice or other independent determination. Without a sensitivity analysis or external benchmark showing that the 1P1s–1S1p ordering survives parameter variations, the headline conclusion rests on uncalibrated model input.
  2. [Section II, Eq. (11)] The scalar potential V_S(r) contains a constant V0, but V0 is not listed in Table I. Since only λ, µ, σ and quark masses are tabulated, the absolute diquark and baryon masses can be shifted by an unconstrained constant. If V0 differs between the diquark and quark–diquark sectors, the relative ordering of 1P1s and 1S1p states can change without altering any displayed parameter. The value and origin of V0 must be stated, and its effect on the central claim assessed.
  3. [Section IV, Tables V and VII] No uncertainty estimates are provided for any mass or width. The model's ground-state masses are 30–60 MeV below lattice QCD [38,39], while the 1P1s–1S1p energy gap is only about 170–230 MeV. The ordering claim is therefore potentially within the systematic uncertainty of the approach. The authors should provide error bands from parameter variation or an explicit argument that the ordering is robust.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table IV heading] The heading reads 'Mass spectrum of Ωccc and Ωbbb baryons' but the table contains Ωccb and Ωbbc states. Please correct the caption.
  2. [Section IV, D-wave paragraph] The text listing D-wave masses for Ω_ccb (8236, 8445, 8472, 8456, 8479, 8470, 8473 MeV) and Ω_bbc (11767, 11780, 11770, 11800, 11772, 11776 MeV) does not match Table VIII (e.g., Ω_ccb values 8510, 8516, 8522, 8526, 8526, 8531 MeV). This inconsistency must be corrected.
  3. [Section IV, P-wave paragraph] The order of the J^P = 1/2^-, 1'^-, 3/2^-, 3'^-, 5/2^- masses in the text does not match the column order in Table VII. Please align the presentation.
  4. [Abstract and Section IV] The abstract says the result 'challenges conventional assumptions about the rigidity of heavy diquark systems', but Section IV later states the observation is consistent with Refs. [29,32,56–58]. Softening the wording to 'consistent with some earlier studies but in contrast to the naive heavy-quark expectation' would be more accurate.
  5. [General] A few small language issues appear (e.g., 'the the', 'more closer'). A careful proofread is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Self-contained model calculation; diquark-parameter benchmarking gap is a robustness concern, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's derivation is a straight two-step eigenvalue calculation: diquark masses are obtained from Eq. (8) with the screened potential of Eqs. (10)-(11) and Table I parameters, then baryon masses are obtained from the same matrix equation with the diquark mass as one constituent and the quark–diquark potential of Eq. (13). The central ordering claim (1P1s diquark excitations lie below 1S1p quark–diquark excitations) is a computed output of these two separately parameterized potentials, not an input: no equation equates the 1P1s–1S1s splitting to the 1S1p–1S1s splitting by construction, and Table VII lists no external 1P1s masses that could have been fitted. The ground-state masses are compared against lattice QCD, QCD sum rules, and many other models, providing independent external benchmarks. The diquark-specific parameters σ_D, λ_D, µ_D are asserted to come from the authors' previous works and are not independently benchmarked in this paper; this is a legitimate robustness/validation concern, but it does not amount to a circular reduction because the present predictions are not used to adjust those parameters. No uniqueness theorem, no fitted quantity renamed as a prediction, and no self-citation replacing a derivation were found.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

8 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model imports a potential with many fitted parameters from meson spectroscopy, and the diquark-specific parameters appear system-dependent without a stated fitting procedure. The only effectively new ingredient is the combination of these parameters for Ω_ccb and Ω_bbc; no new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (8)
  • Quark mass m_c = 1.319 GeV
    Taken from previous meson spectrum fits; used in both diquark and baryon Hamiltonians.
  • Quark mass m_b = 4.744 GeV
    Same as above; input to diquark and baryon calculations.
  • Diquark smearing parameter σ_D = 1.281 GeV² (cc), 4.967 GeV² (bb)
    Controls the finite-size delta smearing in the diquark spin-spin potential; differs between the two diquarks with no stated fitting procedure, suggesting tuning to diquark masses.
  • Diquark string tension λ_D = 0.297 GeV (cc), 0.240 GeV (bb)
    Scalar confinement strength for the diquark; differs per diquark system without explanation.
  • Diquark screening parameter µ_D = 0.141 GeV (cc), 0.039 GeV (bb)
    Screening scale in the confining potential for the diquark; system-dependent and not independently justified.
  • Baryon potential parameters σ_B, λ_B, µ_B = 1.953 GeV², 0.239 GeV, 0.074 GeV
    Used for the quark-diquark interaction; same for both baryons, taken from previous meson fits.
  • Running-coupling parameters α_i, γ_i = α = 0.15, 0.15, 0.20; γ = 0.5, √10/2, √1000/2
    Fitted to reproduce the short-distance behavior of QCD α_s; borrowed from Ref. [74].
  • Constant V_0 in scalar potential = not specified
    Appears in Eq. (11) but no numerical value is given in Table I; if nonzero, it shifts all masses.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Baryon is a bound state of a diquark and a single quark (quark-diquark approximation).
    Invoked throughout Section II; justified by phenomenological success in heavy-light baryons and lattice evidence for a Y-shaped string.
  • domain assumption The relativistic Schrödinger equation with Hamiltonian Eq. (1) correctly describes the quark-diquark system.
    Central to the method; the Hamiltonian includes relativistic kinetic terms but no three-body effects beyond the two-body reduction.
  • domain assumption The screened potential form (Eqs. 10-11) with vector, scalar, and spin-spin terms is valid for diquarks and quark-diquark systems.
    Borrowed from quarkonium literature; the parameters are fitted to mesons but applied here to baryons without re-derivation.
  • standard math Pauli principle fixes diquark spin: spin-1 for S- and D-wave, spin-0 for P-wave diquarks.
    Used in Section II to determine allowed diquark spin states and thereby the baryon spectrum.
  • domain assumption Spin-dependent interactions (Eq. 14) can be treated perturbatively with Eichten-Feinberg coefficients.
    Assumed in the mass matrix construction; no non-perturbative check is provided.
  • domain assumption The j-j coupling basis is the appropriate physical basis in the heavy-quark limit, requiring a unitary transformation from the L-S basis.
    Used to diagonalize the mass matrix; motivated by heavy-quark symmetry but not proven for these intermediate-mass baryons.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 25409 in / 12021 out tokens · 114744 ms · 2026-08-01T03:40:16.877493+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In this work, we investigate the mass spectra and radiative transitions of $\Omega_{ccb}$ and $\Omega_{bbc}$ baryons within a relativistic screened potential model using the quark-diquark approximation to capture key aspects of their internal structure. The model describes the $S$-, $P$-, and $D$-wave excitations, provides corresponding mass predictions, and offers a comparison with other theoretical approaches. Our findings suggest that excitations involving the diquark occur at lower energies than those requiring relative motion between the quark and diquark, challenging conventional assumptions about the rigidity of heavy diquark systems. Analysis of radiative decays of these states, shows that spin-flip transitions within the same orbital multiplet are suppressed, while transitions involving orbital or radial changes dominate with significantly larger widths. The model offers subtle distinctions in excitation dynamics and highlights its value for future studies and for interpreting potentially upcoming experimental results on triply heavy baryons.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.23072 by Bhaghyesh, Chaitanya Anil Bokade.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Spectra of positive and negative parity states of Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Spectra of positive and negative parity states of Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_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

89 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    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

  2. [2]

    Li, G.-L

    Z.-Y. Li, G.-L. Yu, Z.-G. Wang, J.-Z. Gu, and H.-T. Shen, Mass spectra of singly heavy baryons in the relativized quark model with heavy-quark dominance, Chin. Phys. C49, 113107 (2025)

    2025

  3. [3]

    Jakhad, J

    P. Jakhad, J. Oudichhya, K. Gandhi, and A. K. Rai, Identification of newly observed singly charmed baryons using the relativistic flux tube model, Phys. Rev. D108, 014011 (2023)

    2023

  4. [4]

    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

  5. [5]

    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

  6. [6]

    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

  7. [7]

    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

  8. [8]

    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

  9. [9]

    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), 38

    2022

  10. [10]

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

    2003

  11. [11]

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

    2005

  12. [12]

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

    2006

  13. [13]

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

    2015

  14. [14]

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

    2004

  15. [15]

    J. D. Bjorken, Is theccca new deal for baryon spectroscopy?, AIP Conf. Proc.132, 390 (1985)

    1985

  16. [16]

    Chen and S.-Z

    Y.-Q. Chen and S.-Z. Wu, Production of triply heavy baryons at LHC, J. High Energy Phys.2011(8), 144

    2011

  17. [18]

    Wang and J

    W. Wang and J. Xu, Weak decays of triply heavy baryons, Phys. Rev. D97, 093007 (2018). 20

    2018

  18. [19]

    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, 452 (2024)

    2024

  19. [20]

    Zhao and P

    J. Zhao and P. Zhuang, Multicharmed Baryon Production in High Energy Nuclear Collisions, Few-Body Syst.58, 100 (2017)

    2017

  20. [21]

    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

  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)

    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), 35

    2021

  24. [25]

    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

  25. [26]

    Hasenfratz, R

    P. Hasenfratz, R. R. Horgan, J. Kuti, and J. M. Richard, Heavy Particle Spectroscopy in the Bag Model, Phys. Scr.23, 914 (1981)

    1981

  26. [27]

    Bernotas and V

    A. Bernotas and V. Simonis, Heavy hadron spectroscopy and the bag model, Lith.J.Phys49, 19 (2009)

    2009

  27. [28]

    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

  28. [29]

    Roberts and M

    W. Roberts and M. Pervin, Heavy baryons in a quark model, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A23, 2817 (2008)

    2008

  29. [30]

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

    2020

  30. [31]

    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, 339 (2016)

    2016

  31. [32]

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

    2022

  32. [33]

    [35] gives the highest, around 8480 MeV and 11710 MeV, respectively

    reports some of the lowest values, near 7410 MeV for the Ω ccb and 10300 MeV for the Ω bbc, while Ref. [35] gives the highest, around 8480 MeV and 11710 MeV, respectively. This broad variation reflects the sensitivity to the choice of interpolating operators, Borel window selection, and other model parameters. Predictions from Regge theory [40] and the RG...

  33. [34]

    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

  34. [35]

    T. M. Aliev, K. Azizi, and M. Savcı, Masses and residues of the triply heavy spin-1/2 baryons, J. High Energy Phys.2013 (4), 1

    2013

  35. [36]

    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

  36. [37]

    Wang, Analysis of the triply heavy baryon states with the QCD sum rules, AAPPS Bull.31, 5 (2021)

    Z.-G. Wang, Analysis of the triply heavy baryon states with the QCD sum rules, AAPPS Bull.31, 5 (2021)

    2021

  37. [38]

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

    2014

  38. [39]

    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

  39. [40]

    Oudichhya, K

    J. Oudichhya, K. Gandhi, and A. K. Rai, Investigation of Ω ccb and Ω cbb baryons in Regge phenomenology, Pramana97, 151 (2023)

    2023

  40. [41]

    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, 2019 (2012)

    2019

  41. [42]

    Mathur, M

    N. Mathur, M. Padmanath, and S. Mondal, Precise Predictions of Charmed-Bottom Hadrons from Lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 202002 (2018)

    2018

  42. [43]

    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

  43. [44]

    L. X. Guti´ errez-Guerrero, A. Bashir, M. A. Bedolla, and E. Santopinto, Masses of light and heavy mesons and baryons: A unified picture, Phys. Rev. D100, 114032 (2019)

    2019

  44. [45]

    S.-X. Qin, C. D. Roberts, and S. M. Schmidt, Spectrum of Light- and Heavy-Baryons, Few-Body Syst.60, 26 (2019)

    2019

  45. [46]

    Shah and A

    Z. Shah and A. K. Rai, Spectroscopy of the Ω ccb baryon in the hypercentral constituent quark model, Chin. Phys. C42, 053101 (2018)

    2018

  46. [47]

    Zhao and S

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

    2024

  47. [48]

    Shah and A

    Z. Shah and A. K. Rai, Ground and Excited State Masses of the Ω bbc Baryon, Few-Body Syst.59, 76 (2018)

    2018

  48. [49]

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

    2012

  49. [50]

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

    2008

  50. [51]

    By contrast, Regge theory [40] and HCQM [45, 46] provide the highest mass estimates, whereas RGPEP [52] gives nearly degenerate and comparatively lower estimates

    are broadly consistent with our Ω ccb values but tend to be lower for Ω bbc. By contrast, Regge theory [40] and HCQM [45, 46] provide the highest mass estimates, whereas RGPEP [52] gives nearly degenerate and comparatively lower estimates. Here also, no clear monotonic trend in mass with respect toJ P is observed in most approaches, apart from HCQM [45, 4...

  51. [52]

    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

  52. [53]

    Klempt and J.-M

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

    2010

  53. [54]

    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, 543 (2025)

    2025

  54. [55]

    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, 964 (2018)

    2018

  55. [56]

    Eakins and W

    B. Eakins and W. Roberts, Symmetries and systematics of doubly heavy hadrons, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A27, 1250039 (2012)

    2012

  56. [57]

    Capstick and W

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

    2000

  57. [58]

    A. V. Berezhnoy, I. N. Belov, and A. K. Likhoded, Production of Excited States of Doubly Heavy Baryons at the Large Hadron Collider, Phys. At. Nucl.83, 892 (2020)

    2020

  58. [59]

    Ebert, R

    D. Ebert, R. N. Faustov, V. O. Galkin, and A. P. Martynenko, Mass spectra of doubly heavy baryons in the relativistic quark model, Phys. Rev. D66, 014008 (2002)

    2002

  59. [60]

    S. S. Gershtein, V. V. Kiselev, A. K. Likhoded, and A. I. Onishchenko, Spectroscopy of doubly charmed baryons : Ξ + cc and Ξ++ cc , Mod. Phys. Lett. A14, 135 (1999). 21

    1999

  60. [61]

    S. S. Gershtein, V. V. Kiselev, A. K. Likhoded, and A. I. Onishchenko, Spectroscopy of doubly heavy baryons, Phys. Rev. D62, 054021 (2000)

    2000

  61. [62]

    Fleming and T

    S. Fleming and T. Mehen, Doubly heavy baryons, heavy quark-diquark symmetry, and nonrelativistic QCD, Phys. Rev. D73, 034502 (2006)

    2006

  62. [63]

    G. T. Bodwin, E. Braaten, and G. P. Lepage, Rigorous QCD analysis of inclusive annihilation and production of heavy quarkonium, Phys. Rev. D51, 1125 (1995)

    1995

  63. [64]

    Brambilla, A

    N. Brambilla, A. Vairo, and T. R¨ osch, Effective field theory Lagrangians for baryons with two and three heavy quarks, Phys. Rev. D72, 034021 (2005)

    2005

  64. [65]

    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

  65. [66]

    T. D. Cohen and P. M. Hohler, Doubly heavy hadrons and the domain of validity of doubly heavy diquark-antiquark symmetry, Phys. Rev. D74, 094003 (2006)

    2006

  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 [74]

    and is given by, 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 [74]. Once the diquark masses are computed, we proceed to calculate the...

  67. [68]

    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

  68. [69]

    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

  69. [70]

    Godfrey and N

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

    1985

  70. [71]

    Capstick and N

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

    1986

  71. [72]

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

    2025

  72. [73]

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

    2025

  73. [74]

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

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-1137/adc084 2025

  74. [75]

    C. A. Bokade and B. Azhothkaran, Spectroscopy and radiative decays of Ω ccc and Ωbbb baryons in a quark–diquark model, Eur. Phys. J. C86, 745 (2026)

    2026

  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, 1880 (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), 106

    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]

    Eichten and F

    E. Eichten and F. Feinberg, Spin-dependent forces in quantum chromodynamics, Phys. Rev. D23, 2724 (1981)

    1981

Showing first 80 references.