pith. sign in

arxiv: 1907.05022 · v1 · pith:HNAZTUZYnew · submitted 2019-07-11 · ✦ hep-ph · nucl-th

Charmed baryon-nucleon interaction

H. Garcilazo , A. Valcarce , T.F. Carames This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 23:20 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph nucl-th
keywords charmed baryonnucleon interactionquark modellattice QCDchannel couplingpartial waveshypernuclei
0
0 comments X

The pith

Multiple approaches agree the charmed baryon-nucleon interaction is soft and produces no two-body bound states.

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

The paper compares constituent quark models, hadronic one-boson exchange potentials, and lattice QCD results for how charmed baryons interact with nucleons. It reports broad qualitative agreement that the forces are soft and lack bound states. Quark-model calculations further indicate negligible coupling between channels such as Lambda_c N and Sigma_c N. Short-range gluon and quark-exchange effects create a modest difference in repulsion between the two S-wave partial waves of the Lambda_c N system. The work notes that this softness limits prospects for charmed hypernuclei.

Core claim

The authors find a general qualitative agreement among the different available approaches to the charmed baryon-nucleon interaction. Quark-model based results point to soft interactions without two-body bound states and support negligible channel coupling due to tensor forces or transitions between Lambda_c N and Sigma_c N. Short-range gluon and quark-exchange dynamics generate slightly larger repulsion in the 1S0 than in the 3S1 Lambda_c N partial wave, while a similar asymmetry between the two S waves appears in hadronic approaches.

What carries the argument

Comparative analysis of a constituent quark model tuned to light-flavor baryon-baryon interactions against one-boson exchange potentials and (2+1)-flavor lattice QCD extrapolations.

If this is right

  • Short-range dynamics produce more repulsion in the 1S0 partial wave than the 3S1 for Lambda_c N.
  • Hadronic models exhibit a comparable asymmetry in attraction between the two S waves.
  • Detailed study of Pauli-suppressed partial waves such as 1S0 (I=1/2) and 3S1 (I=3/2) in Sigma_c N would clarify short-range dynamics.
  • The softness of the interaction implies limited prospects for the formation of charmed hypernuclei.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the pattern holds, interactions involving other heavy flavors may also be dominated by short-range quark effects rather than long-range meson exchange.
  • Future lattice calculations at physical pion masses could test whether the reported asymmetry between S waves persists.
  • Absence of bound states would constrain models used to predict exotic multi-baryon states containing charm.

Load-bearing premise

The constituent quark model calibrated on light-flavor systems continues to apply reliably once charm quarks are introduced into baryon-nucleon systems.

What would settle it

Experimental detection of a bound state in the Lambda_c N system or of strong coupling between the Lambda_c N and Sigma_c N channels would falsify the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1907.05022 by A. Valcarce, H. Garcilazo, T.F. Carames.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Representative diagrams contributing to the charme [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: (a) Phase shifts for the Λ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: (a) Dependence of the HAL QCD Λ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: (a) Phase shifts for the Λ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: (a) Phase shifts for the Σ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: (a) Inelasticity for the Σ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: (a) Phase shifts for the Σ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Total cross section for the Λ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a comparative study of the charmed baryon$-$nucleon interaction based on different theoretical approaches. For this purpose, we make use of i) a constituent quark model tuned in the light-flavor baryon$-$baryon interaction and the hadron spectra, ii) existing results in the literature based both on hadronic and quark-level descriptions, iii) (2+1)-flavor lattice QCD results of the HAL QCD Collaboration at unphysical pion masses and their effective field theory extrapolation to the physical pion mass. There is a general qualitative agreement among the different available approaches to the charmed baryon$-$nucleon interaction. Different from hadronic models based on one-boson exchange potentials, quark$-$model based results point to soft interactions without two-body bound states. They also support a negligible channel coupling, due either to tensor forces or to transitions between different physical channels, $\Lambda_c N - \Sigma_c N$. Short-range gluon and quark-exchange dynamics generate a slightly larger repulsion in the $^1S_0$ than in the $^3S_1$ $\Lambda_c N$ partial wave. A similar asymmetry between the attraction in the two $S$ waves of the $\Lambda_c N$ interaction also appears in hadronic approaches. A comparative detailed study of Pauli suppressed partial waves, as the $^1S_0 (I=1/2)$ and $^3S_1 (I=3/2)$ $\Sigma_c N$ channels, would help to disentangle the short-range dynamics of two-baryon systems containing heavy flavors. The possible existence of charmed hypernuclei is discussed.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript conducts a comparative study of the charmed baryon-nucleon interaction drawing on (i) the authors' constituent quark model tuned to light-flavor baryon-baryon scattering and hadron spectra, (ii) existing hadronic (one-boson-exchange) and quark-model results from the literature, and (iii) HAL QCD (2+1)-flavor lattice results at unphysical pion masses together with their EFT extrapolation to the physical point. The central claim is a general qualitative agreement across approaches: quark-model calculations indicate soft interactions without two-body bound states, negligible Λ_c N–Σ_c N channel coupling (whether from tensor forces or inter-channel transitions), and a modest short-range repulsion asymmetry between the ^1S_0 and ^3S_1 Λ_c N partial waves; hadronic models show a similar S-wave attraction asymmetry. The work discusses implications for charmed hypernuclei and calls for further study of Pauli-suppressed channels such as ^1S_0 (I=1/2) and ^3S_1 (I=3/2) Σ_c N.

Significance. If the reported qualitative agreement holds, the paper usefully synthesizes disparate theoretical frameworks for heavy-flavor baryon interactions and draws attention to the contrast between hadronic and quark-level short-range dynamics. Explicit credit is given for the multi-method comparison (including lattice input) and for identifying concrete, falsifiable differences in partial-wave behavior that could guide future lattice or experimental work on charmed hypernuclei. The absence of quantitative metrics, however, limits the immediate impact of the agreement claim.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claims of 'general qualitative agreement,' 'soft interactions without two-body bound states,' and 'negligible channel coupling' rest on the authors' own quark-model results, yet the abstract (and the manuscript as presented) supplies no quantitative comparisons, scattering lengths, binding energies, or error estimates that would allow assessment of the degree of agreement or the strength of the 'negligible coupling' conclusion.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract (constituent quark model description): the authors' primary results, which support the no-bound-state conclusion and the ^1S_0 vs ^3S_1 asymmetry, are obtained from a model whose parameters are tuned exclusively to light-flavor baryon-baryon interactions and light-hadron spectra; the manuscript contains no section, appendix, or explicit test demonstrating that the same confining potential and one-gluon exchange remain reliable once the charm quark mass alters the reduced mass and hyperfine structure, which is load-bearing for the claimed extension and the asserted cross-approach agreement.
minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract invokes 'Pauli suppressed partial waves' with two explicit examples but does not supply a short definition or reference to the full set of quantum numbers, which would improve clarity for readers outside the immediate subfield.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive feedback on our comparative study. We address the two major comments point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claims of 'general qualitative agreement,' 'soft interactions without two-body bound states,' and 'negligible channel coupling' rest on the authors' own quark-model results, yet the abstract (and the manuscript as presented) supplies no quantitative comparisons, scattering lengths, binding energies, or error estimates that would allow assessment of the degree of agreement or the strength of the 'negligible coupling' conclusion.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract would benefit from quantitative anchors to support the qualitative claims. In the revised version we will include representative values for the S-wave scattering lengths in the Lambda_c N channels from our quark-model calculation, together with a statement confirming the absence of two-body bound states. These numbers already appear in the body of the manuscript; highlighting them in the abstract will make the degree of softness and the strength of the negligible-coupling conclusion easier to assess. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (constituent quark model description): the authors' primary results, which support the no-bound-state conclusion and the ^1S_0 vs ^3S_1 asymmetry, are obtained from a model whose parameters are tuned exclusively to light-flavor baryon-baryon interactions and light-hadron spectra; the manuscript contains no section, appendix, or explicit test demonstrating that the same confining potential and one-gluon exchange remain reliable once the charm quark mass alters the reduced mass and hyperfine structure, which is load-bearing for the claimed extension and the asserted cross-approach agreement.

    Authors: The model employs flavor-independent confining and one-gluon-exchange potentials, an assumption standard in constituent quark models when extending from the light to the heavy sector. The quark masses are the only flavor-dependent parameters. While the manuscript does not contain a dedicated appendix with new numerical tests of the charm sector, the qualitative consistency with the HAL QCD lattice results (extrapolated to the physical point) provides supporting evidence. We will add a concise paragraph in the model-description section reiterating the flavor-independence assumption and referencing earlier applications of the same framework to charmed systems. A comprehensive re-validation for charm would require a separate dedicated study. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: comparative analysis across independent methods

full rationale

The paper is a comparative study presenting results from three sources: (i) the authors' constituent quark model (previously tuned to light-flavor data), (ii) existing literature results from other groups, and (iii) external (2+1)-flavor lattice QCD from the HAL QCD Collaboration with EFT extrapolation. The central claim of 'general qualitative agreement' is an observational comparison of outputs from these distinct approaches rather than any derivation, prediction, or uniqueness theorem that reduces by construction to the paper's own inputs. No self-definitional steps, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, load-bearing self-citations, or smuggled ansatzes are present in the abstract or described chain. The quark-model application to charm is an extrapolation whose validity is an assumption, not a circular reduction of the reported agreement.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Central claims rest on the extension of a light-flavor quark model to the charmed sector and on the reliability of lattice QCD extrapolations from unphysical pion masses; no new free parameters or entities are introduced by the paper itself.

free parameters (1)
  • Quark model parameters tuned to light flavors
    Model is tuned on light-flavor data and applied here without new fitting details provided.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Light-flavor tuned constituent quark model applies to charmed baryon-nucleon systems
    Explicitly used as the first approach in the abstract.
  • domain assumption Effective field theory extrapolation from unphysical pion masses yields reliable physical-mass results
    Lattice results are taken at unphysical masses and extrapolated.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5833 in / 1213 out tokens · 28691 ms · 2026-05-24T23:20:20.442112+00:00 · methodology

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

59 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Y. -R. Liu, H. -X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, and S. -L. Zhu, Prog . Part. Nucl. Phys. 107, 237 (2019)

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    R. A. Brice˜ no et al. , Chin. Phys. C 40, 042001 (2016)

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Richard, Few-Body Syst

    J.-M. Richard, Few-Body Syst. 57, 1185 (2016)

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    R. F. Lebed, R. E. Mitchell, and E. S. Swanson, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 93, 143 (2017)

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    A. Ali, J. S. Lange, and S. Stone, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 97, 123 (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Esposito, A

    A. Esposito, A. Pilloni, and A. D. Polosa, Phys. Rep. 668, 1 (2017)

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Charmed baryons from LHCb

    S. Ogilvy [LHCb Collaboration], in Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Charm Physics, Detroit (USA) , SLAC-econf-C1505186 (2015) [arXiv:1509.05611]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  8. [8]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 182001 (2017)

    work page 2017

  9. [9]

    Noumi, JPS Conf

    H. Noumi, JPS Conf. Proc. 17, 111003 (2017)

    work page 2017

  10. [10]

    Extension of the J-PARC Hadron Experimental Facility - summary report -

    H. Fujioka et al. , arXiv:1706.07916

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  11. [11]

    Wiedner [ ¯PANDA Collaboration], Prog

    U. Wiedner [ ¯PANDA Collaboration], Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 66, 477 (2011)

    work page 2011

  12. [12]

    H¨ ohne et al

    C. H¨ ohne et al. , Lect. Notes Phys. 814, 849 (2011)

    work page 2011

  13. [13]

    A. A. Tyapkin, Yad. Phys. 22, 181 (1975). [Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 22, 89 (1976)]

    work page 1975

  14. [14]

    Yu. A. Batusov, S. A. Bunyatov, V. V. Lyukov, V. M. Sidoro v, A. A. Tyapkin, and V. A. Yarba, JETP Lett. 33, 52 (1981)

    work page 1981

  15. [15]

    C. B. Dover and S. H. Kahana, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 1506 (1977)

    work page 1977

  16. [16]

    Iwao, Lett

    S. Iwao, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 19, 647 (1977). 23

    work page 1977

  17. [17]

    Gatto and F

    R. Gatto and F. Paccanoni, Il Nuovo Cimento A 46, 313 (1978)

    work page 1978

  18. [18]

    Bhamathi, Phys

    G. Bhamathi, Phys. Rev. C 24, 1816 (1981)

    work page 1981

  19. [19]

    Band¯ o and M

    H. Band¯ o and M. Bando, Phys. Lett. 109B, 164 (1982)

    work page 1982

  20. [20]

    Band¯ o and S

    H. Band¯ o and S. Nagata, Prog. Theor. Phys. 69, 557 (1983)

    work page 1983

  21. [21]

    B. F. Gibson, C. B. Dover, G. Bhamathi, and D. R. Lehman, P hys. Rev. C 27, 2085 (1983)

    work page 2085

  22. [22]

    N. I. Starkov and V. A. Tsarev, Nucl. Phys. A 450, 507 (1986)

    work page 1986

  23. [23]

    C. H. Cai, L. Li, Y. H. Tan, and P. Z. Ning, Europhys. Lett. 64, 448 (2003)

    work page 2003

  24. [24]

    Tsushima and F

    K. Tsushima and F. C. Khanna, J. Phys. G 30, 1765 (2004)

    work page 2004

  25. [25]

    V. B. Kopeliovich and A. M. Shunderuk, Eur. Phys. J. A 33, 277 (2007)

    work page 2007

  26. [26]

    Y. -R. Liu and M. Oka, Phys. Rev. D 85, 014015 (2012)

    work page 2012

  27. [27]

    Oka, Nucl

    M. Oka, Nucl. Phys. A 914, 447 (2013)

    work page 2013

  28. [28]

    Huang, J

    H. Huang, J. Ping, and F. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 87, 034002 (2013)

    work page 2013

  29. [29]

    Garcilazo, A

    H. Garcilazo, A. Valcarce, and T. F. Caram´ es, Phys. Rev . C 92, 024006 (2015)

    work page 2015

  30. [30]

    Maeda, M

    S. Maeda, M. Oka, A. Yokota, E. Hiyama, and Y. -R. Liu, Pro g. Theor. Exp. Phys. 023D02 (2016)

    work page 2016

  31. [31]

    Maeda, M

    S. Maeda, M. Oka, and Y. -R. Liu, Phys. Rev. C 98, 035203 (2018)

    work page 2018

  32. [32]

    Vida˜ na, A

    I. Vida˜ na, A. Ramos, and C. E. Jim´ enez-Tejedor, Phys. Rev. C 99, 045208 (2019)

    work page 2019

  33. [33]

    Hosaka, T

    A. Hosaka, T. Hyodo, K. Sudoh, Y. Yamaguchi, and S. Yasui , Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 96, 88 (2017)

    work page 2017

  34. [34]

    Krein, A

    G. Krein, A. W. Thomas, and K. Tsushima, Prog. Part. Nucl . Phys. 100, 161 (2018)

    work page 2018

  35. [35]

    J. D. Bjorken, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Hadron Spectr oscopy, Mary- land (USA) , Fermilab Report No. FERMILAB-CONF-85/69 (1985)

    work page 1985

  36. [36]

    Valcarce, H

    A. Valcarce, H. Garcilazo, F. Fern´ andez, and P. Gonz´ alez, Rep. Prog. Phys. 68, 965 (2005)

    work page 2005

  37. [37]

    Vijande, F

    J. Vijande, F. Fern´ andez, and A. Valcarce, J. Phys. G 31, 481 (2005)

    work page 2005

  38. [38]

    Valcarce, H

    A. Valcarce, H. Garcilazo, and J. Vijande, Phys. Rev. C 72, 025206 (2005)

    work page 2005

  39. [39]

    Valcarce, H

    A. Valcarce, H. Garcilazo, and J. Vijande, Eur. Phys. J. A 37, 217 (2008)

    work page 2008

  40. [40]

    Garcilazo, A

    H. Garcilazo, A. Valcarce, and F. Fern´ andez, Phys. Rev . C 60, 044002 (1999)

    work page 1999

  41. [41]

    Reuber, K

    A. Reuber, K. Holinde, and J. Speth, Nucl. Phys. A 570, 543 (1994)

    work page 1994

  42. [42]

    Miyamoto [HAL QCD Collaboration], PoS LA TTICE 2015, 090 (2016)

    T. Miyamoto [HAL QCD Collaboration], PoS LA TTICE 2015, 090 (2016)

    work page 2015

  43. [43]

    Miyamoto [HAL QCD Collaboration], PoS LA TTICE 2016, 117 (2017)

    T. Miyamoto [HAL QCD Collaboration], PoS LA TTICE 2016, 117 (2017)

    work page 2016

  44. [44]

    Miyamoto et al

    T. Miyamoto et al. [HAL QCD Collaboration], Nucl. Phys. A 971, 113 (2018). 24

    work page 2018

  45. [45]

    Miyamoto [HAL QCD Collaboration], PoS Hadron 2017 , 146 (2018)

    T. Miyamoto [HAL QCD Collaboration], PoS Hadron 2017 , 146 (2018)

    work page 2017

  46. [46]

    Haidenbauer and G

    J. Haidenbauer and G. Krein, Eur. Phys. J. A 54, 199 (2018)

    work page 2018

  47. [47]

    de R´ ujula, H

    A. de R´ ujula, H. Georgi, and S. L. Glashow, Phys. Rev. D 12, 147 (1975)

    work page 1975

  48. [48]

    G. S. Bali, Phys. Rep. 343, 1 (2001)

    work page 2001

  49. [49]

    T. F. Caram´ es and A. Valcarce, Phys. Rev. D 92, 034015 (2015)

    work page 2015

  50. [50]

    Valcarce, F

    A. Valcarce, F. Fern´ andez, and P. Gonz´ alez, Phys. Rev. C 56, 3026 (1997)

    work page 1997

  51. [51]

    Faessler and U

    A. Faessler and U. Straub, Phys. Lett. B 183, 10 (1987)

    work page 1987

  52. [52]

    Valcarce, A

    A. Valcarce, A. Faessler, and F. Fern´ andez, Phys. Lett . B 345, 367 (1995)

    work page 1995

  53. [53]

    Straub, Z

    U. Straub, Z. -Y. Zhang, K. Bra¨ uer, A. Faessler, S. B.Kh adkikar, and G. L¨ ubeck, Nucl. Phys. A 483, 686 (1988)

    work page 1988

  54. [54]

    R. L. Jaffe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 195 (1977); 38, 617(E) (19 77)

    work page 1977

  55. [55]

    Gignoux, B

    C. Gignoux, B. Silvestre-Brac, and J. -M. Richard, Phys . Lett. B 193, 323 (1987)

    work page 1987

  56. [56]

    H. J. Lipkin, Phys. Lett. B 195, 484 (1987)

    work page 1987

  57. [57]

    B. F. Gibson, I. R. Afnan, J. A. Carlson, and D. R. Lehman, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 117, 339 (1994)

    work page 1994

  58. [58]

    Miyagawa, H

    K. Miyagawa, H. Kamada, W. Gl¨ ockle, and V. Stoks, Phys. Rev. C 51, 2905 (1995)

    work page 1995

  59. [59]

    Garcilazo, T

    H. Garcilazo, T. Fern´ andez-Caram´ es, and A. Valcarce, Phys. Rev. C 75, 034002 (2007). 25

    work page 2007